The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden Politicizes Trump Trial, and Hillary Tries Blaming Women For 2016 Loss, with Stu Burguiere and Dave Marcus | Ep. 803

Episode Date: May 28, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Stu Burguiere, host of BlazeTV's "Stu Does America," and Dave Marcus, columnist for Fox News and The Daily Mail, to discuss the Biden campaign holding a press conference outside the Trump trial, using Robert De Niro and January 6 police officers at the event, the failures of the Biden campaign that are obvious now, the Trump defense team's closing argument today, going after Michael Cohen lies and lack of credibility, whether an NYC jury might be swayed toward the defense, the judge working to hurt the defense's chances of a not guilty verdict, Trump's lawyer calling Cohen "the MVP of liars" in his closing argument, voters separating Trump's policies from his character, Hillary Clinton's new reason she lost in 2016 being the fault of women, blaming misogyny and everything except her own faults for her loss, Trump being painted as a racist by Biden's campaign in dishonest new ad full of misinformation, the truth about his past comments, the panic of the Biden campaign now running ads against Trump in New York, and more.Burguiere- https://www.youtube.com/StuDoesAmericaMarcus- https://www.amazon.com/Charade-Covid-Lies-Crushed-Nation/dp/1637581866? Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

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. I hope you and your family had a good Memorial Day weekend and gave some thought to what it was all about and the sacrifices of our troops and their families who pay the ultimate price so that you and I can have the lives we do. If you haven't yet, please go check out our interview with Sean Ryan, which we posted yesterday. And thanks to all of you for the feedback so far. I'm so glad that you liked it as much as I did. I continue to think about Sean a lot and got a lot of feedback from his fans saying they've

never heard him quite like this. What an extraordinary man, extraordinary man. And, uh, just someone you're going to want to know. I'm, I'm like personally glad that he has a podcast so I can keep talking to him. Do you know what I mean? Like I can keep tabs on him and I can see how he's doing and hear how he's doing and stay in touch with him. We're so lucky to have this guy in the national conversation in our lives and having served our country. He makes you proud to be an American and just like a human. He's a normal, thoughtful. I don't know if I've ever had somebody on the show who is just so authentic and honest. Many have come close, but Sean Ryan is in a class of one. Anyway, check it out. Now onto the news, because there's a lot of it today. My gosh,

we are drinking from the fire hose when it comes to this Trump trial. They're in the middle of closing arguments right now. Todd Blanch, who represents Trump, is first up and is in the midst of it. He started a couple of hours ago in this New York City courtroom in the business records trial of former President Donald Trump. My pal sent this to me. You know, you know how we began this trial with our fake like romance novel slash porn reading of the way the reporters were covering Trump's facial movements during the voir dire. I mean, really, they took the most boring aspects of this trial and made it into their own personal Trump porn. He sent me a screen grab from CNN. Hush money, Trump hush money trial live in the courtroom new 926 a.m. Trump scanned the rose to his left as he walked down the center aisle,

pursing his lips. They never stop. They can't get enough of it. These lips were pursed. Make sure you include that outside of the courthouse. It's just as ridiculous. The campaign of President Biden, remember they were above it all. They weren't in favor or against these prosecutions. It really just kind of had nothing to do with them. They were above it all. Trump is the criminal loser who has to go to criminal court. President Biden is the president. He's in the Oval Office, for God's sake. You see the difference between these two men? Well, the latest polls seem to have caused a change in heart. And now the campaign of President Biden is holding a press conference featuring Robert De Niro and January 6th police officers. I kid you not.

It's happening right now. We're going to show you some of what they're doing. We'll get to all of it today with two of our favorites. Stu Bergeer is host of Stu Does America on Blaze TV. And Dave Marcus is a columnist for Fox News and the Daily Mail. Stu, Dave, welcome back. So I'm going to read you some of the closing argument as it's gone so far. But what do you make of above it all Biden now actually going, right? The Democrats were salivating. Trump's stuck in court. He's not going to be able to say anything. Joe Biden's got the whole nation to himself. Meanwhile, they're like, holy shit, all the action's over there. We better get over there right now. Who do we send? Get Robert De Niro. He's one of the biggest stars on earth. Everybody will love him. Well, he got booed to the point where he started to get upset.

Somebody, and I got to imagine it was a Trump supporter, must have hit one of those car alarms, the annoying car alarms, which took over half of his remote. He was so annoyed. He's not used to going into the room and not being the most popular guy there. Stu, so what do you make of their running to Trump sometimes when Mohammed won't go to the mountain? You know, it has to happen. Politico today saying the Dems are in full freak out mode over the Biden candidacy and how it's going and which is not well. So what better way to turn the narrative around about your 80 plus year old doddering

candidate than send out an 80 plus year old doddering celebrity to support him in front of a courthouse where he shows up, by the way, in a cloth mask outdoors. He walks up in a mask to guess to prevent covid-19 outdoor transmission which scientists will tell you has never occurred outside of very close conversation uh and then he of course steps up to the podium and when he's surrounded by everybody and removes the mask immediately it's actually a really good microcosm of how this is going so far for biden so true unless Unless unless the mask red vote, it couldn't have been any better. Yeah, it's true. It's just embarrassing. This is an embarrassing situation. And they are now getting to the point where I think they've had this narrative in their head since the beginning,

Megan, I think, where they thought, you know, look, people, you know, Trump left office and wasn't all that popular. Right. He leaves in 2020, even before January 6th. You know, his approval rating was never sky high. People will remember eventually that they didn't like him. They'll see him on TV. He'll start tweeting again or something. And the people will be reminded. And the closer and closer we get to this election, I think they're realizing that the average everyday situation for the average everyday person is overwhelming, whatever distaste they had for Donald Trump's personality or hijinks outside of office. They don't seem to be thinking about that. They seem to be thinking about their bank accounts and the fact that they're paying, you know,

nine dollars a gallon for milk. And this is a big problem for them and one that is overwhelming. Whatever concerns they have about Trump, they look back at Trump as something that, you know, it was a positive memory in their mind as opposed to what they have now. And they might not like Donald Trump, but what they do know is they don't know, they don't want what they have at this moment. Dave, here's some sound from outside the courtroom. De Niro talking about what's going to happen. We keep hearing this from Rachel Maddow and others. If Trump wins, suggesting we'll never get rid of him, he's going to stay in office forever and ever. He will single handedly bend the Constitution to his will. Sat one. If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye

that we all take for granted and elections. Forget about it. That's over. That's done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave. He will never leave. You know that. He will never leave. What does that mean? Is that the country we want to live in? Do we want him running this country and saying, I'm not leaving? I'm dictator for life. This is not a threat. This is a reality. And that's why I've joined the Biden Harris campaign, because the only way to preserve our freedoms and hold on to our humanity is to vote for Joe Biden for president. Really? We don't have a choice. Okay. Just to follow up on that, Dave, here's a little bit of the pushback that he was getting and how he handled it and sought to. For these low lives, for Trump. They lied under oath. They lied under oath.

Talking about the J6 cops. What are you telling me? Excuse me? They lied under oath? What are you saying? They're traitors. I don't even know how to deal with you, my friend. I don't even know how to deal with you, my friend. I don't even know how to deal with you.

Dave, should should Robert De Niro have been dealing with them at all? Listen, if you look over De Niro's shoulder in that first clip, you can see Biden comms director Michael Tyler thinking to himself, oh, my God, my career is over. I mean, it's like it's right there at his eyes. Like you could completely see it. No, I'm going to be honest with you. You know, I've covered every inch of this trial for the morning wire every day. So I'm there nine o'clock this morning. There's my TV, there's my laptop, there's my thing. And I see Biden-Harris going to do a presser at the trial. I thought like, well, that doesn't seem like a very good idea. That doesn't send the message. This isn't political.

Right. But I thought, OK, that's dumb. And then I'm scrolling Twitter. And I don't know if you guys know Phil Wegman. He's a buddy of mine. Wonderful way to respond to politics. One of the few guys who asks the tough questions. Right.

Serious journalist. I'm a goofy columnist. He's a serious journalist. Right. And he, quote, tweets the press release. And he says, one of the speakers will be Robert De Niro. My hand to God. My first thought was good for Phil. This is funny. This is a good funny joke. It's nice to see Phil let his hair down. And I was like, wait a minute, Phil wouldn't make this joke in this situation. And I still

couldn't believe it was real. I am absolutely flummoxed. That is the dumbest move that I've ever seen a presidential campaign make in my entire life. You know, Biden's campaign staff reminds me of a line from Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross, when Ricky Roma looks at the office manager and he says, your job is to help us, not to fuck us up. And that's what I'd be saying if I was Joe Biden to my campaign staff right now. They're horrible. Look, I don't know if they're going to switch out Joe Biden. They got to switch out these fools because this was a hot mess. Yeah. And honestly, like the January 6th cops, the thing is, Stu, these two in particular, especially Fanon, have been so partisan, so political. I mean, they hate President

Trump. And I get that maybe they have additional reasons to dislike him, given what happened on J6. But if you listen to, in particular, this guy Fanon, I don't know Harry Dunn as well, everything he says about Trump is interpreted through the most harsh, partisan, Trump derangement syndrome, afflicted lens. It's like, okay, we get it, right? And De Niro too. I was on Fox News. I was in the prime time of Fox and we had Robert De Niro on camera in an exclusive rant about Donald Trump. It was the first time he'd really come out and said how he felt about politics. And we broke that on my show when Trump defeated in 16 to Hillary, but somehow he can do the job now against Joe Biden. It is strange calculus. I don't understand it at all.

I mean, obviously, the Democrats have this, quote unquote, advantage of having all of the celebrities on Earth liking them instead of Republicans. And they trot these people out constantly. I've never really seen much success with this approach, though. I don't know that it does anything for anyone. You kind of understand in theory that the Capitol police officer approach. Right. These are people who look on January 6th. Some Capitol police officers were victims of being hit with flagpoles and things like this. There are some that I think are, you know, characters that you would want on your side. You mentioned Harry Dunn, though. He's not one of them. I mean, Harry Dunn has what the person said to De Niro, at least part of it was accurate. He has lied under oath. Our own Steve Baker here at The Blaze has done extensive reporting on this with video. He got access to all of the cameras inside the Capitol.

Harry Dunn said under oath that he was in one place in the Capitol and had a confrontation. We have the video from that time. He was on the other side of the building, nowhere near where he said he was. This has been shown with video over and over again. Please look at Steve Baker's reporting on this. And he's he went on to, of course, run for a congressional seat, which he lost in a primary a couple of weeks ago. But he has been someone that the Democrats have tried to use this idea that he's this hero cop. And large parts of his story have already been proven to be untrue. They don't care. They have this idea that they can still control this narrative. And

forever through the mainstream media, this has been true. They've been right. They've been able to do this. I just don't think 2024 the same story. I don't think rolling out famous celebrities and people who have our newsmakers whose stories have been proven at least half untrue. That's not going to work anymore because you don't have a media that is going to tell the story lock, stock and barrel the way they want it. And I think they're going to wake up to a situation where they just don't have the control they believe they do. And I think it's just now that we're within six months, it's starting to terrify them. Yeah, that's right. They are losing control. I mean, the fact that they sent emissaries over to lower Manhattan to speak at the Trump trial is amazing. And it does show you that what Trump's been doing since he's gagged and he can't speak of bringing in surrogates to offer comments

every day has rattled them, too. They're like, oh, no, we better get somebody over there to counter that rather than doing the above the fray. We're going to talk about inflation routine above the fray. We're going to talk about you and your pocketbook and the issues we know matter, which was the approach they said they were going to do. And obviously nothing's working for him, which is why they're in full freak out mode. And we'll get to that Politico article. But let me stay on the Trump trial because we've got we don't. It's so frustrating, of course. Right.

We don't have cameras in there. All we get is tweet storms from those who are either in the courtroom or in the annex for press where they hear everything live, but don't necessarily see everything live. And we've got a bit of, you know, what we, what we sort of are calling a transcript. So I'm going to read you some of it. Okay. This is from Todd Blanche's closing argument, skipping around here. And again, understanding this is not verbatim. This is from pulled together via Anna closing argument. Skipping around here. Again, understanding this is not verbatim. This is from pulled together via Anna Bauer, Andrew Giuliani and Katie Fang, who are diverse ideologically. So that's good. That's what you want to pull from.

OK. Blanche gets up there and says President Trump is innocent. The district attorney did not meet their burden of proof, period. You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen. You should want something beyond the word of a woman who claims that something happened in 2006. You should want more than Keith Davidson, an attorney who was really trying to extort money from Trump in the lead up to election. This morning, I'll talk to you about what you say and hear in the courtroom, but also what you didn't hear, what you saw, I guess I should say. This case is about documents. It's a paper case. It's not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago, which Trump has denied. It's not even about a

confidential settlement. It's about whether when Trump was living in the White House as leader of the free world, he had anything to do with payments to his personal attorney at the time. Were those payments false? Were they done with intent to defraud? The answer is absolutely not. They were accurate and done with no intent to defraud. Moreover, there was no conspiracy to influence the election. You cannot convict Trump on the words of Michael Cohen. There were key conversations he claimed he had, meaning Michael Cohen, with Dylan Howard, with Keith Schiller. Howard was AMI. Keith Schiller was Trump's bodyguard. Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump org, none of whom were witnesses in this trial. Michael Cohen is the witness they called. The words Cohen said to you mattered. And he said a number of things,

do you understand, that were lies, pure and simple, I think it is. He goes to the business records that form the basis of the charges, focusing on the checks. Trump signed them while he was in the White House. You have to find that these documents were false and that he made them with intent to defraud. Don't forget, the checks themselves don't say anything incriminating. They're just 35 grand from the Trump org signed by Trump to Michael Cohen over the course of several months to pay back this 420 grand, which we've gone over what was in there. But the stubs say retainer, retainer. And the prosecution's arguing that was a lie

because there was no retainer. Cohen wasn't working for Trump as a lawyer in 2017. Trump didn't write retainer. Cohen submitted an invoice to the Trump org that said retainer for legal services performed. The Trump org had a drop down menu of how we categorize all outgoing expenses. Legal expenses was one of the items and they clicked it. And that's what happened. And in this stub for the check was just reflected what the lawyer had written on the check retainer. Trump is not shown to have known about or or approved or written any of that. All we have for the fact that Trump allegedly knew about a scheme to bill things as expenses when they really reimbursements for hush money is the word of Michael Cohen. And All we have for the fact that Trump allegedly knew about a scheme to bill things as expenses

when they really reimbursements for hush money is the word of Michael Cohen. And that's what Todd Blanche is saying here. OK, I'm continuing. Blanche turns to the vouchers in the Trump organization ledger system. Deb Tarasoff, who worked for Weisselberg in accounting, Blanche says, told you these vouchers were put in the system. They were a result of what the invoice was submitted by Cohen. This is getting to the point I just made. And that was consistent with what she understood was happening at the time.

Cohen was acting as Trump's personal attorney. They're trying to say what Trump said outside of the legal proceeding early on in this case. He was my lawyer. We put down legal expenses for the money I gave him. What's wrong? What's false? Tarasov told you she never did anything at the direction of Trump. Blanche reminds the jurors there's no dispute that Cohen was rendering legal services to Trump in 2017 while Trump was in the White House and that he was serving as Trump's personal attorney. As a matter of fact, Cohen testified as much. There is a reason why in life that usually the simplest answer is the right one. That's not what Mr. Cohen told you on the stand.

Mr. Cohen was paid to be President Trump's attorney. And Cohen guys did admit that while he wasn't working for him full time, he did at least a few incidents of legal work for Trump and Melania during 2017. He was billing himself as Trump's personal attorney. He was using that label to get other work. And even though they didn't sign a retainer agreement for that year, they had never signed one. Michael Cohen always worked retainer free for the Trump organization. So it was not unusual for him to do that.

I'm going to keep going and then I'll bring you guys in. The government wants you to believe that Cohen, Weisselberg and Trump had some kind of agreement to falsify the records. That Cohen wasn't working for that $35,000 a month, that it was a reimbursement for the storm repayment, among others. Then Todd Blanche shows a May 2017 email in which Cohen tells the recipient to call him about the foundation matter he was working on at the time for Trump. Blanche, the government wants you to believe Cohen was doing this work for free. Even if Cohen was working for a small fee, there was a retainer agreement, Blanche says. Just wasn't in writing is their point. He mentions Cohen's testimony regarding his consulting retainer agreement with Novartis. That's how a retainer agreement works, Blanche says. You're on call. That's why he was getting 35 grand a month to be available if and when Trump needed him. By the way,

I have an attorney on retainer right now. Same thing. He's not doing anything for me. It's if I need him and if anybody messes with me, I will sick him on you and it will be highly unpleasant for you. This is not unusual to have a lawyer on retainer for people in, you know, significant posts. Michael Cohen was Trump's personal attorney, period. Okay, so that's it for now. I'll get to some of the rest of it. But he's trying to make the case there was no falsification. This is a falsification of business records case that the government can't even get past step one. What was written down was a legal expense. It was a legal expense. It wasn't a reimbursement. And those thirty five thousand, thirty five thousand, thirty five thousand monthly payments to Cohen were for actual legal work.

The question is, will the jury buy it? Dave, let me start with you on that one. Look, not for nothing. Another part of the prosecuting case that you have to believe in order to believe their theory of the case is that Trump was aware of all of the details of these payments, right? Well, in order for that to be true, Trump would have had to have known that Michael Cohen was stealing $60,000 from him. I mean, that's established, right? Cohen admitted it. It makes absolutely no sense. It's completely bizarre. You know, I will say, and you mentioned, how do you know about the jury? You know, I covered the Jolene Maxwell trial.

It was another situation. No cameras, no recording devices. It was even worse. You couldn't even have your phone or whatever. And it is very hard to explain to people who aren't in the room how the room feels, what's going on. I'll let you in on a tip. If you ever have to do it, sit next to a British journalist. They still learn shorthand.

It's sorcery. These guys just have a trans. You got to buy him lunch, but like they'll tell you exactly what it's it's amazing what they can do word for word. And but, you know, I've watched all of this to the extent that you can watch it. And there's so many holes in this case. And I know that everybody says he can't get a fair trial because New Yorkers are Democrats. Look, I spent decades living in New York. They're Democrats, but they're not idiots. They're Democrats, but they're not fundamentally dishonest. And I'm very hopeful that this jury is going to come back and tell the prosecution that they didn't make their case because I don't want to live in this America where we say, oh, well, this is in a blue district so that the outcome will be this way. This isn't a red one.

It's this way. So I think it would be wonderful for the country if this jury looks at how flawed this case is, makes the right decision, and we can all take a little sigh of relief. I wish I were as confident as you are. I just think this judge is leading them right to the conviction water, and it's going to be very hard for them not to drink. I'm an optimistic guy. Yeah. I mean, I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but I'm, I'm, I'm a bright sider. I would say I'm a bright sider. Um, but I just don't believe that. I don't know. I'm thinking, does that make me an optimist? If you're a bright sider, maybe you are anyway,

story for another day. Um, I just don't, I think they will convict him. I do because I think that their partisan instincts will be, let's get rid of him. We have an opportunity. And I think the partisan judge is going to make it next to impossible for them not to. Um, I wouldn't be shocked if there is a holdout on the jury, but I wouldn't bet on that. That's my own statement now. Who knows? I've been wrong before. Stu, it is interesting to hear them methodically go through. They're spending a lot of time. They're only going to do two hours. We heard that Team Trump did not want to bore the jury. They were very cognizant of the fact that this jury does not want to sit there for 10 hours of a closing. So they said, we're going to limit

it to two, two and a half at the most. We're in break right now. And they were hoping the prosecution would do the same. Then we heard the prosecution's closing was going to be about four and a half. You know why? Because they have to stitch together a Frankenstein of a legal case. There are so many hoops they have to jump through there. The judge has ruled now that you don't actually have to prove, have to all unanimously agree on which underlying crime

Trump committed when he was falsifying business records. You could think he violated a tax code. You over there, ladies and gentlemen, on the end part of the jury you could think he violated a tax code. You over there, ladies and gentlemen, on the end part of the jury box could think he violated election law. You in the middle could think he violated Murphy's law. And as long as everyone agrees he violated a law and that the financial records being written as they were was an attempt to conceal it. You're home. So this is what I say when I'm like, horse, water, conviction, drink. Yeah, it does feel like that, doesn't it?

It just feels like everything has been tilted. The whole playing field has been tilted to get this result. And I think if you go up to the average person in a normal situation and you say, all right, well, you have to believe a bunch of different things. You have to believe that he had the affair with one or both of these women. And I think a lot of people would say they think he did. And then you have to believe that he made these payments. Right. And I think there's fewer than fewer people, but some would agree with that as well. But then you also have to believe that he made these payments with the intent of holding on the election and not for personal gain or

protecting his family. And then you have to also believe that he falsified the business records to protect the election that had already occurred. Because even if you get to all of these different things they've set up that you need to believe to convict him in this case, fundamentally, he's not being charged with the affair. He's not being charged with the payments. He's being charged with the business records that all all occurred after he was already president. So how could he be fixing the election if he was already president when he was doing these things? It makes no sense. It makes no sense how they turn this into 34 felonies when,

I mean, we're all really talking about one incident, right? We're talking about one payment that was broken up into 12 payments, a bunch of checks that he signed. But I mean, how is he charged with an individual felony for Michael Cohen submitting an invoice? None of this makes any sense logically. But because this judge, as you point out, Megan, has tilted this playing field in this way, he's not allowing a lot of that to even be considered. A lot of this is just sort of being brushed aside. And there's a very specific thing they have to come to. And I hold out a little bit of hope, maybe not much, but a little bit of hope, because look what you know, if you

look at New York state, something like 30 percent of people voted for Donald Trump. There are certainly people that even voted for 13 percent voted for him in Manhattan. So in Manhattan, the jury came from. It's true. But 13 percent. And these are 12 individuals, not just 12 random individuals off the street, but 12 individuals that the Trump team had a large hand in allowing under the jury. So is it possible that one or two of them just come through and say, wait a minute, I get that. I don't like Donald Trump now. Wait a minute. This is like, you know, being sent to Jenny Craig HQ with an assignment of emerging with a supermodel. Right. Like a waif like supermodel from the 1990s.

You you are not a bright side or someone who's not quite as ample as the other gals. But you are not going to emerge with a Kate Moss. That was the assignment that Trump's lawyers were given in doing jury selection. This is not there. The pool of potential. I'm open minded to Trump jurors was about as skinny as this pen. There's like it's like finding. Wait a minute, Megan. Megan, this is a lot of a lot of a lot of these people, maybe not these specific jurors.

A lot of these people voted for Rudy Giuliani twice. a lot of these people voted for Rudy Giuliani twice. A lot of these people voted for Michael Bloomberg three times, right? That's not the same thing. Those two are not even the same species as Trump in the minds of New Yorkers. I too lived there, Dave, when you did. All 17 years in Manhattan on the Upper West Side. I know these people very well. And if there's one thing that unites New Yorkers other

than being pissed off about what when the snow plows come and where an alternate side of the street parking, it's their hatred for this man. Yeah, but see, no. But Megan, you and I run in slightly different circles in New York, right? I mean, you didn't spend a lot of time in a moving truck, I bet. Right. That's not how I did a fair amount of time on the subway. And the Upper West Side is full of lots of middle class people. It's not all I know. And if those working class voters are out there, Dave, I see what you're saying. Where the hell were they in the vote? They didn't vote for him. They did not turn out in droves at all. No, they didn't. I just I just think that there's a difference between what there's two lawyers on this jury.

The rest of them are all either like nurses or working. Have you seen the lawyers on TV? They all hate Trump. You know, just because your lawyer doesn't doesn't excuse you from TDS. No, I'm saying the lawyers are more like me. Ask Jack Smith, ask Alvin Bragg, ask Sean. I'm making the opposite point. I'm saying the lawyers are more likely to anyone with a college education is more likely to hate Donald Trump. That I guess is my point. And I think the people without a college education are are probably more willing

to be fair to the guy. That's that's that's that's. I agree with that. I agree with that as a principal. But I just those people, they didn't turn out to vote for the guy and they're surrounded in Manhattan in particular, which is not blue collar. Manhattan's not, it's the wealthiest of the boroughs. Um, this would be different. That's why he said, bring me someplace else. Take, take me to Staten Island, which, which has a greater population of red voters. And there are pockets of New York state that are redder, uh, and pockets of the five boroughs that are redder, which is how we got a Giuliani who was very socially liberal, but fiscally more conservative. But they hate him just as much. They hate Trump now. And the city's gotten bluer and bluer and bluer. And the state

has gotten bluer and bluer and bluer. Our governor right there right now is out there currently calling the Trump voters what losers and jokers. She's openly disdainful of the right. Anyway, my point is clowns, clowns, clowns. The Trump supporters are a bunch of clowns. She feels comfortable enough in this, you know, once formally Republican governed state to call Trump supporters clowns. Anyway, I hope you're right, Dave. I really do. I hope you're right. I've been wrong many times. Don't hope too hard because it doesn't happen that often. But yeah, I just feel like the setup is there. All right.

Let me give you a little bit more from the closing so far with Todd Blanche. Spending a lot of time trying to prove that there was no falsification. He makes the point that I just made about the Trump organization's ledger system and how things were going to be documented. And he says, you know, you heard about from this Tarasov who worked in the finance department accounting, how she decided to put information on the voucher system. She was told by her boss in accounting to post to legal expenses. There's no evidence President Trump knew anything about this system. And you can see what Tarasov did was exactly what her boss told her.

She posted his expenses, Cohen's submissions, to legal expenses. She did not follow up. She did not follow Trump or Weisselberg's instructions. She followed a lower employee's instructions because that's the way they always did it with legal fees is what he's saying. He says, you heard that everything that came from a law firm was labeled the same way as a legal expense, whether it was Michael Cohen or Jones Day or Skadden Arps or whomever. They all got documented if they came in from a lawyer or law firm as a legal expense. But the government is now criminalizing what Ms. Tarasov did. That's absurd.

OK, going on. On to the checks, which were labeled as being paid out for a retainer. These checks don't have any of the language that you will see in the invoices Michael Cohen submitted. It's just one word generated by the Trump organization's accounting system, as filled out by this Deb Tarasoff. You heard that sometimes Trump looked at the checks and sometimes he didn't because his signature was on them. Sometimes the checks were half an inch thick that he was sent to sign. You can't convict President Trump because you can't find that he had full knowledge. That's reasonable doubt.

It matters where President Trump was during this time. He was frequently multitasking, constantly being interrupted as he was the sitting president of the United States. It's a good point. So all that stuff about Trump being a micromanager, tougher to sell when he's leader of the free world, managing a few other things. The idea that he was part of a scheme to book a legal expense, and remember the scheme involved booking a legal expense as a legal expense is absurd. If you accept Michael Cohen's version of events, you have to believe that Cohen, Weisselberg and Trump were all in this together. But the documents they've put forth contain lies. He mentions the gross up of the reimbursement for the Stormy Daniels deal and the Red Finch services. That was the 50 grand that Michael Cohen stole from Trump on.

The government will try to argue that there was some type of tax scheme here, but there's no evidence to support that. You don't have to go further than we've gone here. But where is the intent to defraud? You saw an evidence that the Trump org reported on a tax form, the payments that Trump made to Cohen. What's false or misleading about documenting the payments you made to the IRS? If there's something false or misleading here, why was it reported to the IRS? How can there be any intent to defraud when Trump, one, discloses it to the IRS, two, tweets about it, and three, discloses it on a government ethics form. Wow. All right, wait, let me just keep going. This is good stuff. Now he turns to the predicate, the predicate crime, a conspiracy to influence

the election by unlawful means. It doesn't matter if there was a conspiracy to win an election. Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy among people to help somebody win. You have to find that this conspiracy was done unlawfully, by unlawful means. David Pecker of AMI National Enquirer told you AMI purchased stories all the time. It wasn't unique to Trump. Many politicians work with media to promote their candidacy.

It was standard operating procedure. Hope Hicks told you the same thing. And we know from David Pecker that this was done in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaign and many other public figures who were in the news for some potentially seedy things. There's nothing wrong with a politician like President Trump trying to get positive news stories and avoid negative ones. That's a campaign and there's nothing illegal about it. But the idea that sophisticated people like Trump and David Pecker and the National Enquirer could influence an election is itself preposterous.

He notes the relatively low circulation numbers of the National Enquirer. The idea that the National Enquirer could criminally influence the election by republishing a story that was already out there should make you shake your head. It makes no sense. He turns to the Trump Tower meeting in 2015. I believe that was with Pecker. There were, there was no in-depth discussion at that meeting about how they would publish positive stories or kill negative ones. It was just a general discussion about Trump's candidacy. This is where that Pecker said, like, how can we help you? Remember the words catch and kill? They told you that was the heart of the agreement, but Pecker, Cohen we help you remember the words catch and kill they told

you that was the heart of the agreement but pecker cohen and trump didn't even discuss catching kill at that 2015 trump tower meeting and they didn't discuss financial arrangements at that meeting either and pecker himself told you there's nothing unusual about catching and killing what did he tell you told you that they only published about half the stories they bought and he's been in the industry for decades. So that's meaningful. That matters. And by the way, he says the Karen McDougal story, which, which is going to be important. I'll tell you why also was not a catch and kill. Why? Because McDougal wasn't interested in selling her story. She wanted to write articles and the agreement with AMI did just that. Um, okay. He talks about the Trump doorman story. That would have been the biggest

story because that the national inquirer ever had, if Trump had fathered a love child out of wedlock, the reason they never published that one because it was not true. It was false, uh, and goes on. Okay. And I'll get to the rest. So, again, he's talking about there was no falsification. And then this whole conspiracy to to influence an election. He's making the point, guys, that that's just another way of saying Trump tried to win. Right, Stu? I mean, that's really a negative spin on something every candidate does. Not this particular situation, but conspiracy to influence an election is something every candidate does. Yeah, it's a it's a fascinating way to think about it.

But of course, it's true. Everyone's working together to try to get their candidate to win, to influence others. That is very, very common when it comes to election time. And the fact that they're trying to vilify that, they have to come up with something that's tied to an actual crime, which is what I guess they're struggling with. This is why this makes absolutely no sense. One of the things that came out in the trial, going back to the part you were talking about with Cohen and these legal expenses, one of the things that came out is that Cohen was actually doing legal work for Trump at this time, leading up to when he became president of the United States. So the idea that these would

be annotated as legal expenses is completely normal. It's how you would do it. You're not going to put hush money payments, even if that's what it was. That's not how this is going to be recorded in some sort of official internal document. And that's another part of this that I think is important. These were my understanding was and correct me if I'm wrong on this, Megan. These were internal notations. These weren't filed on any federal forms. These weren't submitted to the IRS as legal expenses.

They were they were submitted and they were in their internal-keeping software, for lack of a better term. And Stu, I'll do you one better than that. They were written down, these payments, falsely documented to win an election after Trump was already president. Trump was in the White House and had won. That's their conspiracy to influence the election falsification payments. Right. For this to be true, you would need a flux capacitor. You'd need to be able to go back in time. I'm totally in the market for that. I need one of those myself. That would be it would be. Have you been watching Dark Matter on Netflix? I haven't. No. Is it good?

Oh, you got to watch it. It's crazy. Dark Matter. I think they've got a flux capacitor in that. Sorry, you were making a point, though. It was time travel related, but this is what you need. You need to have time travel.

You need to have all of these assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of assumptions. And I know, Megan, you've been watching this stuff for a long time. As someone who jumps in on these big trials like I do, I'm watching as a normal person who's really interested more, I mean, less in a way, personally, in what happens to Donald Trump. I mean, I care about that because I care about other people and I care about what it means to the rest of the country. But following it more from a political standpoint, this is completely absurd. Is this normal in our legal system? I mean, is this happening to people all the time? Because

I feel like I have a whole new crusade in life if this is the normal way our legal system is operating. No, it's not normal. This is Judge Mershon's fault and the fault of D.A. Alvin Bragg, who are partisan hacks. That's why we're seeing this absurdity happen right here. Let me fast forward with you just a little. Oh, Doug Brunt is listening, my husband, and he's watching it with me on Apple Dark Matter. Thanks, Duggar. Appreciate that. Here's Cohen, sorry, not Cohen, Blanche, getting ready to wrap up, just jumping ahead. And we can go back and do some more of the middle there.

He kept it tight. He highlights the fact that this big catch and kill scheme between Trump, Cohen, and David Pecker, and he's saying there was no such thing. And by the way, catch and kill was like a normal thing anyway. So it's not a conspiracy to win an election. But now he's highlighting the fact that David Pecker didn't want to have anything to do with Stormy Daniels payment. Here's how he put it. This is a good argument. That's the conspiracy. He asks incredulous. That's it. There's supposedly this big conspiracy to catch and kill all the negative stories about Trump. But as soon as it comes to it with Stormy Daniels saying it's a month to go before the election, I'm going to go public. Pecker wants nothing to do with it. He won't pay, which is why Michael Cohen had to pay.

What sense does that make? He says, by the way, Stormy Daniels did not testify before the grand jury. So why did she testify in this case? I'll tell you why. They did it to inflame your emotions. Objection overruled here. Interesting. Blanche focuses on that October 24, 2016 phone call that Michael Cohen testified he allegedly made. Well, he did make to Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard. He alleged that it was actually to speak to Trump to tell him he had handled the stormy matter. And then he was cross-examined with his texts to Schiller before that phone call was actually placed in which Cohen was getting harassed by a 14-year-old boy who kept bothering him. And he was saying, what should I do? And the conclusion was Cohen was going to,

Cohen had resolved to tell Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard, that he wanted to bring this to the Secret Service. And he did tell Keith Schiller that. And then I think Schiller said, call me. So he called Keith Schiller. Now he wants the jury to believe that phone call, which was 90 seconds long, was actually him asking to speak to Trump. So here's Blanche on that call today.

He says, this was Cohen's sworn testimony. His voice rising dramatically. This was a lie. Blanche says the defense put in evidence what that call really was about. The harassing phone calls Cohen had received from this 14 year old. That is perjury. Blanche practically yells. Cohen has repeatedly lied under oath. He lied to his family. He lied to his banker. He lied to the FEC, Federal Election Commission. He lied to every single reporter he talked to for about a year. He's literally like an MVP of liars, says Todd Blanche. He's also a thief. He admitted to stealing from the Trump organization, admitted to committing a felony on the stand in front of you. But what should matter to you are the lies he told in this courtroom. Before I sit down, I want to talk about

10 reasons why there's reasonable doubt in this case. And he's just now starting to go through them. Pretty good, Dave. He's starting to ramp it up. And really, this case at its base boils down to exactly what he's hitting on. No one can trust Michael Cohen or a word he says. Yeah, I'm glad he's wrapping it up. I was starting to worry that it might get a little long. And I'm glad that he's going to end it with a sort of bullet point of here's the 10 reasons for reasonable doubt. That seems smart to me. Can I just ask, how has nobody found this 14-year-old yet? I mean, where's TV USA on this? This kid could be like the biggest star on the right wing in the last five years.

I remember talking to my producer when that part of it broke. And of course, the big deal there was that he got caught at least in a lie of omission, right? Oh, you didn't mention that this was also about a 14-year-old who was harassing you? But I just remember John being like, I'm sorry, say that again. And I'm like, yeah, a 14-year-old was prank calling. And we were just, we honestly kind of like thought, sat for a second. I think we were both thinking like, what are we doing with our lives? Like, this is all so silly and ridiculous. And now that 14 year old can vote, voting. I want to know who the 14 year old is voting for.

Could be a Congress. 22. Yeah. Yeah. We need to know this kid. I think we're all on his side. Yeah. Absolutely. We wouldn't want to harass Michael Cohen. Someone's got to find this person. But, you know, it goes back to the one mistake that I thought maybe the defense made was putting Costello on. I was really a fan of the idea of just don't put anybody on. Just just let the prosecution rest and then say they didn't make the case. That's it. And you sit down. And I know that that's risky but i feel like costello also came off a little

damon runyon guys and dolls ish right and and i thought it was kind of better to have that only be michael cohen um but yeah this whole this whole thing looks shady and bizarre and ridiculous and i think that's why you saw taking it full circle this ridiculous press conference today, because the Biden campaign understands this is not opening them. It's hurting them. And Megan, if I might, too. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, go ahead. Just on Cohen. One of the things we see with Cohen and he's he's a person who, you know, he's lying because it's the only thing he's capable of doing. Right. Like every time he opens his mouth, he's lying. And that has been true for not just the last couple of years. It has been true every minute he has been in the orbit of Donald Trump.

And if there's one thing I hope Donald Trump takes out of this, if he hopefully is exonerated here, and hopefully, you know, he goes on and has a great life, maybe president of the United States again, is anytime he senses anyone around him who is anything like Michael Cohen, get them away from you. People like this do nothing but destroy. This is why he was hired. Yes.

Why was he hired in the first place? This is why Trump hired Michael Cohen, because he's a dirtbag. And Trump was looking for a dirtbag to help him in a dirty industry, which is the New York real estate industry. This is not where you go with the clean fingernails with it speaking the Queen's English. I mean, it's infamous for having a lot of shady characters in it. Trump was kind of born into it and knew how to work it and operate within it. And you can't do it with the white shoe lawyers. I think that's why he had this guy working on, you know, so closely with him. It doesn't make Trump look great, but I understand why he did it. He couldn't find a perfectly ethical guy to handle these

things with the muscle and language that might be needed for one to be truly heard, to use the left's language in this rough crowd. He needed to be heard here. Listen to this, Dave. Can I just say that that's also why Cohen couldn't go to the White House and that pissed Cohen off. Oh, yeah. That's exactly why Michael Cohen was not allowed to come to the White House is exactly what you just said. That's not his milieu. No, God, Trump was smart enough not to do that. Puck News echelon poll last week. Eighty five percent of Americans say they've heard a lot or some about the case. Only 45 percent could identify what the case is actually about.

Forty five percent of those who have heard a lot about the case could identify what it was about. Seventy two percent on both sides said the case has zero bearing on their opinion of Trump. Thirty four percent of Trump supporters and Trump leaners say a guilty verdict would make them more likely to support him. It's not going the way the Democrats thought it was going to go, guys. That's why we have Robert De Niro at the J6 cops there. Stu? Well, you know, it's funny.

It's exactly why. I remember thinking when all this started with all the legal charges against him, they've got 91 charges against him. They're not going to go over 91. They're going to get him on something. Right. And, you know, theoretically, maybe they will. But now it looks like three of the four main cases are going to be pushed past past the election. You've got one of them is the Fannie Willis disaster. And now this one, which is the biggest joke and has always been the biggest joke among them.

You know, I really do think- And you're having the electorate say, we don't care. They don't care. We don't even care if there is a conviction, which is going to be, you know, a tall order

if the jury follows the law. Stand by much, much more on the opposite side. Stu and Dave, stay with me for the show. Would you like to hear the top 10 reasons that the jury should find Trump not guilty and find reasonable doubt? Oh, yeah. Summarized. And I don't know that he listed them like, and this is the number one reason, but here we go. Number one, invoices. Cohen created the invoices. President Trump had no

intent to defraud. There's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what we spoke about earlier. Two, no proof that President Trump saw anything at all with those vouchers that were created by the Trump accounting team, legal expenses from the dropdown menu. Three, there's absolutely no evidence of any intent to defraud. He disclosed it to the Office of Government Ethics. Similarly, there is no proof to influence the 2016 election. We talked about both of those two. He filed the right tax returns. He disclosed these payments to Michael Cohen, and he couldn't have been trying to influence the 2016 election with these falsified documents because he was already

president by that point. Four, no intent to commit or conceal. Remember, this is an important piece because in order for the falsification of business documents to be a crime, given that we're past the normal statute of limitations, they have to prove that it was the docs were falsified in an effort and with intent to commit or conceal another crime, other unlawful activity. This is number four. He says there's no falsification of business records, period. And anything that people try to talk about regarding that is wrong. He must have said something else because that actually kind of whatever. Okay. So that's his point. Number five, no evidence to illegally influence the 2016 election. The word illegally is what's important there. Six, AMI would have

run the story. I'm not sure where he's going with that. Seven, McDougal, Karen McDougal did not want her story published. So it wasn't a catch and kill. Eight, Stormy Daniels story was already public. So why would why would Trump be paying to silence it? Again, they're arguing about whether she was paid off, which we've questioned on the show, whether that's a smart move. The defense that Trump didn't do the payoff, that Cohen did the payoff. That's I mean, but it's fine if Cohen did. If Michael Cohen was reimbursed, true, too. Trump's decided to deny it all. Number nine, manipulation of evidence. The government has made mistakes in presenting this trial and we have caught them. Uh, number one, that tape between Trump and Cohen talking

about the payout to Karen McDougal, that was inaudible and appears to have been cut at just the right times by Michael Cohen. So they don't think this shows any pattern by Trump and Cohen to work together to pay off women alleging affairs with Trump. The Karen McDougal tape is not great for Trump, who claims everything was a Michael Cohen deal. Right. But it's not there's no tape for Stormy, but they're trying to say it's inaudible and it may be incomplete too. That October 24th call, the one to Keith Schiller, right? I think that's the one. We went over that. Number three, Mr. Cohen's phone. They didn't tell you that Cohen actually wiped his phone and synced his phone to his laptop. You didn't see any evidence that the laptop was searched. We know that the September 6th

recording was synced. How can you trust that it's reliable? You can't. You have to rely on Mr. Cohen again. Cohen made up that call, the alleged one with Trump. He made up how it was received, and there's nothing you can trust about what Cohen said. Number 10, Cohen is the embodiment of reasonable doubt. Michael Cohen is a human lie machine. Michael Cohen is the gloat, the greatest liar of all time. I like I like that last one, guys. Did you read that? Were those in reverse order from how he presented them?

I'm Kelly McGuire. Do you know the answer to that? She just sent it to me. This is from I think the gloat was the last one he presented. If I'm not mistaken, gloat had to be number one. What Steve? Yeah. The gloat was at the end. This is part, and I should say this was via Andrew Giuliani, who is Rudy Giuliani's son. He's been doing great coverage of the case. Go ahead, Dave. Yeah. So gloat is, I thought that, I thought the first few were actually sort of the strongest.

And then we got into to sort of some some haziness. And then gloat was obviously a good line. I mean, yeah, I mean, I don't know. I think I just would have ended on like the stuff that we were just talking about. Right. Which is that this makes no sense. It obviously wasn't in order to affect the election. And even if it was and all that.

But but look, I think that those are 10. I think those are at least seven or eight very solid points. You only need one for reasonable doubt. And I guess the prosecution is going to spend four and a half hours trying to knock these down now. God bless the jurors who have to sit there for that. I mean, the answer to all of those initial points for the prosecution, Dave, will be a stew, will be no, Trump may not have been looking at every check stub of the payouts to Cohen. Yes, we admit he signed the checks and the checks didn't say much on them. But he was there when the scheme was birthed.

That's what they're going to say. They're going to say he didn't have to see all the check stubs. He didn't have to see the drop down menu that this accounting gal was using. He's the one who formed the scheme in a meeting with Cohen and Weisselberg where they agreed Cohen would pay her off. He would be repaid. They would make it look like legal expenses when in fact it was a reimbursement that it would be doubled 130 up to 260, along with some other payments that they were going to owe Cohen reimbursement on and that that's how he would be repaid. You don't have to show Trump had knowledge of drop down menus or check stubs or any of that other stuff. I mean, that's a stretch. I think you do have to

show some of that. I mean, but to your point, that is what they're going to go to. And, you know, I understand. Look, there are parts of this that I think are going to be believable to jurors. I mean, if you were to tell me that the actual truth here, and we don't really know the truth, but if you were to tell me the actual truth was that he did have multiple affairs with these women and these payments were designed basically to shield him from a post-Access Hollywood tape fiasco in the middle of a campaign, I wouldn't pass out of shock. It wouldn't be the most stunning news I'd ever heard in my entire life if that were the truth. But that being said, it's

still all of this has to be built on the one person who has told them this narrative from beginning to end, which is Michael Cohen. And, you know, the last part of this, I think, still is the strongest because you can go through and I think prove to people and show that the, you know, the last part of this, I think, still is the strongest because you can go through and I think prove to people and show that the legal case doesn't line up. But that's not always how a juror is going to think in these situations. At the end of the day, they do know people like Michael Cohen. They do know people who are untruthful over and over and over and over again and untruthful right to your face and will say anything that they need to say at any moment that will benefit them. Michael Cohen was incredibly pro-Trump to an almost impossible level when he worked for him. And the second he decided it was better for him to be anti-Trump,

he was not anti-Trump. He was resistance beyond Robert De Niro anti-Trump on TikTok for multiple years, writing books about how he couldn't wait to get revenge on the guy. And then he comes in front of the trial and is this like schoolboy just trying to tell the truth because he cares so much about the legal system. Every person knows someone like that. And when he is the central point of failure for this entire case, I think that's the strongest point the defense can bring up. And ending on it, I think, is a good idea. Yeah, he said that Todd Blanche said, you know how Michael Jordan is the goat? Well, Michael Cohen is the gloat. And then filled in those letters appropriately. I love it. Oh, Tom Brady. No, it's Tom Brady. Tom Brady's the goat, whichever. They're both the goat. And Tom. And by the way, Michael Jordan is the goat. It's not LeBron.

Then he says, thank you all for listening to the jury. This is via Anna Bauer also doing great coverage. This isn't a referendum on your views of Trump or who you voted for. That's not what this is about. The verdict you're going to reach has to do with the evidence you heard here and nothing else. If you do that, focus on the evidence heard in this courtroom. This is a very quick and easy, not guilty verdict. Thank you. However, he got in trouble because I guess Blanche said, you can't send Donald Trump to jail with the lack of evidence and testimony here. And Judge Marchand asked Todd Blanche, why did you mention prison? Judge Marchand says that was an outrageous and highly

inappropriate reference to reference the punishment that the defendant might be facing. It's hard for me to imagine, he says to Blanche, that that was not intentional. I will give the jury an instruction on it. Now, I wonder what that instruction is going to be because technically he could go to jail. Mark Garagos was on here a week ago today, really making that point in the strongest terms possible or about a week or so ago that if it were Dave Marcus or Stu Berger, probably not Megyn Kelly, you'd be going to jail. And jail and jail came up already. Right. Wasn't Stormy Daniels asked, like, would you like to see him go to jail? Right. And she said, like, if he's guilty. So, I mean, this isn't the first time. I think it's like and Cohen, you're generally not allowed to reference the punishment. You're not allowed to reference the punishment to the jury. So I think I don't think the judge is going to say there's no possibility he could go to jail in this instruction. I think it's just inappropriate. But right. He's saying he committed that in bad faith. It sounds like Blanche did what he needed to do. I'm very

happy to see he did not press the, I did not have sexual relations with that woman point. He did not harp on the, there was no interlude between Trump and Stormy. He just said Trump's denied it. And that was allowed to stand. That's good. Kind of interesting because Trump did not deny it in this case, right? He did not. He did not take the stand and say that in this case, but Todd Blanch argued it in his opening and argued it in his closing. So in any event, he didn't spend too much time on it. But again, I do have real questions about the wisdom of arguing. He knew nothing about any of the reimbursement scheme. I really think a stronger, cleaner way would have been, yes, this lunatic came to him threatening to say she had an affair with him three weeks before the election. It's a nuisance value number. We decided to pay it off. Cohen did it. Whatever. You could say he did it on his own or not, which however he did it, I, yes, I reimbursed him because why should he be out 130 grand for this payment? Um, and that's it. I didn't do it to

save my ass on the election or for any reason other than she was annoying and she was threatening to bother me. So I made her go away, which is par for the course for any very rich man doing business in New York. And by the way, even if I did do it to help my election, talk to Brad Smith, that's not a crime. That to me is a very clean and frankly, honest defense. Trump went another way and I think confused things, but we'll see if the jury can hold on. That's also for the audience of the public though, but there's also the public, right? What you're asking, what you're asking Trump to admit to more or less in the trial would have implications in the election. And that's what it is.

No, it wouldn't, though. It wouldn't. It wouldn't. Well, everyone thinks he had sex with Stormy. I try not to think about it. I think I might be the only one who started to doubt it. I've started to doubt it. I've started to doubt it as a result of her cockamamie me too claims at the 11th hour in this case.

It just made me start to see her as just a liar who's looking for attention. So I don't, if I had to put money on it, I'd say they did it. But I certainly wouldn't find it beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that that is required of this jury. I mean, Trump maybe is lying about that if he's lying for Melania's sake and the sake of his family. And because he's told that lie, if it's a lie from the beginning, Stu, that's the one thing Trump's very consistent on.

He claims he did not have sex with Stormy Daniels. He does. And look, it's probably both, right? I mean, if it's true that he was hiding this, he's probably hiding it from voters and hiding it from his wife. I mean, I think that's- Oh, do you want to admit it? Right. No one wants to admit such things. You know, it's it's

just like it's it's bizarre to to watch all of this play out, because I think what you point out is really smart, Megan, in that like when you go to a jury, I think sometimes it's it's not Trump's style, but it's smart to give a little ground, right, to say, hey, you know what? These things happen. Here's exactly what went on. You gain some credibility with average people, I think, when you do that. And we have evidence that Donald Trump did 100 percent act this way when the story was completely false with the doorman and the love child story. Yes, that was a false story. And he still paid off the doorman to get it out of the way. So I don't know. He really has legitimate credibility to say that

even on a false story, I went out and did this because this is how look, this might not be the way you act in your life. But rich billionaires who are on TV all the time do this stuff. And it's the way of the world. It's a way of managing your PR as you're entering an election. And like in some ways, I think that would have been a more effective defense. Now, of course, they you know, you mentioned the the elections official they could have brought on the stand who was blocked. Right. So they couldn't bring up this entire defense. And I think that's been part of the limitation. And at least, well, they did get out of David Pecker that they did this catch and kill for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rahm Emanuel.

Rahm Emanuel, when he was going to run for Chicago mayor, a Democrat. So it's basically friends of David Pecker who get the special treatment. It's not just a Trump thing. Sorry, keep going. No, I mean, it's clear. It's clear what this is, I think. And people look, we're adults here. We understand this. No one's looking, you know, for some perfect person who's who's never made a mistake. Like, I don't like the idea of setting a precedent that we have presidential candidates paying off people a couple of weeks before the election. That's not a good thing in my mind and not something we should encourage for the future. But like people people individuals get to make these decisions at the ballot box if that's something

that says hey i don't want a person who's doing that you can go and we have the ultimate jury it's coming up in november they can all vote and they can all have an opinion and we can figure out who we think should lead this country the democrats the left you know brag they're all trying to take that choice away from us and trying to kick us off of that jury. And that's the biggest violation in my mind. You know, I feel about this kind of the way I felt when I saw all those Dave Portnoy stories come out, like a lot of women accusing Dave Portnoy of being kind of gross. And that is, don't marry Donald Trump. Don't slide into Dave Portnoy's DMs and have sex with him within an hour of meeting him.

These are bad ideas. And I am not going to vote for Donald Trump to be my husband. That's not happening. Right. And I can admire Dave Portnoy and his talent as a broadcaster without thinking it's a good idea to, you know, slide into his DMs. I just think, like, we're kind of past the point as an electorate of being that buttoned up on a man's sex life and the weirdness in it, as long as it's not a Me Too situation. You know what I mean? Like, I don't have

to marry him. I don't like I need somebody who's going to close the damn border, Dave. Right. It's like and by the way, if we're going to go there, why is Joe Biden taking inappropriate showers with his daughter, according to her? Can we ask that? Where's the trial and the endless media coverage on it? Yeah, absolutely. I've been telling Stu for years to stop dropping into Portnoy's DMs, but he never answers. I'm glad that you're backing me up on this. No, look, I think you're absolutely right. I just want to go back just quickly on the jury thing, this idea of, well, why don't we present our own version of here are the events? You know, I remember my mom was a criminal defense attorney and she used to talk to me about that point very directly. And she said the worry that she always had with that was that

then instead of saying to the jury, if you have any reasonable doubt, you have to find not guilty, you're putting these competing theories in their mind and that the jury might say, which theory do I believe more and go that way? So you've gone from giving yourself the highest level of standard to a 50-50 choice between, in any event, that's all complicated. From the electoral standpoint, I agree with you 100%, Megan. I mean, I think at this point, short of exactly, you know, there being allegations of sexual assault. We even had those with Trump, honestly. Well, that that's right, Dave. And that had come out separate. The stormy it's not like stormy was like Donald Trump raped

me. Now that would have been worth paying to stop. Right. Like if that that would have gotten a bigger number and if that had happened, it would have been an paying to stop, right? Like if that, that would have gotten a bigger number. And if that had happened, it would have been an absolute game changer, potentially. I don't know though, because all these other women did come out and say what they said. But to your point, the Access Hollywood tape broke in October.

And then we did have a parade of women come out and say, yeah, look what he did to me on an airplane. Look what he did to me in a hotel room, et cetera. Look, I'm not sure that we're better off today than we were, you know, in in the 80s. I won't say the 90s because Bill Clinton skated on some on some pretty serious sexual stuff in the 90s. Right. But in the 80s, Gary Hart didn't write Gary Hart's campaign and he had a real good chance of winning. Gary Hart's campaign ended because there was a picture of a woman in a bikini sitting on his lap. That was all it took in 1984.

Now, I think part of that is that we didn't have social media. Part of that is that journalism was able to sit on stories, right? We didn't know about all of JFK's stuff. I don't know if we're in a better position today than we were when that kind of stuff was disqualifying because today nothing's disqualifying. I mean, there's just, there's just nothing that's disqualifying anymore. The idea seems to be if that's my guy and he's going to get done what I want to get done, you know, I don't care if his son was sitting on the board of Burisma and did X, Y, Z. Right. I mean, it just doesn't matter anymore.

And that does worry me a little bit as a society, because I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't quite like this. I like that point. I mean, I feel the same. Like I am saying I don't want to marry Donald Trump. Not that that's an option, but I'm saying I don't want to marry Donald Trump. But I would much rather be able to vote for a president whose character I admired, you know, who, who I didn't think cheated on his wife repeatedly. And especially after she just gave birth to their baby. But even as I say that, I don't know what

their deal is. I don't know what Bill and Hillary's weird marriage is about either. I don't, all I know is like, if I could have a strong leader who I respected and admired and who I could show off to my children, I would love it. I told the audience when I was in LA, I got to go see privately the movie Reagan, which is coming out in August. Run, don't walk to the nearest theater. It's so good. I was very powerful. I was glued to my chair. It's whatever you're thinking. It's too little. It's amazing. And, you know, sure. They're not like making a movie of all of Reagan's downsides, but they do hit a couple of them. Like they, they call a couple of things to, to, to note. And you just leave having such deep respect for him and loving country

and being a little fond for like how we kind of, he loved his wife. I'm sure now there's going to be some stories about, so like, this is what I wrestle with Dave, because is it that Reagan was genuinely better husband to somebody like Nancy? And we like that and genuinely better man who'd been raised right in a Christian family that taught him good ideals? Or is it that the press didn't pick apart his life the way they do to our modern day politicians? I don't know, Dave, what do you think? I think it's probably both. I keep getting you. No, I'll throw to Stu.

But yeah, I would say it's both. Yeah, I mean, I I think with Reagan, honestly, I do think he was just a better person than a lot of these people today. I mean, I just have to say it. I think he I mean, this is a guy who wound up writing an entire book of his love letters. He wrote a love letter every day to his wife. I mean, he was, I think, a really unique and special person. We're not always going to hit that standard.

And I think people get a little sensitive when it comes to talking about the 2024 election. This is a separate point from the 2024 election. You look at the candidates we have. You mentioned the problems with Biden. Trump famously has had all sorts of these issues in relationships throughout the years. And don't even start looking at the RFK Jr. life, his womanizing that he's admitted to. I mean, he might have the worst record on this front of all of the candidates. This might not be a 2024 election issue, but it is a sane thing to think about that maybe in 2028, we can all look forward and maybe find someone who can do a good job on the border and isn't constantly cheating on their wives. That's not an insane standard. There are 330 million people in this country. We should be able to find a person who

can check off those two boxes. Yeah, that'd be nice. Or a serial cheater in the case of at least Bill Clinton. You know, it's like, my God, we took a deep dive into his troubles. Who knows? I've got to, speaking of Hillary Clinton, bring you some some election news. Okay, I'm going to get to her in one second. But first, let's pick up where Dave Marcus started the discussion at the top of the show. This Politico article. Dems in full-blown freakout over Biden. That's the headline. A pervasive sense of fear has settled in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, reports Politico.

Nearly five months from the election, anxiety has morphed into palpable trepidation, according to more than a dozen party leaders and operatives. The gap between what Democrats will say on TV or in print and what they'll text to their friends has only grown as worries have surged about Biden's prospects. A couple of examples. One Democratic operative in close touch with the White House said, oh, my God, Mitt Romney might. Oh, this isn't oh, my God, Mitt Romney might become president. It's oh, my God, the democracy might end. One advisor to major Democratic Party donors. Donors ask me on an hourly basis what I think, said the activist, calling it so much easier to just show them. So while they read it, I can pour a drink. The list of why we could win is so small. I don't even need to keep the list on my phone. Pete Gian Greco, a longtime

Democratic strategist who's worked on multiple campaigns, including presidential. If the frame of this race is what was better, the three.5 years under Biden or the four years under Trump. We lose that every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And there's more. Then there's a Siena poll on New York State, you guys. New York. Dave, that's our state. Biden's weaker numbers show as follows.

Biden's leading Trump in New York by only nine points, nine points. Four years ago, Biden won New York by 23 points. Biden's underwater with every single demographic delineated in the poll except black voters. 53% of Latinos, 54% of whites. This is in New York, reported having an unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden. That's amazing. That's like, I mean, if that's, if Biden's running ads in New York, which we'll get to in a second, but he's the, the Democrat president is running ads in New York State, Dave. Yeah, listen, I don't think that it's a coincidence. That we're seeing this political article days after that Bronx rally or even days after walking into the Libertarian Conference and walking into the lion's den, getting booed, giving it back. You know, you had the massive rally in Wildwood. Trump is tapping

into something that is very basic to American political DNA, which is that you are expected to go into the places where people don't like you, right? Bill Clinton had to give the sister soldier speech. We all remember Chris Christie on the boardwalk screaming at people about the teachers unions, right? This is part of American political culture. And Donald Trump is now, this has not really been part of his shtick before. He's now leaning into that in a really effective way. So number one, Americans like it because it's what we expect from a West Wing episode with Jeb Bartlett. But number two, like everything else, it's just another example of something that Joe Biden plainly can't do. Right. Joe Biden plainly can't walk into a room like that libertarian room or walk into a deep red part of the country and pull off what Donald Trump

is pulling off. That's not going to change. And so I understand why, you know, the panic had already been at 10. I understand why it's at 11 today. Speaking of that libertarian convention, they invited everyone. Joe Biden said no. Trump said yes. RFKJ said yes. They wound up nominating some lunatic who thinks we should have more drag queen story hours. So great job, libertarians. And Trump, having walked into that lion's den, got a little ornery when they started booing him. But it was actually kind of funny. Here's a clip. I will be a true friend to libertarians in the White House. That's nice. That's nice.

Only if you want to win. Only if you want to win. Maybe you don't want to win. Maybe you don't want to win. Only do that if you want to win. If you want to lose, don't do that. Keep getting your 3% every four years we should point out by the way people love about trump he's getting booed he made a joke it was funny yeah it's funny he handled it well i mean like

look and by the way the libertarian high water mark is three percent we should point out they don't typically get three percent i think they got that 2016, which is pretty much a high watermark. But they cost the Republicans Georgia in the Senate. In 2020. And this is the guy, by the way, the guy they nominated was the guy who was running in that 2020 race as a libertarian. He's a nutcase. He thinks we should have more drag queen story hours. He doesn't see any problem with it whatsoever. Yeah, that was a fascinating interview. I saw part of that. I mean, it seems like a seems like, you know, the libertarians are an interesting group. I think they have a lot. There's a lot I like about libertarians.

Oh, we have them. Sorry. Wait, wait. Here, I'll show you. Here he is. His name is Chase Oliver. It's not six. Good job, MK show team. Why do you think that the drag queens want to read to children? Because I think that they are performance artists and they want to be able to have different levels of performance art it's the same reason as why do the wiggles sing to children because they want to have a marketplace to kids chase they want to be able to they want to be the wiggles is is made for children it's it's obviously family-friendly uh um material drag queens are not what you call family friendly kind of entertainment.

But a man in a dress is what drag is, right? I mean, let's just be real. A man in a dress or a woman in a suit is what drag is. That is not inherently sexual. Oh, my Lord. Good job to Austin Peterson on Rumble for asking him that question. So they're just like these guys, OK? Those lunatics who want to show off their fake boobs to my three and four-year-old kids and yours. They're just like the Wiggles. Oh, yeah. Wait for the traffic to come to a stop. That's good, clean entertainment right there. That's that that is not same. So glad my son's 14 now. It's a good song. We've diverged, but that's the libertarian candidate. Trump goes in there. The point is he will go into the lion's den and he'll go where he's loved and where he's not loved, including places like the Bronx to try to

get votes. And that is why Joe Biden is running ads in New York. Now, what ads is he running? They're incredibly dishonest. And we're going to take a break and come back to that. But before we go, before we do that, I've got to get it in this one thing. Hold on team. I've got to get in the fact that Hillary Clinton just weighed in publicly again on why she lost. And just in case you were thinking it was because she didn't go to Wisconsin, you are wrong. It is you women of America. It is your fault. She now sits down for an interview and decides that the reason she didn't win is American females, that they didn't like that. She wasn't perfect. She this is OK with an interview with The New York Times.

She saw her defeat as inextricable from her gender. But once James Comey did that to me, obviously a reference to him announcing the problems with their emails, the people, the voters who left me were women. They left me because they just couldn't take a risk on me because as a woman, I'm supposed to be perfect. They were willing to take a risk on Trump who had a long list of let's call them flaws to illustrate his imperfection because he was a man and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief. And she has a warning now for those bitches. Her warning is authoritarians, whether they be political or religious based, always go after women. It's just written in history. And that's what will happen in this country, too, if you reelect him.

The Daily Mail has a running tally of those she has blamed for her 2016 loss. It is 44 people and topics long. We put together our own stop montage just for a little, just a little walk down memory lane and the many things she has blamed for the fact that, as my kids would say, she's a loser. Here it is. I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate. The combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28th and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. I mean, it was bankrupt.

Its data was mediocre to poor. So Trump becomes the nominee and he has basically handed this tried and true, effective foundation. No, we have an electoral college problem. Take the Benghazi tragedy. But boy, it was turned into a political football. There was certainly, we know, a plan from Putin and the highest levels of the Kremlin to influence our election. You had Citizens United come to its full fruition.

I also think I was the victim of a very broad assumption I was going to win. Were you a victim of misogyny? Yes, I do think it played a role. Yes, that too. That kitchen sink over there too, by the way, that hurt me. What do you think, Stu? It's fascinating. I love the the new one, the new remix that just came out of the I'm a woman, so I'm expected to be perfect, which was the exact same thing Fannie Willis said. Remember, after she got caught in her affair,

she went in front of the black church and said the exact same thing which i don't know if this is a new thing we are not expecting you to be perfect what we are expecting hillary is you not to be the worst candidate that has ever run for president that is basically the standard you needed to hit in that election and you were unable to achieve it she was the goat of that speaking of goat and gloat she was the goat of that the goat of worst candidate yeah no you think joe joe she was the goat of that. The goat of worst candidate. Yeah. No, you think Joe, Joe, she was the vote. Joe's catching up. Yeah. He's giving her a run, but I don't know. I just think she was just so unlikable. And I love that she wants to blame her own sex now for it. It's like, okay. So no one told you not to go to the Midwest. Everyone's blaming white women for

everything like conservatives, liberals. I mean, white women can't catch a break, man. Yeah. We're to blame. It's the fault of the Karens. She's blaming the Karens. Yeah. Well, guess what, Hillary? It's going to happen again. And you're not even on the ticket this time. All right. Quick break. And then I'm going to show you this ad that Biden ran on Trump in New York. And we have a little fact check for you, it's unbelievably dishonest. Stand by. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. 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 Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura

Blandbeck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the Sirius XM 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 MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow

and get three months free. Offer details apply. As we talked about, Politico is out this morning with an article about Democrats freaking out about President Biden's election prospects. One interesting point was made by Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine. He's one of the ones having a meltdown. He told Politico, quote, New York Democrats need to wake up. The number of people in New York, including people of color that I come across who are saying positive things about Trump is alarming. Well, as we covered last week,

former President Trump went to the Bronx. We just discussed it here, too, to hold a campaign rally. He's the first Republican presidential candidate to do that since Ronald Reagan in 1980. Before that rally, the Biden campaign, clearly seeing some of the numbers we're discussing, released an ad trying to paint Mr. Trump as a racist who hates black and brown people. Watch. Of course I hate these people. Donald Trump disrespecting black folk is nothing new. He was sued for refusing to rent his apartments to black families and called for the execution of five innocent black and brown teenagers. And it's more than anger.

It's hatred. It's why Trump stood with violent white supremacists, warned of a bloodbath if he loses the next election, and if he's president again, vowed to be a dictator who wants revenge on his enemies. Now, who do you think that is? Of course, I hate these people. Wow. That's incredibly dishonest and misleading.

Remember when President Biden tried to paint himself as the only one who could unite the nation? All we heard was unity, unity, unity. Well, it's a lie. We decided to fact check this ad. As you heard at the beginning and end of the ad, Mr. Trump states, of course, I hate these people. What? He hates black and brown people. That's a headline. How could that not have been used against him prior now? Because it's not true. The ad goes on to say that it's an example of Donald Trump disrespecting black folk, which is, quote, nothing new. That line is from a 1989 interview on CNN with the late Larry King. Was Trump just this raging lunatic racist that Larry King was putting on with impunity over there on CNN?

No. Mr. Trump was on to talk about that an ad that he had placed in several New York City newspapers with the headline, bring back the death penalty, bring back our police. The ad ran 12 days after the infamous Central Park gang rape when a white woman out for a jog in Manhattan Central Park was raped over and over again by multiple people and left for dead. She lost almost all of the blood in her body. Days later, five black and brown teenagers were arrested in connection with that rape and assault. In the interview, Donald Trump told Larry King the ads that he was placing were not prejudging the teens, but rather advocating for the death penalty if they were found guilty. Trump's 1989 ad that he placed in the paper does

not mention the then suspects, only the horrific rape that had made international headlines at the time. It was so gruesome and awful. Trump's ad was mainly about crime overall in the city and the need to do something about it. Here's the full clip of Trump saying, of course, I hate these people. I said, of course, I hate these people. And let's all hate these people because maybe hate is what we need if we're going to get something done. I mean, it's incredible when a reporter asks me whether or not I have compassion for the people that did this crime. I have absolutely no compassion.

Right. No compassion for the people who did this crime. So he's not talking about all black and brown people as President Biden's cynical ad would like you to believe. The ad also talks about Mr. Trump being sued for refusing to rent his apartments to black families. That's a reference back to the 1970s. And yes, it's a lawsuit from 50 years ago. In 1973, the DOJ filed a civil rights case against the Trump firm. Donald Trump and his father eventually entered into a consent degree to settle a decree to settle the litigation in 75. That agreement contained no admission of guilt,

but it required the Trumps to institute a series of safeguards to make sure apartments were rented without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. And Mr. Trump never wanted to back down, went on to write in his 1987 book, what we didn't do was rent to welfare cases, white or black. The Biden campaign ad also accuses Mr. Trump of saying there will be a bloodbath if he loses the next election. That's a reference, of course, to a speech Donald Trump gave in March. And even major media outlets who are not friendly to Trump admitted he was talking about a bloodbath in the auto industry. If he loses, watch. If you're listening, President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal.

Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans and you're going to sell the cars to us. Now, we're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. So not a bloodbath against black and brown voters, as President Biden is suggesting. In the past, we've debunked the Trump wants to be a dictator scare tactic also used in the ad. We'll just skip that. You guys have seen that. It's a nonsense charge and it's

been fact checked by many. So this is a completely dishonest piece of propaganda that the former president is using. And people should know it's a lie. The whole thing's a lie. Guys, this is so I mean, just just when you don't think you can be even more grossed out by modern American politics, someone finds a way. This is just so gross and divisive. And it shows his panic, Dave, about what's happening in particular with black male voters. Yeah, it's a disgusting ad. But I mean, the most important aspect of it is the first thing that you said, that this ad is running in New York, that they are spending millions of dollars in the most expensive media market in the country for a state that they're not supposed to be able to lose, you know, whatsoever. I'll tell you, I remember June,

maybe July of 2022. And I started going to my editors and I said, Hey, can I give you something on Lee's Eldon? I'm cause I'm hearing stuff. And they said, Dave, come on, he's losing by 40. There's no story here. Stop it. And I said, all right. And I knew he was losing by 40, but I was hearing stuff in the bodegas and the bagel shops, like stuff I hadn't really heard before. Two months later, he starts creeping up. He ended up losing by four. Now, look, COVID had a lot to do with that because Cuomo obviously was a disaster. Hochul was a disaster on COVID. So there were other things.

The two places where Republicans did really well in 2022 were Florida and New York. Right. They picked up five seats in New York. So that poll that you cited that has Trump down by only nine, the fact that they're already spending money in the Empire State tells me that Joe Biden's nervous about it. And I don't live there anymore. But from what I remember from quite recently, I think he has reason to. Mm hmm. I mean, Stu, if you look at Trump's ad, bring back the death penalty, bring back our police. And it's in the tiniest type ever. So forgive me. I'm going to have to read it. But I mean, everything that's in here, this would go over well with your average voter.

Yes. What has happened to our city over the past 10 years? What has happened to law and order, to the neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families, the cop who had the power under the law to help in times of danger, keep us safe from those who would prey on innocent lives to fulfill some distorted inner need? What has happened to the respect for authority? What has happened is the complete breakdown of life as we knew it. And he goes on to talk about roving bands of wild criminals in our neighborhoods, dispensing their own vicious brand of twisted hatred on whomever they encounter. At what point did we cross the line from fine and the fine and noble pursuit of genuine civil liberties to the reckless and dangerously permissive atmosphere, which allows

criminals of every age to beat and rape a helpless woman and then laugh at her family's anguish. And why do they laugh? They laugh because they know that soon, very soon, they will be returned to the streets to rape and maim and kill once again and yet face no great personal risk to themselves. I mean, it sounds an awful lot like a country I can look around and see right now. Yeah, I mean, if anything, that stuff now, the crime levels are lower than than those days right now. But the punishment, I mean, the way we're, you know, actually, you know, the prosecutors in all these areas and major cities are the way they're prosecuting crime right now is they're letting everybody off unless your last name happens to be Trump. And then you get the full trial. It's fascinating. I mean, I think even thinking back to that ad, I mean, I've heard of that ad over the years, of course. And even I had forgotten that he didn't actually name the Central Park five in the in the ad, because that was the accusation was that he kind of came out and just said, oh, they're guilty, kill them right now before the trial, which is not what he said. But he didn't even name them in the ad. And even if he did, it would be a bad mistake, but a 45 year old mistake and not necessarily one that should decide a 2024 election. All this stuff adds up to what you're talking about here.

You know, when you're running ads in New York and you're rolling out people like Robert De Niro for press conferences, these are not the actions of a campaign that believes it's ahead. These are the actions. Let me add to that. Let me add to that, because now they're not only did the Biden campaign dispatch people to Trump's trial, but they say that if and when Trump is convicted, Biden's going to make a statement from the White House. He's going to do it from the White House to act like he's above it all. This is colossally stupid. Did he do that on October 7th?

I don't think he made a statement from the White House on October 7th. I could be wrong. He didn't. He did. No, he didn't. But but the Trump trial. Yeah, then we have to see him in full commander in chief regalia while he's got his emissaries at the actual courthouse just spewing nonsense. But this is like I don't want to see my Oval Office office used for this. I didn't want to see my DOJ used for this either. But this is, you know, this is the race we've got. I do think it'll be a huge mistake, Dave, if he actually does this from the White House. But I mean, he's got to do it now, right? It's probably a huge mistake for him to debate, but he's got to do it now. Like this, they're stuck, right? Unless they're not. And unless there's some switcheroo at the convention

or whatever it is. But this is bad. It's getting really ugly. I don't understand how they can make the claim that this trial was not political anymore, given these two press conferences. And it's an enormous thing to admit because all they've got is Trump is a threat to democracy.

And right now it's a 50 50 country on that question. And it's a 70 30 question on immigration. It's like pot meat kettle on that charge these days, too. I'll give you the last word. I mean, honestly, if you're a Democrat, you better hope they get a conviction here, because if they if they don't get that, I think you could see a real sort of rubber band effect of people thinking we were going to get 91 charges and now we're going to get none before this election. I think that could actually be a pretty significant factor in changing the polls in Trump's favor.

And I wonder if he gets convicted, whether it would change the polls in his favor to like nothing they do is working, which is why they are in the full fledged panic. Stu and Dave, you always bring peace, prosperity to the program. Thank you for that. No panic at all. Great to see you both. Thank you, Megan. Tomorrow, we'll stay on Closing Arguments with our Kelly's Court All-Stars, Arthur Aydala and Mark Eichlarsch. Martha is back. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.