The Megyn Kelly Show - Biden's Mental Fitness, and Kavanaugh Assassination Threat, with Rand Paul, Rich Lowry, and Ryan Grim | Ep. 339

Episode Date: June 9, 2022

We begin with the news of the assassination threat aimed at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and arrest in that case, with Senator Rand Paul. Then we turn our attention to President Biden's mental fitness and cognitive ability, as Megyn Kelly is joined by Rich Lowry of National Review and Ryan Grim of The Intercept to talk about the confusion we see from Biden, the media's reluctance to address the issue, the political and foreign policy ramifications of Biden's age and mental acuity, the mental fitness of Trump, whether Biden will be the Democrats' nominee in 2024, the media's coverage of the Kavanaugh assassination threat, and more. Then Dr. Dale Bredesen, UCLA professor and brain health expert, joins to talk about the signs of cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer's, the importance of a cognitive test, and more.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, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. For today's episode, while we were planning to spend the full show taking a deep dive into a controversial but important conversation about President Biden's mental fitness. And we are still going to do that. But first, we're following all the developments in the assassination threat against sitting Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a California man. Now he's charged with attempted murder. Law enforcement says the guy showed up at Justice Kavanaugh's home with a gun, ammo, a tactical knife, a screwdriver, a crowbar, zip ties and duct tape. According to The Washington Post,

Justice Kavanaugh and his family were at home. The justice has two young teenage daughters. Imagine how terrifying that must feel. This is almost 2 a.m. Right. Everybody in the house is asleep. They must have gotten a call saying we just arrested a man for attempted murder of you, a sitting Supreme Court justice. Senator Rand Paul says the White House and the Democrats have been actively encouraging crazy people to go to the homes of the justices to intimidate them and gin up hate as we await their critical decision on, among other cases, Dobbs, the case that asks them to decide whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. That's the one we saw a leaked opinion of, which suggests they're prepared to overturn Roe. But the decision has not yet been released. Last night, protesters showed up yet again outside of Justice Kavanaugh's home. They don't care. Only their message matters to them.

Senator Paul joins me now. Senator, great to have you back in the program. Thanks for having me. This is beyond, you know, after weeks now of Democrats ginning up hate and upset. Now we see it's not, I'm not saying their rhetoric led to this lunatic from California coming, but the leaked opinion certainly did. Whoever the leaker is, he's got some

explaining to do because he says he was upset about Roe, about the draft opinion in Dobbs and meant to kill Justice Kavanaugh. What do you make of it? And what do you make of the total blackout of this story by the press? Well, you know, I think it's quite predictable. I said from the very beginning, I've been worried about the justice's safety. And I've also been worried about allowing these crowds to gather outside their houses. One, it's reprehensible that someone should have released their addresses. It's also reprehensible that a lawyer, in all likelihood, a clerk that works for a Democrat appointed justice, and they've narrowed it down, I hear, to a couple of names, that this person would release this knowing that what they're unleashing is every crazy in the

whole country wants to come, you know, in protest. So there's a lot of things going on here that should be differently. One, the person who released this should be punished, disbarred, and if there is a legal crime committed here, absolutely prosecuted. But it's also reprehensible that the White House has said very little of anything. You know, the White House has said, oh, they have the right to protest. Well, I disagree. You have the right to protest in a public place, in a public venue, in front of someone's house, chanting, screaming, using a bullhorn when people are trying to have their own privacy and perhaps even to sleep, I think is disturbing the peace. And I think you should be arrested and carted off. I don't think they should let 500 people gather outside of Justice Kavanaugh's house.

I think the more people that gather, the more chances there are for someone to infiltrate that crowd who is armed. And we're just lucky this man was caught in advance and he sort of turned his own self in. So but we're we're just very lucky that this didn't result in violence. There's a law against this, you know, in the district where where where he lives. There's a law against coming out outside of the Supreme Court justices house and protesting. It's not being enforced. And let me just before I get on to the specifics of this case, because you're right, the guy turned himself in, which is kind of disturbing, you know, because he walked past two marshals. As I understand, he walked past two U.S. deputy marshals. They spotted

him getting out of a cab in front of the justice's home around 105 a.m. He walked right past them down the street with murder on his mind. It wasn't until he stopped and said, I'm going to call 911 and confess I feel suicidal and homicidal that anything was done to this guy. So the security system doesn't seem so good. It's sort of intriguing to think of the hypocrisy to the whole country, I think, is rightfully aghast at the horrible murders that happened in Uvalde, Texas. And I'm thinking of ways, how could we stop these kinds of things from happening? Well, we should also be thinking about how could we stop, you know, the assassination of a justice from happening? How could we stop violence and

intimidation of justices from happening before it happens? And we know, we know what we should do. They should enforce the law. So if you want an 18-year-old that ends up being a mass murderer to stop, it means you need to arrest them in advance when they commit crimes. If they kill the neighbor's pets, if they are threatening other students, they have to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Now, they get their day in court, they get a lawyer, but they should be prosecuted. But the same goes for this. Instead of turning the other way and the White House saying, oh, protests, nothing to see here, peaceful protests, well, no, what we need to do is use the laws on the book, prosecute these people, have them removed, but they're not doing it. And it is going to lead to violence. And that's why we ought to do something. The

person who leaked this did this with the intention of intimidation, and their leak is going to be related to the violence. They need to be prosecuted to the nth degree, to whatever possible crime. If there is a crime there, they need to be prosecuted. At the very least, they should be fired and disbarred. Yeah. And you know what? Any future contributorship on MSNBC, et cetera, is done now. It's done. You don't do something that directly places the life of a U.S. Supreme Court justice in danger, almost gets him and his family murdered, even in today's society, and wind up with a paying deal on MSNBC. That's not going to happen. The outrage over that will be too loud for them to ignore.

Let's hope. Let's hope that that's not their end result is that the left embraces them. But this is sort of the hypocrisy that goes on on the left. The left is horrified when someone on their side is somehow intimidated or shot at. But it's amazing the comments that have gone on for years about the shooting at the ball field with Steve Scalese done by a left-wing lunatic um you know for years you know i i was attacked for political reasons by someone who you know attacked me from behind had six ribs broken had part of my lung removed suffered for years from this and uh on the on internet the left wing thinks it's funny. They think it's hilarious. They encourage people on a daily, daily basis to come and finish the job.

And so it is amazing when you see the left and see the double standard. They don't seem to be too concerned about the justices lives because they're only showing up at conservative justices houses. If the shoe were on the other foot and this were a more liberal justice, I think you might at that point see some sympathy from the left and the left wing media. What do you make of it? Because the White House put out a written statement. President condemns the actions of this individual in strong terms. Grateful to law enforcement. He's made consistently clear that judges and other public officials should do their jobs without concern for their personal safety or their families. Any threats of violence or attempts to intimidate judges have no place in our society. OK, it's like a written statement.

I mean, I wonder what you think. But Ben Sasse is out there saying he needs to get out there and personally and forcefully condemn violence and threats against the sitting Supreme Court justices. But it needs to be more than just condemning the one shooter. We need to condemn all 500 people that are out in front of a house. They shouldn't be allowed to be there. Look, our attorney general had a difficult case in our state involving the police and involving a shooting, and there were 100 people on his lawn. We can't allow that to happen. I think they finally were arrested for being on the lawn, but you really have no right to stand on the sidewalk with a bullhorn and disrupt someone's privacy,

really at any time, but particularly all night long. They should not be allowed to do this. It should be disturbing the peace at the very least. It won't be a very significant penalty, but they'll be arrested and removed. And the more they continue to do it and show contempt for the law, the longer the sentencing would get. But we should enforce the law. If you

don't enforce the law against some of these more minor crimes, what they do is they lead to bigger and bigger and bigger crowds where there's more of a danger of someone actually concealing themselves within the crowd that's going to commit violence. Yeah, the guy said that, just for people who haven't read the morning paper, he said that he came to kill, he called Montgomery County Emergency Communication Center, 911. He said, I'm suicidal, and I've come to kill a specific Supreme Court judge.

He had the Glock 17, two magazines, ammo, pepper spray, tactical knife, hammer, screwdriver, crowbar, zip ties, duct tape, along with other gear. said he came from California. And he said, I am upset over the leaked draft of the Supreme Court decision on Roe versus Wade on the case is called Dobbs. Also upset about the school shooting in Uvalde and also upset thinking this justice might support looser gun laws. His plan was to kill Justice Kavanaugh and then himself, according to the FBI affidavit, thinking that it would give his life purpose. When asked how he found Justice Kavanaugh's home address, the complaint states he said he would kill him and decided to kill him after finding the justice's Montgomery County address on the internet. Now, it's posted and this group Ruth sent us, which continues to protest

outside of his house and encourage others to join them, says today in a tweet, stop blaming us for disclosing Kavanaugh's address. Just search Twitter. It's all out there, including second homes and summer villas, et cetera. There's no remorse for adding to that. There's no remorse for continuing to go to the guy. Maybe the night that he almost got murdered and his teenage daughters almost got murdered, you don't show up. Maybe that's the day you take a night off from protesting. Well, look, Google and YouTube will take down a video of me saying that cloth masks don't work, but they're unwilling to take down the address of a Supreme Court justice. And really, this is above and beyond even the law. They have the ability as private companies to take things down, but they're not.

So, you know, wouldn't you think that they would care about intimidation and possible violence? You know, they should be voluntarily taking down the addresses of Supreme Court justices, as well as politicians. I mean, putting those addresses up there just puts people at risk. Think about it. In a country of 330 million people, putting those addresses up there just puts people at risk. Think about it. In a country of 330 million people, how many people out there are looking for, you know, have some sort of mental illness, looking for a way to commit suicide by committing a murder and having the police shoot them or having their sort of day in fame as they commit suicide? It's unfortunately not a few people. It's more than a handful of people. You would think it might be to the tune of hundreds of people that might fit in that category. And when you announce where you can go and how you can do this, it's an invitation to crazies. And no, I think we need to do a better job, both right and left, of being of the mind that this kind of stuff should not be broadcast. And really, ideally, the private

entity should step up. And, you know, Twitter claims that they want to, you know, that they're against violence. But if you go on Twitter, and on any day, you can read hundreds of people tweeting that the person that attacked me should come back and finish the job. The person that attacked me from behind broke six of my ribs, damaged my lung, that that person should come back and finish the job. The person that attacked me from behind, broke six of my ribs, damaged my lung, that that person should come back and finish the job. Many of these people are actually so-called celebrities that enjoy and think that this is just hilarious. The problem is they may think it's hilarious, but what about the crazy person who reads that and says, well, I think I will be. I'm the one to go over there and finish the job if somebody will post his address. So this is it's disgusting. But, you know, it's a it's definitely a double standard where the left doesn't seem to

care if they don't want that. That's right. Because, you know, we just went through a month of them trying to blame Tucker Carlson for the Buffalo mass shooting, which was racistly motivated because they think Tucker spews things on Fox News that they claim are racist. They won't condemn this. All of this hate and angry rhetoric directed specifically at a sitting justice. I mean, Brett Kavanaugh has been one of the main guys named, right? Because they know that Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, they're probably not waivable. They're the hardcore conservatives of the court.

The buzz has been about Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh in particular on whether they could be pushed out of the five-person majority and um so it's it's specific and it's there's only nine total there's only six conservatives there's only five allegedly in the majority we know their names and there's only two who have been focused on as the possible wobblers and like day after day we've heard the stuff we heard from Chuck Schumer, the stuff we heard from Jen Psaki. It's fine to protest out there. Just don't be violent.

It's fine to protest. Chuck Schumer later apologized for this remark. But listen to what he said. This is soundbite one. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. He didn't apologize. He just said he didn't say it the way he wanted to. And then you have the

Chicago mayor who tweeted out this is a call to arms, the draft Dobbs decision. So this is a lot more targeted and pointed than the stuff they condemn routinely as leading to violence. Yeah. And the thing is, is that, you know, we went through this whole debate with the impeachment, you know, when they attempted to impeach Trump the second time and said he incited violence. The thing is, is we played a clip or his team played a clip of basically every Democrat senator in office currently was, I think, in the clip saying repeatedly, fight, fight, do this. And it was metaphoric language. But then some of the language is completely inexcusable. Schumer's language saying we will unleash the whirlwind, naming justices specifically who are going to unleash the whirlwind and saying that they won't know what hit them. I mean, all very, very visual type of encouragements or incitements to violence.

And now I think, you know, and they had the gall then to say that, you know, Trump saying, go fight peacefully for your country is somehow a specific incitement, but somehow Schumer's incitement at the Supreme Court didn't matter at all. Yeah. No, I think all sides need to tone it down a little bit. And we need to, we do need to protect the justices. And I think, think about it now, what's going to happen when this ruling comes out? They're already talking about bringing the National Guard into the streets. We have never in our country, to my knowledge, brought National Guard into the streets because of a Supreme Court ruling. And this all leads back to one person. One person started this. Otherwise, a lot of times a controversial ruling comes out and then they're

gone for a couple of months. I presume they're not going to be in D.C. and will be gone somewhere else. But they go away and then the public can debate and discuss this. But the person who unleashed this has unleashed a real storm and they deserve punishment. And I hope they find them. And, you know, many people think it's down to, you know, somewhere between five and 10 people that possibly could have done this. Some people have insinuated that might be one or two people that it's down to or that they already know the name of the person. A lot of insiders believe that we will get that we will finally be told who leaked this document. Do you have any idea? Obviously, you're speaking with people who may be in the know. Do you have any idea when we might know?

The people who talk about this, who, you know, have worked over there and, you know, know the inner workings of the Supreme Court, they say that, you know, they're going, that if they would suspect that they won't release the name until after the ruling, because they don't want to distract from the ruling. And then when the name is released, it'll be released in a very, very subdued way. Not like, you know, we're going to do a press conference to do it, but that something will happen to this person, that there will be either formal firing charges or something will happen. But the Supreme Court doesn't want to be consumed. And this is conjecture on my part. They don't want to consume with the media circles. They want to do everything

they can, possibly. They don't want to be part of the news. They don't want to be in the middle of something like this. But a lot of people believe they know who the person is already and that there is evidence pointing that direction. I don't have any specific knowledge other than just sort of hearing the scuttlebutt. But I hope they do catch the person and I hope that person is severely punished. When you hear the scuttlebutt, just to press you a bit, is it from people who would have reason to know, or is it just people who are members of the Supreme Court bar or Supreme Court watchers who are like, oh, this is how it's likely to go? It's just people who might or might not know. I don't know. They talk to people. Everybody's got sort of theories. It's, you know, inside baseball kind of stuff. But I think that, I guess all I can say is that I don't have enough to actually name any names or anything. I just think that it's my hope that they will catch the person who did this and that really the violence, the person that was caught yesterday, a potential assassin, was encouraged by someone at the Supreme Court who released this document. And it really goes to trust and honor. And I'm not a lawyer,

but apparently part of the oath of taking the bar is that you will be an upright, honorable person and that it is against the oath of the bar to have done this. And the lawyers I know are saying that this person should be in all likelihood will be disbarred. And then others are saying that it's actually a crime to sort of obstruct the proceedings of the Supreme Court. We'll see where that bears out. I can't imagine right now the tension at the Supreme Court as the justices, you know, go into the office and work on these major rulings that they still have yet to issue. They come out on Mondays and try to work together on, OK, what's your dissent going to be? What's you know, what's the majority going to be not just on Dobbs, but someone and have to be in

the presence of these clerks. And we all know it was likely a clerk. And in particular, as you point out, potentially one of the liberal justices clerks. And Justice Kavanaugh has got to walk amongst them thinking, one of you may have placed the life of my family and me in danger. I think to be, I think if you actually interviewed the people on the left on the Supreme Court, though, I think the actual justices are probably all horrified by this. That's why I think there probably will be punishment because, you know, like this group, this Ruth sent us. Think of the irony of that. Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually was friends with Scalia, even though they were from opposite points of view. Apparently they had dinner together. Their families played cards together. It wasn't travel to anger that you see. So it is ironic that a group that thinks they're representing Ruth

Ginsburg sends a murderer to a justice's house. How ironic and horrible and really just despicable. Can I ask you about the original topic we were going to discuss before I let you go? And that is today we're taking a deep dive into the mental well-being of our sitting president. And, you know, most people in polite society don't like to touch this because it feels rude. It feels kind of mean. But he is the sitting president. And we've seen increasing signs that President Biden may be deteriorating mentally. So number one, is it a fair subject for to delve into? And number two, do you share these concerns? Well, I think it's hard not to watch the press conferences, not to watch the missteps,

the misstatements and particularly where it's most apparent is in foreign policy you know there were misstatements saying that we were sending troops to ukraine there were misstatements saying that um we were demanding that for regime change in russia these aren't small sort of gaffes these are major foreign policy misstatements that could actually lead to war. And so I've said repeatedly that I think that he needs to be very, very careful. There's many, many people around the president who control and try to help him with things to say. He should not be unscripted when talking about foreign policy and probably should always speak from notes. Is he capable of speaking

from notes? Most of the time he appears to be. Most of the trouble seems to be when it's extemporaneous and he doesn't have sufficient notes to go by. Whether or not this is actual decline, whether or not this is Alzheimer's, whether or not this is some typical slowing down of age, it's hard to make any kind of medical diagnosis, but it's also hard not to watch the gaffes and think that something's going on. And for the health of the country, I think we do need to be, and those around him need to be very, very careful about not making statements that might lead to war or lead to an accidental war, which would be a horror. Should he be forced to take a cognitive test as Trump took one?

Well, I'm not big on using force related to health care much. And so, no, I think that individuals make their own health decisions, even a president. But I think it is open for criticism when you see things that appear to be either confusion, particularly if they have consequences of sending signals to our adversaries or enemies around the world. It is important. And, you know, you start to wonder if you're the leader of China or leader of Russia, do we take it at face value what he says? And you would hope maybe they'd wait a few minutes until his aides can correct him. But it's just not a good thing. It's really not a good thing to have misstatements like that made in foreign policy.

And the other side kept saying, oh, we're going to get stability and moderation. And instead, we've gotten a lot of confusion from this side in a disastrous economy. So I think there'll be a big judgment rendered, but it'll be rendered in November in the election. Yeah, it'll be a political judgment. Senator Rand Paul, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you for coming on. Thank you. Up next, we begin that deep dive

into the mental fitness of America's commander-in-chief. We've put together a comprehensive look at it for you with some great, great guests, and we will be right back with that. Now we begin a deep dive into President Biden's mental fitness. A recent poll from the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University found a majority of Americans are concerned about the president's fitness for office. Some say it's not appropriate to question the president's mental ability, although most of those people likely had absolutely no problem doing that to President Trump. However, we're talking about the leader of the free world, so it's fair game.

We're going to tackle the political ramifications for the president and the Democrats. Is this a problem that the president's first major television interview since February was addressed when he went on Jimmy Kimmel last night, where he faced nothing but a slew of hard, tough hitting. Just kidding. They were all softball questions. Watch. Can't you issue an executive order? Trump passed those out like Halloween candy. Isn't that something that could happen? Maybe it's just that Americans aren't as knowledgeable as they should be. Or maybe there's a death star pumping false information into our brains. Why are you so optimistic?

You have sensitive documents that you need to flush down the toilet. You do that. Is that done in your office toilet or is that done in the bathroom, in the personal bathroom area? Roe versus Wade. Boy, these things just keep coming at you, don't they? We're also going to speak with a doctor from UCLA who is a pioneer in brain health research. This is the real, the real expert. When he watches the clips of the president whispering, slurring, slipping on steps, what does he see? But first, as we all know, the president has long been known for his gaffes, slip ups,

mistakes, bloopers, whatever you want to call them. But they've been there for a long time. We are prepared to take you on a look back, a walk down memory lane at some of his most uncomfortable moments. There are way too many to get in a little package, but we've given you some highlights, including some more recent ones, which have many asking, is our president OK? Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. do solemnly swear. Joe Biden was 78 years old on January 20th, 2021, the oldest man ever to take the presidential oath of office, one year older than Ronald Reagan when Reagan left office at 77. Long before that, though, Joe Biden was known for his gaffes.

In 2006, then-Senator Biden faced widespread criticism, for example, when he stereotyped Indian Americans. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts, unless you have a slight Indian accent. He stepped in it again during his 2008 presidential race, when talking about then-Senator Barack Obama. I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean. Later, as Obama's vice president, he was caught on an open mic calling Obamacare a big effing deal

and really turned heads with this remark. I promise you, the president has that big stick. During his 2020 race for president, he got angry at voters. No, you haven't. You're a lying dog-faced pony soldier. You're a damn liar, man. And you want to check my shape on it? Let's do push-ups together. And told stories people aren't exactly sure are, well, true. And Corn Pop was a bad dude. But now, a year and a half into

the most stressful job in the world, the uncomfortable moments have become more concerning. There's the bizarre whispering. I got them $1.9 trillion relief so far. I wrote the bill. Pay them more. I think it's time to give ordinary people a tax break. I'm your commander-in-chief. He was filmed slipping over and over again while trying to walk up the stairs of Air Force One and seemingly getting lost on his way back to the White House. In recent months, he has referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as president and first lady.

He confused the immigration policy, Title 42, with the mask mandate. He lost his train of thought and slurred during key remarks. Much more informed on the, um... the motives of, um, some of the political players and some of the... We're gonna seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and all the ill-begotten gains of Putin's kleptocracy. Yeah. Last November, the White House physician reported Biden is, quote, fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.

But many, including CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, who looked over Mr. Biden's medical report, noted it did not seem to include a cognitive test. and the US President's wife, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect,

President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect,

President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, President-elect, dementia. And, you know, there was no mention of that sort of thing here. In February, Congressman Ronny Jackson, who served as White House physician under Presidents Trump and Obama, sent a letter to Mr. Biden stating, quote, your mental decline and forgetfulness have become more apparent over the past two years. Among other examples, the letter pointed to the moment when the president forgot the name

of the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. I want to thank the former general, I keep calling him general, the guy who runs that outfit over there. Congressman Jackson is calling for the president to take a cognitive test and to release the results publicly. Dr. O'Connor spent six pages talking about useless stuff that no one cares about and did not address the elephant in the room, which is, is this man cognitively fit to be our president? In a recent New York Magazine article about Democrats quietly searching for an alternative to Joe Biden in 2024, top aides claim the president has, quote, shown no signs of slowing down mentally. It's just his falling poll numbers they're worried about.

And Mr. Biden himself has dismissed concerns when directly asked about this issue. Why do you suppose such large segments of the American electorate have profound concerns about your cognitive fitness? I have no idea. He has held few press conferences and only occasionally takes questions. And he's often holding pre-prepared cue cards for himself. His last formal sit-down interview with a news organization was in February. And when the president approached the press at this year's White House Easter egg roll,

an aide dressed as the Easter Bunny ran interference, moving the president away from the reporters. And he listened. When the president does go off script, his comments can have major foreign policy consequences. In an out-of-the-blue ad-libbed remark at the end of a speech in March, Mr. Biden shocked the world when he said Russian President Vladimir Putin should be removed. For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power. Forcing top White House aides to immediately, quote, clarify the president's comment. People like Senator Rand Paul say the fact that this president cannot clearly communicate U.S. foreign policy goes right to the heart of this issue.

Well, you know, a lot of times when you're around somebody who's in cognitive decline, you find yourself trying to help them with the sentence, trying to help them complete it and saying, oh, no, that's not what you really mean. Let me help you complete the sentence. But we shouldn't have to do that for the commander in chief. And it is actually a national security risk. This country deserves a leader who is mentally fit. But do we have that? It's the duty of all Americans to ask that question and they are entitled to answers. Joining me now, Rich Lowry, editor in chief of National Review and Ryan Grimm, Washington bureau chief for The Intercept. All right, guys. So great to have you here. The package was really illuminating, right? On some of the highlights or lowlights, depending on how you look at it. And it's one thing he's always been a gaffe king, as we pointed out, but there's definitely something else happening now, as you see him doing the word searches, and, you know, forgetting where he is and forgetting the name of like, the Pentagon,

like, that's kind of a big one. And I think a lot of people are genuinely alarmed, the polls show that. So, Rich, have you I mean, you've you've opined that this is worthy of looking into. Is it pure politics in your view, or is there actually something that could be potentially endangering the country? Well, obviously, it matters what the capacities are of the President of the United States. And I'm not a doctor. I'm curious what your doctor will say. But I have, as many people have had, personal experience with dementia and Alzheimer's with a loved one. And the key indicators are things like getting in fender benders all the time. We don't know that, right? He's not driving a car, not knowing who president of the United

States is. Most of the time he's fine on that. And really not just forgetting, but real confusion, which maybe at times you've seen with Biden, but you'd have to be closer to know. So my diagnosis from a distance would be, this is a 78-year-old man. He's a 78-year-old man, and he's aging. And it happens to all of us. Once you're over 50, you struggle with names. It happens to me all the time. I can just describe in great detail how someone looks, what their career has been. I can't come up with a name. And by the time you're nearly 80, that's gotten much worse. And he's in a job that has incredible pressures, that visibly ages people who are much younger

and more robust. We remember W going gray, Barack Obama going gray. And this is a guy who's never, as you pointed out, Megan, was never a clear and very buttoned up communicator to begin with. So you put that all together and it's a somewhat disturbing picture. I don't think necessarily he's an Alzheimer's patient, but it's disturbing. We all kind of see it, even though the media doesn't want to talk about it. Ryan, Rich raises a good point that given his job, he's kind of shielded from a lot of these symptoms that would show us if he's deteriorating in that way. And yet we still see it. So in other words, you know, driving the car, well, he doesn't have to do that.

Most of his communications are filtered through staff, you know, through his aides, we don't get direct access to him. Most of his public communications now are on prompter. So we don't actually have the full picture about his forgetfulness and his ability to sort of pursue a linear thought. He gives precious few interviews. The last one was to Lester Holt in February. This one is to Jimmy Kimmel, where you know it's going to be a joke, and indeed it was. Yeah. And in fact, one tiny correction to Rich, who I agree with on the point of the age, he's actually 79. He'll be 80 in November. And I think that that is- There you are. I'm over 50. I messed these details up. Yeah, see? The point about the car is interesting,

but I think Rich's point about the confusion is kind of a more interesting one. Like that, that being a major symptom and, and you know, none of us should really try to get too into the diagnostic component of this, but we're allowed to,

because we're not, we're not doctors. The doctors are the ones who have an ethical obligation. That's just kidding. We're not trying to diagnose. Yeah, it gives us permission to make a really specific diagnosis. That's right. Perfect. Like he said, we haven't seen a ton of that type of concerning confusion. It's limited to here and there, like is he lost getting back into the White House or something along those lines, whereas more often you see the recall problems, which all of us face as we get older and which he faced as a much younger person. Like both of you have said, this has been a gaffe-prone clown of a politician for a very long time.

It was the joke about Biden for decades was his gaffes. And so now he's under that much more pressure and he's advanced in age that many more decades. I think the political question maybe is what do you do about it? And to me, this is a political question that therefore needs to be resolved by basically by the American people. By politics. And so through basically through elections, you know, during the Trump years, I thought and I still continue to think that he's got issues. I don't necessarily think that he's, you know, cognitively impaired in a traditional sense. But you watch the guy talk and you're like, something's off there.

But I never thought necessarily that that meant that he should then be removed from office in a kind of extra electoral way. And so I think that as a fundamental question is one that we have to ask. And I don't think you want Congress or cabinets to start intervening until it becomes so dangerous that all of our lives and the lives of the global population is at risk. Well, I mean, there's some evidence we're inching there. You know, Trump did take a cognitive test. I think it's called. So his and his his talking about that cognitive test gave me no more confidence in him. But he kept bragging that he had aced this test was like, oh, yeah, it was one of the funniest things of the Trump years. Here we go. Talk about that. It's like my my I aced the cognitive test T-shirt. Like you'll go person, woman camera tv so they say could you repeat that so i said yeah so it's person woman man camera tv okay that's very good if you get it

in order you get extra points if you're, now he's asking you other questions, other questions. And then 10 minutes, 15, 20 minutes later, they say, remember the first question? Not the first, but the 10th question. Give us that again. Can you do that again? And you go, person, woman, man, camera TV. I think it was called the Montreal test. And he had to get like, over 26 out of 30 is passing and Trump got 30 out of 30. And it's things like draw a cube. There's something like counting backwards from 100 by sevens. That's actually not that easy. But anyway, he aced it. But Biden hasn't taken that. Go ahead, Rich. Yeah, just in terms of the media hypocrisy, if you remember that incident when Trump was giving a speech, I believe it was at West Point, and he walked gingerly down the ramp. And it looked odd. It looked weird. But that drove like a major news cycle. You know, there are New York Times stories written about what's wrong with the president.

Why can't we get answers? And he had this very funny riff about it at rallies where he just had new dress shoes that had a very shiny, slick leather bottom. And he was worried about this ramp being slippery. So he walked like really gingerly down it because he didn't want to fall down. And he tells a story of calling Melania and saying, how do you like the speech? And she's like, are you okay? Do you know what they're saying about you? That you must have Parkinson's or some terrible condition. So obviously the double standard here is immense. But I agree with Ryan. Ultimately, this is something for voters to decide. If you look at the way the 25th Amendment works, it's a nightmare. It's completely unworkable. It

would be a desperate crisis for the country if that were ever invoked. And I don't think it'd be plausibly invoked unless the president is actually in a coma. Because you have the vice president in the cabinet voting about whether he's still capable of being president, and then he can object within four days. Then they have to reconsider the question and whether they're rejecting his objection. And if they do reject his objection, then it goes to Congress for a thirds vote. It's just it's just a disaster of a mechanism. So I can't see us ever, ever getting there. The question will be, does does Biden run again? And if he actually does, which a lot of people are kind of doubtful

of I am how much this will figure into people's calculations about. He keeps saying he will run and you know, he's assuming he's calculations about him. He keeps saying he will run. And, you know, he's assuming he's in good shape. He says he'll run if he feels the way he does now. So we'll get to that in one second. Like, what are the Democrats going to do? Because they're definitely worried about not just him, but his replacement. You know, they don't like their chances so much either way.

But before we go there, can I ask you about this, Ryan? Like, he has made enough policy gaffes that you have to be a little worried. That's what Rand Paul was saying, that he's basically on the verge of causing a real foreign policy crisis with his loose lips and running mouth. Now, maybe the Joe Biden of 20 years ago would have done the same. You could make that case, right? But, you know, with the we would respond in kind if if Putin unleashed a chemical attack in Ukraine. Wait, no, we wouldn't. The United States would launch a chemical attack in Ukraine. I don't think we would know, you know, the statement he made about Taiwan and the Chinese. Well, that's a change in policy. Oh, no, it's not.

Well, yes, it is, because normally we sort of stayed in a neutral, ambiguous place. And you were clearly saying we're going to send troops in if they go into Taiwan. And then there was the statement about Putin ought to be kicked out. Right. Like a regime change, which are definitely not in favor of, at least not openly. And all those things are those are sketchy things. And there's a bunch of them. And I think your point about would Biden of 20 years ago be making these same gaffes is an interesting one. And I think the answer is yes. I think this is who Biden has long been. If you watch when he was chairing either the Foreign Affairs Committee or Foreign Relations Committee or the chairing judiciary, he would just say things that were just kind of off the wall. Now he's the president. And so his off the wall remarks could have global

implications, but the globe now has, what, six years of experience in pausing after an American president speaks and asking the question of, does this represent a change in policy? That's a good, or is this just an American president popping off? That's not the, that's not a good way to run an empire by any stretch of the imagination, but at least the other countries, you know,

have had that experience. And now with, you know, with Biden, I think that all of the other world leaders are going to, you know, with Biden, I think that all of the other world leaders are going to, you know, they're not going to instantly react to something that, that he says, just, just the way that they, they were not reacting instantly to president Trump. They would be back channeling, you know, to their counterparts, either state or defense and saying, Hey, so the president just tweeted this,

you know, what, what does that, what does that mean? Whereas in Biden's case, it's just Biden just said this, this impromptu thing at a press conference. What does that mean? And so, like I said, neither of those ways are desirable to run a foreign policy operation. Trump was like a loose cannon, but Biden, you know, you just wonder if he's all there. So it's like one guy is just impulsive and threatening in a way that may or may not be real. And then you got the other guy who is just, he may not be all there.

Rich, Jim Garrity over at National Review had a bit in his morning jolt the other day that raised this point. And I thought it was a great one. So we did a montage of it. But one of the other things that could be provocative to foreign leaders, OK, I get Ryan's point of like they'll double check before they bomb us before they think we're bombing them. But weakness invites weakness is provocative, too. If they don't think he's all there, like we saw that with Afghanistan, that weakness provoked, you could argue, Ukraine and so on. And what's up with the I'm not allowed to take questions. I'm not supposed to be taking questions. I shouldn't be talking to you when dealing with just the American media, which are a lot less scary than Putin. Here's a little montage. This is soundbite five. I'm not supposed to be answering all these questions. That's what's the name. I'm not going to answer any more question. Afghanistan. Would it be okay if we just have a couple of questions, just a couple? Good luck. This last question I'll take, and I'm really going to be in trouble. The reason we're

not going to have any time for questions now is these guys got to get quickly on a plane and go out and do a major announcement in Ohio. And you guys will ask me all about Russia and not about anything having to do with chips. I'm not supposed to take any questions, but go ahead. Mr. President, on Afghanistan. I'm not going to answer Afghanistan. Can you say that? I mean, to Jim's point. Yes, classic instance of reading his stage directions out loud. And they clearly they

want to minimize access to him for fear of what he'll say. And he's messed up scripted remarks where he's gone off script and said something, you know, that we want Putin to go. That's not U.S. policy. And per Ryan's point, it is bizarre that twice running now we've had U.S. presidents who haven't reliably spoken to what U.S. policy is necessarily. That's not a good situation. But the lack of sit down, long sit down interviews with mainstream legacy reporters, it all goes to the fear of what he'll say. The Easter Bunny was right. We saw the Easter Bunny in real time, steering him away from reporters, get back here with the kids and just do the role, don't talk to anyone. And I think the

Easter Bunny's instincts suffuse the entirety of this White House staff. And another thing that's really notable is not just necessarily the cognitive decline, but the Jimmy Kimmel interview, where there are a moment or two there really, you know, would have you concerned. But the rest of it, what comes across is just this sense of frail. I mean, again, he's an old man. He's an old man in a job that's incredibly punishing, that requires great reservoirs of mental, intellectual, and physical energy. And whatever his actual mental state is, clearly that at age 79, that's not what it was at age 59. It is getting depleted as we speak. I always think about my mom, God love her. She's listening. So forgive me, mom, but she's 80. She's basically his age. And she can't remember names at all. She always laughs like, you know, the thing, you know what I mean? I mean, that thing, that thing that you tell me what I mean, because she wants me to tell her what she means. And I usually can,

but my mom's not leader of the free world. So it's fine. We had a funny thing. I have my my dog, my bad, bad dog, Stradwick. He's sweet, but he's bad. And she cannot remember his name, which I'll give her. That's a tough one. Stradwick. She calls him Shroody or Schroeder or slut or what she can't. And she was visiting for Mother's Day. And our housekeeper has been with us forever. I love her. Her name is Carla. She was there and she's helped me with my mom. And my mom's like, oh, get Strudwick out of the way. I said, mom, you did it. You got it. Good for you. How'd you get it? She goes, oh, Carmen helped me. Strudwick, what's the derivation of where Strudwick come from? You know what? My husband's like uncle or great uncle, I can't remember which, was a guy named Strud Nash.

And he played for Carolina back in like the 30s or 40s. And he went by Strud Nash, the Carolina Flash. And we're like, that's too good not to recycle. So we stole it for our dog and much to my mother's lamentation. In any event, thank God my mom has no access to the nuclear codes. So we stole it for our dog and much to my mother's lamentation. In any event, thank God my mom has no access to the nuclear codes. And it doesn't matter whether she calls Carla Carmen or Stradwick slutty. It's not going to hurt anybody.

The president, different story. I'm going to pause you guys there because we have so much more to go over. I really do want to get your take on the total media blackout, almost. I mean, it seems that way. About this assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, too. And I know you guys have been covering that carefully. So we're going to pick it up there and we're going to get much more into depth on the president and what this means for Democrats in 2024. Right after this, when Rich Lowry and Ryan Grimm stay with us. And remember, folks, you can find the Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel, 111, every weekday at noon east.

And the full video show and clips by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. If you prefer an audio podcast, go over there, follow us, and download the show on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Go ahead and give us a five-star rating and leave a comment in the Apple comments section. I read them all. You guys were fired up about that guest, Jason from the All In podcast the other day. He continues to tweet about the interview. He's an angry person. Anyway, check it out. Check out our full archives with more than 330 shows. He goes on Jimmy Kimmel last night, and as we played before, he's asked no tough questions,

but there certainly were awkward moments. To me, it seemed like he delivered his sort of standard lines that he delivers all the time fine. But when he actually had to think, you could see the same stumbling blocks that we've been showing the audience and talking about now for the past hour. And here is one painful example. No question about it. So there's a lot of major things we've done. But what we haven't done

is we haven't been able to communicate it in a way that is, let me say it another way. Well, see, that's kind of perfect. Yeah, we've been able to communicate it. But look how the press has changed. Look how the press has changed. It has changed.

Oh, listen, I get it. I know you get it. You overstand it. You don't just understand it. You overstand it. But here's the deal. One of the things is that it's very difficult now to have a, even with notable exceptions, even the really good reporters, they have to get the number of clicks on nightly news.

So instead of asking a question, anyway, it's just everything gets sensationalized in ways. But I'm convinced we can get through this. We have to get through it. And one of the things, look. I'm going to take a break and then we'll talk a little bit more. Thank God. Thank God he took a break, right? It was like, throw the guy a lifeline. That's how you wind up feeling a lot when you listen to Joe Biden, Rich. Yeah. And for a second there, he sort of thought Kimmel, was he making fun of him when he said, oh yeah, communication. Yeah. You can see how that's an issue.

But he was trying to throw him a lifeline. And yeah, this was the single worst minute clip from that interview. And again, it just goes to there's some element of decline there, whatever the cause, whatever the reason, maybe it's just age. But it's cringe-inducing to watch. And if you're a human being, it makes you feel a little sorry for Joe Biden. Well, I should point out that my mom

does not have Alzheimer's, and she doesn't have dementia. She just has normal aging as an 80-year-old person, so he does sound like her, so maybe he doesn't have any disease of the mind either. We'll get into that a little bit more when our

doctor, I mean, like he, this is the dementia doctor who's joining us today. But in that one clip, Ryan, he lost track of what he was saying. He made an abrupt shift to try to recover. He used the wrong word. He lost track again. He meandered through his next thought. He lost track yet again. And then he was saved by the anchor. And it was hard to watch. And back to my point of like, no confidence, we're not the only ones watching this. We have some really, some really nasty enemies out there who are trying to assess right now what they can get away with, right? Like people in China.

And I worry about the perception of this guy as our leader. I think there's plenty of cause for worry, but I don't think that's it. I don't think the Chinese sense of the United States is that if we have a president who's asleep at the switch, that they're going to be able to just sneak into Taiwan. I think that they're very much aware that the kind of military industrial complex, the kind of entire what what Trump would call the deep state, you know, there is an apparatus at work that hasise a strategy. What they're going to do in an event like that, for instance, is they're going to put two or three scenarios in front of him. And as Rich knows, this is how it works with Trump, this is how it works with Obama. And they're going to say, here are our three plans. Which one of these do you choose? And

the two of them are going to be absurd trying to push them into the one that the military wants to do anyway. And I think China understands that. So I don't think that it's creating those types of national national security concerns. anybody in charge because the federal government has been stripped of a lot of its capacity to perform the way that it used to under, say, the New Deal coalition. But people still want to feel like there is somebody in charge, somebody who has ideas, somebody who's trying things. Janet Yellen is effectively not a public treasury secretary. You don't really ever hear from her. The moments you do, it's a huge exception. And so if you don't have the president and if you don't have the treasury secretary out there talking about the economy,

talking about what they're trying to do when it comes to gas prices, talking about what they're trying to do when it comes to the economy, Then it becomes left to say, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, you know, neither of whom are, are, you know, in your living rooms every day and neither of whom are necessarily, you know, the most adept communicators either. So I think that that domestically, it probably causes a bigger problem for Biden than, than internationally, because I don't think that foreign governments are going to think that foreign governments are going to think that they can necessarily get away, you know, pull one over on the kind of military and national security apparatus of the United States, just because the president, you know, is having a

hard time piecing sentences together on Jimmy Kimmel. Well, it may require more explicit statements like, oh, well, a minor incursion would be one thing i mean you know like that you could make a pretty strong case that that was very interesting to president putin and led in part to his decision to actually go in i don't know um but you know it may not just be the weakness like we saw in afghanistan and maybe that coupled with uh which would that's an unusual willingness to telegraph something like that, which we normally wouldn't say because we would know exactly the effect it would have. And then no amount of walking it back is going to have the right effect on somebody like

Putin. Let me pause it there because I do want to get back to that idea of what's it doing domestically. Charlie Cook had an interesting thought about this I'll ask you about. But before I do that, while we're on the subject of Kimmel, not one question on the attempted assassination of a sitting Supreme Court Justice Rich, not one. And that mirrors what we've seen from the press largely today. Do you think it was the lead this morning on the morning shows? You'd be wrong. Nope, it wasn't. According to Newsbusters, the morning shows collectively spent 25 minutes on January 6th. They spent eight minutes on

Justice Kavanaugh. January 6th, which happened two years ago, they're on that for 25 minutes. The damn hearing hasn't even happened yet. We don't even have any news from the hearing. And eight minutes on Kavanaugh. CBS and NBC didn't even mention it until after the 10 minute marks of the show. Far from being the lead, it didn't even make the A block. And similar on the print media, The New York Times. Not one story on the front page of today's New York Times on the attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh. Can you imagine if this were Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor? This is insane.

There's a footnote saying, see A20 for the story. You go to A20, it's a small article, articles that were longer. There's one, a journalist goes deep into Amazon, into the Amazon, and a deadly Korean ferry accident gets more coverage in the Times

than this. What do you make of that? It's astonishing. I was going to tweet yesterday, the Brett Kavanaugh news cycle is going to disappear as quickly as the Brooklyn subway shooter news cycle. Because the subway shooter, he said things about race, anti-white things that just don't play into a narrative, and the media wasn't going to be interested in talking about. But then I was distracted by writing a column from Twitter. So my job distracted me from Twitter yet again. But then when I actually logged on last night, there was no Brett Kavanaugh news cycle. It didn't even, it was barely a ripple all day long.

You know, CNN, it was, you got to, you had to scroll down, you know, six inches to get to it. Same thing in the New York Times homepage. And obviously, as you point out, it didn't show up on the front page of print. And this is an enormous deal. And it should play into the same, you would think, the same things that make January 6th. You know, if January 6th is a big story for the media, this is the same type of thing. Violation of norms. You have this, this leak, that's a flagrant violation of practices and tradition at the Supreme court, political violence, targeting one of our institutions,

you know, guys showing up to, um, with the intention, at least initially to assassinate, uh, Brett Kavanaugh, and then lies spinning out of control. The idea that the court overturns Roe, you know, there'll be no abortion rights in all of America ever again, but it just doesn't have the same ideological and political valiance as January 6th did. So it doesn't show up. And again, maybe we've talked about this again and again and again, but it continues to be repeatedly true. This is just another way that the credibility of the mainstream legacy media is just eroded away before our eyes. major nets, Ryan, that's a big deal. And that Jimmy Kimmel is a lesser deal. But you have the sitting president of the United States for the first time in four months, giving an interview. And it's the day most people who even have a toe in news, oh, cute cat. Most people who even have a toe in it, right? Nevermind technically work at an organization that has a massive news organization, ABC, would be chomping at the bit to ask him about the day of news. Like,

oh my God, there was an attempted assassination. That's the first question we're going to ask him. Not one. You heard the questions about the toilet paper, like shoving papers down the toilet. Is that, and I played you the nonsense meandering one. It's such a dereliction. I mean, you could even ask a softball question. Like you wouldn't even have to be a tough one. It's just raising that. You just raise the question and say, you know, what's, what's your response to this?

So, yeah, I mean, you know, I'm like, like you said, Jimmy Kimmel is not a journalist and, you know, we're not here to really lecture him on his journalism, but I think it is instructive. And I also think it's fair to compare it to the news coverage around the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. got a ton of coverage um and so you know there there's an initial impulse to say well plots are foiled all the time people you know pop off and do crazy things and nothing happens and you can't cover every non-event that becomes a non-event but that that one um was a non-event because you know it was rolled up and they were arrested and nothing happened and we we saw an enormous amount of, you know, press attention paid to it. And then and then we learned later that, you know, federal agents or federal assets played a huge role in kind of instigating the, you know, the nudge toward toward this plotting, which which was kind of a playbook that they had developed with Islamic extremists who were not necessarily violent, were more likely just kind of mentally ill or deranged. And you have FBI assets or agents come in and say, hey, wouldn't it be cool if we blew up this bridge? And you dig even deeper into these and you see the people pushing back the whole time and raising reasons why they might not do it.

And you see the FBI assets or agents overcoming those. There was even one case where they're like, well, we don't even have any money. He's like, well, I'll lend you the money. And I'll lend you the money. And I have a guy who will supply you. So here's the money. Here's the thing. Just say yes, please, in this text chain so that we can then all round you up.

Anyway, that's a different story. Well, that's why there was no conviction. Some of them were convicted, right? Because they didn't all need to be kind of nudged into it. But the point is, it got an immense amount of coverage compared to this so far. And maybe this will be one of those stories that bubbles and then later boils as they learn more, or we might just not hear anything more about it. I don't know, Rich. I tried to give the media the benefit of the doubt and said, okay, I realize this guy's obviously very troubled. He's going to kill himself. He

turned himself in. He called 911 saying, I'm suicidal and homicidal. That doesn't excuse this. Anybody who goes to assassinate a sitting Supreme Court justice is mentally unwell. The fact that he made the call to actually tell 911 what he was about to do doesn't make this a non-story. I mean, that's a decision in a moment that could have gone the other way and Justice Kavanaugh could potentially be dead or worse. His family, you know, who knows? That does not make this a non-story. It is still the lead in any respectable news organization. Yeah. I mean, when was the last time we talked about a Supreme Court justice potentially being assassinated or having an assassination attempt. And it obviously is a function of this larger pressure campaign that has been waged against the conservative justices who presumably could be part of a five vote majority to overturn

Roe and is of a piece of publishing the addresses of showing up at their homes to to to demonstrate. So it's it's a story. It's whatever you make of it, whether you want to be dismissive of it or more alarmed by it, it's a story. It's news. And again, we have news organizations that routinely ignore stories that you'd think would be newsworthy, which is one reason we've seen such proliferation of other sources of news to fill the gap because they leave so much on the table. Okay, back to President Biden. There was, I think it was a tweet from Charles C.W. Cook of National Review, Ryan, and he wrote the following, the economy can change, foreign policy can shift, perceptions of the opposing party can deteriorate. But once people think you're old and mentally

unfit, you're toast. And that brings us back to the domestic problem. We addressed briefly the international problem of President Biden's misstatements, gaffes, etc. But this is something different, right? This is what do Democrats think of this? What do Republicans and really, most importantly, what do independents think of what they're seeing? Sorry, I'm trying to stop my daughter from making her first appearance in the Megyn Kelly. Oh, yes, we want her. We got a cat, we got a kid. I'll go get my little slutty. Yeah, exactly. We've had a cat, a child. Let's get the dog in. Let's get Strudwick in. I think when we go to Ryan's point, when you're president, you have to appear in charge, right? There was an old model of presidencies in the 19th century, pre-media, multimedia, mass media age, where no one heard you. No one barely knew what you looked like except for pictures on. There she is. Pictures on posters. But this is a different time. And there was a

shift, you know, that started with TR where the president had to be the big man. And he was the guy with the bully pulpit and he was using it. And you're hearing from him all the time. And just, I think Biden has trouble filling that stage now, the way he is. And there's also just one last thing on this. Another disturbing function of age is that you get stuck in certain grooves of thinking, certain ways of thinking. And that Jimmy Kimmel clip, for instance, when he talks about getting clicks on the nightly news, right? This is the guy who's thought about the nightly news being the thing for his entire adult life. So even when he's thinking about the new media environment, that's the way he expresses it in the old way.

It's like an old man's way of talking about the new media environment. But I think we've seen this with Afghanistan, where he's like, Obama got ruled by his generals. I'm not getting ruled by mine. I don't care what they say. And boom, I'm just stuck in this way of thinking. It doesn't matter how it's working out. This is what I'm doing. Trump did bad things at the border. I'm reversing it all. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, or I'm not going to adjust. This is just what it's going to be. We didn't spend enough supposedly on the stimulus in the Obama years, right after the financial crisis. So we got to go really big, ignore any concerns about going big. And he did it with the COVID relief bill. So there's a certain brittleness and staleness in your thinking, which, you know, we're all subject to, we all tend to fight the last war,

but I think is particularly pronounced with this president. You know, Ryan, first of all, I thought it was very interesting to hear Jimmy Kimmel mention all the executive orders Trump did. I'm old enough to remember Obama's pen and his phone. So spare me, okay, because he really was a king-like president for the last two years there once he lost control of Congress and his second term got bad for him. In any event, I'd love to, I'm sure somebody's gone and compared the numbers. But on the subject of whether this behavior is going to cost Joe Biden politically, there's you know, you can read the tea leaves in the polls. Recent polling from Harvard Harris poll for this is from last month, May. Is he mentally fit to serve as president? Or do you have doubts 53 have doubts and that mirrors something from october of

2021 same thing 53 had doubts new polling from independence in that same poll 61 of the independents have doubts that he is fit to serve in office 62 say he is too old to be president. 72% of independents, he is too old to be president. In March of 2022, the Wall Street Journal asked folks if they think he's going to run for office. A majority, 52%, say he's not going to run for re-election. So the public faith in his wellness is not there. But I think that two things. One, much of it depends on how people feel like things are going. He hasn't gotten noticeably worse since the summer of 2021, and his approval rating was

well above 50 in the wake of the American Rescue Plan and heading into, uh, Afghanistan. And secondly, is the partisan polarization. Uh, people can believe all of those things if he, and I think one of the reasons that he might decide to run is that if you put him up against Trump, people might still believe those things. And a lot of them are going to say, well, you know what, either so is Trump or he's better than Trump. And Ron Klain actually had a very telling, I thought, post on Twitter right after Macron won re-election in France. He said something like, well, would you look at that? A guy with a 30% approval rating wins a resounding re-election because the public hated his opponent and so he basically said out loud what what this democrat strategy is in a presidential year which is to say that the other side is awful and so whatever you may think of us um but you know vote vote for us but the first point is key too if he if he can get the economy you know, vote for us. But the first point is key too. If he can get the economy, you know, going again, if he can get, if we can stop having, you know, global, you know, food and fuel crises,

then I think people's perception of him will actually improve, even if his, you know, kind of apparent cognitive abilities don't improve. But that's like saying, well, you know, if you could just get rid of your cancer, I will pronounce you well. You can end wars. There are things you can do. But he's not going to be able to end inflation or these gas prices unless he institutes a dramatic shift in policy. Well, probably not because Mohammed bin Salman is dedicated to regime change here in the United States. But after the Republicans take over the House, then MBS has no reason to continue jacking up gas prices. And so I expect you actually will see prices come down substantially after the midterms because that's really what is driving

them. And if you can get a resolution, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if you did get a resolution to the war and you got gas and wheat and manure and other commodities flowing again, then you could see things moving in a positive direction. But then come 2024, Mohammed bin Salman still has his hand on the spigot, doesn't want Democrats in power. So I think you can probably expect to pay five or six dollars a gallon again in 2024 so that he can encourage you to bring Jared Kushner, his private equity man, back into the White House. Rich, do you want to take that?

Well, I think there's obviously something to the fact that if gas were a buck 50 a gallon right now, his approval rating would be five points higher or something like that, whatever, no matter how bad he sounded on Jimmy Kimmel. So I think the things Democrats got to bank on, I can't see in any way they turn around the midterms. Court overturns Roe. I do think that'll be a big deal, but won't change the fundamental trajectory. It'll sort of be baked into the cake. After three weeks of intense debate about it, we'll realize the blue states are going to still have legal abortion. The red states are going to have some form of bans and probably popular in the red states. It's going to be hard to scare the blue states based on what the red states are doing when

nothing's changing on the ground there. So they're going to lose the House, very likely going to lose the Senate. And then, you know, that's typical, right? That's what happens. And then you're the incumbent president and you hope the other side in Congress overreaches, which isn't crazy. It's happened before. And then you hope with the passage of time, just events kind of bounce in your favor. And I think Biden bears responsibility for a lot of things that have gone wrong, but obviously not totally. He didn't invade Ukraine. He didn't create the pandemic that's created the supply chain disruptions. So maybe things point up and then he's running against Trump and that would be kind of a jump ball election. On the other hand,

you know, GDP growth, first quarter, negative 1.5%. I mean, it's some significant chance next year, by next year, we'll have a recession and it'll look even worse. So I don't discount some sort of bounce bounce back, but it's it's it's far from inevitable. Meantime, Democrats internally are talking loudly and now even to the press about what's the backup plan? What if what if he does continue to deteriorate uh mentally and or just in the polls what's the backup plan right like what's what are the scenarios there was a piece in new york magazine about a week or two ago that's literally called there has to be a backup plan there's a backup plan right and they are mentioning people like governor phil murphy of new jersey

who barely won his re-election race How's he going to be the savior? Of course, Pete Buttigieg, AOC. Is she even 35? Can she even do it? I don't even know. She would be by the election. Oh, my God. God help us.

But that's not, like, I don't think that's happening. I think it'll happen in our lifetimes, but not this time. Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar. Wasn't she already we're gonna have these people already rejected the last time you know what lady who was like what didn't she eat her salad with a fork i don't remember not a fork a comb a comb fork would be normal she used the fork to stab her staffers you can't in new york city you can't eat pizza with a fork but you can't can't eat you get kicked out you get kicked right out any event, these do not seem to me, Ryan, like the saviors that New York Magazine thinks they know what the terrain would be based on the last

election it's not a particularly strong bench and most of them like sanders for instance has said that he would consider running again um despite his age and despite having run twice but only if biden doesn't run and that's that's how most of the Democrats are talking about it. And the only exceptions would be, say, somebody who might run on basically he wanted somebody to talk about Medicare for all and climate and the things that he and that he that he cared about. But you're right that there you know, there isn't there isn't much of a bench on the on the Democratic side. I mean, the biggest candidate that we didn't mention happens to be the sitting vice president, Rich. You know, he's like there's a couple scenarios there. He could he could step down before the end of his term so that she was the sitting president when she had to run um he could just say i'm tired i'm kind of old and i'm just gonna pass the baton to her

and uh i don't know i mean i guess there'd still have to be a primary he doesn't get to dain yeah you know like just decide who's his is. But the Democrats have been in a very tough position getting rid of, you know, the sitting vice president who happens to be a person of color and a woman. Yeah, absolutely. So the way I look at it, if something happens where Biden is no longer president prior to the end of his term and Kamala Harris becomes president, there'll be no primary and she's she's a candidate in 2024. If Biden just says he's not going to run again, I think there would be a very open race. And I think she'd be in a weak position. She's just not

stronger than last time around, obviously being sitting vice president, but she's 30% approval on a lot of polls. That's a rate you get when you botch some major policy initiative or you've had some scandals. She hasn't done either of those things. People just don't like her. You know, she just doesn't seem to have the touch. And I doubt that, you know, when you don't, that usually doesn't change. So I would see her having a hard time winning an open Democratic nomination battle. But just the the alternatives here are so unpalatable. There's a real desire to believe that or hope that Biden can can run again in 24. And I'm just, I'm just doubtful for some of the reasons we've we've talked about however bad he is now, it's not gonna get better. Two and a

half years from now. So and just the last point, in terms of the plan, like, you know, we saw in the New York magazine piece, you cited in its headline, there is no plan. We're so beyond parties planning, right? No one's in charge anymore. The voters are in charge. You know, they decide and there's no smoke filled rooms. There are rooms without smoke and some, you know, Perrier on the table, some bottled water. And even what anyone's discussing in those tables, there's there's no way you can guarantee the voters are actually going to buy it and go along. Oh, wow. Yeah, I don't know. I will say this, Ryan. There's no way there this Democratic Party is booting Kamala Harris for Jay Inslee or Phil Murphy. I mean, if they go with like the straight white guys, I'm not sure. I don't think they can get away with that,

given the way they talk about identity. We'll see that, you know, it's a thing. Things are evolving on the question of identity and identity politics. And we don't know where we'll be in 2024. I think you're I think she would get a primary, even if she is by some crisis sitting president, because she has shown herself to be a weak candidate, that she's shown herself to be beatable. And if there's a weak, beatable candidate who's the only one on the ticket, there's just so much ambition out there that somebody serious, I think, would take a run at that and I think would very quickly find themselves neck and neck with her. So I do think it's quite possible, actually. And I don't know if it would be a Jay Inslee type. I don't know if they'd be able to overcome that identity question, but it's not impossible. I wouldn't rule it out. Well, it may be Biden's last best hope to lose the Congress in these midterms so that some of his more extreme agenda is slowed down

and the anger dissipates a bit in particular amongst independents. Rich and Ryan, very interesting discussion. Such a pleasure. Thank you for being here take care up next an internationally recognized expert on brain health on dementia on alzheimer's what should we be looking for i mean forget joe biden what about us what should we be looking for to know what the early signs are and guess what There actually is something that we can do about it. We have been discussing the mental fitness of President Biden. It's a serious topic that requires serious people. So we have brought in a world-renowned expert on the topic of brain health. Dr. Dale Bredesen is currently a professor at UCLA, and he is truly a pioneer in this field. Doc,

great to have you here. Thank you for coming on. Great to be here, Megan. Thank you. So this is so interesting to me because we were just talking in the last segment about how it's tough to say with the sitting president, whether it's Biden or Trump or anybody, how well they're doing cognitively because they have so many filters between them and us, right? Like the teleprompter and a team of people that controls their communications. So we start off sort of doing this with one hand tied behind our backs. Right. That's absolutely right. And as you're aware, there's also the Goldwater rule, which states that psychiatrists are not permitted to make a diagnosis on someone that they have not personally evaluated. And of course, that applies

for other physicians, such as neurologists, when you're talking about something like cognitive decline. So the best you can do, as you indicated, is to look for, you know, are there patterns? Are there concerns? You certainly cannot make a diagnosis. That's correct. And we are not asking you to do that and wouldn't ask you to do that. But can you tell us what signs would you look at? You know, if I came to you and I said, these are the symptoms that my mom is having, what would you be interested in knowing? Yeah, that's a great point. And as you indicated earlier, it's something that we all should be thinking about. And this is why we recommend, you know, just as we all know that when we turn 50, we should get a colonoscopy.

When we turn 45, or if we're already past 45, we should all get a cognoscopy, some basics to evaluate because you're, as you indicated earlier, there's a tremendous amount that you can do. But here's the thing when you are developing Alzheimer's, and it takes about 20 years from the beginning of the pathophysiology to a diagnosis of Alzheimer's. So as you're aware, President, President Reagan, who had so many huge victories, unfortunately diagnosed in 1994, is likely to have the beginning of the changes in his brain in 19, about 1974, statistically, and therefore, you know, served a wonderful presidency likely with Alzheimer's the entire time. So what you want to look for when people are getting Alzheimer's, they go through four phases, but they present ultimately

in two ways. About two-thirds present what we call amnestically. So in other words, the big problem is that they have trouble learning new information. They may remember their first grade teacher, but they may not remember what they had for breakfast. The other about one-third, it's a non amnestic presentation. And so what they typically find is they have troubles with organization, they have troubles with recognition, they have troubles with calculation, or they have troubles with word

finding. And these are people that you will say they have trouble with working a new iPhone, for example, or having trouble organizing things at their job or having trouble putting sentences together. So those are the things that you tend to look for. I think whether it's amnestic, whether it's non amnestic, those are the things that you want to keep an eye out for. So I'm sure a lot of people are thinking, well, that's every old person. You know, every old person's got all that stuff that you just listed. Is that true?

I'm so glad you brought that up because, you know, this is just like when people said, you know, there's this thing called pre-diabetes. And then before that, you have insulin resistance. And well, just about everyone in the U.S. has insulin resistance. This is really telling us this is the new era of medicine where we understand far ahead of a diagnosis of one of these complex chronic illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, that there are changes that we are missing and that we haven't been looking at as physicians in the years leading up. So you're right, many people complain about memory disorders or about problems finding the right word for years. However, everybody knows someone who's 80, 90, often even 100, who's sharp as a tack. And so the reality is, what we call Alzheimer's disease, which of course has ballooned in the last 50 years or so, really should be a rare condition.

And if we all are looking early on and getting appropriate evaluations and looking at the potential contributors to cognitive decline, we should not be seeing that. And in fact, people should be staying sharp just as you are. I'm 51. I've never been, I didn't know I was supposed to go for a cognitive test. So how does one even do that? Who does one call? That's a great point. So you can start with your physician, of course, and you can look and ask your physician for a cognoscopy or for an evaluation. And basically it's just three things. There's a series of blood tests. So you want to know if you have ongoing systemic inflammation, for example. You want to know if you have some glycotoxicity, glucose problems.

Do you have insulin resistance? Do you have prediabetes? Do you have abnormalities in hormones such as thyroid hormone? Do you have abnormalities in nutrients such as vitamin D? Do you have any vascular disease or propensity to vascular disease? So that's the first piece, which is blood testing. The second piece then is to have a is to have a simple cognitive test. And that can actually be done online in about 30 minutes, pretty easy to do. So you want to see where you stand because, you know, as you can imagine, many people have begun to lose a little bit and they don't really realize that this really does sneak up on people. So you want to know where you stand. And then the third piece is if you're having symptoms or if you're

having problems, if you've scored poorly, for example, on the test, then you also want to have an MRI with volumetrics. So you want to be looking at your hippocampal volume here. This is an area heavily affected even early in Alzheimer's disease. You want to look at your gray matter volume and your temporal lobe, your parietal lobe, frontal lobe, occipital lobe, those sorts of things. So that's, it's relatively simple to do. And again, we as physicians have not done enough over the years. And this is one of the reasons why there is so much Alzheimer's disease. And we really should be catching this much earlier. What we call Alzheimer's disease is really the fourth and final phase of an illness. And just as we now understand prediabetes and insulin resistance, we understand much

more about pre-Alzheimer's disease. And we're able to pick things up long before you have Alzheimer's disease. And we're able to do something about it. So it really is time to change the way we think about this and make this the rare disease that it should be. So I'm surprised to hear that you can do something about it. Like when someone gets a diagnosis, and I realize this is something different, of early Alzheimer's, you know, that's, I guess, a diagnosis.

They're like getting their affairs in order. It seems like a death sentence that you cannot get out of and your whole life shifts. But is that something distinct and different from the larger category of dementia and Alzheimer's is underneath that? And on your way to Alzheimer's, I don't think you call everything early Alzheimer's. Yes, that's a great point. So first you have a period that you're asymptomatic, but you can already see changes if you do PET scans, for example, or if you do spinal fluid analysis. And there are now just coming online some blood tests that you can do. So there are some early markers that you can look at. And I think we're all going to be looking at these fairly soon. That is stage one. The

second piece is called SCI, subjective cognitive impairment. And as you alluded to a few minutes ago, you know, lots of people feel this way. I feel like things just aren't quite what they were. I can't remember phone numbers the way I used to, things like that. Your partner may notice it. Your colleagues may notice it. You certainly notice it. And yet you're able still to score in the normal percentiles when you do cognitive testing. Now, epidemiologically, that phase lasts about 10 years. So as you can see, we have a huge window of opportunity, which is just not being utilized efficiently. The third phase is called MCI, mild cognitive impairment. And it's really unfortunate that we physicians chose that term mild cognitive impairment

because it's like telling someone, don't worry, you only have mildly metastatic cancer. It's a very late stage of the problem and yet one that is still addressable. But so many times we say to people, oh, don't worry, it's just mild cognitive impairment. That's the one that precedes. And about 5% to 10% of those people each year will convert to full Alzheimer's disease. And you mentioned dementia. Alzheimer's is the most common cause of dementia, and dementia is global cognitive decline. And so you're right.

We want to get in as early as possible. But having said that, we've published a paper that shows that in fact, in a trial, where we just took people in those third and fourth phases, MCI and Alzheimer's, 84% of the people actually improved their scores. So we have this old fashioned notion that there's just nothing to be done, we might as well wait and wait and wait. And this is really becoming outdated quickly. We don't want to wait. We want to get in early.

We want to get checked. And just as you indicated, our presidents, and of course, this has been discussed many times in the past. This is something we should be considering for all of our political figures. And of course, we're aware of some that did have issues with cognition such as President Woodrow Wilson, FDR, of course, well-documented as well. And of course, I mentioned President Reagan earlier.

And of course, as we all know, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, the White House physician, has evaluated President Biden carefully and declared him fit for office. So I think that's the best evaluation, someone who is actually there and doing a very thorough evaluation. But for the future, you're absolutely right. We should be looking earlier and earlier for all of us because we really do have the ability to reduce the global burden of dementia, which is a huge issue. Republicans saying we need we need more answers, you know, given what we're seeing. And you can make the case that for any politician over the age of, let's say, 65, there should be an annual

one of these. But I mean, in the president's, there's a reason he has taken annual physical exam for the public, you know, and I don't know why a cognitive test wouldn't be in there. Even Sanjay Gupta was asking some good questions about that. Yeah. And as you recall, he specifically said, Dr. O'Connor, in his report, neurology was included. And you're absolutely right. He didn't include any scores. And I don't know whether that was because all we heard in the previous administration was 30-30-30, and whether that turned enough people off that he decided he wasn't going to say something, or if it's because he feels that it's not appropriate. And obviously, um, you know, that's up to him to divulge or not, you know, up to his own neurological exam.

Could that just mean when I, I'm a lay person, but that could, that just mean brain health, you know, like I haven't had a stroke, you know, like my brain looks relatively healthy versus a test of whether I'm starting to lose memory and starting to go down this path of dementia. So no, every neurological exam includes evaluation of cognition. Now there are some, of course, he could have just done things like orientation and memory and a few things, or he could have done something much more extensively. And he kind of implied that there was something more extensive because he mentioned specifically neurology there. So yes, I agree with you that it hasn't been pointed out what actually the scores were. It wasn't pointed out how detailed it was. But clearly, it led him

to feel that President Biden was fit for office. And and, let's say that that's true, okay? And as with Trump, you sort of, you never know whether it's being manipulated, what's happening with Trump and his like 30, 30, whatever, who knows? But if it's true and people are worried, and we just went through, you know, for an hour and a half, we've been talking about,

well, he is forgetting words. He is losing his train of thought. He is searching. He didn't he forgot the name of the Pentagon. He couldn't remember Pentagon. He forgot the name of the defense secretary. You could go down the list. So there's definitely signs. But what you know, what would you at what point would you say that we need actually more information? Like we as the American public must have more information. I'm concerned. It's a great point. And of course, Megan, I think this is much more of a political point than it is a neurological point. Because from the neurology side, you can always ask for more information. You can have a more in-depth cognitive evaluation. As I mentioned earlier, you can do online evaluations. You can also do the old fashioned paper and pencil evaluations, which can be, you know, four, six hours evaluating all the different regions of the brain. So you can get quite detailed if you want to. And, you know, I think the question then is, you know, how do you push that? When do you push that? And how do you keep it from being, you know, a political football where every president who comes in gets accused by the other party of being cognitively imperfect? And so I think this is a tough issue and is one that obviously at some point is going to come before Congress. So we have just a couple of minutes left, but can you just give us some examples on what could be done? Because I know a lot of people, they don't go to 23andMe because they don't want to know if there's a history of Alzheimer's, if they got something in them that makes them more predisposed.

They just they feel like that's you can't stop it. Why live in fear of it? You know, what's going to happen is going to happen. You're really the doctor behind the science of no, like it's fightable. There are real things you can do. Can you spend a minute on that? It's a great point. And, you know, people didn't even used to believe in pre-diabetes. So yes, this is a new era, Megan. We're going from an old fashioned kind of medicine, which is what I was trained in way back

in the seventies that, you know, you, you make a diagnosis, you say what it is, and then you write a prescription or you send someone to surgery. 21st century medicine is changing that. Instead of what is it, it's why is it? Why did you get these things? And people are looking now at much larger data sets and looking at why did you get this problem, whether it's Alzheimer's or whether it's frontotemporal dementia, or whether it's hypertensionotemporal dementia, or whether it's hypertension? What are these things instead of just giving you an anti hypertensive, which is essentially a blind treatment. So as you indicated, there is a tremendous amount that can be done. And so first thing is to recognize, please don't wait, either get on prevention prevention or get on the earliest reversal because this does sneak up on

you when your doctor tells you, oh, you're just, it's normal aging. Please do not listen to that. It's not normal aging. You should be doing better. You should be able to do these things that you were able to do before. The second thing is get an evaluation that includes the very things that I talked about earlier. That's in there a number of places, we've actually trained over 2000 positions in 10 different countries and all over the United States. So please get evaluated, you want to know if you have systemic inflammation, you want to know if you have specific toxic exposures, chronic infections, these things all are potential contributors to cognitive decline. And then as you indicated, you know, you want to address those. And there's

there are so many things you can do. And so I know time is short, so I won't go into a lot of detail. I've written a book about this called The End of Alzheimer's and another one called First Survivors of Alzheimer's. And it has all the details in there so that you can look to see how to do this. On order today, Dr. Dale Bredesen, thank you for your amazing work in this area and for coming on with us today. Thanks for all you're doing, Megan. All the best. Wow. That was a great discussion. I'm inspired to read that book, right? I want to have him back to talk about all the things that we can do to prevent dementia and Alzheimer's. One of my producers, Kelly McGuire, was saying during the break, one of the things that he talked about was caffeine, like coffee. Coffee's good for you.

It's good in this department of preventing this. So drink up. We'll get into the specifics next time we have him on. I think we're going to do a show on brain health. I think that would be interesting. But in the meantime, tomorrow, we've got Glenn Greenwald back on the program to help us recap the primetime January 6th theater that's happening tonight. Plus, comedian Christina P. That will be a fun exchange.

In the meantime, go ahead and download the show on Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and Stitcher for free. Give me a five-star rating, please. That would help me out, as well as a review, letting me know your thoughts on the show on Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and Stitcher for free. Give me a five-star rating, please. That would help me out as well as a review, letting me know your thoughts on the show. Also, go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. Thank you so much for listening. See you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.