The Megyn Kelly Show - Bombshell New Details on “Star Crossed Lovers” Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, and Could Susan Rice Be the Secret Replacement for Dems in 2024?, with Michael Knowles, Andy McCarthy, Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis | Ep. 724

Episode Date: February 14, 2024

Megyn Kelly begins the show by detailing the latest bombshell reporting about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade, the reports that their romantic relationship had been going on for years, whether they lied under oath, and more. Following, attorneys Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis join Megyn to discuss the details of Willis' alleged affair, the nature of her and Wade's “personal relationship,” whether their behavior will get them disqualified from the election interference case against former President Donald Trump, and more. Then, Andy McCarthy of National Review joins to discuss Wade pleading the fifth in the alleged affair case with Willis, the possible fraud committed by Willis, whether she could face criminal charges, and more. Plus, The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles joins to discuss The New York Times' racially focused piece on how Willis is being treated, the downfall of The Times over the past years, Trump’s Valentine's Day love letter (and fundraising message) to Melania, Bill Clinton’s awkward Valentine’s message to Hillary Clinton, whether Biden advisor Susan Rice could be the secret replacement for the Dems in the 2024 election, and more.Aronberg- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZl9z2UMvN9mwpUoU9-E9bADavis- https://article3project.org/McCarthy- https://www.nationalreview.com/author/andrew-c-mccarthy/Knowles-https://www.dailywire.com/ Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. It's Ash Wednesday, it's Valentine's Day, and today we are going to bring you the story of two star-crossed lovers whose alleged deception could upend the 2024 presidential election. We are, of course, talking about the Georgia election interference case against Trump and several others involving District Attorney Fannie Willis and her paramour, Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, who say they should not be disqualified from prosecuting Mr. Trump and the others, notwithstanding the motions that have been filed to boot them off the case.

On Monday, the two sides were in court trying to get out of an evidentiary hearing. The special prosecutor and Fannie Willis were trying that about their alleged improprieties. And before the hearing could really even get underway, Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee informed the two sides, there will be an evidentiary hearing this week. They will not be wiggling out of it. And it happens tomorrow morning at 9.15. He ruled that he will consider the defendants, in particular, this defendant, Michael Roman, but now Trump has joined and some other defendants have joined, motion to boot these two off the case. And they want the case dismissed. But in particular, they want Mr. Wade, Ms. Willis, and her entire office disqualified from this matter.

In studying the law that's been filed up to this point, I think it's clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one. And the filings submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict in the evidence that can't be resolved as a matter of law. Specifically looking at defendant Roman's motion, it alleges a personal relationship that resulted in a financial benefit to the district attorney. And that is no longer a matter of complete speculation. The state has admitted a relationship existed. And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again, if there even was one. So because I think it's possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations. At issue, that personal relationships timeline, money received by Ms.

Willis in some form as a result, as well as they're making an issue of Ms. Willis's out-of-court statements, which they say disparaged the defendants to the potential jury pool. OK, let's start with the affair and the alleged financial boon to Fannie Willis as a result of her bringing her alleged affair partner in on the case against Trump. He's a special prosecutor. He didn't work for her. She brought him in. She's paid him over six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of the taxpayer money so far. And that is more than the other special prosecutors. And now we find out that the two of them, Fannie and Nathan, have that is more than the other special prosecutors. And now we find out that the two of them, Fannie and Nathan, have been flying all over the country and beyond, allegedly on his dime while she was paying his salary with taxpayer dough. Fannie Willis has argued

she never received any financial benefit as a result of hiring her lover, Wade, not directly, not indirectly. She also claims they were not lovers at the time she hired him in November 2021. Mr. Wade has submitted a sworn affidavit. This is submitted under the penalties of perjury, claiming that expenses on their multiple lavish trips were, 2022, and then returning to Atlanta on January 3rd, 2023. That is one pair of plane tickets she allegedly bought him for one of their many trips. And by the way, the defense, defendant Roman and the others, they claim Nathan Wade actually paid for those tickets too. Don't know how they reconcile her receipt. We'll find

out. But in any event, from October 2022 until May of 2023, seven months, it appears this couple took at least five trips, five in seven months that we know about. That's 10 plane tickets. And the defense, again, these are the people being prosecuted by Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade. They are alleging that Nathan Wade paid for all, all of the expenses virtually that they can find in these trips, including cruise ship fees, hotel expenses, and other expenses too. Now, according to filings over those seven months that we know about this pair, while they're prosecuting Trump and the other defendants went on an international travel spree to some of the most beautiful romantic places on earth. They don't have to celebrate Valentine's day. Every day is Valentine's day for these two. October 2022, a Royal Caribbean

cruise to the Bahamas. He paid for their flights, their shared cabin on the ship and other expenses totaling at least $3,500. This is all in the defendant's pleadings. November 2022, and they have receipts. A trip to Aruba where Wade spent over four grand on himself and his girlfriend. Over New Year's, this is the trip that we just discussed, 2022-2023, a Norwegian cruise to the Bahamas. Remember, she alleges she at least flew them from Atlanta to Miami. Then they got on a cruise ship, Norwegian, and went to the Bahamas. That trip, and they've submitted receipts, cost him over $3,600. Don't forget, they've got records, the defendants do, from his divorce proceedings. So they've got receipts to back up a lot of these

expenses. March 2023, a trip to Belize. My God, have they been prosecuting Trump? Who's running heard of this case? What lawyers have this much time to take vacations? The trip to Belize, over 3,000 spent by him on food, lodging, and something happened at a tattoo parlor as well. Now, I'm just going to say that at this hearing tomorrow morning, if Ashley Merchant, who's representing defendant Roman, does not ask somebody to show us their tattoos, it's a fail. It's a fail. What happened to the tattoo parlor? Is it like, get Trump? Okay, let's move forward to May 2023. That was a trip to Napa Valley, one of the most beautiful and expensive places you can go in the U.S., the flights and hotel for this trip, so far as we know, actually only totaled about $1,600. That's a bargain. Well done. Again, the evidence that

they divided the expenses, quote, roughly equally, which he's now sworn to, appears to be that one time when she claims to have bought him a round-trip flight from Atlanta to Miami for a grand total of $697.20. And even that is something that the defendants in this case dispute. If Ashley Merchant, again, the attorney who first brought all this to light in her defense of former Trump campaign official Michael Roman, can prove this at the hearing tomorrow morning, it would mean that Fannie Willis did absolutely benefit, quote, directly or indirectly from her lover's special prosecutor money, contrary to their representations in court. But there's more. The pair also claim they weren't lovers when Willis hired Wade as the special prosecutor for this matter back in November 2021. It was November 1st, 2021. Nathan Wade swears to this. He swears to it under penalties of perjury

in his affidavit. We were not affair partners then, and we were not affair partners prior to then. Now, it just so happens that the very next day after Willis hired Wade on November 2nd, 2021, by the way, Wade was a man with no experience with RICO cases, like the one that she was pursuing against the Trump defendants, but she hired him anyway. The very next day after she brings in her alleged lover, which they deny, Nathan Wade filed for divorce from his wife of 26 years. Okay. So Ms. Willis hires her alleged lover. The very next day, he files for divorce from his wife.

But again, they say they only entered into a personal relationship later in 2022. But on Monday at the hearing on whether or not there should be an evidentiary hearing in this case, which you heard the judge say we are having tomorrow morning. Mr. Roman's defense attorney, Ashley Merchant, raised serious questions about when this relationship started too. Mr. Wade has filed other affidavits in his divorce case, which contradict this affidavit. So the state's response last week said they had a relationship that began in 2022. In May of 2023, he filed in the Cobb County Superior Court a pleading that said specifically if he had had any relations with a person other than his spouse during the course of the marriage, and he responded, none. After we filed our motion in this case, he updated those and he pled privilege

under the fifth amendment. So we've got a filing under oath by Mr. Wade in 2023, stating he didn't have a relationship. Then we've got a filing stating he did have one starting in 2022. And then once that came about, he fixes the incorrect affidavit that was filed back in 2023. So we definitely have a conflict judge in the evidence as far as when this relationship started. That's a bombshell right there, folks. That's a bombshell. She's claiming he said in his divorce

proceeding he never had an affair at all. And then when he was caught because of the motion in this case, he went back and amended his sworn testimony in the divorce proceeding by pleading the Fifth Amendment. This is the special prosecutor going after Trump right now. One of the claims is lying, that he's lied, that the officials have lied in connection with their alleged election interference. Ms. Merchant also says she's prepared to call witnesses, and the judge just greenlit it, who will testify under oath that this affair has been going on for years, well before Fannie Willis hired Nathan Wade in this case. It did not start in 2022, according to Ms. Merchant, who's going to call witness after witness tomorrow morning to prove this. If that's true, what she's really proving is that these two

lied to the court, not just Wade, Willis too. I'll get to it. So my takeaway, if the defense can prove this, what we just heard her represent to the court, she can prove, then it does appear DA Fannie Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade will have misled the court, Wade under oath, Willis in her capacity as an officer of the court, and misrepresented their inappropriate relationship to cover their own hides. It's all extremely bad, extremely bad for both of them as attorneys, as prosecutors, and as the people pursuing this criminal case. And if proven, they're toast, in my opinion, toast. And they may even face other problems ranging from disbarment to prosecution.

Joining me now on all of it are legal all-stars Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3 Project, and Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located. Mike, Dave, welcome back to the show. And this is just, these are, this is bombshell after bombshell. And, you know, Dave, when I actually got into the papers and started reading them, I thought of you because you're an honest broker. And what you said when the news broke last time you were on about their alleged affair was, you know, we found out that they were denying they had started the affair at the time she hired him. And you pointed out that's legally significant. You know, it does matter if the affair she hired him. And you pointed out that's legally significant. You know, it does

matter if the affair just developed later. It's definitely more beneficial to them if she didn't hire her current lover. And now we see tomorrow we're going to have his former divorce lawyer, who started off as his friend, take the stand, according to Ashley Merchant, his name is Terrence Bradley, and he is going to testify directly, not with privileged information, but based on their friendship, that these two are having an affair long before November 2021 when Fannie Willis hired him. And to that, you say what? Well, first, it's good to be with you on Valentine's Day and Ash Wednesday. Megan and Mike, I think it's a real problem, twofold, first, it's good to be with you on Valentine's Day and Ash Wednesday. Megan and Mike, I think it's a real problem twofold. First, it does matter when the relationship began.

If it began before Nathan Wade was hired, that's a problem. And then it's also a problem if they lied. And if they lied, both of them have submitted information under oath, then there's no question, I would agree with you, they would be pulled off the case. I think that as an initial matter, that Nathan Wade should step aside. Bonnie Willis should have someone else lead the charge. They already have two other special prosecutors. So just for the appearance, they should have Nathan Wade step aside. But if it is proven that both of them lied and that the relationship, in fact, started have Nathan Wade step aside. But if it is proven that both of them lied and that the relationship, in fact, started before Nathan Wade was hired, then they're going to be disqualified

from the case. And when you disqualify a prosecutor from the case, you would disqualify the entire office. This was the issue with Jussie Smollett. Remember, Megan, where the prosecutor disqualified herself, but her office kept running the case. That doesn't work. That's not appropriate. And then it would get assigned to a different district attorney. But this case would not go away. Yeah, I agree. That's a that's a bigger stretch, although I've heard smart legal experts say it could. It's not the smart bet, but it could. But this is this is I just want to note for the audience, this is significant because you've been defending her to the best of your abilities thus far. And even you can see that if Ashley Merchant, the lawyer for defendant Roman, can prove this as she's proffered to the court she can, you think Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade have

to go? Yeah, Bradley is the key witness here. And you correctly identify the issue because he was Nathan Way's divorce lawyer at some point. There are some issues of attorney-client privilege, but he can testify as a lay witness to what he has seen outside of those confines. And he's the key witness. And if they can prove not only that there was a relationship in advance of his hiring, by the way, that would be enough. But if they also prove that they lied about it, then there could be more consequences than just disqualification. They could face bar disciplinary actions as well. That's the thing. So let me there's so much to go over, Mike. Let me just get your overall take on my opening talking points there. I actually think that not only will Fannie get disqualified and Nathan Wade get disqualified by this Fulton County judge, I actually think the case has to be dismissed and then a new prosecutor can decide whether he or she wants to refile this case because this case has been unethically tainted, illegally tainted since before its inception, right? If these allegations

are true, it's actually true. I mean, she's admitted that their relationship started before she brought this indictment, right? So she may have hired him. She could be lying about when it started. She could have had this relationship going back to 2020. And if that's the case, both Fannie and Nathan Wade are going to face perjury allegations and maybe even prison time. They should go to prison if they like, because they made misrepit in her court filing in opposition to Mike Roman's motion to dismiss. So if they lied about that, they should be disqualified. They should be disbarred. They should be charged with perjury. They should be put in prison.

And let me just jump in. I'm sorry to interrupt your train of thought because I really do want to hear your overall thoughts. But just for the record, Nathan Wade submitted a sworn affidavit. He's under oath and he's subject to penalties of perjury. She signed the brief representing to the court both what he said in his affidavit and one presumes as an officer of the court that, I'll read it, Attorney Willis and Special Prosecutor Wade have been professional associates and friends since 2019, but there was no personal relationship between them in November 2021

at the time of Special Prosecutor Wade's appointment. So she puts that herself in a brief that she signed. That's not a perjury thing, but it's absolutely an ethical thing. You cannot knowingly mislead the court as an officer of it. So keep going, Mike. Well, I mean, if she's aiding and abetting perjury, that's perjury. But I would say this, remember, and technically she didn't sign, she had one of her subordinates sign that brief, but her name's on the brief as the, as the,

her name's on the brief. Yeah. So she would absolutely be liable for that filing, right? So it's just, it's, look, if these allegations are true, this, I think this case has to be dismissed. And then you bring in a new prosecutor, whether it's the state attorney general, Chris Carr, maybe it gets assigned to another prosecutor elsewhere in the state, and then they're going to have to make the independent judgment free from this financial conflict of interest that Fannie Willis is making money off of this prosecution of President Trump and 18 co-defendants based upon a bogus novel RICO conspiracy theory against political opponents. A new prosecutor is going to have to come in and have independent judgment whether they're going to bring, recharge President Trump and these 18 co-defendents. But I absolutely think this case needs to be kicked. Okay, so here's what she's saying, Dave. I mean, these are, this is huge. These are very, very big stakes we're talking about right here because, you know, Trump's, he really needs to pull an inside straight to avoid all these charges and he's

on his way to doing it is really how this is looking, given there are delays in the Jack Smith federal trial in D.C., the New York case people don't care about as much, the Miami case based on the Mar-a-Lago documents, that's Dave's jurisdiction, is slow rolled entirely because of all the classified documents thing. And it's a friendly to Trump judge there. So he's got that going for him. And so this case is potentially very problematic for Trump. And this is an amazing development for him. So Terrence Bradley is the former Nathan Wade divorce lawyer who Ashley Merchant, the lawyer, says she's going to call tomorrow and not just him. She's got a whole list of people she's ready to call in case, I don't know, he gets impeached,

just to back him up. We'll see. But here is what the defendant, Michael Roman, argued in his brief about Terrence Bradley. They say, Willis and Wade claim they didn't have a personal romantic relationship before Willis appointed Wade as a special prosecutor. But Terrence Bradley will refute that claim. Bradley is an attorney and member of the Georgia Bar. Bradley and Wade were friends and business associates. Bradley has non-privileged personal knowledge that the romantic relationship began prior to Willis being sworn in as district attorney in January, 2021. So well before. Thus, Bradley can confirm that Willis contracted with Wade after Wade and Willis had begun a romantic relationship, thus rebutting Wade's claim that they didn't start dating until 2022. It goes on. Bradley obtained information about the relationship between them directly from Wade when Wade was

not seeking legal advice from Bradley. He obtained this information in a personal capacity as Wade's friend prior to Wade's decision to file for divorce. While Bradley would later represent Wade for a time in the divorce proceeding, the information about the relationship was obtained prior to the attorney client relationship beginning. None of Bradley's testimony will relate to any privileged info or work product. Bradley also has personal knowledge that Wade and Willis regularly stayed together at her home until Willis's father moved into her home sometime in 2020. And they go on to allege they'll be able to prove cohabitation of some sort. So that's what we're going to hear from Terrence Bradley. And then here, just flipping now, Dave, to Nathan Wade's sworn affidavit. He says, while professional associates and friends

since 2019, there was no personal relationship between district attorney Willis and me prior to, or at the time of my appointment as special prosecutor. Cause I was thinking, Dave, maybe he could get out of it by saying he just alleged in the affidavit at the time of, you know, it was off again on again. Maybe that's how he wiggled out, you know, but no, he says never, not prior to, not at the time she appointed me. And it wasn't until 2022 that we developed a personal relationship in addition to the professional friendship. And on and on it goes. Oh, and he also says, I have never cohabitated with district attorney Willis, which Ashley Merchant is also going to take on through

witness testimony tomorrow. I mean, if this, if she can prove these are lies and look the affair when it began, like that's the judge is going to be able to make a judgment call, Dave, on who's telling the truth there. Yeah. And Judge McAfee is doing a great job here. I think a lot of this is doing well. I agree with you. Just watching him at this hearing, he seemed like a straight shooter to me. I haven't seen much more. But what I saw in that hearing wasn't was a fair, normal judge. What's amazing about him is that I think he's only 35 years old, which I think belies his gravitas. And maybe it's because he has that receding hairline. But whatever it is, he's doing a good job. As far as this development here,

I think a lot depends on what the personal relationship is. That's kind of a broad term. Is it enough if they show that they had a sexual encounter before he was hired? Is that enough? And I think it's a sordid question, but Judge McAbee is going to have to delve into that. What kind of personal relationship did they have? So the devil really is in the details. And as far as cohabitation, actually, I think that's their weakest argument, because according to what I've seen, that Fannie Wills is going to have a sworn testimony that there was no cohabitation. So I think it's going to turn on what was their personal relationship. Did it really are they trying to mislead the court?

Did they have a one time fling or did they actually have some sort of relationship that would disqualify them? OK, but we were we've buried the lead in our discussion, though, not my opening, which is Mike. Why would an officer of the court go back and amend sworn interrogatories, which are written answers say the things under oath. He went back, according to Merchant, had to amend his denial of having an affair on his wife and pleaded the fifth in his amendment in that divorce proceeding. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. When you go back and amend interrogatories, it's for like technical or clerical errors. It's not for substantive testimony that you're completely changing your substantive testimony. You can't just go back and amend a lie and then claim the Fifth Amendment and that you think that that protects you from from false statements of the court or perjury to the court. That's not how it works. You know, but but isn't it that he did he admit there basically that the earlier answer was a lie? I mean, honestly, like I'm trying to dumb it down for myself and everybody else.

What reason would you have to amend your sworn interrogatory answer by pleading the fifth other than you think telling the truth is going to get you charged criminally. So I like I'm trying to follow. Does he think he's going to be charged criminally for lying in the original interrogatory answer? Or does he think he's going to be charged criminally for something he's done in the Fannie Willis case? And I don't know why his lawyer would or maybe he just did this on his own. You can't just come in and testify and then assert the fifth. Right. You can't play that game with the Fifth Amendment. With the Fifth Amendment, you either testify or you don't testify. You can't selectively testify and then testify and then change your mind of an assertive that's not how the Fifth Amendment works. What do you make of that, Dave? Going back,

originally saying in the divorce proceeding, I never had an affair. Then this motion gets brought in this other unrelated case and he gets caught. He knows he's going to have to admit that they did have an affair during the marital years. And he goes back. I can kind of see amending and saying there was one, but I don't get amending with the Fifth Amendment. I guess if you file a sworn document that says that you did not have an affair, but then it's true you had an affair, then he's worried perhaps about a perjury charge. And so that's why he could go back. I'm viewing this in the divorce proceeding, in the divorce proceeding, in the divorce proceeding,

a potential perjury charge. OK. Yeah. Right. Right. So it is possible that this doesn't relate to Fonny Willis. I'm looking at this in the most positive light towards Fonny Willis. That doesn't have anything to do with that. Yeah. But I admit, look, this looks bad, but we don't know if he went back and amended it to protect himself from the current case involving Fonny Willis. It may amended it to protect himself from the current case involving Fannie Willis. It may be just to protect himself against perjury the first time around. Either way, he is in what we call in the law a shit ton of trouble. Which is why he should step aside. He should step aside. Yes, this is terrible. Mike, I'm sorry, but like, am I overreacting? I've never seen such an ethical breach. OK, I had an affair. This is bad. The whole thing stinks. Yes, this is terrible. Mike, I'm sorry, but like, am I overreacting? I've never seen such

an ethical breach. OK, I had an affair. This is bad. The whole thing stinks. Yes, you've jeopardized one of the biggest cases in the nation against Trump and the probably almost undoubtedly the biggest case in Fulton County history ever. But then you lie under oath to the court about it like other lies are uncovered uncovered and we haven't even touched on Mike, the alleged lies about the expenses that he says we shared them roughly equally. And then I said, great. Okay. This is kind of what Dave had raised this thing. Maybe, you know, we don't know. We know that he paid these numbers, but maybe she reimbursed him or maybe she paid for something. So, okay. We were all open-minded to that. So I'm like, great. That's what he's saying. Let me see it. And I look at his, I look at his

exhibit, which he points me to. Okay. Hold on the airline tickets. Okay, great. He says it's exhibit four. Here it is. Exhibit four. I get there. And we got one page which says Fannie Willis. It's a November 30th purchase, 2022 Delta tickets from Atlanta to Miami and back leaving Friday, December 30th, coming back Tuesday, January 3rd, two tickets, one ticket here for Fannie Willis and one ticket here for Nathan Wade. And the price is listed at for each ticket, $697 and 20 cents. Okay, great. That's, that's one. I'm looking for, you know, they took 10 trips. I'm looking for four more, right? Let's see. She did five. He did five. I'm open-minded to you, Fannie. It's not in there. It's not in there. What happens after that is nothing.

Other exhibits. That's the only proof of roughly equal. What? So this is another area in which his affidavit seems blatantly misleading. I mean, isn't 10 to 1 roughly? I mean, is that is that not how we look at roughly? I mean, this is very rough. I mean, look, we all know that Fannie Willis is toast. I mean, she is going to get disqualified. Nathan Wade is going to get disqualified. I don't know how they don't get disbarred if it's proven that they made these misrepresentations to the court material, misrepresentations of the court. I don't know how they don't get charged criminally. So this is going to get a lot worse for old Fannie and Nathan Wade before it gets better.

What what do you make of that, Dave? Because I have heard it's not just Mike, who we know is a Trump fan and advocate, say they could be facing disbarment and there actually could be a criminal prosecution and or dismissal of this case. And it's interesting what Mike was saying. He's not necessarily saying it's dismissed and it never comes back. It's dismissed. And if there's another prosecutor wants to try to bring it, okay, that could potentially happen. Jeopardy hasn't attached. They haven't picked a jury. So can you speak to those three terrible outcomes for Fannie? Like good, all good for Trump. But can you speak to those possible three? Sure. I don't think the case will be dismissed. If this case were weak, then Judge McAfee could have dismissed it already, but he hasn't. So because of that, this case will continue. It may continue under a different district attorney.

Now, the way it gets reassigned, I think it goes to the attorney general in Georgia and then reassigns. We saw that in the Armand Aubrey case. But I think there's still a shot that Fannie Willis stays on the case. I think Nathan Wade needs to be separated from the case. I think he'll be gone from the case. But as far as Fannie Willis, until you can prove, I think, that she lied, then I think she stays on the case.

Here's the thing. But if he's gone because he lied in his affidavit, she's gone, too, because she signed the brief. It's her brief. And as you well know, the lawyer submitting the brief is the one working with the defendant who signs the affidavit. As Mike points out, she's a co-conspirator, basically, on the lie. And her brief retells the lie. It's her brief. She signed it. Not to mention the underlying ethical breach of the affair and all the monies.

Like, we've just moved on to perjury here. So there's no world in which he goes and she stays. Well, if she lied because she submitted that brief with her name on it, then she would be gone because that's beyond the pale. When you say, and you talked about with Mike, how it looks like they did not reimburse each other, it wasn't halfsies, it wasn't roughly halfsies. I have always thought that if the affair started after he was hired, then it doesn't have to be halfsies or roughly

halfsies. But the problem is now is that they've made a sworn declaration that it is a roughly half and half situation. So because of that, if they lied, then they both have to be gone from the case. And what are, do you have any thoughts on the possibility of, you know, losing your law license, facing criminal penalties? Andy McCarthy's coming up right after you guys. And, you know, he's a serious, sober lawyer

who I'm sure you guys both know and respect. He's been talking about how she could be, she could face some criminal penalties here. It's always possible. Perjury is a crime, although it's, I gotta tell you this from a prosecutor's perspective, you don't see a charge very often because you've got to prove it's knowing

and, you know, you've got to prove definitively that they lied. It's not always easy to do. You're gonna have testimony and you've got to prove definitively that they lied. It's not always easy to do. You're going to have testimony and you're going to have testimony both ways on this. And then you have to get into the granular issue of what a personal relationship is before they before Nathan Wade was hired. It almost is what the definition of is, is. And because of that, if they were having sex, they're done. I mean, that'll be that'll that'll amount to personal and by any measure. I do think that it depends. I think it depends. If it was a one time thing, then I don't think that's enough to get him for perjury.

Stop it. OK, so we're going to be taking testimony tomorrow on how many times, how long were you in the sack for? Good walk us through it. Was it meaningful to you? Were there flowers exchanged? It's Valentine's Day. Mike, I don't believe any of that. But there's going to be a come to Jesus moment tomorrow. Fannie Willis did not want to have to give testimony. Nathan Wade did not want to have to give testimony. They're going to. The judge has said it's happening. And there we expect, at least based on how I understand it's going to go, there's going to. The judge has said it's happening. And there we expect, at least based on how I understand it's going to go, there's going to be a moment where Fannie Willis is asked under oath. She hasn't been asked under oath yet. When did the affair begin? And if she says

not until 2022, then it looks like this guy, Bradley, Terrence Bradley, is going to try to put the lie to that among others. And if she changes what she wrote in her brief and what Nathan Wade said in his affidavit and says, um, actually it was before 2022, she's in trouble for a whole host of other reasons. So it could come down to a credibility contest between Fannie and Nathan on one side and, um, Terrence Bradley, and I guess whoever else they're going to offer on the other. Right. Could devolve into who does the judge believe, Terrence or these other two? I mean, here's the problem for Fannie. Both Fannie and Nathan Wade submitted their court filing

on February 2nd, and they included Nathan Wade's February 1st affidavit that they knew was a lie, right? And then they had eight other attorneys in the Fulton County DA's office put their names on this February 2nd filing. So you have 10 attorneys in the Fulton County DA's office submitting something to the court. Two of them, at least two of them know what they are submitting is a lie. That is not going to go over well with this judge. That's why I'm saying that this case is so tainted that it's going to, it should be dismissed and bring in a new prosecutor with fresh eyes and independent judgment who does not have a financial stake in the outcome of this case,

like Fannie Willis and her boyfriend, Nathan Wade, apparently do. This, I mean, this is just incredibly stupid, reckless behavior. I mean, I don't know, Dave, I know you're doing your best to defend her. And I appreciate that because we like to get both sides here. But honestly, tell us the truth. If you had a lawyer prosecuting a case this big, working for you, and you found out that she'd been having an affair with a special prosecutor that you had to bring in, getting paid on the taxpayer dime, going all over the world with this guy, not disclosing it to anybody. And then you found out that the affair had been taking place prior to the date she brought him on

and then that she submitted an affidavit from the guy that she signed the brief for saying that wasn't true and there was somebody about to take the stand, another officer of the court, a lawyer, who's going to say, those are lies. I can tell you firsthand that they... I mean, you'd fire this person. This is a massive ethical breach, if true. Yep. And it's different, though, if you're the boss, because who then fires the boss? It's up to the court. It is much easier to fire the boss than it is to file perjury charges. I guess that's my point here, is that the Grangler investigation that they're going to have to do in court is going to make it very hard, I think, to charge her with a crime if they found out that Nathan Wade's

affidavit was a lie. But I do think that they would both get bounced from the case. And Nathan Wade should not be part of the case anyways. He should be separated from it. And Megan, to your larger point, it has been difficult from the beginning to defend this, because if you're going to go after the former president, you have to be squeaky clean because all eyes are on you. The spotlight is on you. This has never been done before in the history of our country for a local prosecutor other than Alvin Bragg to go ahead and file charges against a former president, especially with an election looming. So you have to make sure all your T's are crossed and your I's are dotted. And apparently

they didn't do so here. And this just opens up so many conspiracy theories. And although it doesn't jeopardize the ultimate case, in my view, it does look bad. It could jeopardize the ultimate case, though, because you mentioned how the AG would have to assign a DA to replace her. The AG in Georgia is a Republican. Now, I don't you know, and there's there are questions about which, if any, DAs would be willing to pursue this wacky Rico case that she's brought, Fannie's brought. So it's not a foregone conclusion that if she got bounced, it'd be super easy to just pass the baton to somebody else. Mike and Dave, great discussion as always. Thank you guys so much for coming on today.

Up next, we're going to continue the discussion with Andy McCarthy of National Review, who's been up to his neck in all of this stuff as well. And we'll talk about his take on these huge developments. Joining us now to continue the legal analysis on the Fannie Willis case is Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and contributing editor at National Review. You should definitely check out Andy's writings at National Review. Join, sign up for NR Plus, but also check out his weekly podcast. It drops on Fridays, and it's well worth your time. I love it. Gets me through the weekend, other than the sports talk. All right, Andy, so good to have you by phone. This is a bombshell, what she dropped yesterday, Ashley Merchant, that he alleged in his divorce proceeding that he did not have any extramarital affair during the time of his marriage, and

he didn't file for divorce until November 2nd, 2021. And then when this whole issue came up in the Trump case, he went back and amended that interrogatory, that sworn interrogatory answer to plead the fifth, to plead the fifth. I mean, just that alone seems like a rather significant development. What do you make of it? Well, it's a very significant development. Mike Davis was right when he said that to you that you don't get to play games with the court like this, like you don't get to make a bunch of representations. And then you say, I think I to play games with the court like this. Like you don't get to make a bunch of representations and then you say, I think I'm going to take the fifth. Right. So what a

court will normally do, Megan, I had this come up one time in a in a criminal case where we had a defendant who took the stand and decided to give his whole side of the story. And then when we got up to cross examine him as the government, he took the fifth. And the court, you know, the idea was he knew that it was one of these long, complicated trials that we weren't going to get a mistrial in the middle of. It was a month's long trial. So what the court ruled is that he had waived his Fifth Amendment privilege, and therefore, every time he tried to take the Fifth on cross-examination, the court held him in contempt. So I think by the time Cross was over, it was somewhere between like 75 and 150 times the court had found him in contempt. And I think what you would have if you had a, you know, a real judge would be something akin to that. I think Nathan Wade is going to be told if he's pressed on it, and we'll have to see how well this testimony shakes out tomorrow, that by the disclosures

he's already made in connection with that form, he waived his Fifth Amendment privilege and he's got to testify. And if he tries to testify, right? Because he tried, like the divorce proceeding is wrapping up, I'm sure, because of all this. So, you know, he's not being cross-examined in the context of the divorce proceeding. It's in the context of this proceeding

where he's now found his tongue. Now he's like, oh, I swear it didn't happen before November, 2021. So I don't know. It's's like, oh, I swear it didn't happen before November 2021. So I don't know. It's more like just an anomaly and a weirdness. I don't think he's going to plead the Fifth Amendment. I think it's just something to point out. You misled under oath in your earlier proceeding. Why should we believe you now when you're changing your story again? But but I do think that the fact that she's Ashley Merchant's going to call call this witness is Bradley, who was representing the guy, but was also his friend and is going to testify in his capacity as the friend. Look, these guys were together long before November 2021.

And unlike Fannie and Nathan has no dog in this hunt could be devastating. It could be. It should be, especially though. And this is the thing that drives me nuts about this. This is so it's salacious. It's interesting. It goes to the ethics and honesty of these people. It calls into question the origins of the investigation. All that's true. It's so far afield from what's wrong with this case. You know, if you think about it, it's related to what's wrong with this case in the sense that there's well, there's allegation after allegation after, they look you in the eye and say one thing, and it turns out that it's not true. So I don't know how they she headlined a fundraiser for this guy's Democratic opponent in the lieutenant governor race in Georgia.

For that, she got disqualified from being able to prosecute this guy. We're talking like dimensions more serious at this point. But to me, the important thing is this case has been like catastrophically ill conceived from the first. And now if I'm looking at this as a federal prosecutor, you mentioned before that I was thinking of this in terms of like, is she does she have criminal liability? I wasn't even thinking about perjury. What I was thinking about was fraud, basically. You know, there's federal statutes that basically say if you have a state agency that's funded even modestly by the federal government. And if you make misrepresentations or can convert property to your own use, that's prosecutable fraud. So if, for example, she went to Fulton County and said, I need money to clear up the backlog from COVID, and then she slices off a piece of that to pay this guy who turns out to be her boyfriend with

whom she's having an affair, and then they go traveling around the world on the money, that's fraud. You know, that's a big misrepresentation. There's federal statutes that apply to that. There are state statutes that apply to that. And what I can't avoid saying is delicious about all of it is those statutes, for the most part, happen to be RICO predicates in federal law. Oh, wow. Wow. Now, I think that a competent federal prosecutor would look at it and

say, well, we're not going to turn this into like the RICO of all time. We prosecute it as a fraud case. But that goes to everything wrong that she's done in this case. She doesn't you know, she tried to come up with a conspiracy that she could charge all 19 of these people with because she's got 19 people. They're all disparate little groups of people. Right. The only thing they've ever done together is get indicted. I think most of them don't even like know each other. Right. So it's not exactly like the Gambino crime family, like working together to make sure that the family business stays intact. That is exactly the point. I mean, what she tried to do, she has this thing where the one thing you could arguably say they all agreed on is that they want to undo the result of the 2020 election. The problem she has is that's not a crime. Like every state has a procedure where you can challenge the election.

Right. So, well, and then not like that, but then if that's the standard, Maria Bartiromo should be indicted. You know, we could go down the list of Trump supporters who had questions about the election who could get indicted if that's all that was required. All right. Wait, I want to steer back to the this case, though, because we're spending some time today on the alleged lies told in the pleadings for good reason.

But, you know, the underlying problem is the financial benefit that she received. And I do think it matters that it, it appears to have been a 10 to one share at best with him paying for her rides. And so on her vacations, is there, do they wiggle out of this by saying money? You know what? It was, it was my my money. Like I how do you say it's the taxpayer's money? I had money coming into this. It's not necessarily taxpayer money. And she paid for some meals here and there. So what's the problem? Yeah, I think what a judge would tell a jury is that what the sharing arrangement is that they refer to, you know, the niceties of how they characterize it are not, don't have to be accepted by a jury, right? You get told, don't check your

common sense at the door, and you take testimony about exactly what the arrangement was. And if it looks like what happened here substantially is that she took money that she represented to the county was going to be used for one purpose. She paid this guy six. Was it three hundred thousand plus? Six hundred and fifty thousand. Yeah. Yeah. She is the boss.

Six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Right. But she only makes like two hundred thousand. Right. So she's paying him more than she even makes. And what ends up happening is they after she brings him on and they're paying him this what's an astronomical amount of money in that office, they start to go here, there and everywhere. Cruises, California, Florida, the Caribbean. Oh, my God. Napa. Oh, I want to have an affair with Nathan Wade. You get to see the world.

Just kidding. Happy Valentine's Day, Doug. Right. This is a wonderful romance. I can't be any part of this, man. Yeah, yeah, right. But, you know, a jury's going to look at this and say, are you kidding me? And they're not going to get hung up on whether this was a nine to one or eight to two sharing arrangement. They're going to say this is frigging fraud. What are you kidding me? All right. So I have 60 seconds left before the hard break. Quick question. Is he going to disqualify them just based on an appearance of impropriety? Or do you think they're going to have to prove an actual conflict? Or does it not matter because you think they've got it either way? I think he has to disqualify them. I think that they should do the honorable thing and just recuse themselves because tomorrow could get,

it could get very, very ugly and it could get in terms of increased jeopardy on them, depending on how they testify. You know, when you get two people who think they're smarter than everyone else and they try to knit something together that's going to get through the, you know, the different areas of impeachment that come up, that could be a catastrophe for them. And there's at least some chance that one or both of them plead the fifth in this proceeding, which would be earth shattering. Andy McCarthy, you're the best. You're the best. Thank you so much. Thanks, Megan. Great to be with you. OK, up next, Michael Knowles joins us and we'll ask him about the New York Times' piece, Why the Case Against Fannie Willis Feels Familiar to Black Women. What? It's a race thing?

You're here with me now, The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles, host of The Michael Knowles Show. Michael, we love having you on the show. We would never limit you to just the one hour, but we had such hot stuff we had to do with the lawyers. So thank you for sticking around. This is crazy what's happening with Fannie Willis here. I mean, it appears if the lawyer for Michael Roman can do what she says she's going to do tomorrow, we're going to hear testimony that it's a lie under oath by this pair that their affair only began in 2022. That in fact,

according to his good friend and eventually divorced lawyer, they were having an affair long before she hired Nathan Wade as special counsel in November 2021. And we're going to be going through all these receipts that prove his sworn testimony that they roughly equally shared expenses. Looks like a 10 to 1 split where he paid for virtually everything as they went twice to the Bahamas and to Aruba and to Napa. I could keep going. Belize. I mean, I don't know when they have time to prosecute cases because back when I was a lawyer, there were no vacations. So let me get your reaction to that before we talk about the New York Times ridiculous piece I'm going to go through with you.

Well, Megan, it's wonderful to be with you here on St. Valentine's Day, and there's no apology needed. I think it makes perfect sense to have had Andy McCarthy on to go through the brutal legal details here. Because, you know, Valentine's Day, it's a romantic holiday, sure. So we can talk about the torrid love affair between Fannie Willis and her paramour that she hired to prosecute Trump. But don't forget, St. Valentine was a martyr, okay? St. Valentine's Day commemorates a very, very bloody event. And I think that's what we're focusing on here as well, because I think that this prosecution is about to be decapitated. It looks like they have got Fannie Willis and her lover dead to rights. And I am very, very eager, not just for what happens on this Wednesday of Valentine's Day, but Thursday and Friday, because it appears that

the judge is ready to hear all of the brutal evidence. Yeah, he said, look, they kept saying, oh, this is when the affair began. We don't need a hearing. And he was like, this is a matter of a fact that needs to be tried by me and hear witness testimony. You can't get rid of this just by asserting to me this is how it is. I need to hear the witnesses. And, you know, it's going to come down to credibility. This guy, I don't know. to me, this is how it is. I need to hear the witnesses and it, you know, it's going to come down to credibility. This guy, I don't know, maybe Terrence Bradley's

a terrible witness. Maybe the other witnesses that she's going to call aren't going to be persuasive on all the expenses. We'll have to wait and see. That really is what a trial is for you with your eyes and your ears. And the judge has a YouTube channel where he's putting everything out. So I think we will be able to see it with our eyes and ears. You know, Megan, the irony of all of this is they're they're prosecuting Donald Trump as though he were a member of the mob. They're going after him using Rico statutes. And the irony, of course, is that it is the Democrats. It's the liberals who are behaving like the mob. They are wielding the power of the state unjustly to attack their political opponent on totally bogus trumped up charges

and and as with a lot of mob actions you're getting all of these nasty little personal relationships here they they really did mob up i mean frankly we should turn the rico statutes on them because you've got this woman clearly profiting yes yeah i can't wait yeah i mean that that the what bitter irony right right? That she tries to find some innovative use for the Rico statue and it winds up potentially getting used against her. Oh, and then Trump walks out, Trump walks potentially free as she potentially go, oh my God, can you? All right. So that brings me to the New York times weighing in on the controversy. Why the case against Fannie Willis feels familiar to Black

women. Of course, we've got to make it a race issue. And I actually looked after I read this absurd piece. I'm like, who wrote this? Clyde McGrady is the lead reporter. Clyde's job is to report on how race and identity is shaping American culture. Okay. That makes sense because this is not a factual piece. This is an imagined piece by somebody who only sees the world through the racial lens. And I'll give you a couple of examples. So he starts off, he's got a co-writer too named Katie Gluck. Okay. Okay. He repeats that Mr. Wade is defending the accusations by saying he and Ms. Willis have divided roughly evenly the expenses between themselves.

Now, apparently Clyde did not take the time to actually go and look at the exhibits that were attached to Nathan Wade's affidavit in which he asserted that, because I'll educate you, Clyde, There's only one. There's one little document that has one pair of airline tickets allegedly paid for by Fannie Willis out of the five trips in which there were 10 airline tickets and cruises and hotels and other expenses, which the defense alleges only he paid for. And so now you get Nathan Wade weighing in under penalty of perjury to, okay, let's big swing, show us all the stuff she paid for. One of his airline tickets, just the one. But does the New York Times point that out when they report that, well, he says

they were divided roughly evenly? No, it does not. They want to get back to the race thing. That's what's most important, Michael. So he went and interviewed. Oh, yeah. He interviewed, listen, a dozen black women at various stages of their careers. And they are painfully conflicted, I tell you, about Ms. Willis's situation and her treatment in the public eye. To many, quoting here, there is something galling about watching Mr. Trump and his allies attack Ms. Willis over a consensual romantic relationship when he has faced accusations of sexual misconduct and assault. And then they talk about the E. Jean Carroll case as if that's what she's being, as if Fannie Willis just found a boyfriend who has nothing to do with this case. And that's why

she's being raked through the mud, Michael. The heart wants what the heart wants. I kept an open mind on Fannie Willis when this accusation first came up. I assumed all these people are very corrupt, but I kept an open mind. The moment that I knew for certain that they had her dead to rights was when she went to the black church and she played the race card because these corrupt politicians only play the race card when they have no other card to play. The fact now that they're trying to mount this pitiful defense that one time this woman paid for a round trip airplane ticket, the round trip airplane ticket was from Atlanta to Miami.

That flight is about three minutes long. Even with these inflated airline prices, it's very inexpensive compared to all of the other trips they were taking. By this point in this process, we would have heard the best evidence for the defense of this relationship. And we have heard the best evidence. And the best evidence is one time she bought him a short flight and also she's black. That's the best evidence. And I don't think it's going to hold up well in court. And a woman. Don't forget that. And a woman. Ms. Willis's conduct as a mistake, but not one that should remove her from the case against Mr. Trump. Others thinking about their own experiences in the workplace suggested another concern.

They feel that Black women are held to a different standard and that Ms. Willis should have known that her identity, along with the enormous political stakes of the case, would create a white hot spotlight on her personal conduct. You see, she is being persecuted because black women are held to a different standard where they get torn apart, they get attacked in personal terms and so on. That sounds a lot to me like what's happening to Jack Smith, what's happening to Alvin Bragg. Oh, wait, he's black, right? Like as if Trump wouldn't have gone after this woman tooth and nail. And P.S., it's not even Trump pushing this motion against Fannie. It's Michael Roman, the other defendant, if she had been white or a man.

Public servants and even corrupt politicians like Fannie Willis are held to a higher standard. That's true. They do face more scrutiny. Their personal lives are put under the microscope. That's true. Whether they're black, whether they're white, whether they're men, whether they're women, that's all absolutely true. That's what's going on here. It is so deeply funny to me that in this case, the nearest thing to an argument they seem to be making other than the identity politics is that Nathan Wade is a bad boyfriend. It's actually the same argument, one of the same arguments that Bill Clinton made when his personal love life was brought under the microscope in the 1990s. One of the ways that Bill Clinton was able to argue that he didn't perjure himself is that

the definition of sexual relations entailed giving pleasure to the other person. And so he could have argued that he was just a bad lover. And here, Fannie Willis appears to be arguing that Nathan Wade was just a bad boyfriend. And if that's the best they've got, I almost feel pity for them, except that the stakes are so high. You know, we're making light of this little love affair. But first of all, it does involve taxpayer money. Second of all, it's deeply corrupt. And Third of all, let's not lose the forest for the trees here. We're talking about an unprecedented political prosecution of the leader of the opposition, to say nothing of a former president of the United States.

This very case is presenting a major upending of the American constitutional order. The fact that it's being done by these clowns with all of this manifest corruption is just the cherry on top of this awful Sunday. And so, yeah, she should obviously be thrown off the case. The case should just be thrown out, though. The whole thing stinks from beginning to end. Well, and we'll find out whether it looks like they committed perjury. She still hasn't been sworn in to give these allegations under oath, but she signed the brief. She's an officer of the court. He swore that the affair did not begin until 2022. And his own friend and lawyer, we are told, we have to wait to see, is going to take the stand tomorrow

and I think testify something very different. Back on this piece, you'll love this. All right. So Leah Daughtry, a veteran Democratic strategist, who I guess they thought was an appropriate person to talk to about this, says to The Times, Trump has faced many accusations of misconduct, including from E. Jean Carroll. Quote, no one made that a disqualifier, but for Fannie Willis, the fact that she's in a consensual relationship with another adult person somehow makes her disqualified or unqualified to continue the work she's been doing. In that sense, there's a double standard. Okay. So talk about not like, this is the New York Times, like this is something you might see on a stupid blog post from a moron who doesn't know how to frame issues. This is the New York Times trying to say because Trump has been sued by E. Jean Carroll with a civil lawsuit that he should be disqualified ethically or legally from running? Because what's happening to Fannie Willis is she's a prosecutor and an officer of the court who have higher ethical obligations to the general population,

and in particular to the defendants they pursue, than just some random citizen. It's not about an affair. She could have an affair with anybody. Just don't make him the special prosecutor in your case. Pay him on the taxpayer dime and create for yourself a financial incentive to keep this case going longer than potentially it should, because you really want to get back to Belize. You just compared, Megan, this New York Times piece with a stupid blog, and I think that is very unfair to stupid blogs. Stupid blogs are held to a much higher journalistic standard. Obviously, the New York Times is not sending its best, but we've known that for many years now. This paper has been in decline for a long time, and their resident historian is a woman who just completely

reinvented American history, even by the admission of academic historians who are on the left. I'm speaking, of course, of Nicole Hannah-Jones. So yes, the logic here doesn't hold up. I don't even really know how to engage with the argument that this woman is making because there is no inner logic to it. It's just much like this whole prosecution, frankly. It's just a political cudgel to beat down someone that they fear as a political opponent to the president of the United States. If you rip on Kamala Harris, oh, you're a racist. Michelle Obama, same thing, racist.

Even some of the Joe Biden criticism, you're an ageist, you're an ableist. This is what they do. Like you're an ist, whatever it is, because they've run out of actual principled arguments. All right, I'm not done with this piece because there's two other things I've got to talk to you about it.

Okay, number one, you know who they wanted to go to about whether Fannie Willis may have breached an ethical principle. Donna Brazil. Donna Brazil. Can't make it up. You cannot. Okay. Quote, this is from Donna. I can't sit in judgment of her as a human being, but I can say in terms of her role as a public prosecutor, yeah, she showed bad judgment, said Donna Brazile, adding that she had always kept a clear separation between her own personal and professional life with a bright red line. Oh, my God. Oh, in fairness, Donna Brazile cannot sit in judgment of this woman. That's true. I guess that's the one truthful statement in this entire article. I just love the logic. They say,

OK, we're going to write a race baiting piece here. So we've got to interview a black woman. And the subject of the piece is a corrupt politician. So let's turn to another corrupt politician. And the subject here is someone who's committed fraud and deception. So let's turn to another corrupt politician. And the subject here is someone who's committed fraud and deception. So let's turn to another infamously fraudulent and deceptive politician. OK, I guess I guess I'm starting to understand their reasoning. They didn't exactly close the loop on it. It's unbelievable that they would ask ask her about whether there's been an ethical breach. And she's trying to say her own personal and professional interests never, never intertwined. Just as a refresher, she gave CNN's debate questions to Hillary Clinton when she was a CNN contributor. She got access to them because she was at CNN and she gave them to John Podesta via email for Hillary to have the cheat sheet before

the debate. Then she lied about it publicly, including to my face and tried to accuse me again of being, I don't remember the word she used for me, something insulting of majority of which I persecuted her. That's what she said. I was persecuting her. Right. And it's fantastic that they went to her. And here's my last point about this ridiculous piece. Yet another fact check for the New York times. This is so good. Okay. So the piece is dated. What day did this? Is this, is this today? You guys? Yeah. February 14th. Um, they went to Sonny Hostin of The View. The co-host Sonny Hostin, who is black and Latina. Oh, Clyde, I have another fact check for you. Check, check Sonny's episode just the other day at her appearance on Henry Louis Gates show.

Her mother was not Latina. Her mother was white. She was not Puerto Rican. Not just white. A descendant of slave owners. Yes, exactly. She's a descendant from slave owners. She admitted she's European. She's not Puerto Rican. So in any event, that's what they say. She set her up with Clyde. You got to do your homework. You got to watch the view. This is like you're half of the aisle. My initial reaction, she says, oh, wait, is this her still? No, this is, they've moved on from Sonny. This is, yeah, yeah. Okay. Let's see.

My initial reaction was, no, now they've moved on to another person, Faith Udo Bang, 25, president of the University of Chicago, black law students, saying my initial reaction was that it seemed to be kind of a half-hearted attempt to get the entire case thrown out, which I thought was just an incredible stretch. But now Faith is worried that the misconduct accusations against Ms. Willis could delay the outcome until after the election. And let me tell you something, that is the only smart piece that is in this New York Times article. Faith is right. This thing, at a minimum, could delay the outcome of this case. That's the best case scenario right now

for the people who want to hang Trump, that it gets delayed and not completely killed or, you know, the whole thing thrown out because of Fannie's behavior. And we haven't talked about that piece of it, Michael. Delay in all four of these cases is working incredibly well for Trump. I had Andy McCarthy of all people on, he's been doing such a good job of covering the Supreme Court arguments and all that. Trump's getting another delay potentially on the immunity case. He's got like he's managed to keep all these balls in the air. And the only thing he needs to do is keep him in the air close enough to the election that these judges don't feel comfortable actually starting a trial in October of 2024. Because they realize, you know, DOJ policy would be don't interfere with elections.

That's why we didn't have prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Right. And he's doing a brilliant job of it. It's a good strategy for Trump, obviously, to push for these sorts of delays. But the delays are absolutely warranted for two reasons. One, because in a lot of the cases, you've got amateur hour over here like Fannie Willis, who can't even control her personal behavior. She can't even rein in her own personal corruption enough

to try to save face in this case. I mean, you just think of the irresponsibility, the recklessness to engage in this sort of thing. This is the case of your career. This is an historic, unprecedented case in the United States, and you decide you're gonna double dip and go on some fancy trips

when you hire your totally unqualified boyfriend to be the prosecutor here and then fly all over God's green earth. I mean, just completely insane. But on the flip side, even with the more serious prosecutors in some of these cases, you have events conspiring against these prosecutions. So, you know, they think they've got Trump dead to rights on mishandling classified documents. And then whoopsie daisy, they open up Joe Biden's garage and they find many more classified documents in more places, at least from a time when Joe Biden did not have ultimate declassification authority when there was a crackhead in Joe Biden's home. So it seems as though every time they think they've got Trump on something, the the world conspires. The news headlines show up to undercut their case. And so at the very least, it would be my preference that we not live in a banana

republic tin pot dictatorship where we throw the opposition party in prison. That would be my ideal, call me old fashioned. But even if you do want to prosecute Trump on one or any of these cases, at the very least, one should push this until after the election, because even if you're a liberal here and you hate Trump and you want him to wear an orange jumpsuit, it just looks so transparent. They've come to a conclusion, they've come to a verdict,

which is Trump is guilty and must be banished to St. Helena. And they're trying to backfill the justification for that with now four different cases. And it's so scattershot, it's so haphazard that they're filling it backfill the justification for that with now four different cases. And it's so scattershot, it's so haphazard that they're filling it with a lot of clowns and they're ignoring evidence of the same crimes against the Democrats. At the very least, even for their own sake, they should try to push this thing off unless they really believe they don't have a case whatsoever, in which case the whole point of the prosecutions is just to convince people not to elect Trump. Yeah. Is electoral interference, as Trump has been saying. OK, you mentioned it's Valentine's Day and we've got a couple of Valentine's Day presidential messages coming out. Here's Trump. Trump comes out and says a Valentine's Day letter from Donald J.

Trump. It's it's a fundraiser. It's a fundraiser. This is a Valentine's day letter to my wife. He reads, he writes, I love you, dear Melania. I love you. Even after every single indictment arrest and witch hunt, you've never left my side. You've always supported me through everything. I wouldn't be the man I am today without your guidance, kindness, and warmth. You will always mean the world to me, Melania. From your husband with love, Donald J. Trump. And then a fundraising request.

Send her your love by clicking. I'm getting all warm and fuzzy on the inside, Knowles. But listen, not to be outdone, former President Bill Clinton decides to weigh in on his weird marriage. OK, so Hillary Hillary Clinton, she tweeted out something appropriate. Happy Valentine's Day to my forever Valentine. Fine. So I got a little hard at the end of it. Then he tweets out. Where did the time go?

There have sure been a lot of happy Valentine's Days. Here's to one more. Wait, what? What's he got planned afterward? Frankly, of all of the Valentine's tweets that Bill Clinton could have sent, that's probably one of the better ones. You know, hey there, honey. Sure. I'm looking forward to dinner later. Hey, happy, oh, whoops, didn't mean to send that to you. Wrong person. Please ignore it. That's very sad. I really like Trump's actually.

I think Trump's is better than both Bill and Hillary's. I think it's right up there with Shakespeare's sonnet 118. It's getting my heart to go pitter patter. And maybe that's the same one that I'll send to my wife, sweet little Elisa tonight. You know, dear honey, you know, even with all of the haters and the losers coming after me, you know, you've stood by me. Please give me some money. I love you. For the modern age, there's something really charming about that.

Do you guys celebrate Valentine's Day? We do. Although this year, Megan, you know, I'm a mackerel snapping papist. And this year, Valentine's Day coincides with Ash Wednesday. I haven't received my ashes yet. We're not supposed to. This totally let me off the hook because you can't go to dinner if you're not allowed to eat. So I blow it on every year.

Every year I blow it on Valentine's Day. And so this year, even chocolates I don't have to get. As long as I manage to show up at home with a bouquet of flowers, I will have made it through at least one more year as an unfortunate, hapless husband who can't buy his wife a nice gift. All right. Now, you probably know I'm a Catholic, and I do go to church every Sunday, but I don't really understand half of it. I really don't. I don't understand the catechism. I don't understand the stations of the cross. I really need to do better. Some of it's in really don't. I don't understand the catechism. I don't understand the stations of the cross. I really need to do better. And I didn't even know we were supposed to be

fasting on Ash Wednesday the whole day. Megan, we were just talking about the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to civil matters. But when it comes to mortal sin, it actually is kind of an excuse. So at least if you had a breakfast, you might get a little bit off the hook. Can you not eat at all, like the whole whole day or like you can break fast at dinner? So a fast typically would be you don't eat. Right. But sometimes we Catholics are attacked for being a little bit indulgent on occasion. And so the official rules from the bishops are you have to fast and you can't eat except for one small meal and then two little snacks that can't equal the size of that meal. So you actually get to, if you get a little peckish, it's not the end of the world,

but still no meat, at the very least no meat. This is like the Harvard fast that they were just doing. Did you see the students at Harvard? they decided to go on a hunger strike to support Palestine. It was 12 hours long. That's called sleeping. 12 hours is called, I forgot my lunch on Tuesday. You know, I'm sure the Gazans were very appreciative of the show of support because that would mean that these 30 Harvard students, they would have had breakfast, then they would have gone out with their signs or whatever they had, and they would have been willing and eager to show their support for the Palestine liberation cause. But then around 5 p.m., those decadent little fatties would get a little peckish, and then they'd treat themselves to a sumptuous feast.

Sorry, Palestinians, you're on your own from here. Right. Sorry. But we really, I love you mean it. Bye. I'll tell you, Doug and I, it depends on the year. Like we don't, we don't really make Valentine's day a thing. Abby, I confess Abby, you know, my assistant, she's great. She's very on top of my life in a great way, which I need. And she's like, I know you guys don't really celebrate Valentine's day, but I bought a bunch of cards from you to Doug. If you want to fill one out on your desk, I think that that might undermine the, you know, honestly, I'm not going to, I'm probably not going to give him one. And he's probably not going to give me

one, which is, it depends. Like one year we did, we did it up big and we got balloons and the whole thing. Usually we do nothing. We're just kind of, you know, we were in love every day. Michael Knowles, we really do treat each other very well, no matter what the day. Every day is Valentine's day. You actually bring up an important point here megan i got into a little a lover's spat with my beloved wife last night which is i said i can't wait for my valentine's day present and she said mac what are you talking about valentine's day prison this is a woman's holiday how dare you suggest that i should and i so and i did i actually got i did get her a present i did better this year from alabama she i know you know maybe my impression's slightly off.

I think it gives the right, the right flavor though. And she was very upset about this. And she said, listen, we're not living in some feminist utopia here, okay? Men and women are different. Valentine's Day is for me. You got to get me flowers. You got to get me chocolates. You got to get me a gift.

I'm not going to pretend to be the man here and frankly I kind of respect it oh my god I feel like Michael I'd like our friend Matt Walsh is having a meltdown over that right now he's probably gonna do it a whole show on that Michael's wife is an asshole it has to be even you're not woman yeah look what can i say if if i'm going to be old school and a patriarchist on all of these matters then what's good for the goose is good for the gander my wife does not need to get me a present it's true yeah i don't know like i confess i do have a present for my husband but it's not valentine's related it's just because i love him and I haven't shown it to him yet. So I will explain to all of you what I did for Doug and I'll show you a picture of it later.

But for right now, Doug, stay out of the basement, continue to stay out of the basement and we'll find out later. So, okay. Enough about those weird marriages, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. One more. Here's for one more. It's my favorite. And let's move on to what happened in New York three, because there's a bit of political news this morning. It's very interesting. And I've heard all sorts of different takes. So this is the George Santos seat. New Yorkers won it. It had been long held by a Dem and they won it. But unfortunately they won it with a complete loser. Who's a pathological liar named George Santos. And nobody really did a deep dive on this guy until after he won it. And Republicans decided

to boot this guy. They voted to oust him. Meanwhile, the Democrats did not vote to oust Menendez from the Senate, right? They don't, they don't do this kind of thing to theirs. For lying about her ethnicity. Oh, she flies a lot. Yeah. You know, this is what I, it drove me so crazy because to your point, Megan, yeah, George Santos is a total weirdo and probably a criminal. And so, yeah, there's no love lost or anything. But they went after him because he allegedly engaged in weird sex stuff and lying about his ethnicity and financial deception.

OK. And his mom being a victim of like 9-11 and somebody else in the Holocaust. And he picked all the fates. He lied about it. There's all this stuff but I just think okay so if weird sex stuff is a disqualifier well there goes half of Congress if lying about your ethnicity is a disqualifier then you know chief Laya Watha over there with her powwow chow and her high cheekbones at Harvard she's got to be booted out of the Senate and then financial deception and chicanery okay well there goes the rest of washington dc

are you kidding me republicans so you stand up on some dubious principle that is really nothing more than a concession to the democrats you've already got a razor-thin majority now you've got an even thinner razor-thin majority such that when steve scalese needs to go get medical treatment you you don't have enough republicans to vote to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas. That should have been a slam dunk. And all for what? So that a Democrat who previously held that seat in Long Island will obviously retake the seat. So what? You're going to get a pat on the head from the Democrats in the New York Times? You're not even going to get that. You get absolutely nothing. And being so ethical. Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

It's really a good point. I have to say I have absolutely no sympathy for George Santos. I mean, I do think the guy's a pathological liar. But you have to think strategy with the Democrats aren't doing it. I mean, you could go if you do the list that Joe Biden, the lies he's told, they would never oust one of their own under these circumstances. So it's, you know, the Republicans have lost a seat in what was already a very slim, narrow majority. It was a seat they could not afford to lose. It was predictable. There was a special election and there was a Republican running against the Democrat who used, as you point out, used to hold the seat anyway. And now it's clear he won. He beat the Republican. He beat her by a lot. And I do think that this is interesting. So Simon Rosenberg used to come on my show a lot at Fox, and he's a smart Dem, very smart Dem.

And he feels really good about Joe Biden in 2024. And the reason he feels good is because he's been watching trends for the Dems kind of since Dobbs. And they've really been going the Democrat way. Abortion is just a huge motivator. It used to be a huge motivator for the right. You know, that would make people get off their couch and go vote to protect the right to life, try to get things changed. And now that Dobbs has been over, Dobbs was handed down an overturning row. It's a huge motivator for the left. So this is what he tweeted. There's been a basic fundamental

dynamic in my view, in our politics since the spring of 2022, when Dobbs happened, which is that Democrats keep over-performing expectations and Republicans keep struggling. It's showing up in every kind of race. I don't think there's anything untrue about that. And I do wonder, what, if anything, does it tell us about November? Because, you know, Trump was not on this ticket. Biden was not on this ticket. This is a local congressional race in, you know, New York's Long Island. They have very different feelings about the top of the ticket versus, you know what I mean? Like there wasn't a huge turnout. This election is going to be redone in November because this was like a special one to fill the seat after after the loser was kicked out. So all these weirdness is about Joe Biden wins in 2024, but none of these little races that have taken place since the 2020 election are really going to predict it. Least

of all, the New York three race with George Santos having been disgraced. He was only replaced by the guy who for what, three terms, four terms had already held that seat. I mean, it's just not predictive of anything. I agree with you. There's a penalty built in, you're saying. There's a penalty. Republicans are going to be forced to pay a bit. The Democrats took a chance on a Republican. It turned out to be this guy. Yeah. So that's totally anomalous. But even when we're talking about some of the other races around the country, I agree with you. Abortion does motivate some voters in certain places. Republicans behaving like eccentric weirdos versus Democrats who put on a nice facade of normality. I think that can affect races,

no doubt. But the thing that one has to remember is that the top of the ticket drives the election. Donald Trump has not been on a ballot since 2020 when all of the rules were changed because of the excuses of the COVID lockdown and the elections were conducted in a very different way. But Trump is Trump, and some people totally despise the guy, and a lot of people really like the guy, and he's going to decide that election. And 86% of Americans now don't think that Joe Biden is fit to be president. I'm not saying that it totally destroys his chances of being reelected, but it's going to come down to those two guys. Joe Biden is odd because he's a walking cadaver and Donald Trump is odd because he's Donald Trump and he's an American original and he remade the Republican party after his own image and there's just really no one that you can

compare to him. Look, if it makes Democrats more complacent to think they've got 2024 in the bag because George Santos blew it in New York's third, that's fine by me. Please keep telling yourself that. But I don't think it's true at all. Okay. On the subject of politics and Biden v. Trump, the spin masters are still out there with their plates on that special counsel, her, H-U-R, report. It's such a weird thing. Like, her said, it just sounds like bad grammar, but it's a proper name. We're very confused about pronouns these days, so that doesn't help. Her is getting attacked nonstop.

Her is being dismissed as a partisan hack. I don't like it. It rubs me the wrong way. So it continues today, and I actually think it's very interesting. I'm going to play you a butted soundbite we put together. And keep in mind, as you listen to this, I listened to the New York times, the daily podcast, because I just feel like it's my obligation to keep a tab on what the left is saying too. And even the New York times, the daily with Michael Barbaro and Peter Baker, their white house correspondent today was saying, they were saying this guy, Robert Herr, is not a partisan hack. Yes, he's a registered

Republican, but he was chosen because he was believed to be very fair and someone who could not be dismissed in this way. And indeed, no one had launched preemptive attacks against him. Like, well, we know that fixes in because they went and they got Steve Bannon to investigate Joe Biden. You know, of course, like nothing, there wasn't any of that. So clearly the left was expecting this guy to be a truth teller and only changed their minds because he added this stuff about elderly man with a poor memory and has frailties. But no, any of that, again, this is admitted by the times wouldn't know any of that. Again, this is admitted by the Times. Wouldn't know any of that from what you'd see on cable TV right now. Watch. The comments that were made by that prosecutor, gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate. Hackery by Mr. Herr. The guy knew. He's a tromper. Who knew?

You are not to put a finger on the scale of politics. That report showed that Merrick Garland again made the classic Democratic mistake, which is, I know I'll appoint a Republican, a Republican partisan to investigate, and that will give us credibility. This one who was appointed by Donald Trump wanted to make sure that he got his licks in. By the way, Michael, just to put a point on it, the RNC tweeted this out yesterday, January 12th, 2023, just about a year ago, 13 months, Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, special counsel Robert Herr is a distinguished prosecutor having served as a Trump appointed U.S. attorney who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis defending the guy now because he came. He's not prosecuting Joe Biden. He just had observations about why he's not really convictable in front of a jury. He's too sympathetic and sort of sad a witness to bring the charge. Hack. He's a hack. The irony, of course, they're all projecting because this news story, this issue more than any other, I think, reveals the hacks. And it's the

ones who are still trying to defend Joe Biden. And some are trying to do that because their political careers depend upon it. Kamala Harris, of course, or Adam Schiff. You really think that Kamala Harris is not happier than anybody over this, her report? This is her, H-E-R, best shot of becoming president. Of course, a lot of these people, I think, privately acknowledge that the report is accurate and they're praying that Joe Biden does not run again because they know that he's in deep trouble. I mean, there was that White House cybersecurity czar who was caught on hidden camera with James O'Keefe not too long ago, who admitted, he said, oh, privately, we all in the White House, we recognize

he's lost a step. He's senile. A lot of Democrats don't want him to run. Frankly, I think this is why CNN ran a four-minute segment last week, just eviscerating the spin masters and the flacks at the White House for not taking the her report seriously. The big takeaway from all of this for me is two things. One, the Democrats really, really want to replace Joe Biden because they think that he's weak. They know that he doesn't know which end is up and they think that he actually could lose to Trump. But two, Joe Biden really is the president. There have been some conspiracy theories going around that Joe Biden is just being led around on marionette strings. No, when Joe Biden gave that press conference after the Her report was released and after Tucker's

interview with Vladimir Putin, unbelievably, Joe Biden decided to go out there and give that disastrous press conference. No White House staffer would have allowed him to do that, certainly not if they had his political interests at heart. Joe Biden is the president, and he doesn't want to give it up, and he doesn't care if every Democrat politician in this country wants to push him out. That guy, you are going to have to either drag him out of the White House kicking and screaming, or you're going to have to drag him out stiff as a board. He is not going to go willingly, no matter how many Democrats want him to. Toe tag first. That's what we used to say in my law firm. I know they're going to take me out of here. Toe tag first. Yeah, he's possession is nine tenths of the law and he's not going to give

it up. Not without a fight. All right. Stand by because there's more and more musings about a possible sub in for Kamala Harris. And I'll bet you haven't heard this name yet. So we'll talk about that right after this. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time.

I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. All right, Michael. So there's some buzz behind the scenes that given Joe Biden's problems, you know, they don't want to get rid of him

because they don't want her, right? They just like, they're going to have to weekend at Bernie's him. Somebody said weekend at Biden's him and get him across the finish line. But the fear is that she's going to take over because they don't really want her. So now there's some feel that a possible replacement for her that might be acceptable to the Democratic base, largely comprised of Black women, that's a key, key voting group for Dems, would be Susan Rice. Now, we've been hearing this is sort of off the record from people in the know and like politico types. But now it's interesting because Axios just did a piece two days ago that's kind of all about her. And they're talking about how

she emerged as a central and controversial coordinator of the administration's approach to the border. Some officials found her needlessly combative. They're talking about how she didn't really much like HHS Secretary Becerra. She referred to him as a bitch ass and privately called him an idiot, according to multiple sources. Her ire for him stemmed from his failure to secure additional sheltering spaces for child migrants. Now, one could argue this sounds like Susan Rice planted this or an advocate at first did. She sounds tough. She wanted to protect the poor children at the border. During one meeting when Biden was tearing into Becerra, Susan Rice passed Mayorkas, the now impeached, a note that read, don't save him, according to two people familiar with meaning. She's tough. She's in control, Michael. That's

how I read this as a member of the press. This is what they're trying to style here. Then they write about her tension with Kamala Harris. It had origins in the summer of 2020 when both were being vetted for vice president. Rice later told people she thought Harris and her team were partly responsible for oppo research that resulted in negative coverage of Susan Rice. A spokesman said she categorically denies that reporting, or at least the reporting on her relationship with Becerra. Oh, and Harris. So both. So what do you make of the possibility of Susan Rice of the old, remember Benghazi fame, it was spontaneous violence at the embassy or the consulate. It was just spontaneous violence, not a planned terrorist attack as a potential sub for Kamala Harris.

It's so juicy, Megan. It's got all the makings of great political fan fiction. I just don't see it. And the reason is they already had the chance to do this. Joe Biden openly said in 2020 that he wanted a black woman to be his VP. And there were basically three options. There was Kamala Harris, there was Susan Rice, there was Karen Bass. The last one is an actual communist, member of Congress turned to LA mayor. Susan Rice was the fall guy for Benghazi and had her political career totally tarnished because of it. And so the last one standing was Kamala Harris. And now they've discovered, what do you know, Kamala Harris is not all that talented a politician, at least as a public facing politician. That's true. But they already went through the choice.

And so if they if they want to swap her out, I don't see any evidence that Susan Rice, who is personally much more impressive than Kamala Harris. But I don't see any evidence that she could win an election or a national election like this. I don't know that she would be any better on the trail than Kamala is. It's hard to imagine that anybody would be worse, but still, I don't see a lot recommending her for that. Plus, you've got all the baggage for Benghazi. Plus, you've got the weakness of swapping out your VP. And what are they going to offer Kamala Harris to do it? Maybe they offer her a lot of money. Maybe they offer some organization to lead. I still don't really see her taking it.

She should be the president of Harvard. She said she's got a more impressive academic record than the last one. They said it has to be a black woman. All right, there's one. And so there's one more black woman, though, that we haven't brought up. And this is usually the subject of the political fan fiction. They say, well, Michelle Obama, she could show up at the convention. She could be crowned the nominee. It's just not going to happen, folks.

She's expressed no interest in doing it. She's expressed a lot of opposition to running that sort of a campaign. I think Democrats are eager to find some kind of alternative to the terrible ticket that they've currently got. But none of the alternatives really seem all that much better, certainly not to justify the risk of actually taking it. And then the Republicans are always waiting to figure out the next big thing that's going to happen, the conspiracy behind the scenes. I just don't think there really is one. Maybe Gavin Newsom could be a much better candidate, but you're not going to skip over the first black woman

vice president for the guy from American Psycho. Okay. Governor Patrick Bateman is not going to be the nominee this time either. So I think they're basically just stuck with who they got. Okay. I've got to end with this terrible, terrible story on Valentine's day. I'm sorry, but I have to. Chaya Reitchick, the woman behind Libs of TikTok, she interviewed this 90 year old woman. She'd been volunteering for the MS society, MS, like multiple sclerosis for 60 years. And she just got fired from her volunteer position to help those with MS because she didn't understand why they wanted her, a 90 year old, to add her pronouns to her email. Listen to this. I was confused. I didn't know what it was, what it meant. And I'd seen it on a couple of

letters that had come in after the person's name. They had the pronouns, but I didn't know what that meant. And so finally, when I was talking to her, I thought, I'll ask, what does it mean? And, you know, let her tell me. And so she said that meant that they were include all inclusive, which didn't make sense to me. Because it sounds like you're labeling or labeling for females and not males. If you're just putting in she, her. She said that she was just asking her what it meant to have a conversation. So as a 90 year old who didn't know what it meant, you know, she's not streets happy to find out what it meant.

I got an email from her saying that they were sorry, but they had to ask me to step down. She didn't abide by their diversity, equity and inclusion. So they have to ask her to step down. Unbelievable. That's Shia's new podcast, by the way. Unbelievable. You're not DEI friendly. Sorry. This woman is sort of the opposite of Joe Biden. Joe Biden is confused by reality. You know, who's the president of Egypt? Who's the president of Mexico? That kind of thing. This woman is just confused by fantasy and absurdity. You say, why do you have the pronouns there? You say, well, grandma, it's because today a man can be a woman and a woman who looks like a woman and knows that she's a woman. We have to pretend we don't know that she's a woman. So you got to tell me your pronouns, grandma, what are

they? And, you know, she's looking at these people cockeyed, which makes a lot of sense to me. That's where we are. And the sad thing is that we now elevate the people who are extremely confused by reality all the way up to the presidency, apparently. And we fire the people who prefer reality to absurdity. Not a good state of affairs. For a charitable organization where she has 60 years of experience in helping them. And I'm sure there are older people close to her age or around her age who would really like to talk to somebody like this woman and don't give two shits about the fact that she doesn't want to call herself openly she her because it's obvious. A note to trans people, too.

If you're doing it right, it's obvious. You, too, should not need the pronouns. Michael Knowles, a pleasure as always. So fun talking to you. Megan, thank you for having me. Happy Valentine's Day. And to you. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.