The Megyn Kelly Show - "Bombshell" Testimony Dud, and Biden and Trump in 2024, with Andrew Klavan and Stephen L. Miller | Ep. 347

Episode Date: June 29, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire and Stephen L. Miller, host of the "Versus Media" podcast, to talk about the key problems with the supposed "bombshell" testimony at the January 6 committee hearing from Cassidy Hutchinson, what was missing, the media reaction to the testimony, the truth about the media's obsession, the pushback from the Secret Service and others in the White House, whether Trump will announce he's running in 2024, the dehumanization of the unborn and our culture, the push for it to be Hillary Clinton's "moment" and her offensive Justice Thomas comments, stupidity from The View, horrific migrant deaths in Texas, celebrities melt down over abortion decision, Biden's 2024 plans, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We have a big show lined up for you today. But I want to start with why the woman all over the news today, 25- old White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, did not deliver the bombshell that many now claim she did yesterday. OK, let's talk about her testimony. The January 6th committee called it star witness yesterday in its case against Donald Trump. With all due respect to Miss Hutchinson, I remain unmoved. I will start with this. As many of you may recall, I raised questions about Donald Trump's temperament to be president at a

debate back in 2015. I think that was a fair issue then, and I think it was at the root of why he lost in 2020. I also think his temperament problems were evident in how he reacted to his 2020 loss, including before and on January 6th. He lost. He couldn't take it. And he embarrassed himself and the nation with his behavior. That's my take. But what's happening on Capitol Hill is a very long sleight of hand. This committee has one goal and only one goal. Stop Donald Trump from running again in 2024. They're worried he could win. They absolutely loathe him and they will do what it takes to stop his political resurrection. Just look at the makeup of the committee. No Trump defenders, not a single Trump ally, no objective trier of fact. We talked earlier this month about how they doctored the riot video and the Trump sound

bites used at this hearing. And if this committee would just be honest about its mission, I might be more invested. I might be more interested. Instead, it cloaks itself in sanctimony, purporting to be a fair minded down the middle finder of fact, just looking to get to the truth of January 6th. It's a lie. And they prove every time they get together that it's a lie. Which leads us to Cassidy Hutchinson, aide to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Her testimony is causing Democrats and the press to collapse onto their fainting couches today. And we are going to go through her major points one by one. First, she testified that President Trump allegedly knew that those trying to get into his rally on January 6th had weapons

and that he did not care. I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, I don't care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away. Mags, meaning the magnetometer. Stop screening them. They're not going to hurt me. Trump didn't care that some were trying to attend his rally were armed because they weren't going to hurt him. That's the claim. If true, it's certainly callous. He wasn't the only person at risk that day. But what actually happened

in this case? Did the Secret Service stop screening the people? Were they let in? No one has suggested that. In any event, did anyone think prior to yesterday that Trump saw the crowd later fighting with Capitol Hill police on TV that day and thought totally law abiding citizens who pose zero danger or threat to anyone. Of course not. He knew he knew that they were potentially dangerous. We knew he knew and he did nothing to stop it because he clearly liked what they were doing. That's awful, but it's not a new stop the press's bombshell. Moreover, there is a real question about whether Trump even actually said what Ms. Hutchinson's testimony suggests. All right. If you listen

to her full testimony, you will hear that what she actually claims was she was in the vicinity, quoting, of, quote, a conversation where she, quote, overheard President Trump say something, quote, to the effect of I don't care that they have weapons. A lot of qualifiers in there. She was near a conversation not involving her where she overheard something to the effect of a first year law student could have driven a truck through the holes in that testimonial. Unfortunately, none was present yesterday. Never mind a full fledged lawyer presenting Donald Trump's defense or even just pressing the witness on certain problems with her testimony. I'm not calling her a liar. I'm saying there were problems that any defense lawyer would have exploited.

Indeed, Trump has had no defense at all at any one of these hearings or the depositions leading up to them. OK, second, Ms. Hutchinson claims that Trump, after that rally, got in his presidential limousine known as the Beast, demanded to go to the Capitol and had a physical altercation with his driver when the driver refused to take him. The president said something to the effect of I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now. To which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing.

We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And when Mr. Renato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles. OK. Does anyone really believe that Trump reached for the wheel of the beast and then tried to essentially strangle his security? I mean, please. Here again, Ms. Hutchinson was not a party to the actual exchange. A man named Tony Ornato got the story from Bobby Engel, head of Trump's security detail, who was in the car at the time. All right. So Engel was there and he apparently told it to Ornato, who told it to Ms. Hutchinson. Ornato, when he told Hutchinson, I will say this,

that guy, Bobby Engel, was there. So that helps her testimonial. But here again, she paraphrases. If you listen to her full testimonial, she goes on and says, well, the president said something to the effect of I'm the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol. What does that mean? He said it or he didn't. What does that mean? Something to the effect of which words are you unsure of? Effing take me to the Capitol. Why can't you remember? Ms. Hutchinson, why do you keep saying to the effect of and recounting all of these conversations to this committee, which,'t you remember, Ms. Hutchinson? Why do you keep saying to the effect of and recounting all of these conversations to this committee, which, by the way, Ms. Hutchinson did throughout her two hour testimony yesterday? Her memory appeared to be rather shaky. Listen.

Then Tony had relayed to me something to the effect of where I overheard the president say something to the effect of something to the effect of Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, where I overheard the president say something to the effect of. Something to the effect of, Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, the president said something to the effect of, and he said something to the effect of. Something to the effect of, and I remember Pat saying to him, something to the effect of, and Pat said something to the effect of, and very clearly had said this to Mark, something to the effect of, I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, and Mark had responded something to the effect of. Something to the effect of, you remember it very clearly, then tell us what it was.

Not to the effect of, what exactly? What were the words used? Tell us. Last night, the driver and Mr. Engel, the head of Trump security, reportedly disputed Ms. Hutchinson's claims about that alleged confrontation with Trump in the beast, though they reportedly admit that Trump was angry he couldn't go to the Capitol. They, unlike Ms. Hutchinson, have firsthand knowledge of what happened in that car. Why won't the committee let us hear from them? Also, here again, is it really a surprise that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol? He promised to do exactly that openly and on the record in his rally speech. We've all heard it a million times. Many wondered since then why he never actually did it. And knowing the reason,

namely that the Secret Service refused to take him, is new and somewhat interesting. But is it really all that damning to Trump, whose goal we have always understood was to go? Number three, Ms. Hutchinson testified that later back at the White House, Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, her boss, told the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, that Trump was totally indifferent to the crowd's hostility toward Mike Pence, who was on Capitol Hill. They're literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung. And Mark had responded something to the effect of you heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He thinks Mike deserves it. Here again, listen to the full thing. Her testimony is full of qualifiers. She heard Cipollone, the White House counsel, say, quote, something to the effect of

we need to do something more. They're calling to hang Mike Pence. And then Meadows allegedly responded something to the effect of he thinks Mike deserves it. This is these are her words. Then the White House counsel said something like this is crazy, et cetera. How sure are you, madam? What words can't you remember? Why? What specifically did the White House counsel say? What specifically did Mark Meadows say in response? This was a big conversation. You're not sure you didn't write it down. You're 25. You're 24 years old. What is that happening is a big moment. Why wouldn't you take a note? Why not? Or if you did, where are they? Were they produced? Can we see them? Let me see them right now. Do they refresh your memory? And by the way, what, if any,

prejudices does Ms. Hutchinson have against Mr. Trump? Not impugning her again. She seemed like a very nice young woman to me. But Trump is now claiming that this woman wanted to move with his team to Florida, continue working for him after his term ended, but was rejected, suggesting this is about sour grapes. And if she really was so horrified, as she claimed yesterday by January 6th, then his behavior and the stuff about Mike Pence. Did she actually apply to go with him to Florida after that? Is that true?

I have no idea. No one asked her because no one is there to defend Trump or provide any semblance of balance or fairness. But even giving Ms. Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt, is anyone surprised to learn that Trump was not feeling particularly loyal to or protective of Mike Pence on January 6th. When the crowd was chanting they wanted him hanged, Trump sent out a tweet condemning Pence. It was totally outrageous and it garnered a ton of news coverage. This testimony offers some behind the scenes color, but that's about it. And then finally, Ms. Hutchinson testified that Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows both sought pardons from Trump for their actions or inaction on January 6th. Color me shocked. They knew what had happened inside that White House. They knew it was inexcusable,

and they wanted to get out of jail free card after not doing more to stop it. Okay. None of this reflects well on Donald Trump. Does anyone think January 6th reflects well on Trump? But there's no need to pretend that this is some earth-shattering game changer. It's additional flavor on an already cooked meal. The attempt to claim otherwise comes from people who already loathed Trump. I actually think I'm in a unique spot on this front.

I feel no need to defend Trump or his character as my audience knows. But I know a sham trial when I see one. And this is not justice. It is not fair. And it is not to be trusted. Joining me now, Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show for The Daily Wire. Andrew's also a bestselling author. And his most recent book, which is amazing, is titled The Truth and Beauty, How the Lives and Works of England's Greatest Poets Point the Way to a Deeper Understanding of the Words of Jesus. Thank you so much for being with us again today, Andrew. Great to have you.

It's great to see you, Megan. I love that opening, remind me never to get cross-examined by you on the stand I think I think you pointed to exactly what the problem with this these hearings is it's the lack of any kind of cross-examination any kind of fine fact-finder of truth any objectivity and what's so distressing about it is the way the press even some of the right-wing press like the Wall Street Journal and some of the people on Fox News are using this term. Well, yes, it's a show trial, but there is no but there is no but after that sentence is a show trial.

And you're absolutely right about Trump and you're absolutely right about January 6th. It reminds us all that Trump Trump is a tragic character because the very belligerence and narcissism that gave him the power to fight back against the press and the deep state and the Democrat machine made him just a rude and abusive person who the voters ultimately rejected because of that. And it's sad to remember that. But on January 6th, he put these weapons in the hands of his enemies and they're using them, but they're using them incompetently because they're just so hungry to destroy them. That's right. These are points Ron DeSantis can raise if he's fighting against Trump for the primary or whoever the Democrat.

I don't know if it's going to be Biden is if they wind up running against Trump in the general. These are points for them to raise. Totally fair points. You can you can spin. You can get political. You can hold no due account for all this. But what what offends me as a lawyer and as a citizen is this committee trying to pretend that it's some objective finder of fact, because they have two never Trumpers who hate Trump even more than the Democrats on the committee doing their bidding so they can call it bipartisan and not a single Trump defender. So this woman would have benefited from some cross-examination. Maybe she would have done fine. Maybe she would have said, I'm sorry, that's a verbal tick to the effect of I always do that. No, these were the actual words. Thank you for making me clarify. Or maybe she could have responded to, no, there's no sour grapes. I never did apply to go with Trump

to Florida. That's a lie. And, you know, I didn't want to continue. Whatever. Well, we won't know because of the way this committee handles itself. And where is their moral standpoint? They're accusing him of an insurrection at the same time. They're calling the Supreme Court illegitimate, telling people to take to the streets because duly appointed justices have made a decision that they don't like. They coddled the rioters after George Floyd's death, encouraged them, not just coddled them, they encouraged them. 25 people died, billions of dollars worth of damage done by violence. And they kept telling us, the news kept telling us it was mostly peaceful. And now they're basically claiming that this act of idiocy on January 6th,

and there's just no other way to characterize it as a total act of stupidity, is somehow the worst thing since the Civil War. It reminds me of like the Reichstag fire, you know, where somebody actually did set the Reichstag on fire, but Hitler used that to close down the government, to close down people's freedoms. I'm not comparing them to the Nazis, just the strategy of taking this essentially minor but horrific incident and turning it into a second revolution. It just wasn't that. And this poor woman, I agree with you. I feel for her. She's 25 now, which means during the time she's describing, she was 23 or 24, the press keeps calling her a top aide. It's hard for me to believe that a 23-year-old who's essentially just out of college

would be a top aide. It's hard for me to believe that she was privy to too much of what was going on. And as you pointed out, almost everything she said was hearsay and nobody said anything about it. My question now, because there were reports, for instance, that the Secret Service wants to deny the absolutely absurd story of Trump in the car. You know, are they going to let Secret Service testify? Is that even going to make it onto the air? And if it doesn't, what does that mean about all the journalists saying it's a show trial? But if they can't even come in and say say this story is absolutely untrue, I'm the driver, I'm the guy. It didn't happen. If they can't do that, what's the point of her testimony at all? That you're exactly right. There's a reason in a courtroom you don't allow hearsay.

It's considered unreliable. If I want to report to you what my neighbor know, my neighbor said, they they don't want me to be able to do that. They want me to have to put the neighbor on. They want to hear from the neighbor to hear exactly what the neighbor said. And the more it's like the game of telephone, the more links you have between the actual speaker of the conversation and the person sitting on the witness stand, the less reliable it is. And, you know, you could hear that in her testimonial about like, OK, so the beast driver is. And, you know, you could hear that in her testimonial about like, OK, so the beast driver is the one having the confrontation with Trump, you know, allegedly attacked by him as he's driving the car as Trump's leaning. I don't even know if you can

reach the steering wheel when you're the president in the back of the beat. I'm going to imagine there's a divider, but I have no idea. So so that guy experienced that and he talks to the head of security, who's apparently also in the car. And then they go back to the White House and then the head of security relays something about what the driver experienced to this aide. And now she's trying to remember something to the effect of some. Come on. In a court of law, they would not allow. And I realize she also testified the driver was sitting there while this was being relayed and didn't stand up and say none of that is true but now they are reportedly saying this isn't true um richard angle of nbc news is is reporting i think was it richard no no um not right ankle uh peter alexander sorry the white house correspondent is reporting that it's that they're prepared to say this wasn't true the

bit about him confronting reaching for the steering wheel and actually physically attacking anybody in the beast and one of those guys angle the of security, was interviewed by this committee already. So either Liz Cheney already knows that this guy is in dispute with this witness and put her on anyway without asking her about the dispute, which is a massive problem for Liz Cheney if it happened, or Liz Cheney interviewed Angle and got a story that perfectly lines up with what Hutchinson testified to. And now this guy's flipped and she's got to bring him back before the committee to find out why he's flipping. Is he flipping? Does he want to disavow his earlier private testimony that we haven't been subjected to? Or she didn't ask him, right? Or

she didn't ask him, which is another problem for her. Either way, it's not good. And they haven't made his earlier testimony public because this committee hides half of what it does more from the rest of us. They they do this private investigation. And at the end, we all know what happens. Trump gets condemned. Trump in their perfect world gets convicted by a DOJ investigation, which very clearly seems to be underway.

They're investigating Trump for crimes associated with this. And a compliant media will push the narrative just as much as the Democrats want them to. You know, you know, what's kind of funny about it, too, is if you step back for a minute and you think, what if everything they say happened? What if it's just as bad as as they say it is and all their assertions turn out to be true? Then in that case, Mike Pence saved the country. If that's true, then Mike Pence, as I actually believe in some sense he did, I think Mike Pence acted with tremendous courage and integrity.

And Mike Pence is everything the Democrats hate. They did nothing for four years but make fun of his fidelity to his wife, of his Christian faith. They lied about his feelings toward gay people and his actions toward gay people. They just made him sound like a dunce and a clown. And all those values that they hate with every fiber of their being saved the country under their own scenario. In fact, not just Mike Pence, but every time Trump tried to pressure a functionary to do something wrong and that functionary stood up against him. It was because he was a Christian. It was because he was quoting the Bible in his own mind and saying, you know, my service to God means I have to defy the president of the United States. So all the values that the Democrats have worked and slaved to destroy in this country are what saved the country under their own story, under the story that they're trying to tell. The heroes turn out to be all the people they hate.

So I don't really think, you know, with inflation being what it is, with the border being open, with so many things going wrong, the pandemic still as bad as ever, really, I don't think this is going to help the Democrats at all. I think this was actually a misguided attempt, even even with the press making those claims. Well, it's a show trial. But I think ultimately people just could not care less about what happened. So which what now is in our history is so long ago. Now, there are some reports that Trump is getting ready to announce that he's running in 2024 as soon as this holiday weekend. I don't know whether that's true. Unconfirmed reports. If he does it, it'll clearly be a middle finger to this January 6th committee, which sounds Trump like. But what what do you make of that? I mean, this will be an albatross around his neck if he decides to run again. And if the Republicans don't let him have it in the primary process,

then he's definitely going to get it in the general. But I can't imagine a Republican challenger wouldn't touch the January 6th stuff because these primaries are slugfests. Does anybody remember what Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio last time around? I mean, two times ago. It's just it's brutal. So what do you make of it? I mean, do you think Trump will run again and do you want him to? Well, I don't want him to. I think he's probably the only person who could lose to the Democrats at this point. I am hearing from his close friends and people who, you know, know him well and speak to him all the time that he is 100 percent running, that nothing in this world can stop him from trying to overturn this blow to his ego that was this loss. And I believe him. You know,

I believe that there's still some time before he has to decide. So maybe he'll turn back. What I really feel is that Trump, Trump in his way was a godsend. Trump was the exact right person to stand up to what has become a machine of lies, which is not just the Democrat Party, but it's also the deep state and their media, which is almost all the media. And it took a bowling ball like Trump, a guy who just doesn't care what people think of him, what he says, what comes out of his mouth, to really put a dent in that machine. And I think he was truly just sent by heaven to bring this country, to open up this country again. But all the things, as I said before, all the things that gave him the power

to do that also made him an unviable candidate. And I think if he were a different man, a better man, he would now step aside and name DeSantis or someone like him as his replacement and say, this is my legacy. I paved the way for this. And now that a younger man and a more statesman like man do what has to be done. And I think that that would be a beautiful thing. But I am being told and told again that he is 110 percent running. And I think he is the one person, you know, who could lose. Yeah, I know. I mean, the polls show that he wouldn't lose, but who knows? He's just such a divisive figure. And, you know, you know, DeSantis and I know DeSantis and the name very well. The country doesn't know that name as well. And Trump's got

those loyal, loyal, loyal supporters. And one of the things that one of the dynamics that emerged to me in the wake of her testimony yesterday was his supporters. There won't be one thing in there that they dislike. And to the contrary, they'll love all of it. You know that he was like, let them in. I don't care if they're if they have weapons. They're not going to they're not going to hurt me. And and the fact that he tried to live up to his promise to them to to go to the Capitol with them. So we've heard some of the supporters say, I don't understand why he didn't come. He said he'd come and we went there for him. Why didn't he go? Now they have their answer. He tried. According to her, he almost punched out a Secret Service agent in order to get the beast to take him there instead of sixteen hundred. So, you know, who does this

rattle support with? Nobody. I think his core base is still there. And the nomination, I still think, is his for the taking, because there's just nobody who could garner 30 percent of the GOP in the way he can. You know, and that's that's what it's about in the primary process. All right. Now, I want to shift gears and talk about this because Trump had a great week prior to this yesterday. I wonder if the things are related, but he had a great week with Roe versus Wade and Casey being overturned, clearly in part as a result of the three justices that he appointed. And, you know, I wonder whether he could be persuaded to just let that be his legacy, you know, to I realize he's not really pro-life, you know, Trump's not really. I just don't believe that. But no one cares. You know, people who are pro-life are like, I don't give a

damn. We actually agree with me. Just do what I need to get done. And he did. So do you think that that plays at all into like, wait a minute, why don't just go out on this? This is a win. Go out on this win. No. Well, that's I think that may be a little wishful thinking. You know, I it was a tremendous victory for Trump this week. I mean, it was three great decisions from the Supreme Court, top among them, obviously, Roe v. Wade, the overturned Dobbs, the overturning Roe v. Wade. And it was all because of Trump, Trump and Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell saw his chance and he took it and he understood that Trump, unlike a lot of other Republican presidents, was going to stand behind him, even when they did what

they did to Brett Kavanaugh and just tried to destroy the man. Trump was just that character who was going to stand by him. And it was a tremendous victory. And it makes a lot of the never Trumpers look really bad. It makes a lot of the never Trumpers look really bad. It makes a lot of the people who couldn't understand that this was a special moment, that this was a special character, that you had to look at him in a nuanced, balanced way. It makes them look ridiculous. And there was a lot of stuff, you know, I used to love National Review, but there was

a lot of stuff coming out of National Review saying, basically, we don't have to credit Trump for this. But no, this was his victory. And it was the best thing about his presidency to say that he could see it that way and let go. That just doesn't sound like the Trump that all of us know. But it was a tremendous moment. And it really did that just the panic and the anger and the absolute nonsense that comes babbling out of Democrats mouths in the wake of it just shows you why they spent so much time trying to defeat him. I mean, this is basically its third impeachment trial that they're running and he's not even president anymore. So they're really passionate about it. Well, in the Brett Kavanaugh situation is the greatest example of Trump's temperament being hugely important in many ways. And obviously, we've already talked about the downsides of it, but that any other president, I mean, there's another president on Earth prior to Trump. Now he set an example. I can't say there won't be one in the future, but that would have stood by Brett Kavanaugh given what they were doing to him. It took a guy like Trump and what they did to Brett Kavanaugh was deeply wrong and deeply unfair. So that's when a lot of people changed their minds on Trump and realized, wait a minute, that the upsides to this sort of weirdness about him are far greater

than the downsides. And but then he would continue doing the downsides and give more pause. All right. Let me stand you by right there, because I know that you were on the air when the when the Dobbs decision came down and got very emotional about it. And I want to talk to you about it and the incredible racist attacks now that we're seeing on Clarence Thomas as the meltdown in response continues. Much, much more to talk about with Andrew Klavan, the one and only, one of my favorite guests. He's amazing. You've got to read his book. Very moving. I read the whole thing. And you'll love it. Andrew, you're right. The court, they're batting a thousand this week on some great religious liberty cases and gun rights cases,

which kind of look like no brainers, but a previous court would not have come down the way they did. You know, it's like, how is he? How is the coach Kennedy establishing religion on the 50 yard line when he's privately just taking a knee to say a prayer and people come to join him whether they want to or not? How is that the establishment of religion like the establishment clause jurisprudence? It's just all over the place. It's a nightmare. We could use some clarification on it. And of course, inching there. But anyway, talk to me about that moment. And our viewers should know you used to be a liberal, right? I mean, like, yeah, it's not like you've been some dyed in the wool conservative,

you know, your whole life. And but it was emotional for you when you heard about Dobbs. Tell us. Yeah. Yeah. It had been weighing on me more and more. No question about it. You know, I haven't heard anybody else say this, but this is what bothered me about it is that there's a fundamental difference. You know, abortion is going to continue. I think abortion is a grave evil. I have come to that opinion over a long time. I was pro abortion in my youth. I lost an argument with a friend one day and that just worked on me over the years until finally I changed my mind. And abortion is going to continue in some of the states. Evil is always going to be with us. There's nobody, you know, we're going to have evil institutions. But there's a fundamental difference, an essential difference between a country where evil is done, which is every country, and a country that establishes that evil as a right. Because when you say that evil is a right,

you effectively dehumanize the class of people to whom that evil is done.. Because when you say that evil is a right, you effectively dehumanize the class of people to whom that evil is done. So there's a difference. You know, slavery was a grave evil, but there's a difference between having slavery and having Dred Scott, where you say that an African-American isn't an American, can't have the rights of an American. There's a difference between being an anti-Semite and even having an anti-Semite government and passing the Nuremberg Laws that strip Jews of their rights and dehumanize them. When you say that abortion is a right, you take this unborn child who already doesn't have a voice and you take away any possibility of his having a voice. When you dehumanize someone, he loses that right that we all have, that we all depend

on to say to your fellow human, look at me. I'm just like you. I'm the image of God. You can't do this to me. And more and more, it began to seem to me that the logic of that dehumanization was working on all of us until, you know, and my friends will tell you, my friends here at The Daily Wire will tell you that I would say to them, you know, I'm not sure this is

a good country anymore. I'm not sure that a country where we have to discuss whether it's right to butcher children to change their gender is a good country. And all of it to me was traced back to Roe v. Wade, was traced back to the idea that not only could abortion be performed in certain circumstances, something that I think people should argue about and vote on. But we had a right to do it. And obviously, it was obvious to me that that right would start being, you know, legal, safe, legal and rare, and would end up with shout your abortion even if you did it one

second before that baby was born, because a lot of ideas follow their logic out to their furthest point. And it was beginning to just weigh on me. It was certainly a major part of my prayers every day that this country had truly lost its way. And I love this country. I mean, I love this country the way people love their mothers, because this is my mother country. I mean, this made me everything I am. It gave me everything I have. It has fashioned, it has allowed me to fashion an independent personality in a world of conformity. And I'm an artist, so that matters a lot to me. And yet I felt it had

gone terribly, terribly wrong. And so this decision, the minute I saw it, I mean, my heart just exploded because the minute I saw it, I thought, you know, this doesn't make us a good country. It opens the possibility for us to be a good country. It means that evil will be done, but we are no longer evil. We are no longer saying that this child cannot make an argument, that no one can stand up for this child and say, look, it's a human being, you know, treat it like a human being. Because, you know, that to me is the only argument we're having. We're not having arguments about a woman's right. We're not having arguments about health care. We're having an argument about whether or not an unborn child is a human being. And, you know, I think there's a little leeway to make arguments there, but not as much as you would think. And certainly not going anywhere near, you know, 16, 18, 24 weeks. That's ridiculous. And so we're arguing about the humanity of this child. And when you say at the highest level, this is beyond argument, this is beyond vote,

you've made it so that, I mean, justice is supposed to be blind. It's not supposed to be mute, but you've essentially ripped out justice's tongue because that's the argument we all use. That's the foundation of the golden rule is to look at me. I am the image of God. I am your image. You have to treat me as you would be treated. And they took, they stripped babies of that right. And in doing that to me, they stopped doing evil and became evil. And it touched all of us. And it has changed our culture in a million different ways. I mean, I could, I won't, but I could go on and talk for an hour on the ways that I think that has changed our culture for the worse. And this opens the possibility that we can begin to climb out of that. And that to me is a beautiful thing. I mean, a beautiful thing. I did not want to, I'm getting up there in age and I did not want to walk out

the door, leaving the country in the state, the cultural state it's in now. And I haven't heard anybody else talk about that, but that's the thing that weighed on me so much. That's the thing that I kept bringing to God. And that's the thing that broke my heart when that wonderful decision came in. Wow. Well said. I mean, it's like Lila Rose said the other day, she was on the program reacting to the decision. She know, she she heads up live action, which is a pro-life group. And she was saying, now we have a fighting chance. What this decision does is it's not a total win, but it gives us a fighting chance to persuade people before we didn't even we didn't have that really. You know, it was like we couldn't even get in the fight now. Now they're in and now they have a full throated opportunity to say

they shouldn't be allowed or this is why you should make a different choice. And I know that you feel this personally because I learned something about you in preparing for today. I knew that you had written all sorts of movies and books and so on, but I didn't realize that you had written the drama Gosnell, the trial of America's biggest serial killer about Kermit Gosnell, a case in which I have a lot of interest. I was on the air every day when that broke. And it was incredible. It was unbelievable that this guy existed. And serial killer is the right word for him. And in the state of Pennsylvania, and I'll never forget, you know, the big reveal was ultimately that Tom Rich, a Republican governor who was he fancied himself pro-choice, but Republican, basically allowed it to happen. He had stopped

inspections of the Gosnell abortion clinic. And, you know, he thought for political reasons that wasn't going to play. And then we later found out that Gosnell was murdering babies in their ninth month in utero in horrific, disturbing ways. The nurses who came out and talked about what he was doing, what he was making them do. They were given immunity so they could be honest about it. We just gruesome tales. And that I think that whole case, which you now are so familiar with, that was a bit of a turning point on hearts and minds on this issue. You know, the best scene in that movie, and I can say it's the best scene because

even though I wrote it, I took it right out of the transcript of the trial, was when the defense brought on a regular abortionist, a legal abortionist, a non-insane abortionist, and had her describe what she did when she was aborting a child. And it was virtually the same thing that Gosnell was doing. And so it actually, the defense was, well, he was just doing abortions, which to some extent was actually true. When I was researching it, I talked to the prosecutor and she was talking about the voir dire, the interviews of the jurors. And every time she came to a male juror and asked his opinion of abortion, he would say, oh, well, that's not for me to talk about. That's only for women to talk about. Every one of them, they were afraid to have an opinion because they were male and not female, a distinction which apparently no longer exists, but did at that time.

And that speaks to what I was saying before about stripping people of their voices. Almost everything the left does, if you notice it, is not an argument. It's a reason why you shouldn't be able to speak. Everything they say translates into shut up. And they've been so effective at it. And the idea that because you're a man, you can't comment on whether the destruction of an infant life is a good or a bad thing is just incredibly corrupt. But that was part of the Gosnell thing.

And the reason Gosnell was not arrested is because nobody wanted, everybody knew what he was doing, but nobody wanted the taint of what he was doing to touch abortion because it was too hot an issue. Oh, my gosh. Well, the cynicism in response to the Dobbs decision and what it means and what it doesn't mean for other cases and other rights continues right on down to Hillary Clinton, who, by the way, now I think it was CNN's Chris Eliza tweeted out something saying this is her moment. They're actually starting this up again they're actually going to try to push her on us again but she's out there um in her in her brilliant punditry talking about justice thomas in the most offensive way listen to her

i went to law school with him he's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him. Resentment, grievance, anger. And the thing that is, well, there's so many things about it that are deeply distressing. But women are going to die, Gail. Women will die. My God, I've never heard anything less true about Justice Thomas. He's exactly the opposite of a person of grievance. His only grievance I've ever heard from him is he he refuses to be used as white liberals puppet as something less than an equal citizen when he refuses to just mouth their talking points on issues of race. They've been doing this to Clarence Thomas since he was appointed, and they basically accused him of being the wild, sexual black man, and now he's the angry black man. They'll pull out any kind of cliche, racist remarks they have, but they don't, you know, this is the thing about the left now. They are a racist party.

You know, I say this all the time. They're a right-wing racist. They're racists all over the place. But the left is now a racist party. The Democrats are a racist party. They believe in racism. They think it's good racism because it's pointed at white people. But in fact, it's not pointed at white people.

White is just a word they use when they want to attack people. So Clarence Thomas becomes white when he ceases to disagree, to agree with them. Clarence Thomas is, you know, it used to be the sort of accepted wisdom that he was the second place to Antonin. Looking back, I think Scalia learned a lot from Thomas. I think Thomas's philosophy is more solid. I think he's thought it through. And I think he's a brilliant jurist. One of the things about reading the both the decision on Dobbs and the defense is how, first of all, the clarity of Alito's legal logic is it's impeccable. You can't really find a place to drive through. The sad, the saddest one was Roberts trying to kind of mealy mouth his way out of the position he found himself in. But when you looked at the dissent from Kagan and the others, they admitted that there were

conflicting rights between the unborn child and the mother. But how can there be conflicting rights if the unborn child is not a human being? You know, objects don't have rights. Only people have rights. And so their logic doesn't really hold together. And Clarence Thomas is so clear. He is, I got to say, he's a radical in his originalism. He basically said, you know, we should use this logic and get rid of Obergefell and get rid of one bunch of other decisions that the rest of the court was saying not, but he's an honest guy of integrity. You know what? Alito feels the same way. He just didn't want to say it like these. The more conservative jurists privately likely agree with Justice Thomas. They just recognize the country's not quite ready for the total elimination of what's called substantive due process, which was controversial from the start. And also, if you got rid of substantive due process,

all that would mean is all these rights go back to the states to decide. You know, we're truly a federalist society. If it's not really explicit in the Constitution or has a long, long history of being a right not mentioned, but recognized in this country, then you have to fight for it on a state by state level. It's really not that controversial. People are like, he wants to do away with gay marriage. That's not true. He wants to. He would like it to be a state by state matter. He doesn't see it as a constitutional right. He proved that he was right. That's why we have gun rights. And that's why they want to take those gun rights away.

And that's why we have different decisions. I mean, even murder is a state-run, a state-decided crime. You know, we have those different ways of looking at things because we know that a series of little republics will remain republics, where one great big republic is going to suddenly just become an authoritative regime. And that's what the left is pushing for and has been pushing for for a long time. So part of the problem in interpreting Thomas and the court and all these things is we have a bunch of morons on television offering their own punditry on it. And, you know, I mean, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the ladies of The View and Joy Behar. OK, now she's talking here not about Roe, but about the Coach Kennedy case where the football coach who I mentioned, he was privately preying on the 50 yard line and students decided to join him.

And he got fired because the school said, you're basically you're forcing kids to do it. And there was no forcing whatsoever. However, the only real argument was you have authority and therefore they might feel like you're not going to start them on the football field if they don't do it. Even though the guy had absolutely no history of doing that to students who didn't join. Anyway, listen to where Joy Behar took that win for Coach Kennedy in this soundbite. I would like to know if it would apply to Colin Kaepernick, for example. He takes a knee. I don't know if this is really legal or any of what I'm saying, but it seemed to me like the guy takes a knee and he gets thrown off the team.

But he could be praying, too, praying that these people would leave him alone. I don't know what he's praying for, but he could be praying. How do they know what you're doing when you take a knee? Doesn't that look like prayer to you? Suddenly, it's illegal for him, but it's okay for them. It's illegal. It was illegal, you see, for Colin Kaepernick. Also, Colin Kaepernick was doing something completely different. So what could be worse than differentiating between two things that are completely different but look vaguely the same? One is working for a private corporation. One is working for a public school where the government

is shutting you up for doing it. And the NFL can tell its players to do whatever the hell it wants to tell them to do when it comes to speech. But I love that she's suggesting Colin Kaepernick was told it was illegal for him to take a name. But it is true that one of them was praying and one of them was protesting the flag under the flag of the NFL. He was wearing an NFL uniform at the time, so they had a perfect right to tell him not to do it. I mean, the view has got to be is a source of constant stupidity. It's amazing to me that a show with hosts named Whoopi, Joy and Sonny could be such a font of misery and depression. I think they would live up to their names.

It's so true. So, OK, last thing, because I didn't really get to it yesterday and I felt so bad. This migrant crisis down at the southern border continues. And May was the worst month that we have had in terms of the encounters with migrants. And now we know that 51 people are dead inside of this semi tractor trailer, 101 degree temperatures. They were left there and somebody was heard moaning. And finally, they were rescued. No water. To me, there's just a consistency here because the Democrats, they clearly don't care. Now they want us to say, oh, women are going to die. Women are going to die, as Hillary Clinton said. They're all about life except of the baby. And now they're all about, oh, you know, we were a country that

accepts immigrants. You know, we have to improve people's lives, except they won't talk at all about incidents like this, which border hawks have said all along is one of the reasons why we need to secure our southern border. People will die. They'll die at the hands of illegal immigrants who come across and unleash hell, especially on the ranchers who are down there. We've seen examples of that. And they'll die thanks to these traffickers who couldn't care at all about the people who they are taking across the southern border once they have their money. They exploit them. They die. Where's AOC in her little white uniform now? You know, I just do not understand why they are not under more pressure. And this is one of the things I fought the Republican Party for. You know, what is the logic of this? What country doesn't have a border? What country

doesn't regulate the number of immigrants who come in? And what country doesn't also make sure that those immigrants who come in are schooled in the ways and nature of the country? I mean, this is the way this is. We are a nation of immigrants. But the way we managed being a nation of immigrants was making sure that the people who came in loved it, wanted to be here, had a good reason for being here, could be used by the country and elevated by the country. All of those things have gone by the board. And it's like we're not supposed to exist as a nation anymore. You know, this is what part of what Douglas Murray calls the war on the West, this idea that somehow we are uniquely evil. And I personally,

I think it's the other way around. I think it's unique what America has done, how it's elevated freedom, how it has kept, there's no free man walking on the face of the earth or free woman who does not in some way owe that freedom to American blood and treasure. And I think that that's a remarkable thing. And we should be very cautious of our country. I want immigrants to come in. I want our country to be refreshed. I'm incredibly proud. I'm incredibly proud to live in a multi ethnic country. I love, you know, where I live. There are a lot of multi ethnic people all together and couples and all that. And I think what an achievement that I saw in my lifetime that we created a country like this. But no, you don't just take the border down.

I mean, it's ridiculous. So why aren't the Republicans louder about this? Why haven't they come up with, I mean, we had the power when Trump was in office. Why aren't they able to come up and just say, all right, you know, we're going to do this one thing is we're going to close the border and regulate who comes in. And then we're going to worry about the people who are already here another day. I mean, they have this idea that the whole thing has to be solved at once, that there's no compromises that can be made. They blow it again and again. And it almost is as if, and I'm not certainly not the only person saying this, it's almost as if both parties want the crisis to continue because it helps them with their base. But I think it's a shame, not just

because of the deaths of the people and the abuse of the people and the women who are constantly being raped as they're brought over by these criminal coyotes, but I just think it's a crime all along and we should stop it. Yeah, I totally agree. Andrew, thank you so much.

It's always such a pleasure talking to you. We will do it again soon, I hope, and we'll be right back with Stephen Miller, known as Red Steez, who I'm really looking forward to meeting. I haven't talked to him yet. Joining us now for the first time is Stephen Miller, the other Stephen Miller, known on Twitter as Red Steez and one of my favorite follows. So if you're not following him there, you should. He will make you laugh regularly and has great insights. He is also host of the Versus Media podcast on Patreon. Welcome to the show, Stephen. Nice to meet you.

Thanks, Megan. It's a pleasure. Don't tell people to follow me on Twitter. Now I have expectations. Okay. Expect very little, but you might one day be mildly amused. Yeah. Do you get confused for the other Stephen Miller? Yeah, I'm the good looking one. You know, I'm the one with the hair, as I like to say. So there were a couple of pieces written about that when he kind of hit the scene. And I was just like, I'm going to have to start using the middle initial now, just in case.

In case he ever wants to piggyback off, you know, my name. You know, I was like, no, I got to using the middle initial now, just in case. In case he ever wants to piggyback off my name. I was like, no, I got to throw the middle initial in there now. You're more conservative and he's more conservative. So I can see the confusion. At least he's not saying crazy things that you never agree with. I'm just trying to out-crazy him on different levels. Well, I'll look forward to those tweets because that'll be interesting to read. I like Stephen Miller. He's like he's one of those guys who's not like not well loved. You know, pretty much every article written about him says something terrible. And they call him a white supremacist because he's a hardliner on immigration? Why isn't everybody? If you're not a hardliner on immigration, you encourage traffickers to take people, innocent people across the southern

border because they know nobody's going to stop them. And next thing you know, you got 51 dead people, 39 men, 12 women suffering to death on based on some promise of a better life that they thought nobody that they thought that they and achieve without any law enforcement interfering. Right. And of course, our media ignores this. We went straight from concentration camps at the border three years ago to what is the southern border you speak of? What are these migrants that are, what is happening here? And of course, we get the same kind of trope from the administration that we're working hard to stop all of this. And I think it was the White House press secretary said yesterday that the border is closed. And I don't know, 51 dead bodies splayed out on a Texas highway suggests otherwise.

And that was the kind of claim that fact checkers in the golden age of fact checking that lasted four years would have lit the White House press secretary up over. And we got nothing. We got nothing at all over it. And it's in and it's out of the news as fast as it came and it went. And that's it. It never happened. It's so true. And yesterday, you know, the January 6th hearing dominated the news cycle. Scant mention of this crisis. I mean, it's not just the 51 people who are dead. It's also May being the absolute worst

month in U.S. history when it comes to these migrant crossings and encounters. No one seems to care. I mean, I realize January 6th is a story, but it's also an old story. And I opened up the show today by saying even what we heard from Ms. Hutchinson was largely just new color on old news. Did anybody think Trump was loyal to Pence on January 6th and was out there defending him and had his back? Right. Did anybody was anybody shocked that he wanted to go to the Capitol? He said that explicitly in his speech. We knew he wanted to go to the Capitol. You know, is anybody surprised that Trump concerned that his crowd size wasn't big enough on January 6th, said let everybody in weapons or no weapons. He wanted the shot to look good.

Yes, it's callous. And understandably, it wasn't a good decision. But then there's no follow up on did the Secret Service stop using the magnetometers on people? I doubt it. Did they start letting people with the weapons in so Trump could have a good shot of his crowd? I doubt it. That was notice noticeably missing. But the media decides to melt down. This is it. We've got him. He's done. They've done it a million times. It's never true. And stories like this one about, you know, Joe Biden's southern border, quote, unquote, policy totally collapsing and resulting in scores of deaths.

It's ignored. Yeah. And another thing about January 6th, that hearing was unscheduled. They scheduled that at the last minute because they had this bombshell, supposedly. And this is a Democrat-run committee. So even the Republicans on there, and I know a lot of people aren't fans of Kinzinger or Cheney, but they are Republicans in name, at least. They don't control when these hearings happen. So you had a Democrat-led committee that called a last-minute hearing. I think they were adjourned until mid-july uh because they're basically trying to you know string this out as long as they can until the november elections

and i i said this on my podcast yesterday it sure looked like it was a way to change the news cycle they were kind of getting hammered on their row loss which is the biggest democratic party loss probably decades uh it cannot be under understated enough how you know devastated they are over this. And I think that this was a way to change the news cycle back to something like January 6. And, you know, alluding to something that you said, I think I was the first person in all of what I guess you could call conservative media out of the gate with impeach and remove Trump over what happened on January 6. And I'm kind of with you where I look at it, and I say, okay, we have all of these things

that Trump tried to do. And at every single place, either by his cabinet, or by his attorneys, or by judges, or by state officials, he was stopped at every single way. And instead, you know, we get overwrought monologues from, you know, Jake Tapper, the last honest man in journalism about how our democracy is hanging on by a thread. And as we saw the clip with Boris Johnson, he was kind of like, what are you talking about? You know, this was, of course, it was a bad day. Congress was delayed from certifying results for eight hours. Yes, people died. There were, you know, police officers who that day have suffered trauma. And then we, of course, had Ashley Babbitt. But eventually, they certified

the vote. And it went on, and Joe Biden was sworn in, and here we are today. And so I look at it kind of how you said. We have all of these things where we're being told that he tried to do, but it didn't happen. And I kind of look at it and say, if it didn't happen, then what are we talking about? I do think this is a political investigation. And I contrast it with the Robert Mueller investigation. Robert Mueller wasn't on CNN every night. He didn't have guys leaking things. He went to work to figure out what was going on here. And in the end, he didn't find much. And they were disappointed with that also. And you compare it to this investigation where there's leaks happening all over the place, everything that Adam Schiff

magically ends up on CNN, and we get every journalist and now you have kind of a new administration star who's going to be making the rounds on media and on The View. And already, there's parts of her testimony that are being called into doubt. And you know, it's the old Twitter joke where they say, how is Trump going to slip out of this one and Trump slips out of it, and they kind of just go, ah Well, nevertheless, of the assertions. And then came the cross-examination, which just left her a withering puddle of contradictions and obvious lies. She lied repeatedly on the stand.

And by the time that lawyer was done with her, I was saying, forget it. I don't believe a word she said. This is not a truth teller. And I need to reassess my opinion of her, which I did. That second piece never happened for Ms. Hutchinson. It hasn't happened for a single witness there. It's all set up to drive you to one conclusion. And I've said before, as a lawyer, I used to try cases. It would have been really easy to win every single one of them if I didn't have an opponent, if nobody ever

cross-examined my witnesses or put my claims to the test or objected to any of my testimony. And yet still, Stephen, what we had yesterday was a media. I'll give you a couple of, you know, here's a couple of highlights, right? Jonathan Karl, the testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson makes it crystal clear. Donald Trump envisioned a full-blown coup on January 6th. David French, of course, the 25th Amendment should have been invoked within hours of January 6th. Chris Wallace, she was a great witness, absolutely precise. She was just brilliant. And, you know, I opened the show today with no offense to Miss Hutchinson. She's a young person and I'm sure she did the best she could. But like every single thing she testified to was he said something to the effect of something to the effect of it was something to the effect of.

I remember very specifically he had said something to the effect of, well, what? Which is it? What? What? What? What did he say? Where are your notes? You were a young woman.

You're telling me there was one testimony where the White House counsel allegedly went to her and said, make sure Trump doesn't go from the rally to the Capitol Hill. Make sure you got to make sure. I mean, you're telling me as a young 24, 23 year old woman, you wouldn't be home in your diary saying, holy shit, the White House council put it on me to make sure the president does. Where's that? Let's see that. Yeah. And you know what? I do take issue with the fact that we've never heard any of this for two years. None of us had heard the name of Cassidy Hutchinson unless you're in D.C. And I take an issue with people who accepted paychecks from this administration for years. And then suddenly, now I've grown a conscience because it seems to me that I'm being promised things or I can do, I have a media tour in front of me or I can appear in the view.

Like the woman on the view things or I can do, I have a media tour in front of me, or I can appear on the view and I can rehab. And yeah, there, you know, people who, you know, went to work for this administration and gladly accepted paychecks for years are kind of like a dime a dozen out of this. We have Miles Taylor from, uh, who wrote the supposedly the anonymous New York times op ed and, you know, and you, you have, I think now you have some of Pence's comms people coming out and, um, and um they discovered as many kind of ex-conservative pundits have that it's very warm under that dragon's wing and i'm sure you're you're certainly no you're certainly not someone i have to explain that to um where it's like okay now i'm going to come out and it could be rehab or that promises a contributor gig or somewhere, all I have to do

is say these stories. And, you know, as someone who, you know, I'm kind of attacked from both sides of both, you know, the pro Trump and the anti Trump sphere. I look at it and say, you know, I wrote on January 6, that they should impeach and remove him. And this is kind of my attitude with January 6, where I'm fine examining Trump from that day. I'd like to know what he was doing for an hour and a half in the White House while Pence was forced to coordinate with Esper from the Department of Defense to get the National Guard in there to kind of clear all those yahoos out. But I'd also like to examine everything from that day. I'd like to examine why the Capitol was left, for the most part, with a skeleton police crew, why there was no defenses there,

while they knew that there was going to be a large rally on the mall. I'd like to examine why Pelosi didn't just draft impeachment articles on a napkin while hiding out in a bunker. They could have done that. Pelosi reportedly said, if you don't invoke the 25th Amendment, as David French said, I will impeach him. Well, that never happened. Neither of those things happened. And so I'd like to examine everything from that day. But we know that that's not really going to happen. And we largely know, like you said, how Trump felt and he kind of went and pouted. And we all know all of that happened. And of course, we get the story yesterday of Trump grabbing the wheel from the Secret Service of the limo. And I said on Twitter, his critics can't decide if he's a feeble old man who can't lift a glass of water or walk down a ramp, or if he's John McClane trying

to commandeer the most, you know, the most protected vehicle in the world. Pick one, I'm fine with it. Pick one and go with it. You know, he's the rock who constantly offer us these Yeah, you constantly offer us these these contradictions. And I've always kind of said that, you know, Trump is someone who's always held a mirror up to his worst enemies, and some of his worst critics. And in the long term, and something that I've always tried to maintain my sanity through the last three, four, five, six years, is that the worst thing you can possibly do is become like him in some ways. And again, we saw this yesterday. We saw the hyperbole happening. We saw this, you know, we saw people saying people are going to remember this in decades. And I was kind of

like, I don't think people are going to remember this at their next gas station fill up. So it's not that these hearings shouldn't happen. I think they're very polarized. I think they're very political. It clearly to me looks like a politically driven hearing and a politically driven matter. That doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with everything being said. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't hear testimony from people. But like you said, every time that there's a new piece of testimony out, it's we've got him this time. And I think somebody said on Twitter, I don't want to credit this to me, that the only way to get rid of Donald Trump is to beat him at the ballot box. And that's it. You're not going to get rid of him any other way.

They're not going to disqualify him. Well, that's the other thing is the something you said just reminded me of another problem with Cassidy's testimony. So she and this would have been brought out had this not been, you know, whatever you want to call it, show trial, sham trial. It's sham. This is this is not anything close to a fair and balanced hearing like you'd see in a court of law or any proceeding having to do with the legal system. She testified that Mark Meadows, her boss, the chief of staff, wanted her to write out a note that was to be sent out under the president's name saying if you it was it was basically it was saying if you did not enter the Capitol grounds lawfully, please leave. And she said, Mark Meadows dictated that note and I wrote it.

And there's my note. Here's my note right here. Well, somebody, and I think it was the White House Counsel's Office, came out. Eric Hartman. I'm just going off memory here, so forgive me. And he said, I wrote that note. She didn't write that note. Now, that's weird. Now, that's weird.

Okay, that's weird. Because Eric Hirschman, thank you, Steve Krakar, my EP. He goes, you know whether you wrote the note. Show me the note. Is it handwritten? Because I think they were testifying it was handwritten. I know my handwriting. I wouldn't say that that was my handwriting if it weren't my handwriting. So why did she say she wrote the note if she didn't write the note?

I don't know what happened. But oh, this is where I was going with it, because the committee comes out. And what they should say is that's something we should look into. You're right. There's an inconsistency there. All I say is inconsistency or not, we believe her. She's credible. Like, OK, so you're going to be the fact. You're going to be the person who presents the trial, the finder of fact. Any inconsistencies that don't support the witness's testimony that you like, we get instructed to ignore because you have deemed her credible and therefore the Ministry of Justice and Information will tell us how to feel. But it just underscored the unreliability of this whole proceeding. Yeah. And you saw, you. And you saw members of our

media basically just flip out over the claim of the Secret Service of grabbing the steering wheel of the beast. And then when this was kind of questioned by several Secret Service agents, I think it was the head agent on duty at that time said, no, this didn't happen. Suddenly, our media downgrades it to, this is an anecdote. And that word was used several times was used by Maggie Abram at the New York Times was used by John Werth, Yahoo. And it's no, hold on, this is sworn testimony. And she if this is a problem now, okay, and it's not about like you said, if she did or didn't do it's like now you have an inconsistency. And if one part of her testimony becomes not credible and is

disputed by on source and people willing to testify, well, now you have a problem. And it's like you said, we're not looking at this, our media is so kind of head driven into this narrative and agenda bias of this issue, that they're not stepping back and looking at this objectively. And you mentioned John Carl, and John Carl said yesterday on Twitter, he made a very simple statement. He said, thank you, Cassidy Hutchinson. And regardless of what you think about Donald Trump, when journalists do, John Carl wrote a bestseller off of Donald Trump and the antics in the White House press room. And so, you know, this is another problem I have with a lot of his critics.

Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to some of these people. He's the best thing to happen to Jim Acosta's career. He's the best thing to happen to guys formerly of the Lincoln Project. They made thousands of dollars off of him. And so again, yes, in some case, yeah, they made bestsellers, Jim Acosta. Now it's a television show, strictly on, you know, his antics with the White House press briefings. You know, Michelle Sanders now, NBC News pundit. And so this is my biggest problem with a lot of these people in media

who claim that they're defending democracy or claim that this is what this is about when we know that that's not what this is about. We just saw this report. Yeah, we just saw this report. I did not know John Carl did that. Wait, hold that thought because I didn't know he did that.

How does John Carl know that Cassidy Hutchinson is a truth teller? And no offense to this young woman. Again, I'm sure she served our country honorably and she's doing the best she can. But I don't actually know that for a fact where I could tweet out, thank you, Cassidy Hutchinson. I haven't had the chance to hear her claims subjected to cross-examination. And I don't know whether this is a self-aggrandizing, bitter person who wanted to go with Trump and was rejected i don't know and he doesn't either that's a totally inappropriate tweet yeah and this is for some i don't think it's necessarily inappropriate from say someone who we know is uh who has their you know progressive or liberal

views out in the open correct But from someone from people who, who sell themselves as the ABC News, Washington correspondent, that's a, you know, that's a big title. That sounds serious. I should take you seriously when it comes to the matters of the White House. But, you know, again, in people who follow my Twitter feed, they see that I generally leave people, you know, leftist journalists alone, I'm friends with a lot of them. I have no problem with, you know, honest journalism from the progressive left. And I would encourage more people on the right to read it. So you actually know what they're trying to argue a lot of the time. My problem is people like that people who, you know, they try to sell themselves under the mantle of, you know, we're, we're brave, truth telling journalists who are like firefighters,

and also don't you misgender me or i'm gonna you know leave the newsroom screaming and crying and so again i do think it's wildly inappropriate for someone like john carl to tweet something like that out and say thank you cassidy hutchinson and and as you as you see democrats you say that this is about maintaining our democracy or whatever these this is the same party who just spent $42 million in primaries that just happened last night to elevate Trump candidates, Trump endorsed candidates and MAGA candidates. So no, this is not about preserving democracy. And as I mentioned, Jake Tapper's kind of overwrought speech performance with Boris Johnson, where he said, you know, I talked to people in Canada and Australia and places where they say, you know,

this, they're really worried about democracy in America. No, Jake, that's what you think is happening. And, you know, to people like that, the end of democracy to them is Republicans winning another election. And I think they're simply setting this up for what's going to be a pretty bad night for the Democrats in November. By the way, so my crack team just points out that now, a day later, after Jonathan Karl probably got hammered, he tries to explain the thank you, Cassidy Hutchinson tweet, which he sent out yesterday at 2.50 p.m. And now today, a day later, he tweets out where others have refused. Cassidy Hutchinson was willing under oath to tell the world what she witnessed at the White House during the extraordinary events of early January 2021. It is for that reason that I said, thank you. Yeah. Yeah. The problem with a lot of these people,

your organs in their head when they start to speak. That is really true. I've never heard anybody put it that way. But God, you're so right. All right. So we're seeing similar sanctimony. And I said, you know, sort of fainting couch behavior, not just with respect to Cassidy, but with respect to the an attempt to change the narrative in advance of January 6th. I mean, in advance of the 2020-2022 elections. But what's been weird about it is they're pretty explicit. Like the media on every channel is like, but will it pierce the bubble when it comes to the January 6th thing thing and the abort is it going to change the new york times was explicit about like will it change the narrative in advance of the midterms like i remember the back the day when the media used to be biased but it wouldn't just be open about the fact that they were trying to use their bias to change the political outcomes now it's like open like have we done it yet what do the polls say is it working yeah yeah i mean mean, one of the reasons you've heard about the reasons why we need to put the January 6th hearings up and the reason why we need to stop Trump is because they're trying to install pro-MAGA people on all of these state levels. So, you know, Trump can run again in 2024 and then just steal the election out from under him. And I said, if things keep going the way they're going, and if Joe Biden keeps governing the way that he's governing, Trump's not going to have to steal anything in 2024. And that's kind of the prelude to what we're seeing in November.

And I think the polling just came out on this Roe decision. I think it was like 11% of the country is paying attention to it. So you'll have kind of the late night group therapy sessions for libs on, you know, Jimmy Kimmel and the Colbert Report or Stephen Col steven colbert and you know which is all this has become which is where celebrities just come out and air their political grievances and we just saw like wanda sykes say this oh wait tonight which is standby yeah just play it she can say it way better than i can she was on steven colbert and this is her take on it it just just sucks, man. It really does. I mean, you know, it's like the country, it's no longer a democracy, right?

I mean, it's no longer majority rule. These judges, they basically lied when they were, you know, doing their confirmation hearings, right? The problem is that middle stuff. It's those states in the middle, that red stuff. Why do they get to tell us what to do when the majority of us live out, you know,

New York, California, and we're paying for all this crap, really. I mean, right? We're footing the bill. If I'm fitting the bill, know your position. You know what I'm saying? You know know for real like look if i say hey let's go out to dinner you don't get to pick the restaurant just shut up and eat yeah there's your ad there's your ad i mean there's just a slap of paint for the rnc on that

i don't know how many cliches someone can stick into something and say well here's what the political right's been saying all along that you know you have a progressive elitism in the coastal cities, San Francisco, New York, DC, Los Angeles. And then they believe that in the, you know, there's this useless chunk of land called America in between those cities. And here she is kind of confirming that. And this idea that nine, you know, nine of five justices on the Supreme Court sent a decision back to the states to vote on is no longer a democracy shows you that Hollywood's really not sending their best here, and I guess it's too much to ask for these people to just have kind of a moniker of civics education before they go on national TV and bark this all up.

And I said with Roe, one of the biggest freakouts of why we're seeing this is exactly what I said. Roe has kind of been this protective blanket for them for the last 34 years, where they don't have to talk about what abortion involves in specific details. They can kind of just point to it and say right there, that's Roe, it's abortion. That's, hey, what else do you want? And now they're going to have to go kind of state to state and specifically lay out where they stand on this issue. And we know that it's probably three, four, five, six percent of the country is at a position where the extreme fringe of the Democratic Party is, which you know, post postnatal birth. And so they're going to have to go out and defend this. And I think they know that they're in a problem where the majority of the country isn't there. The majority of the country isn't exactly strictly pro-life either. She actually said, what happened to majority rule?

What happened? We're no longer a democracy. That's literally what's about to happen. Majorities will rule on this issue state to state, just exactly the way it was supposed to be. The Supreme Court is the one who curtailed that, who short-circuited it back in 1973, saying, you no longer get to vote one way or the other. We're just saying, this is it. A mostly cis white male Supreme Court, save for one person, did that. Yeah, the Supreme Court that overturned Roe was more diverse than the one who instituted it. And again, they kind of have a problem with that. It's why you see all

the vitriol specifically going after Clarence Thomas for getting all uppity, I guess. And I also know that I don't think it because it Wanda Sykes is one thing, but we I go on this GB news, which is it's not Fox News, but it's a more right-leaning news over in Great Britain. They launched about a year ago, and I love them. They're doing a really great thing. They're very balanced. They're smart, and Great Britain needed this. So anyway, my pal Dan Wooden, he put together this butted soundbite of some of these singers in response to the Dobbs decision on abortion.

I'm going to play it for you. For people listening, it starts with Lorde, the singer. Then it starts with, I think, the lead singer from Green Day. Yeah, Green Day. You'll hear him. He's ready to renounce his citizenship. We haven't heard enough from him. And then it finishes up with Olivia Rodrigo,

who's a very big star. So listen to this meltdown. Make accessing that wisdom your life's work. very big star. And so listen to this meltdown. I'm f***ing losing my citizenship. I'm f***ing dying. I have to tell all the f***ing stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f***ing excuse for a country. I'm devastated and terrified. And so many women and so many girls are going to die because of this. And I wanted to dedicate this next song to the five members of the Supreme Court who have showed us that at the end of the day, they truly don't give a

**** about freedom. That's the best thing Lorde's done in years. Can we just be honest about that? I was kind of grooving to that a little bit. I was like, okay, Lorde's found her groove again. She's not a sellout pop star. I just want to to that a little bit. I was like, okay, Lorde's found her groove again. She's not a sellout pop star.

So I just want to put that out there. That one guy's going to renounce his citizenship. Okay, he's going to renounce his citizenship. Okay, good. Go ahead. Bye. He's been doing that since the days of George W. Bush. It's nothing new and it's nothing we haven't heard before.

So, okay, goodbye. Don't make us even happier that this decision happened. Please, no. Don't make us even happier that this decision happened. Please, no. Please, Green Day. Just, no. Continue to play your music and make us all miserable, please. I think it's so strange to hear people come out and talk about how women are going to die. Women are going to die.

It's like abortion is not illegal. It's going to be banned in some states. But you will still be able to get an abortion. It's going to be harder to be banned in some states, but you will still be able to get an abortion. It's going to be harder if you live in one of those states. But we are not going back to a time where it was impossible to get an abortion and you had no options as a woman. That's not what's about to happen. And there's also absolutely no like hesitation or tact in recognizing that every abortion takes a life. It does. I mean, whatever your position is on abortion,

you can be pro-choice. You're dishonest if you deny that. That is a life inside of you. It may not be fully formed, but there's just no, like, there's so free about being, I saw a picture of a woman at the Supreme Court with a huge pregnant belly. She was obviously eight plus months pregnant

and she had written on her belly, this is not a baby or this is not a person. That's how crass the other side is about treating this. Yeah, I think and something, you know, the pro-life side, and this is an issue that's, you know, my hobby or there's far more people who are well educated and philosophical about this than I am. But, you know, when you have a culture that celebrates this stuff, we saw Michelle Wolf on Comedy Central or had her show on Netflix where, you know, she does celebrate your abortion and comes out and she has a marching band and everything. And she no longer has a show. And that's kind of like I think that that really shows where this culture is. And, you know, I think a lot of that is is and you know i think a lot of that is

performative and i think a lot of it is meant to offend the political right and something i've said on my podcast and i kind of fall i think into this brand of you know fund it which is if you take away their ability to offend you if you're if you're on the right and you take away the left's ability to offend you whether it's abortion or religion or whatever then you take you rob them of a lot of power this is something that andrew breitbart you know used to preach is about just kind of being a happy warrior and if you disarm them in that way um then they lose a lot of the power and they lose a lot of the arguments and i think that there's an aspect of the young, new political right that understands that. And something the pro-right political right has had on their side, ironically enough,

from the party of science is medical science, you know, the abilities of, you know, advanced science now with ultrasound and fetal heartbeats and things like that. And so now you have a party that I guess just generally believes that science is how hot it is outside right now. And so the political right has been armed with some of these new weapons. And they're, I think, better, more equipped to handle this fight than say they were even 20 years ago. That's true. Yeah, I've said for a while now, the right needs to be more like the Irish. We're just unoffendable. Drunk all the time. Yeah, drunk and unoffendable.

It's a wonderful way to go through life. Donald Trump helped some of us with that. We got through the last four years. It was a little hairy, but yeah. You have to approach these things as, again, and I said this with Ben Smith on his BuzzFeed podcast, which is, this is a problem, I think, with journalists is they don't understand what, say, social media is or Twitter is. And people like me are very apt to take advantage of that. And if you can make people laugh or if you can kind of show them a different side, then you're going to win those arguments. And this is, again, a problem a lot of journalists have with what Twitter is and what the Internet is. And they just don't understand it.

Yeah. I'm going to find during the break. I'm squeezing a break. A lot of journalists have with what Twitter is and what the Internet is, and they just don't understand it. Yeah, I'm going to find during the break, I'm squeezing a break. I'm going to find the there was a meme about the Irish allegedly being offended by the Lucky Charms guy. And it landed. I'm going to find it. I'll bring it to you on the opposite side of this quick break. More with, I would say, the one and only Stephen Miller. But that would not be accurate. The one and only Red Steez right after this.

Don't go away. So, Stephen, this just in, we amazingly got our hands in some video of Trump in the beast taking over control of the wheel and wait until you see how he was driving. Watch this. It is John McClane. I really wonder trump trump's opinion on mimes i think you think he's probably scared of mimes i mean they frighten a lot of people he sounds like someone who just would be like no if you ever saw like a mind it's like oh no coming at him well he might like it i think like they they never touch you and he's into that he doesn't you know he doesn't he's a germaphobe. I love that though. Your reference to John McClane made by Crack Team.

Go find that. They're not going to interrupt him. They can't decide on, you know, who he is or what he is. You know, he kind of just fits. He's kind of like, you know, choose the form of the destructor to our media. And they conjure him up however they need him to be at that moment. It's so funny. Just the thought of him like, yes, you will give me the wheel of the beast oh sure okay um so i did find my team found the lucky charms meme and my irish friends and relatives will appreciate this putting it on the board uh and i'll read to the audience

what it what it says irish protest for the removal of lucky charms leprechaun image because it's offensive just kidding the irish aren't offended by jack shit because they're not P words. Yeah. That's a meme. Memes can be classified as hate speech now. You know, we have to be careful. Yeah. By the way, are you a basketball fan?

NCAA? Not really. I don't really watch NCAA basketball, but I did like one year, I think three years ago, predict the final four and the champion, like all the way. I did my bracket with my friends and I think I just walked away from it after that. I'm like, I didn't watch a single game and I beat everyone. So I think I ended up in like the top 1800 of ESPN. And so maybe that was just, you know, my, my autism. I don't know, but yeah,

I don't really watch it. No. Well, I asked because, uh, we watched the entire March madness tournament, like everything this year. Cause my young son actually got hurt. He's fine, but he was in the hospital and, um, for like a week. So we just sat there and we watched all of it and that's unusual for me. But I got to know this one guy. I think he played for, oh God, who was it? Was it Boston? Anyway, his last name is Timmy. And he was on fire in this one game.

I can't remember who he played for, Gonzaga? It'll come back, Gonzaga. Okay, Gonzaga. And he was on fire and he just opened up a can of whoop-ass on the other team. And there was no stopping. Every time he gave Timmy the ball, he would get the ball in the net. And it was so impressive. And he was interviewed after the game by a sports reporter and said, like, what what did you say to your teammates in the halftime? Because then they all came out. They were all doing what you did. And he's like this big six

foot seven guy, you know, this man's man. And he goes, I just told just told them you know we may lose this game but we are not going to lose it by being a bunch of soft guys and everyone my young son included understood that soft guys was a euphemism for the p word that i i don't say that word but i see that it was used in the lucky charm meme and even timmy knew that you should just say soft guys when in front of a camera. So he and I are sympathetic. Yeah. No, no, I'm not going to say I want to. I want to be invited back. So. All right. Speaking of soft guys, Harry, Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, have some things to say about Roe and the decision.

I know you were waiting for the Meghan Markle reaction. Are we not respecting their privacy now? Oh, yes, Miss I Want My Privacy just gave a joint interview to Vogue. And just in case she wasn't getting enough attention, she decided to partner with Gloria Steinem on it. And what she said was, my husband and I talked about that a lot

over the past few days, the Dobbs decision. He's a feminist, too. His reaction last week was guttural, guttural, like mine. What does this tell women, she asks. It tells us that our physical safety doesn't matter. And as a result, that we don't matter. Now, here's a profundity for you from the Duchess of Nothing. But we do.

Women do matter. And this is one of the reasons I called Gloria immediately and asked to do this interview. We matter. So Vogue does, you know, Vogue magazine decides to do a profile like that. Vogue magazine, which never put Melania on the cover, right? An actual supermodel didn't actually make it.

But Meghan Markle calls up and wants you to know her feminist husband had a guttural reaction to Dobbs. When did Meghan Markle become a biologist? Did that just happen like? How could you figure it out? There's a lot of sudden biologists who are speaking up on behalf of whatever a woman is, I guess. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. It's probably one of the best things we ever did is we helped usurp the crown of Britain, you know, by at least, you know,

having Prince Harry marry an American. And so we have a straight shot to the crown now. It took a few hundred years, but that's the only purpose she ever served for us. They got back at us, though, sending those two over here. We didn't need that. They should have just stayed across the pond. The other thing is, she's not the only woman weighing in. As you know, Hillary weighed in and took a shot at Justice Thomas. And I saw you responding to this tweet article called entitled The Whispers of Hillary Clinton. He does this like every few months. And the interesting thing to me about Hillary is anyone who, any candidate who loses to somebody like Donald Trump, you would think would just be put on a mule and sent out into the desert with like a big paper mache head, never to be heard from again. And instead, she's still kind of this media power broker. They all gather around her every time she kind of pokes her head out of her hole.

And it's really interesting to me that there was really no reckoning for her over that. It was Russia did this, or Russia stole the election, or I guess Russia made her forget that the state of Wisconsin existed for 106 days. And so I look at that and I just say, here she comes again. And this is Chris Eliza's big game. And we saw the report in the New York Times that said she wishes she was being consulted more by the Biden administration. So she does kind of have this media strategy, which is I'll talk to you, I'll talk, and they all kind of jump at it. And again, I don't know, I don't know what their plan is. Is their plan to replace an

85-year-old Joe Biden with a 78-year-old Hillary Clinton? I think it really speaks to the lack of depth that the Democrats have. And I kind of predicted this on my podcast. I've been on this for a couple of weeks here. I don't think Joe Biden's going to be the 2024 nominee. I think there's too many factors. And also this muted response to Roe. As I said to you, this is the worst defeat these people have suffered in decades. And Joe Biden's response was to get on an airplane and fly out of the country. And if you're on the left, what does that look like to you? And so I said on my podcast, I said, I think there's going to be an open primary. And I said, in the name that I won't be shocked to see jump in there is Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. And just last night, Stephen Colbert asked her, you know,

you're going to be 35 running for president. And I just I kind of just took a bow on this one. So for whatever reason, they can't wait to get the old man out of there. And I don't understand why they think that Hillary is kind of their great white hope in all of this. Now is her moment. Who would have the temerity to write that about Hillary Clinton? Now, this is her moment. She's had about 10,000 moments, all of which she's blown to smithereens. Yeah, she's won, what, exactly One election in the state of New York. For those of you who remember, that was an election that she was kind of goaded into by her media.

They're like, you can go run for Senate in New York. Go do that. And then, of course, she ran and she won. And she hasn't won an election since. And I don't see the political left settling for her. We saw kind of two instances where in 2008, they were just like, okay, let's let's just vote for her and get this over with. And then, of course, Barack Obama hits the scene and they couldn't would be so fun. Come on. You might be the only one. I would moderate it. I would. Yeah, it would probably go easier for you than the one debate. So one thing I wanted to ask, I wanted to ask you one thing. And I put this question out on my podcast. You were kind of the first person speaking, moderating debate. You were kind of the first national pundit that kind

of saw trump's ire and i i was wondering about you what was that like where you didn't see a lot of support in like the journalistic community because at that time it was really funny to people at msnbc and cnn and morning joe that trump was kind of beating up on, you know, the people at Fox, he was beating up on Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. And while they were kind of having, you know, $5 billion of unearned media on his way to the on the way to the presidency, what was that kind of like to not have a lot of support from your own colleagues, where it was like, you were the first person to draw that ire, and they loved it. Because of course, you were a fox and, you know, you're Megyn Kelly. But then, of course, when the election season rolls around, when he secures the nomination, suddenly he's Adolf Hitler and he's not allowed on Saturday Night Live. What was that kind of like? I didn't experience it like that. I thought the media, you know,

I thought it was a joke that the people over at MSNBC or even Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton were saying Hillary was like, Megan Kelly is a fantastic journalist. And for him. And I was like, I remember going on there and saying, if I'm so fantastic, why don't you let me practice some of that fantastic journalism on you? Come on the show. Let's let's do this thing. And so the left pretended that they cared about me. You know, the attacks. I mean, they, they pretended that they cared because they thought it would hurt Trump. And the right was mad at me, not all the right, but the core Trump supporters was mad. They were mad because they didn't think my question was fair. So like, I guess kind of like that's part of the business,

you know, it's like, you got to be able to take your licks and your rhetorical. I was at national, I was at national Review when against Trump came out. So and I was kind of one of the online faces of that. When that came out, I kind of just went, OK, let's go. I was kind of the guy on Twitter who was willing to muck it up with them. So I can definitely understand the bruises there. But, you know, I opened the show today. So happens I opened the show today with a reference to that debate, because the question that I asked Trump about that day, yes, it mentioned women and so on. But what it was really about was his temperament. Do you have the temperament to be president? Go back and look at it. That's what I asked him. And I think that was a very good question. I think I was raising a good issue that would

go on to be a problem for him. But unlike unlike most in the media, I could see that he had that problem. And if you look at the course of my journalism over the Trump years, I think it reflects that I could also see the upsides of his oddity. You know, like he is a wrecking ball. And I totally get why the Republicans chose him ultimately. And I see all the good he did. And I don't think there was another Republican in that race that could have done it. Certainly no one would have stuck by Brett Kavanaugh. We would not have a reversed row, I think, had Mitt Romney even won in 2012. I just think they would have caved on fights that Trump never caved on. So I feel like I'm in this unique spot, because I really I think unlike most people, I don't have Trump derangement syndrome,

but I'm not under his spell either. I can see his qualities and I can see his people, I don't have Trump derangement syndrome, but I'm not under his spell either. I can see his qualities and I can see his flaws too. I kind of said that coming out of that four years. I was like, whoever can kind of come out of here with their sanity intact is kind of the people you need to pay attention to. And that could be people who voted for him. It could be people who liked him. It could be people who don't want him to run again now or what have you. And I never really liked the term kind of Trump derangement syndrome.

But there there there is a certain level of surrounding your entire punditry identity around him because he's not going to be around. He's not going to be you guys when you're at National Review and you know, you know, that's that's the dispatch people. That's like the Jonah Goldberg. And I like Jonah, but like the Lincoln Project Republicans, those guys have Trumped arrangements. National Review does not like Trump. They're true conservatives. And that's OK. But I listen to their podcast all the time.

I love the editors and I read National Review a lot. And they're not fans of his, but they will defend Trump often on policy. They will never defend Trump's character. and said, you know, let's give this guy $5 billion in free media because he's going to make Republicans look crazy and he'll never win. And well, oops, then they spent four years atoning for that. And they never really had their own reckoning for their own role in this. And that's kind of why guys like me exist. That's kind of our whole careers. I'm here to remind you of kind of your past with this stuff. And I'm here to remind people like Morning Joe about, you know, the fawning attention you gave him and the fact that you were a member of Mar-a-Lago for years and years and years. And, you know, we know what you were doing. And we know it just a little color on that. And then they did. So Morning Joe kept going to Mar-a-Lago and so on. Trump asked me to go to Mar-a-Lago too. He invited me to go to Mar-a-Lago back before the debate and all that. I said no. Yeah. And I kept a record of that invitation. And I had the record of that underneath my questions at that presidential

debate, just in case you never knew what he was going to throw at you. Like I never went because that's not an appropriate thing for somebody in the media to do. But too few people understood that. And they were compromised and then have spent the next five years trying to make him pay for their own bad behavior. Red Steez. I got to go because I'm out of time. But I really enjoyed this. I hope I hope you come back, Stephen.

Invite me back. I will be happy anytime. Thank you, Megan. It's done. Okay, don't forget. At Red Steez, S-T-E-E-Z-E. And you won't be sorry that you followed me. He will amuse you and entertain your mind.

Tomorrow, someone I've been trying to get on forever. Security expert and author, Gavin DeBecker. You will love this. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.