The Megyn Kelly Show - Could Cringe Kamala Really Replace Biden, and False Media Narratives on Immunity Ruling, with Mike Davis and Andrew Klavan | Ep. 828

Episode Date: July 2, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, to talk about the major Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, the full scope of the ruling and its implications, the left worries and the truth about what it means, the definition of "official acts" and "absolute immunity," the false narratives after the Supreme Court ruling in the press, Rachel Maddow worrying about "death squads," the left jailing the right rather than the other way around, how the Supreme Court ruling could help Trump's New York conviction get overturned or even potentially delay his sentencing, Justice Clarence Thomas' warning to Jack Smith that could affect the D.C. and Florida cases, and more. Then Andrew Klavan, editor of "The New Jerusalem" on Substack, joins to talk about alarming new details about the true nature of Biden's cognitive decline now leaking out through the media, the collapsing narratives that we're seeing after the debate, whether liberals will see the media has been lying to them, a cringe new Kamala Harris video trying to seem cool, whether Governors Gretchen Whitemer or Andy Beshear could be the new nominee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse firing the first public shot at Biden after the terrible debate, and more. Davis-https://www.article3project.org/Klavan https://thenewjerusalem.substack.com/ Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Today, the fallout after the Supreme Court's landmark decision on presidential immunity. The left is in a full-on meltdown over this decision, notwithstanding the fact that it pretty much precludes any prosecution of their guy, Joe Biden, when he leaves office. All they can think about is Donald Trump. So just how epic is this decision? Who better to ask than Mike Davis of the Article 3 Project? He's been on the MK show many times. I've got to say, Mike, predicting this exact result, you continue to be right in your legal predictions on this show. We don't have Dave here today, but I'm sure he'd tip the hat to you as well.

So what's your reaction to the decision that came out yesterday? Predictable and predicted for many, many, many months because the alternative to what the Supreme Court held in this Trump presidential immunity case would be the destruction of our Constitution, the destruction of the presidency, and therefore the destruction of our country. Think about this. If a president of the United States is not immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, not personal misconduct, his official acts, you're going to see the Trump 47 Justice Department prosecuting President Obama for capital murder for his extrajudicial drone strike on two American citizens, including a minor. You're going to see the Trump 47 Justice Department prosecuting President Biden for his illegal mass parole of over 10 million illegal immigrants into our country and the resulting

rapes and kidnappings and murders and other violent crime. You're going to see the Trump 47 Justice Department prosecute George W. Bush for lying about weapons of mass destruction and the resulting hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq. This was a monumental decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, not exactly a MAGA warrior, because the Chief Justice rightly understood this is so much bigger than Donald Trump or any other president or candidate. This is about the presidency and therefore our country. All right. So this is you, by the way, I just want to give you the credit that you're due. Back in, let me see,

what was the date of this? Hold on. It's January, episode 695, predicting what the Supreme Court would do. Look, the Supreme Court, if the D.C. Circuit does not hold that the president of the United States at a baseline level, any president has ever been charged with a crime until until the democrats brought this unprecedented lawfare against president trump so the issue is going to be does the supreme court establish at a baseline minimum that the president of the united states is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts or the outer perimeter of his official acts like the other two branches of government. They can decide that very narrowly, narrowly that, yes, the president of the United States is immune criminally from prosecution for his official conduct. Why would the president not

be immune criminally, but he's immune civilly? It doesn't make sense. I mean, literally every word of that was just found by the majority, six to three, every word of that immune for his official acts, including the outer perimeter. The outer perimeter would be an area in which he would have a presumption of immunity that they would then have to test if they wanted to. A prosecutor in court tried to pierce the immunity by proving it didn't apply in this particular case. And only clearly unofficial acts will be treated as not immune. This is, I have to say, you've been saying it for since longer than January, from the beginning, you've been saying this exact thing, but now there's an absolute meltdown. And something you said in there was very important because the left keeps saying

the Supreme court aired here in not considering this case, the Trump case. They need to consider how extraordinary what Trump did was, as opposed to just issuing down a ruling that would apply to the presidency in general and its powers. He's such an egregious character. He crossed such egregious legal lines in their view. This court aired by not considering what he did. And what you said in that answer, I think, is the response, which is, no, what you guys have done is what's truly extraordinary here. And it's what the court was responding to. Absolutely. This is overreach by President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland and Jack Smith, who has an amazing track record of getting reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States and his henchmen.

Jay Brat, these are the bad actors. These are the people who politicized and weaponized the Justice Department to go after Biden's political enemy because they fear they can't beat Trump on November 5th, 2024. So they've tried to bankrupt him. They've tried to throw him off the ballot. They're trying to throw him in prison for the rest of his life. They're even talking about drone striking him on these various left-wing shows. These people are insane. And guess what, guys, when you lose Chief Justice John Roberts, again, not exactly a MAGA warrior by any stretch of the imagination, you know, you've lost the game. OK, so now let's go through some of the outlandish scenarios that the left is trying to tell us will happen as a result of this decision.

I'll skip the more egregious people, but here's one, quoting an elected DNC member from California, David Atkins. So if President Biden declared the Republican Party a terrorist organization and ordered drone strikes on Mar-a-Lago as an official act, he would have immunity, right? Those are the new rules. I mean, I realize a piece of this is facetious because I think even the left doesn't think that President Biden would do this or President Trump in response. But what about that? Because using the military is 100% within official duties. And this court has also ruled you're not allowed to look at motive.

You're not allowed to look at the motive behind the president's act. So let's be honest. Is it true that that could happen? That President Biden could say the Republican Party is a terrorist organization and order drone strikes at Mar-a-Lago and not be criminally prosecuted for it. That's not true. And I mean, remember, President Obama did order extrajudicial drone strikes of two American citizens, including a minor. And they did this after seeking advice from David Barron, who was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel at the time, OLC, which is the general counsel for the executive branch.

So they got David Barron's inputs on this drone strike. So David Barron's now a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. He's a federal appellate judge. His wife is a loudmouth, pain in the ass, CNN contributor. And can the Trump 47 Justice Department now charge Judge David Barron, along with President Obama,

for this conspiracy to murder two Americans? Do they really want to go down this path as Democrats? Because guess what? When Trump's back in office, we can play this game if they want to play this game. President Biden, when they change his diaper this morning and feed him his pudding, he should be very thankful for the fact that the Supreme Court held that the president of the United States is immune from criminal prosecution, because after that debate, I hope he understands he's not going to be the president after January 20th, 2025.

And does he want crazy people like Mike Davis prosecuting him? That's the thing. This applies to both sides. But I am kind of, I'm a little intrigued, I have to say, with the notion that maybe this guy is right, Mike. And I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean, to me, it seems like you could come up with such an outlandish designation in the course of your official duties and and then, you know, the U.S. military would not do this. I mean, they're not allowed to follow illegal orders, but just the act of saying they're terrorists and I declared so and then ordering the military to do it. I think he would be criminally immune.

I think now in the wake of this decision, tell me if I'm wrong, the remedy is impeachment. He will be thrown out of office and he will be stopped from making such outlandish decisions again, but he will not be criminally prosecuted because it seems to me the Supreme Court said we're just not going to be a banana republic. We are not going to allow criminal prosecutions of a president for virtually anything done in his official capacity. That's the nature of the executive branch. I disagree. So think about this. The Supreme Court said that when you're dealing with your core constitutional powers as the president of the United States,

you're absolutely immune, meaning you can't be prosecuted. You can't be questioned about it. But when you're dealing with the president's other official acts, his powers that flow from statute versus the Constitution, he would be presumptively immune, but that presumption would be overcome. You'd have a mini trial, an evidentiary hearing on the issue of immunity. And the judge would say, okay, are you acting within your core constitutional powers?

I don't see in the constitution where the president is authorized to drone strike Americans, right? And so drone strike Americans on American soil. So you're not repelling, this is not the commander in chief clause. This is not the president's war powers under the Constitution. The president's not, you know, repelling a sudden attack, which is the case law on the war powers. And so you're looking at the president's statutory powers and under the president's statutory powers, the president could raise

immunity as an initial matter. And then there would be a mini trial, an evidentiary hearing to figure out whether the government can rebut that presumption of immunity. And the standard they use is the Fitzgerald standard, the Nixon case from 40 years ago, where the Supreme Court held that the president is immune from civil prosecution for his official acts. And so the governments could rebut that presumption of immunity by showing that the prosecution does not endanger the intrusion on the authority of the of the and the functions of the executive branch, meaning the executive branch doesn't have the power to kill Americans on American soil because they disagree with them politically. Let's talk about something they do have the

power to do. That's the pardon power. This came up over and over, came up in the oral argument, came up in the decision too. And one of the questions is, because that's definitely within the president's official constitutional acts. So it would be granted absolute immunity under this majority ruling. And the question is, okay, but what if the president took a bribe in exchange for the pardon? Would that be prosecutable in the wake of the Trump decision? Yeah, because under the Nixon framework that they're extending to the criminal context, the civil context, they're extending to the criminal context. They've already held that bribery is not part of your official duties. Bribery is specifically carved out of the president's official duties in the Constitution.

Okay, but here's where it gets weird, and I made a reference to it earlier. The court also held that not only would these official acts be immune, either absolutely immune or with a presumption of immunity. But they cannot even be used, these acts, as evidence against a president who's getting prosecuted for his unofficial acts. So in this case, the Trump case, they claim the whole fake electors thing, that was all a scheme. And in order to present it to a jury, this came up at oral argument, in order to present it to a jury, we're gonna need to talk about what are probably gonna be unofficial acts,

maybe dealing with state electors, and also official acts. Trump's conversations with his attorney general about challenging the vote and what he can do and what the attorney generals looked into. And this court said, you cannot do that. You are not going to be able to get into the officially immune conduct as evidence in a case going after him for his non-immune conduct. So back to my bribery example, you'd have a case where if you prosecuted him, you'd say,

so Mr. President, you accepted a bribe. Yes. In exchange for what? Objection. Sustained. You can't tell them that it was a pardon that was on the line. It's an oddity, but I think that's the correct legal analysis. Am I wrong?

No, because there's a carve out under for bribery. So that there's a, again, there's a cost. The bribery is never. No, but the carve out allows the prosecution for bribery, but it will not allow a jury to hear why the bribe was paid. I don't think it goes that far because there's a carve out for bribery in the constitution. So you have to be able to prove the elements of bribery, right? So you'd have to show the quid pro quo and that the bribery is.

I don't think you're right. I know you're right on everything, but on this particular thing, I think you're wrong because the court made very clear they don't want evidence of the official acts, anything that cannot come in as evidence. And Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion concurring with the overall decision, but saying, I disagree with this piece of it. You should allow it as evidence. We have evidentiary rules that would allow the jury to be instructed. We're allowing the fact that it was an exchange for a pardon to come in, but not to prove that he's guilty of the bribery, just so you have context, but you can't use the fact that he was exercising his pardon power against him. That's what she wanted the court to rule, but the majority said no. Well, we might have that very case come before the court

after President Biden leaves office with his pardon after his family took over $20 million. It seems like every Biden family member was on the Chinese and Russian and Ukrainian and Kazakhstan and every other dump around the world, corrupt third world country around the world. It seemed like every Biden except for the six-year-old granddaughter who they don't claim, who Dr. Jill, the loving grandmother, doesn't claim. So maybe we'll have that very case before the Supreme Court, Megan. I would love to be the special counsel on that case if that office is still constitutional after this is all done. And maybe we'll find out whether the evidence of bribery can come in when the president pardons himself or how, you know, that could be an amazing case for the Supreme Court to decide. And I just wonder if these three liberal justices on the Supreme Court who dissented and all these commentators and left-wing

hacks on MSNBC and other left-wing shows, I just wonder if they would take this same principled position they're taking right now if the Trump 47 Justice Department prosecutes President Biden for pardoning himself after uprioting. You're absolutely right. I want to get to some of the reaction. Let's start with the current president of the United States, Joe Biden, who in what I thought was just a totally, totally inappropriate White House address comes out last night. I mean, let's face it. What he was really trying to do was improve his catastrophic situation right now in the wake of that debate and act like this, the senior, the elder statesman, you know, criticizing the Supreme Court from the White House and getting into President Trump's

criminal trials in a way that was just totally inappropriate. Stay out of it. You're trying to look like you don't have anything to do with it. You know, the jig is up. But here's just a bit of what the president said last night on this ruling. This nation was founded on the principle

that there are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States. But today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle, and it's a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States.

So do we agree with the president? I think that, you know, there, I, I don't hate president Obama. I disagree with him because I, you know, I just, I actually think president Obama is a personally a good person. I think president Biden is a wretched human being. And I think he is so destructive to the office of the president and to the presidency. And he, he's so selfish. He doesn't care about his country at all. He doesn't care about his family. He has his drug addled son as the bag man for the Biden family corruption. He's taken inappropriate showers with his daughter, Ashley, according to his diary. He's always grooming kids on TV.

I think the guy is a total scumbag and he is the most destructive force in the White House we've ever seen. He's an evil man. And we just see this on display right there. How can he get up there and say that, pretend like nobody is above the law and that the Supreme Court's at fault after he politicized and weaponized his Justice Department, along with these other Biden Democrat prosecutors around the country, to go after his political enemy. This is this is republic ending. These are republic ending tactics. What Joe Biden has done and the Supreme Court had to step up with this presidential immunity case because they were pushed so far by this corrupt,

deranged man named Joe Biden. I mean, that's the thing, a harsh assessment by any measure. But your point that he's the one responsible for this ruling, the Democrats are the ones responsible for this ruling, is entirely valid. The reason we've had to have the Supreme Court step in and say, we're not doing this in America. The founders did not envision a world in which presidents leave office and get subjected to criminal prosecutions by their successor president or his administration is because they crossed the line never before crossed. And now you hear them saying, well, even on the New York Times,

the Daily this morning, well, that's because we have an unprecedented president in Donald Trump who crossed lines never crossed before. Okay, so we've never had a president commit crimes before. Like you point out Obama with the droning of an American citizen. Let's go back to what Bill Clinton did when he was in office and not, we could go down a list with that guy. But, and Nixon of course was pardoned because he also was accused of committing crimes in office. But the point is, we generally have not prosecuted former presidents here. It's just been, it's not the way the United States Constitution was set up. And the Supreme Court enforced the guardrails, stopping them from continuing this nonsense. And that leads me, well, before I get to the Trump case, because I do think that's really

what I want to talk about. Let's get to the Rachel Maddow reaction, because you talk about the left wing loons and how far they're taking it. Listen to her characterization of what the Supreme Court did. The practical impact of what they have done is to give Trump immunity that even he and his counsel did not ask for. And given that the hypotheticals over the course of these arguments, as you rightly pointed out, included things like can the president assassinate a rival? I think we have to look at the Supreme Court's affirmative answer to that. Yes, you can. With as much seriousness as it deserves.

I mean, this is a death squad ruling. This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything. Absolutely anything, including the death squads. I mean, this is to our earlier point, which is not true because for most of the official acts, there will only be a presumption. It will be a strong presumption of immunity, but it will not be unpierceable. Absolutely correct. And you know what? Where are these Democrats who are so concerned about the president being criminally prosecuted when you have a president of the United States sitting in office right now who is clearly corrupt, clearly compromised by over $20 million in foreign corruption to what seems like every Biden family member, right? And then you have a president who has put, not only indicted

his leading presidential rival, Donald Trump, we have two top presidential advisors, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, sitting in federal prison right now for contempt of Congress after Trump asserted constitutional executive privilege going back 250 years to George Washington to prevent presidential aides from having to testify to courts per Congress. Biden and his Justice Department ignored that while they are giving amnesty to Hunter Biden, who ignored a congressional subpoena, was held in contempt after he did a press conference. And Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland, the attorney general, ignored a subpoena, got held in contempt for covering up for his boss.

Merrick Garland turned over the transcript of Biden's conversation with special counsel Rob Kerr, but then made this legally frivolous claim of executive privilege that he can't turn over the tape after he already turned over the transcript. And then Merrick Garland went down to his office of legal counsel, one of his subordinates, and got a legal opinion, essentially a get out of jail free card, right? So I don't want to hear- But honestly, this pairs perfectly, well, not perfectly, but it pairs with what Steve Bannon did and just reported to Danbury, Connecticut prison for. He too got a subpoena to appear in front of Congress. He objected,

asserting executive privilege, got advice of an attorney saying that's the right thing to do. And Congress found him in contempt of Congress. All the same things as Merrick Garland, only in one case, the DOJ prosecuted him and put him behind bars. And in the other, Merrick Garland, because he runs the DOJ, surprisingly, they had no interest in doing that. Yeah. And Peter Navarro, the White House trade director, they put the White House trade. Peter Navarro is still in prison while Hunter Biden, where there's zero claim of executive privilege. There's like crackhead son privilege. I'm not sure what it is, but he he doesn't get prosecuted for contempt after his drive by press conference where he clearly was able to show up to the house that day.

They got him out of the crack den and he was able to go to the house that day, but he couldn't testify. Right. Are you kidding me? And then, like you said, yeah, go ahead. Finish your point. I was going to say that on January 20th, 2025, we're going to find out if these same robots are going to be saying the mantra that nobody's above the law when the Trump 47 Justice Department prosecutes Hunter Biden for contempt and prosecutes Merrick Garland for contempt. So are because the the congressional House Republicans are now pursuing in civil court an order that would compel Merrick Garland to fork over the audio tape of Joe Biden in his consultation or his interview with special counsel Robert Herr saying that,

you know, because the objection on paper was, oh, we don't want AI to make replicas of the president's voice and use it again. It was such a nonsense objection. The president's voice is everywhere. They can, if AI gurus want to take the president's voice and create a version of it, I'm sure they've already done it. They don't need the Robert Herr audio tape. This is very, very clearly a political objection. They know what's on that tape, I think,

is going to sound very much like what we heard at that debate. And they have the attorney general doing the president's bidding to try to keep it away from the electorate before the election. So do you think that this district court will order the production of the audio tape? Yes. And if they don't, the appellate court will, because they established very clearly under the Trump administration that Congress has these powers.

And so now these precedents from under the Trump administration are going to come back and bite these Democrats in the ass. And I mean, we were talking about that. There's also the Fisher case, the 18 USC 1512 obstruction of an official proceeding that deals with the destruction of evidence or the hiding of evidence. This might actually apply to this particular case because the attorney general is hiding evidence from Congress. And that's a felony under the Fisher, you know, under the 18 U.S.C. 1512. And then he's conspiring with others to hide this evidence, conspiracy, obstruction of official proceeding. I mean, these cases that are in Trump's favor now may be very

much needed by President Biden and Merrick Garland and these others who are pretending nobody's above the law. I agree with that. All right, let's talk about what this means for the prosecutions against Donald Trump. First and foremost, I think this Clarence Thomas concurrence about Jack Smith not being a proper special counsel. He didn't say he's not. He said he's got serious questions about whether he's an appropriate special counsel, given that we don't have a special counsel statute anymore. He hasn't been properly appointed by the executive branch. He's not somebody who's been appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate. And he said he thinks that we should be determining whether the special counsel is valid at all before we proceed with any

of these prosecutions was a very interesting tell on whether Jack Smith can survive, because that's another that's another legal argument that's working its way up through the courts right now. And I'll bet you anything he's got another four votes on his side on that. What did you make of that? There's no question he does because Jack Smith's office is clearly unconstitutional. You have to have offices established by the Constitution or by congressional statute. The independent counsel statute expired after the Ken Starr investigation of Clinton. They've never, Congress has never reestablished an independent counsel or a special counsel office. It's been done through Department of Justice regulations. And the problem with that is when

you are hiring, essentially Jack Smith's not an officer, he's an employee. He's just like an assistant U.S. attorney in a U.S. attorney's office. But the difference is, is the U.S. attorney is Senate confirmed and appointed by the president. And that U.S. attorney supervises the assistant U.S. attorneys on a day-to-day basis. The special counsel regulations actually make it where the attorney general to whom the special counsel reports on paper actually can't supervise the special counsel on a day-to-day basis. So this is clearly unconstitutional, this whole special counsel regime. That's another one that if the high court rules accordingly would help Joe Biden, because if special counsel Jack Smith is not appropriate, then special counsel Robert Hurd.

Mike Davis. You never know. I mean, that could come back to help him as well. But okay, here is Trump's attorney, Will Scharf, on how he thinks this immunity decision is going to affect the New York trial. And there's breaking news on Trump's maneuvering in that trial.

This January 11th sentencing may be off. Watch. Yeah, absolutely. Caitlin, the Supreme Court was very clear that for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution, that evidence of those acts cannot be used to try essentially private acts. So what we have in New York is a situation where a substantial number of official acts of the presidency, things that we believe are official acts, were used as evidence to support

the charges in that New York trial. We believe that that corrupts that trial, that that indicates that that jury verdict needs to be overturned. And at the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence as the Supreme Court dictated today. And no sooner did he say that, Mike, then Trump filed a motion seeking to throw out this verdict, saying you allowed official acts to come into evidence and that was improper pursuant to our discussion earlier. And therefore, there should be no sentencing and this conviction should be overturned. How do you like his chances? Well, if you had a fair judge, you'd have very good

chances. But I think that this evidence is what Will Sharf just said is absolutely correct. And it's going to get this conviction reversed on appeal for that issue alone. But the issue, and there are so many other issues. The problem is, is that you have a corrupt partisan rigged process and a corrupt and partisan judge in this one, Rashan, who, whose adult daughter, he donated to Biden and another anti-Trump cause that creates a recusal issue under New York statute. You also have the fact that his adult daughter, Lauren Michon, is raising millions of dollars off this unprecedented trial of Trump in New York, requiring Judge Michon's recusal under New York statute. That's not just me saying it. Will was

just on Caitlin Collins' show. There was a former federal Clinton judge on Caitlin Collins' show on April 5th who said very clearly that Judge Mershon had to recuse under New York statute because his daughter has a financial stake in this criminal prosecution. She's raising millions of dollars as a Democrat fundraiser. She's taking a cut when President Trump raised this as evidence with Judge Mershon. Judge Mershon retaliated against President Trump and said that he's going to throw Trump in prison if he mentions Lauren Mershon's name. There are so many other reasons that this trial was corrupt. You had a rigged jury. So I don't want to go back to the New York trial, but I do think I'm interested because I think this judge will either some of these acts he'll say were unofficial. He'll say they were clearly unofficial and therefore not within the Supreme Court's ruling. But some of them he's going to have a trickier time saying were clearly unofficial.

I mean, some of these actions that Trump was prosecuted for happened while he was in the Oval Office. He was the sitting president. And I don't know, there's at least a colorable argument. And this court is saying the lower courts need to have a hearing, an evidentiary hearing to figure out whether it's official or unofficial. And if he decides not to do that, I mean, no judge wants to be reversed. That's the number one thing they don't want. And in the way, like it would be pretty raisin to flout the US Supreme Court within a week of its ruling. I said before January 11th,

the hearings on July 11th for Trump's sentencing. I don't know. And something interesting happened on Monday, Mike. The prosecution was supposed to make its sentencing recommendation for Trump. And it didn't in the New York case, at least not that the docket reflects. So what do you think is going to happen? Do you think he's actually going to get sentenced on July 11th? Do you think this judge is going to

take another look? I think this judge is going to sentence Trump on July 11th because this judge has proven over and over and over that he's ignored the Supreme Court and the Constitution, including the fact that the judge said that the jury did not have to unanimously agree to all the elements of the criminal charges. They can disagree on the underlying second crime that turned bookkeeping misdemeanors into felonies. The judge just said, oh, you could pick whatever you want. You can have four, four, four, whatever you want, right? So this judge has proven over the course of this trial, he doesn't care about what the Supreme Court has held in the past. And he's corrupt. He doesn't want his daughter, Laura Michonne, to get cut off from the Democrat

fundraising machine. And he hates Trump. He's making a lot of money. And he hates Trump. I think that's his biggest motivation of all. Here was an interesting point, something I've never said before, by Lawrence O'Donnell last night on his show, because the January 6th case is all but dead. I mean, it's all but dead. In the wake of Fisher, which gutted the main claim against Trump on the January 6th stuff, And now in the wake of the presidential immunity ruling, it's I don't know what's left. But Judge Chutkin, the district court judge in that case, is going to have to have said evidentiary hearing. And the court seemed very disdainful of her. The majority was saying, like in a case this complex and this important,

there was no evidentiary hearing at all on what the nature of the acts was, whether they were considered in his official capacity or as candidate Trump, and seemed to be chastising the lower court and frankly, the DC Court of Appeals for rushing to judgment because they so wanted to get Trump as opposed to doing their jobs. So good for the SCOTUS majority on that. In any event, though, now there will be a hearing by Judge Shutkin, who doesn't also she doesn't like Trump. And Lawrence O'Donnell made the following point. Take a listen. into a federal courtroom, raise his right hand, take an oath to tell the truth and testify against Donald Trump in this case in September. But you're going to see this incredible January 6th hearing on steroids, possibly for six, eight weeks, September, October, maybe. So do you agree with that? Not that it's going to be terrible for Trump,

but do you think that's what's about to happen? It could. But remember, the Supreme Court also said that the president's communications with his vice president, I think what I'd have to go back and look at the opinion. I thought it was part of his core constitutional responsibilities to communicate. I think they said probably. I think that one got less protection than conversations with the attorney general. And I think that's more situation-based. So presumption or at least subject to a fact-finding hearing.

Yeah, well, I think they said at least the presumption, right? So we'll see on that one. I think that communications between the president and the vice president might be core constitutional responsibilities that are absolutely immune. But even if Pence comes in and testifies against Trump, I don't think the American people give a damn about January 6th. Right. I just think people are way over January 6th. They care about the fact that interest rates are very high.

Inflation is bad. The border is a disaster. Crime is high. They're just they're not doing well at home. Right. They're suffering at home. So I don't think they care about what the D.C. Democrats care about. January 6th, they act like it's the you know, that they act like it's worse than the Civil War and the American people just don't give a damn. And that's what's so frustrating. If we could just have one more hearing on it, then people will see it the way we see it. It's like we've had hearings coming out the ears on this thing. We've had an impeachment process, primetime addresses. We've had a whole congressional committee, executive produced by ABC News, former chief executive.

I mean, my God, how many more can we have before they realize what you said? People care about their kitchen table issues. Okay. I've got to ask you, is this going to get rid of the Florida case too? I mean, there's just, I feel like this ruling is absolutely devastating to the potentially the Georgia case, potentially the Florida case, potentially, yes, the January 6th case and New York, but how much would you say is getting gutted by the immunity ruling yesterday? The Florida case is a little bit different because that was retention of records after he left office. But I'll tell you what, these January 6th cases are toast, just absolutely toast, which I think is great because

January 6th has become the Democrats' high holiday and high holy holiday. And I just I think it's just awesome that it was the chief justice, John Roberts, not exactly a MAGA warrior who destroyed the Democrats' holiday. Well, we'll see. I mean, Atlanta's dead on the vine right now anyway, because Fannie Willis's disqualification is up on appeal. Florida, it's not going particularly well on the rulings for them down there. And we'll have to see. But nothing's happening before Election Day.

And that's what everyone says. I mean, the president himself said it in his address from the White House last night. Every liberal pundit, every legal pundit said this officially puts to bed the possibility of an actual legal case prior to Election Day. every liberal pundit, every legal pundit said this officially puts to bed the possibility of an actual legal case prior to Election Day. We'll see whether Jack Smith tries to make something happen before swearing in day in January, which is their next great hope. Never dull moment, Mike Davis. Thank you so much for your sage analysis. Thank you.

Up next, we're going to be joined by Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire and host of The Andrew Klavan Show. He's got thoughts on the Democratic meltdown around Joe Biden and his refusal to go. Stand by. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm back, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on Sirius XM at home or anywhere you are.

No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free.

Offer details apply. Joining us now, Andrew Klavan. He's the host of the Andrew Klavan show over on The Daily Wire. Andrew, great to have you. Joe Biden's not going anywhere, so says the president himself, so says his team. His top campaign officials were holding meetings with top donors, telling them, stop breathing through your nose. Just calm down.

It's not that big a deal. Just a bad night. And then when the donors were saying, like, well, we want to know what kind of condition he's in. Their response was, we're not going to be discussing the debate. This is not about the debate. We're going to be discussing a go forward plan. This is getting really dicey because the Democrat establishment has said he needs to go. And there are reports that even top Democratic lawmakers are saying he needs to go, though outwardly they're saying the opposite. And yet the president is completely dug in. As far as I can see, none of these are bad options for Republicans, but you can see the

Democratic Party in a seriously fractured mode right now. What do you make of it? Well, I think this is a watershed moment in the main thing that this country is going through, which is an information revolution and an information revolution that's really on the verge of an information crisis. What we saw at the debate was the collapse of this kind of fake planet that the Democrats have created by their incredible domination of the flow of information up until this point. So you have the networks, you have the New York Times, and the New York Times is really an underrated source of information for everybody else. You know, whatever is in the New York Times becomes the scripture for the rest of the media.

And all of it was false. You know, every the three words that no one is allowed to speak in America are conservatives were right. Once again, conservatives were right. Joe Biden is not fit to hold the office of the presidency. He's been a bookmark all this time. He's been a placeholder and a kind of acceptable face of a far left agenda that the rest of the Democrat Party is putting forward. They went from one line. It was amazing. You know, before if I can pat myself on the back for just one moment before the debate, I said that that Joe Biden has dementia. Dementia is a progressive disease. And the right kind of has this fantasy that because the left controls so much of the information, they have utter control over information. They kept saying, well, they'll drug him, they'll give him a cocktail. And I said, at some point, we don't have a cure for this disease. It gets worse and worse and starts to speed up. And so I was kind of saying he might collapse. And at the same time, Donald Trump has established a new form of discipline, a new kind of restraint that nobody's

been paying attention to either. So the debate was kind of exactly what I was expecting, but it was what no one else was expecting because of this dome of misinformation that the media is able to create. And that dome collapsed. I mean, it just fell down. And the question is, the really big question is, how much of the people, how much has the American audience adjusted to the lies? So in other words, were they seeing something that they had no idea existed before? Because I do talk to a lot of liberals. I work in the arts. I know a lot of people who are on the left. They usually have no idea what's going on. They read the New York Times. They think the New York Times is information instead of disinformation. So how shocked were

they by what they saw? Most people, I think, understood that Biden has collapsed. I mean, Biden is a, you know, he's a senile guy. It's like it's sad, but there it is. And so what the New York Times did was they shifted immediately from one lie to the next. One was the lie before the debate was that he was perfectly fine. Everything was just a cheap fake. All the videos were cheap fakes. It was all invented and all this stuff. The lie afterward was he should step down after a long and distinguished career.

Well, Joe Biden has been a corrupt political hack with a nasty streak his entire life. And the idea that he is Lunchbucket Joe and that he has some kind of sense of principle is a complete falsehood. This guy, he's amazing. He's been the poster boy for unprincipled politicians. And so, you know, what I'm asking myself is how much are people learning to adjust to the new information age? How much are they able to now parse information themselves without the gatekeepers who have been washed away by this fire? I don't think the left is on board. I don't think the left, I think that's, you're only speaking of independents and righties at this point, the left, some lefties. I mean,

I know some who have pierced the veil and said, okay, I'm starting to see it, but it's, it's the exception, not the rule. I do want to, let's just, because I've been wanting to put this together, but the notion that we can dismiss what happened on Thursday night is just, you know, he was a little off. Everybody has good days and bad days. It's kind of cold.

It's absurd. Here's just, we just put it down to one minute, but here's just a reminder of what happened that night. Much more informed on the. This is actually a montage of some of the political players and some of the political parties. Jackie, are you here? Where's Jackie? I didn't think she was going to be here. Jackie was dead.

That can be defined in a single word. I was in the foothills of the Himalayas with somewhere between 700 billion and a trillion 300 million billion here. It is used to make the brew beer. Oh, Earth rider. Thanks for the Great Lakes. Don't mess with the men of America unless you want to get the benefit of asylum officers and over 100 cutting edge inspection machines to detect and stop fentanyl coming on our southwest ports. Imagine what we can do next. Four more years.

Four more years. I really need the Archie Bunker button. I need the Archie Bunker button where he just says, So we've all seen that. OK, but it's worse. It's worse because I actually thought what we saw on stage was shocking. And I covered Joe Biden's, you know, gaffes all the time. Even I was shocked by what I saw. And now you've got Carl Bernstein of Woodward and Bernstein fame and Watergate on CNN last night. This is kind of a

longer clip, which we don't normally go over a minute because it gets boring. But this one's over a minute because listen to what he's reporting. Well, these are people, several of them who are very close to President Biden, who love him, have supported him and been among among them are some people who have raised a lot of money for him. And they are adamant that what we saw the other night, the Joe Biden we saw, is not a one-off. That there have been 15, 20 occasions in the last year and a half when the president has appeared somewhat as he did in that horror show that we witnessed. And what's so significant is the people that this is coming from and also how many people around the president are aware of such incidents, including some reporters, incidentally, who who have witnessed some of them in the last six months. Particularly, there has been a marked incidence of cognitive decline and people i've talked to have all been to ron

clain in the last year to say we have a problem there was a fundraiser at which he started at the podium and then he became very stiff according to people there as if it were almost a kind of rigor mortis this was set and he became very stiff and a chair had to be brought for him to do the the latter part of of the there is no question i have heard for two years how sharp joe biden is in his national security meetings he has special briefing books so we're clearly dealing with uh with two sets of one person. I mean, that is terrifying. That 15 to 20 times where he's appeared as he did on that stage, reporters have witnessed it too.

Over the six months we've just experienced, there's been a marked decline that staff are complaining to Ron Klain, his former chief of staff and the guy who helped prepare him for the debate, that at a fundraiser he couldn't function and was frozen, rigor mortis-like. That's what a dead body has. This is deeply alarming. call or the phone call that the chief of the campaign had with donors, she's touting the fact that he's gotten this clean bill of health from the medical doctor for his physical wellness.

You remember, they did not do a cognitive ability test. And by the way, Andrew, you and I both know if he actually were completely there and had no problems with dementia or any of the other types of dementia, whether it's Alzheimer's or there's a lot of different kinds, they would put out a medical report tomorrow. They would have a doctor examine him. The doctor would come to the microphones to settle down the clamor over last Thursday night and say, this is absolutely normal aging. He doesn't have any sort of a condition. We did a cognitive test. He passed it with flying colors. There's a reason they're not doing this. Yeah. I mean, for one thing, the donors are the same age as Biden, so they may not know what's going on either.

But when you consider the usual discipline of the Democrat media complex, when you consider how carefully they march in line, how they use the same words all the time. He's sharp. He's sharp. There's nothing, you know, he's all there. He's sharp as a tack. And they all say the same things. When you consider that that's starting to unravel, because guys like Carl Bernstein are not going to let their reputations go down the drain with Biden, Joe Scarborough may, he's kind of stuffing his into the compactor, his reputation into the compactor. But, but, you know,

a lot of these guys are starting to say, well, I can't just go on lying when everybody can see the truth in front of them. So I think the donors are going to catch on. I think the party is going to catch on. I'm a little you know, I've been predicting that Biden was going to have to stand down for months and he hasn't. So I can't say now I'm not going to say now that he will because he's clearly clinging to power with every ounce of strength that's in him. But at some point, this really does unravel, even for the left, not the left. But remember, most Democrats are not as far to the left as the party is. And they've got a second problem, which is that Trump is doing pretty well. You know, Trump is a guy who uses hyperbole all the time. He doesn't speak very articulately. He speaks in vague notions. But, you know, their narrative after the debate was that, yes, Biden was off, but Trump lied. But the fact is,

if you erase the hyperbole and if you erase the everyone is the best and everything hates everybody, you know, that kind of talk that Trump uses, a lot of the stuff Trump said was true. You know, Putin didn't take any territory during his presidency. It was more peaceful. There were more there was more security at the border. All of the big points is inflation was far, far better. And all of the big points that Trump made were true. And all of the big points that Biden made that Trump had called Nazis, you know, fine people that he had praised Hitler and all this. All of those were untrue. So you've got this very, very strange moment when the entire narrative that has been an excuse for the lawfare, it's been an excuse for the January 6th persecutions. It's been an excuse for putting, you know, guys like Steve Bannon in jail. All of those things that they've been using kind of collapsed. The entire narrative collapsed. And it really is a question of how much people were paying attention before theories, but they're also getting better at saying what at calculating in the lies of the left, which are so pervasive in the media. I think this is a really big moment for conservatives if they take advantage of it.

But it's also a really big moment for Democrats to wake up to the fact that they cannot live in this bubble of misinformation forever. People will see through it. We're not quite. And that something is not untrue simply because conservatives are saying it. All you needed was eyes and ears to see what was happening with Joe Biden. Again, maybe not this bad and alarming, but arguably, yes, it's not a lie when you're looking at it with your own eyes and ears, just because conservatives are observing it as well and making something out of it. It's just absurd what the position they've let themselves get into. So now I want to talk about some of the reaction because it is going to be very tricky if they do, because to me, the best thing that happened for Joe Biden

was Obama came out and said, we all have bad debate nights and backed him. But James Carville was out yesterday saying an interesting point on that, that you can't look at what Clinton, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama do and say. That's the role of a former president is to lie low, be diplomatic and not bash the previous president, though. You could raise that question about where was that principle when they were talking about Trump? In any event, I get his point. It's a fellow Democrat. It's a the previous president, though. You could raise that question about where was that principle when they were talking about Trump. In any event, I get his point. It's a fellow Democrat. It's a sitting president. Their role is just to kind of not be the standard bearers for like, let's get rid of him. But there are reports, and he was saying it has to come from lawmakers, sitting

lawmakers, Schumer, Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries. And there are reports that those three, at least Pelosi and Jeffries, are behind the scenes raising concerns about Biden. And so I'm not convinced that the elected Democrats are going to stand behind him. The other problem they have, though, is that all the money in the coffers, some 94 million plus, is Joe Biden's. And if they try to bounce him off the ticket, Andrew, they don't get the money. If they sub in a Gavin Newsom, maybe if they keep Kamala Harris, though it's not 100% sure they can keep the money, but they don't want Kamala Harris. And that's the big question.

What do you do with a problem like Kamala? Because nobody has really wrestled with, great, we get rid of Joe. What do we do about her? Well, yeah, I mean, I hate to celebrate the twisting of my opponents on their own string, but this is this is what's happened. This is their fault. They created this situation. Joe Biden said he was going to appoint a minority woman to the vice presidency. He did. He forgot to ask about qualifications. A little, you know, just a little mistake he made there because obviously Kamala Harris is not fit to be president. And she actually still has all her marbles and she can't do the job. And so they don't know what to do because how do you replace, you know, how do you solve a

problem like Kamala? How do you replace her without violating the identity politics? How do you find a politician who actually, who looks like a centrist, but will allow the party to follow the left-wing agenda as Joe Biden has? The mainstream of the Democrat party is very far left. They're not going to let some, you know, moderate come in there and change direction. So you've got to find somebody who's willing, as Biden has been his whole life, to be the po-faced representative of the party while the party does whatever it wants. And they just don't have anybody like that to bring on. So you can't bring on a white man like the governor of Kentucky. You know, you have to find at least a female to replace him. And who have you got? You got Gretchen Whitmer. You know, that's basically their that's getting a lot of buzz.

Yeah, she's getting a lot of buzz. And she's you know, I really dislike Gretchen Whitmer because of the way she behaved during the covid crisis. She was absolutely dictatorial. And at the same time, she was like Gavin Newsom. She was going out to dinner and violating her own rules and all that stuff. But, you know, she's a fairly popular governor in that state, and that state has been a swing state. So she might be their best bet. Yeah. Okay, so let me, before we run, I want to show you what, there was a controversy with her yesterday

and whether she's seeking the job, which I'll get to in one second. But first, I've got to show you this clip. We've been trying to get to it all week. Speaking of Kamala, she sat down with Taraji P. Henson and did, it's an ad. It's an ad for Obama-Harris. It says so in the bottom right of the clip. I don't totally understand how this happened, but it was from

the BET Awards. And then I guess the White House liked it so much, they decided to use it in an ad. You tell me, this is the next standard bearer. Should Joe go? Watch. No, no, Taraji. Now, you know, I wouldn't do that, especially not to a fellow bison. The real H.U., you know. So what's on your mind? Madam VP Harris, I'm worried about the election. Women's reproductive rights are on the line.

Our Supreme Court is on the line. Our basic freedoms are being tested. Madam VP, I know you've been traveling across the line. Our Supreme Court is on the line. Our basic freedoms are being tested. Madam VP, I know you've been traveling across the country. What are you hearing? Yeah, girl, I'm out here in these streets. And let me tell you, you're right, Taraji. There is so much at stake in this moment. The majority of us believe in freedom and equality. But these extremists, as they say, they not like us. No, they not. There's a full-on attack on our fundamental freedoms. The freedom to vote. Yep. The freedom to love who you love. The freedom to be safe from gun violence. The freedom for a woman to make decisions about her

own body, not having her government tell her what to do. Oh my God. For listening audience, that all took place with them looking into their iPhones and seeing the other the other person that was, as the kids would say, cringe. One hundred percent. Kamala is an expert at cringe. That seems to be her main qualification for what she does. You know, I just think, look, the Democrats have depended on showbiz and turning the news media into showbiz for a very long time. And I just don't think it's going to play. I don't think, you know, people are afraid.

I know on the right, as I say, on the right, we have this kind of overblown idea of their cultural power. They have a lot of cultural power, but they don't have all the cultural power. I'm not sure they can move a Michelle Obama in there, for instance, and not have the people roll their eyes and say, hey, you know, this isn't a TV show. This is politics. We want somebody who at least we know can do the job. And so I I'm really I'm I really think they're stuck. I mean, Henry Olson, who is the best poll watcher that I know, says that they could get away with Gretchen Whitmer, maybe Warnock from Georgia as the vice president. You know, I don't even know structurally how they get there in terms of the Democrat rules of play. It's amazing to me,

for those of us who've been alive for 130 years, it's amazing to me that this is a replay, almost exact replay of 1968 when the convention was also in Chicago, when LBJ was stepping down because of Vietnam, when there were protests within the Democrat Party, as there are now about Hamas and Israel. This is an amazing replay of that time when the Democrat Party basically unraveled. You know, if if Trump were not the nominee, it would be clear sailing. He's a very, very controversial person. Obviously, he's a person that people hate very much and love very much. And he is not the surefire candidate that would just nail this thing down. That's what makes it all a big question. You know, what's interesting is 68 is the reason the Democrats are stuck in this position, because the Democrats used to have

an open convention where you'd show up and you wouldn't know who was going to be the nominee. They'd show up and they'd sing and dance and try to convince the delegates that they were the best person for the job. And after things were so catastrophic, it's in 68, the Democrats changed it such that you would collect the delegates before the convention. They'd be pledged to you. And when you went in there, you'd have the vote like the voters would decide it wasn't going to be decided by all the party elders and it wasn't going to be decided on the day or at the actual convention, which is what people like The New York Times now want. This is what the more reasonable left that's saying we can't go forward with Joe. They they they're saying just because the voters

voted for these delegates or these delegates are pledged to Joe Biden now doesn't mean that they have to stick by him. We can't do it like this. He's incapacitated. In any event, I think they're all wishing they had their old system at this point. I want to talk about some of the people. It's so absurd if they get rid of Kamala Harris and Joe and they decide to go with Gretchen Whitmer and Raphael Warnock. So they're like, we we recreated a black woman. We have one who's black and one who's a woman. There you go.

But that's how they are. That's how they're so obsessed with this stuff. They might do it. So Gretchen Whitmer got, she stepped in it reportedly yesterday because there was a news report supposedly released by one of her competitors, meaning somebody else who's in the running for Joe Biden's job, that she said to the president, Michigan is lost. Not to the president, but to his team. Just FYI, in the wake of that debate, Michigan's lost. She came out and denied it and said anybody who says that doesn't know shit. And the takeaway is if one of her competitors released that about her, it shows

they fear she's a threat and it shows people are starting to vie for the job, that the bench is starting to warm up. So it's not settled on the Dem side what's going to happen here. Here's a little bit of a video Gretchen Whitmer posted to X on Monday, where she's all team Biden. The whole world is going to be watching what happens in Michigan. And I know none of us wants to wake up the morning after this election and feel like we did in 2016. We have a president who wakes up every single day and thinks about how we can make people's lives better. We have a president who is committed to respecting and protecting women's rights under the law in this country. And so, my friends, this election will be decided by a slim number of people in a handful of states, and we are one of them. We cannot let Michigan fall on the wrong

side of this election. So that means hitting the doors. It means making the phone calls. It means registering people to vote. It's interesting to hear her talk. She sounds a little like Kristi Noem. She's got the same general accent in the Midwest there. So she right now is standing behind him fully. That's one of the candidates. And I'll just give you one other and then I'll get your thoughts. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, I've heard his name mentioned. He came out, was asked about replacing Biden. and here's what he said. He didn't say, never, I'm not doing it. Shut up.

Stop saying that. Listen. Any thoughts that you might slide into that spot? Would you if you had to? Only the president can determine his future as a candidate. He is the candidate. And as long as he is, I'm supporting him. OK, that's he's from Kentucky. He beat our pal Daniel Cameron in the race for governor.

Very popular, though, very high approval rating. So does Gretchen Whitmer. They call her the big Gretch. Both of these two. I don't know. They're getting a lot of buzz. And you heard him right there. He didn't come out explicitly and say no. Yeah, there's what you see. And then there's what's going on behind the scenes. Even Obama said behind the scenes to be campaigning to open the trap door under Biden. So we don't really know what's happening behind the scenes. But first of all, you can't help but compare this to the Republican Party, where like Mike Johnson can't reach far enough behind his back to take the arrows out from his own party.

The complete disarray that you have on the right and the complete discipline, lockstep discipline that the left manufactures is very, very impressive. But what both Whitmer and Beshear are saying basically is they're not going to be the guy to stab Biden in the back. But if he should wake up one day and find there's a knife in his back, they would take his place. Neither of them eliminated the possibility that if Biden should step down, if the party should get rid of him, they would step in. I mean, then they would have prize discipline and loyalty in a way that the Republicans don't. It's in some ways it speaks well of the Republicans that they're a party of individualists.

On the other hand, you know, it's like you want to watch your back. You would actually prefer to be a Democrat than a Republican. Yeah. Here's Sheldon Whitehouse, senator from the great state of Rhode Island, being not explicit that he needs to step down, but not a cheerleader. Your honest reaction to the debate? I think like a lot of people, I was pretty horrified. Rhode Island U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse tells 12 News Democrats remain united about the need to defeat former President Donald Trump, but they're looking for reassurance

from Biden and his team. I think people want to make sure that this is a campaign that's ready to go and win, that the president and his team are being candid with us about his condition, that this was a real anomaly and not just the way he is these days. Now, that sounds like virtually everybody on CNN, MSNBC in the wake of the debate, The New York Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, horrified, and we need assurances. I'm not sure why he's going further, but the next week to 10 days should be very important in seeing where the messaging lands. The White House has been, I think, rather effective in trying to steady the ship, trying to get their worst critics to be quiet and get their top Democratic, at least elected allies, to either back him openly or hold their fire. So where do you think we are 10 days, 14 days from

now? Well, you have to consider the White House is a genuine thug. He's the guy who kind of makes mafia-like threats against the Supreme Court. So he's the one you expect to go further than anybody else. But clearly, clearly beneath the surface, there is a move to get rid of Biden. He's going to have to debate again. He's promised to debate again in September. I don't see how he can possibly do that. He's not going to be getting better. They know it. And so I expect to see a lot of movement beneath the surface while everything looks calm on top. The other thing is, if God forbid he has another senior moment, I mean, it's fine. You can put him out of the prompter.

Last night, he read his little speech about the Supreme Court ruling on immunity. Just fine. Which proves he can read. That's why he can't have another debate. He can't do a sit down with 60. He can't put out a doctor verifying that he's in perfect cognitive health. So that, you know, we're still watching him. And as you know, age only works one way. He's not going to be younger in August or September than he is now. They're taking a

real risk here. And you can see why many in the party base, I would say most don't want to. 72% of the electorate of the Democrats say he's too old to be president. We want someone else. That's what Carville was saying. They want someone else. Just give them something. They don't want him. Give it to them. Give them what they want, which is an alternative. And he's just too locked in on the money and the delegates now to make a move. So Andrew Klavan, a pleasure as always. I hope you come back soon. Thanks. Great to see you. Tomorrow, we're going to have National Review Day. We're going to have a move. So Andrew Klavan, a pleasure as always. I hope you come back soon. Thanks. Great to see you. Tomorrow, we're going to have National Review Day. We're going to have Charles C.W. Cook and

Michael Brendan Doherty. They have a lot of thoughts on this whole thing and the process and the Supreme Court. We'll get to it all. Look forward to that. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.