The Megyn Kelly Show - Garland Grilled on Hunter Investigation, and Russell Brand's Defenders, with Jim Geraghty and Maddy Kearns | Ep. 631

Episode Date: September 20, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Jim Geraghty and Madeleine Kearns of National Review to discuss the key timing relating to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Hunter Biden case, what we know about the David Weiss and Garland relationship, what made Garland change his mind on Weiss' Special Counsel status, John Fetterman’s response to the new Senate dress code, if Fetterman is really taking the job seriously and if he should be replaced by someone who can actually do the job, Biden’s obvious cognitive decline, someone arrested at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign event last week, the Biden administration refusing to give RFK Jr. Secret Service protection, whether Michelle Obama could replace Biden next year as the candidate, the denials in the Gov. Kristi Noem cheating allegations, the latest on the Russell Brand sexual assault allegations and the reaction to them, Brand getting demonetized on YouTube, conservatives defending Brand without digging into the actual details, and more.Get more from National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrplus-subscribe/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. Attorney General Merrick Garland is on Capitol Hill right now getting grilled by the House GOP on the Hunter Biden investigation and more. He is on his heels trying to dance and spin his way out of some tough questions. It's been really interesting to watch. We're going to go over the highlights in detail. Millions of Americans earn and use credit card rewards. A few big box retailers want to take those rewards away. That's according to the Electronics Payments Coalition, a sponsor of today's episode.

Rewards you may use on groceries and school supplies, cash back to save on gas and grow small businesses, and travel miles to make memories. Well, the so-called Credit Card Competition Act would eliminate credit card rewards. No more travel miles and no more cash back. Visit handsoffmyrewards.com to learn more. And if you want to help them, tell your legislator to stand up to the retail giants and to support consumers and small businesses. Joining me today, Jim Garrity, a senior political correspondent at National Review and co-host of the Three Martini Lunch podcast, along with Madeline Kearns, who's a staff writer at National Review and senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. You can find their

work at National Review in full by becoming an NR Plus subscriber. Today is National Review Day here at the Megyn Kelly Show. Welcome to the show, Jim and Maddie. Great to have you. Great to be here. Thanks for having us. All right. So have you been watching this this morning? Yeah. In between all the other things we're doing. Yes. You know, look, we were hanging on the edge of our seat because we knew Merrick Garland

was always going to be honest, straightforward, clear, and honest accounting of all of his decision making that every senator up there could trust 100 percent. You know, who wouldn't want to listen to Merrick Garland for a whole morning? He's truly been spinning like with that guy at the circus with the plates, just trying to keep him going and going and going and going. This appears to me like the most dishonest public official we have, which is really saying something like it's like George Santos and Merrick Garland. And every time a Democrat takes to the mic, all we hear is thank you for being such an honorable man and for your truthful testimony and public service. It's like they don't think anybody's paying attention. And I realize the

Democrats are perfectly happy to give this guy pass, but those of us who've been watching him are not. All right. So I want to sort of get to the crux of what seems to be happening here. They're trying to push him. And this is for the audience at home. They're trying to push him on why he took this guy, David Weiss, who is the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware, and made him special counsel to go after Hunter Biden, you know, two minutes ago. This guy, David Weiss, was investigating Hunter Biden now for years and could have brought charges many times and let them slide and let these statute of limitations expire on the most egregious charges, like the tax charges that would have brought up the Burisma connection. So he's been really running to protect Hunter Biden.

If you look at the way he's conducted that investigation and if you look at the IRS whistleblower's testimony, it's very clear David Weiss is on Hunter's team. Then he tried to sneak through this settlement agreement that would have given Hunter immunity for everything, everything, Burisma, foreign agent, all this stuff with just a slap on the wrist for the remaining lame tax charges and the gun charges. So all along, people have been wanting to know, how is it that this whole thing got allowed? Why didn't he seem empowered to bring charges like the IRS whistleblowers claim he admitted he wasn't? They're claiming that he came to them when they said, where are the tax charges for the love of God? And that he said, I can't bring them.

The most serious tax charges are in California and DC. And I was not granted authority to bring charges in those jurisdictions. I can't do it. Well, your own Andy McCarthy at national review has been doing yeoman's work on this, as you guys know. And he's pointed out as a former U.S. attorney himself that what happens all the time that a U.S. attorney, let's say in Delaware, is investigating a case. And the target of his investigation turns out to have committed a bunch of crimes in California where that U.S. attorney has no jurisdiction to go in and commence a grand jury, etc. So what does he do? He goes to the district attorney or the U.S. attorney in California and says, hey, will you partner with me? I want to bring this case. And sometimes that U.S. attorney will say, sure,

Delaware man, let's do it. And sometimes they will say, no, not interested, too busy. It can be your thing. And when that happens to said Delaware U.S. attorney, he has to go to the attorney general, who is the boss of the mall, to say, can you give me basically a permission slip to go out there and bring this case myself? And they almost always say yes. There'd have to be an extraordinary reason for the AG to say, no, you can't do it. So that's what's called special attorney status, not to be confused with special counsel, in which case you don't have to go to the AG at all. As soon as you're special counsel, in which case you don't have to go to the AG at all. As soon as you're special counsel, you're independent. You don't deal with the AG.

You can do what the hell you want. And all along, people have been saying David Weiss should have been a special counsel, not him. I mean, before we knew his bias, people were okay with him. But somebody with independence and outside the government, not currently answering to AG Merrick Garland as a U.S. attorney, should be named special counsel and outside the government, not currently answering to AG Merrick Garland as a U.S. attorney, should be named special counsel and have independent authority, given the fact that Hunter is Joe Biden's son. He didn't do it. Didn't do it. Didn't do it. Right. So now people are zeroing in on what Merrick Garland has said now that the shit has hit the fan and what David Weiss has said via letters, via testimony. Weiss has yet to testify.

Garland has testified before Congress a couple of times. And the line they've come up with is that Weiss never asked for special counsel authority, but always could, always could, but didn't up until recently when Merrick Garland gave it to him. But earlier, Weiss says he was assured by the Justice Department, he put this in writing in July, he was assured by the Justice Department that if he needed special attorney status, again, that's the temporary permission slip to go into somebody's jurisdiction without being special counsel, that it would be granted if appropriate. It would be granted if appropriate. It would be granted if necessary. That's if necessary. Now, the big question today, Jim Garrity, is what the hell happened after that assurance was given to David Weiss? Why did David Weiss go and say, can I get the special pink slip that would let me go into California? Why did he do that? Because we know he was denied by the U.S. attorney in California and the one in D.C. We know that from the IRS whistleblowers and The New York Times has

confirmed it, that he did try to see, hey, would you guys bring these charges? And it was it was a no. So at that point, a willing prosecutor should have gone to Merrick Garland. Already it's fraught. That's why he should have been a special counsel, because Garland is basically working for Joe Biden. So it's fraught because you're basically saying, can you give me the special permission slip to go prosecute the president's son? But in any event, he should have done that. And he seems to be claiming he did something like that because he went to Merrick Garland and said he was told he'd get the special attorney status if it was necessary. Well, what happened next?

Did you then bring a case? Oh, wait, you didn't interfere. I was so hands off. I treated it like plutonium. I didn't come anywhere near it. Well, then what did if necessary mean? What did David Weiss have to prove to get to the it's necessary? Go ahead and bring the case. Is it on Merrick Garland who wouldn't say, yes, we're at the necessary point?

Or is it on David Weiss who got the if if necessary, we'll give it to you, and then just put his hands over his ears, closed his eyes, and said, I'm just going to sit here until the statute of limitations expires? Either way, my main takeaway from listening to Merrick Garland wiggle and worm on the hill today, Jim, is he's a snake and a liar and is doing everything in his power to obfuscate real answers on how this all went down and why the most serious charges against the president's son are no longer possible because the statute of limitations has run. I mean, look, I think I can try to decide whether it's worse if Merrick Garland

and Weiss actually did agree on what if necessary meant and that they both had this idea that the threshold would be so high. We have incontrovertible evidence that Hunter Biden committed the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and therefore we simply have to prosecute on these charges, you know, or whether, you know, Weiss had one idea of what if necessary meant and Merrick Garland meant. No, no, no. I only want you to do it if it was two chainsaw massacres down in Texas. That that's the threshold. My idea of how bad it's got to be before we prosecute Hunter Biden. any prosecutor for having a certain, you know, reluctance or churning in their stomach and needing acid when the case involves the son of a president. You know that anything you do is going to be interpreted by political. It's going to be interpreted as either being targeting the president's son or it's going to be interpreted as sparing the president's son. But this comes with the job. You don't really are given you're not

really given the option to opt out of cases involving the pre you know the president's family when merrick garland took that job first of all i mean democrats treated him as if he'd been resurrected from the dead after he had had his supreme court nomination uh derailed by the gop senate a couple years earlier and he had you, a thousand times sworn that he was going to be the nonpartisan, down the middle, balls and strikes. You wouldn't even think of him as a Democrat. You would just see him as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. And he was never going to allow Biden to influence him. And Biden was never even tried to influence him and all that stuff. Well, that's not what we've gotten. We've, you know, both from IRS whistleblowers and also these very odd decisions that keep being made by Merrick Garland,

including spending, I mean, really months insisting that David Weiss had all the authority he needed and that there was no need to have a special counsel in this case. And anybody who was claiming otherwise was, you know, cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. And then like that, we have turned him into a special counsel. Therefore, he totally, now he really has all the authority he needs. Trust us, there was nothing wrong with the previous arrangement,

but we totally felt the need to change it. Anyway, there's a contradiction there. They've never really even tried to explain what that was or something. Weiss comes across as somebody who is torn between the the mountain look you know i was gonna try to think of a kind of a scandal that hunter biden has not gotten himself into in the past couple years you know the drug use the impregnating the stripper the

fight over child support like that's that none of that stuff's even criminal but that's there then there's the shady business practices then there's the huge gifts from foreign businessmen then there's the question of whether they should have registered for the there. Then there's the shady business practices. Then there's the huge gifts from foreign businessmen. Then there's the question of whether they should have registered for the lobbyist. Then there's the question of the gun and unlicensed. There's just a long stack of potential lawbreaking and scandals and unsavory behavior. And you get the feeling that Weiss just wanted to pick and choose stuff that would be bad, but not too bad. And that would result in a fine, result in a plea bargain, something where you could say, see, we went after him, get off my back. And that, you know, it would never really cause any significant headaches for that. And Hunter Biden had one of the world's most generous plea deals on the table. And somehow he managed to screw it up

because his lawyers believed, oh, this also means we can't be prosecuted for anything else we've ever done in the past or in the future. This is literally a get out of jail free card for Monopoly that they wanted. Anyway, I've ranted long enough. I'm going to let Maddie take a few whacks of this pinata, but it just seems like an unbelievably ridiculous situation. And the situation Merrick Garland assured us

that he was never going to find himself in. And by the way, I just want to clarify too,. David Weiss, in his letter to Congress in July, said, I was granted full authority, the ultimate authority, and told I'd be given special attorney status. I'm calling it a pink slip to go visit somebody else's jurisdiction. It's not as big as special counsel, but it's sufficient to go in and prosecute if necessary, right? That's what he said, if necessary. And he's also said that he was told that before the meeting he had with the IRS whistleblowers and the FBI agents in which the IRS whistleblowers have said on the record that they were told by David Weiss he did not have full authority, that he was not the decider. He was not the ultimate decider.

So something more would have to happen, that he'd been turned down in those jurisdictions to bring a case and that he hadn't been granted special counsel status and therefore he was not the decider. OK, so he's claiming he had that, you are the decider. You can go in there if necessary prior to that meeting. So what happened? Did he go back to Merrick Garland and say, I'm telling you it's now necessary? It's necessary. I got the middle finger from both jurisdictions. The statute's going to expire. Put put me in coach. Let me go do my thing. Or did David Weiss cover his eyes and ears, sit tight in Delaware, surrounded by absolutely no Delaware and Joe Biden connections and wait, just watch his the clock, right? Just tick tock until the most

serious charges were gone. And then the shitstorm came down when he tried to push through a sweetheart plea deal. And only when he got caught, did he bring these lame gun gun charges and say, OK, I'll be special counsel on on what's at whatever is remaining in the tax lane. Maddie, I want to play a little sound before I get you to weigh in. He was asked, did you talk to Weiss? Tell us about your discussions with Weiss. Hello. That's the question. Thank you. Thank you for asking that. What have the two of them discussed? They work for us. They work for us. Listen to this answer in SOT 17. Okay. Can you tell us about any briefings or discussions that you personally have had with Mr. Weiss regarding any and all federal investigations of Hunter Biden.

I'm going to say again, I promised the Senate that I would not interfere with Mr. Weiss. So you have not, I'm just, under oath today, your testimony is, you have not had any discussions with Mr. Weiss about this matter? Under oath, my testimony today is that I promised the Senate I would not intrude in his investigation. I do not intend to discuss internal Justice Department deliberations, whether or not I had them. So it's a middle finger, Maddy Kearns. He won't tell us. Yeah, I mean, it reminds me of how Biden's handled these accusations and that he said he's not had any discussions with his son,

Hunter. It's very difficult to believe. But I think what Merrick Garland has going for him here, at the risk of sounding credulous, is that he is very mild-mannered. He can appeal to this reputation he has as being a moderate, being a straight shooter, it's not actually all that dissimilar to Joe Biden. During the 2020 campaign, it was, oh, nice Uncle Joe. He's a nice guy. Never mind that he lies through his teeth. I think that's what's going on here as well. I mean, anyone who's had any dealings with a big grinding government bureaucracy

will have run into the answer to a question. Oh, that's not my department. I don't deal with that. I don't know about that. And the question that obviously comes to a question, oh, that's not my department. I don't deal with that. I don't know about that. And the question that obviously comes to mind straight away is, don't you people talk to each other? Obviously, in that case, the explanation is incompetence. I don't think Merrick Garland is seriously trying to say that he is incompetent. But I think what he's doing here is he's suggesting that there's an element of professional distance that he's had between himself and David Weiss. It was the appropriate thing for him to do, he's saying, in this situation to take a step back for all the reasons that we've brought up about the closeness and proximity of the Biden DOJ investigating the Biden family. And so he's saying, you know, I left it to David Weiss. I left it to this Trump appointee and I really didn't have much to do with it. And as soon as

you start to press down in that, he's, yeah, as you say, a middle finger, none of your business. You know, I don't have to comment on that. It's contemptuous, frankly. And here he is getting questioned by Representative Bishop on the fact that the statute of limitations is now passed. Right. Like, I mean, truly, the statute of limitations is is expired on the chart, the tax charges that would bring up Burisma. And I mean, it does seem very clear why that was allowed to happen. That's the best way of protecting the so-called big guy, which we know from the IRS whistleblowers, the team investigating Hunter Biden was told, don't go there. We're not doing anything that asks about Joe Biden, period. So here he, Merrick Garland, got asked a bit about the statute of limitations expiring in SOT 19. Are you aware the statutes of limitations have been allowed to expire while the matter was under investigation. The investigators were fully familiar with all the relevant law. I'm not asking for the excuses.

I'm asking whether you're aware of that fact, sir. I'm going to say again. I'm going to say again and again if necessary. I did not interfere with, did not investigate, did not determine. See, those are statements in response to other questions. Everybody in the country now knows who's paying attention to this, that the Justice Department permitted statutes of limitations to expire. Every lawyer who's ever practiced understands the implications of allowing statutes of limitations to expire. Do you not even know

as you sit here whether that occurred or not? Prosecutors make appropriate determinations on their own. In this case, I left it to Mr. Weiss whether to bring charges or not? Prosecutors make appropriate determinations on their own. In this case, I left it to Mr. Weiss whether to bring charges or not. That would include whether to let statute of limitations expire or not. It's the, what was it? Sergeant Schultz, Colonel Schultz. I can't remember his rank. I know nothing, nothing. Remember F Troop, right? Wasn't it? It was an F Troop, Jim Garrity, you're my- Hogan's Heroes. Maddie's like, what the hell are you talking about? Hogan's Heroes. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. In that last comment, Maddie made something very important saying that it was contemptuous.

Indeed, contempt of Congress does seem like an appropriate term to be throwing around here. And also, I think there, like the point earlier about the reputation that Merrick Garland has, that he's not seen as this diehard partisan bomb thrower. There are a lot of figures in Washington, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, who have a reputation as a moderate. And what they mean is that they are moderate in their tone, maybe moderate in their personality, moderate in the way that they speak and make their arguments and all that kind of stuff. They're pleasant people.

You could invite them over for dinner and you would not have any thrown objects or knocked over drinks or anything like that. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are moderate in their policy or ideology or in their actions. And a lot of Democrats benefit from that blurring of the distinction of what is moderate. And I think, you know, Biden is a good example of this, but also I think Merrick Garland is one, is that, you know, he seems very calm in that, in his, you know, those clips that you've played. But in one of them, he's saying like, look, I know I just took an oath to tell the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I've just decided that my conversations with other people at DOJ, they just got to remain private and I'm not going to share them with you. In a way, it's sort of like an assertion of executive privilege, but there's never been an executive privilege applied to the attorney general. Like he doesn't have his own ability to say, yes, sorry, legislative branch, you're not allowed to hear about that. That's just too secret for you. Right, they're the oversight committee. Yeah. Unless it was like classified information or something like that. And even that you can do at a closed hearing. And then his next statement was kind of this total non sequitur when the question is like, look, at minimum, did everybody know what the statute of limitation expiration date was?

Were people aware of the fact that they were on a ticking clock? How did you miss something like this? And his attitude is like, look, I was not going to contact them about anything, including when they were no longer going to be able to bring charges. By the way, I think everybody knew darn well, you know, like the argument is this was deliberate, that this was like, oh, you know, we we found all this evidence. We could have made a case against Hunter Biden, but I forgot to check the calendar. What are you going to do? We shouldn't have taken that long weekend. You know, they had him dead to rights. The IRS whistleblowers made that very clear. It was an extremely strong case. Here's Jim Jordan speaking to the expiration of the statute in Sat 21. What I'm wondering is why

you guys let the statute of limitations lapse for those tax years that dealt with Burisma income. There's one more fact that's important, and that is that this investigation was being conducted by Mr. Weiss, an appointee of President Trump. You will, at the appropriate time, have the opportunity to ask Mr. Weiss that question, and he will no doubt address it in the public report that will be transmitted to the Congress. I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer. So you're great saying that we're going to get a chance to hear from Mr. Weiss directly, Maddie, which is exactly what we need. But you know exactly what's going to happen when David Weiss gets in front of Congress. I'm I'm not at liberty to discuss

that. That's a private matter within the Justice Department. That would reveal attorney work product. He's not going to I don't there's zero chance David Weiss is going to illuminate anything willingly. Yeah, I think these are questions that Garland just obviously hoped and fully expected before the plea deal fell apart in July that he was never going to have to answer. That's the reason he doesn't have an answer to them is because he's sitting here thinking, oh, this is, you know, I don't want to be here. I don't want to be dealing with this. I thought I had had this under wraps and here I am today.

And it comes through. And I think like I was saying, with these grinding bureaucracies, you can get on the phone and the person says, oh, I'm sorry, that's not my department. Let me just dial you through to somebody else. And then great, they can go home and not worry about it. He's not in that position. The buck stops with him. He is the attorney general. He has to answer for what was going on under his watch. And these answers are just completely devoid of any substance. And, you know, you mentioned David Weiss. It will be very interesting to see him in the same situation, but ultimately it's going to become rather tedious and repetitious because we're not

really getting anywhere and nor did we expect to. Here's just a little bit more of Jim Jordan expanding on why he thinks they let the statute of limitations expire, stop 21. Everyone knows why they did it. May not say it, but everyone knows why they did it. They did the risk those tax years. That's that that dealt with the that involved the president. It's one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware that doesn't involve the president United States. But Burisma, oh my, that goes right to the White House we can't have that and we can slow walk this thing along we can even extend the statute of limitations and then we can intentionally let it lapse and we know this investigation was slow here's what everyone said Shapley said DOJ slow

walk the investigation Ziegler slow walking and the approvals of everything this happened at the Delaware's attorney's office and DOJ tax level Mr. Sobosinski the FBI agent said I would have liked to see things move faster. Ms. Hawley said the same. Every witness we've talked to said this thing was slow walk, and we know why. They've slow walked it long enough to let the statute of limitations run so they wouldn't have to get into Burisma. I'm sorry, Jim, but this is why, this is part of the reason why people look at the prosecutions of Donald Trump and say, I don't give a damn. I don't care. I'm not listening to you. I don't trust this DOJ.

They're clearly in the tank. It's a partisan outfit. It is election interference and they really don't give a damn what documents Donald Trump had back at his house in Mar-a-Lago or what he did with them in dealing with these dishonest brokers. One of the, you know, like infuriating ironies of all this is that you can actually find members of the Obama administration who were deeply uncomfortable with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board. You can find State Department officials who said Hunter Biden serving on that board made our job more complicated. Because remember, keep in mind, it's not just that Biden is like the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine while this is going on. It's that he's going around Ukraine and Romania and places like that and giving speeches about the importance of fighting corruption and fighting bribery and fighting all this while the Biden family is getting paid millions of

dollars by Burisma and by Romanian businessmen and things like this. Even if you wanted to argue that Hunter Biden was, as Devin Archer put it, he was peddling the illusion of influence or access. No, when you get the vice president of the United States on the phone, that's access. That's not the illusion of access. It's not a magic trick. There's no rabbit out of a hat or smoke and mirrors. That's access. And if you don't believe me, call the White House switchboard and see how quickly you can get Joe Biden on the phone. My guess is it's going to be a while. But all Hunter Biden's business partners could get Joe Biden on the phone like that as long as Hunter was there making the call. And so here's the thing. Let's assume that Hunter,

let's be nice. So let's be assumed that Joe Biden never changed a single policy at any level for any one of Hunter Biden's clients. I think it's a very generous assumption. Let's assume it does. It's still really bad for the country. If the son of the vice president is going around to every shady business on earth and saying, hey, you got problems with the US government, I could fix you with that. I could put you on the phone with my dad just as soon as you send the fee. And like, that's, you know, particularly when the vice president

is running around Europe saying, we have to fight corruption and we have to fight bribery. Like, you could not have a greater, more glaring contradiction for this. And one of the things I've kind of believed was always at work in the entire discussion of Hunter Biden. Before the 2020 election, I did this whole long timeline of basically everything that was

publicly known about Hunter Biden's work going back pretty much to his graduation from law school. He worked for MBNA, big bank in Delaware that clearly wanted to have a good friend of Joe Biden. He was a lobbyist. He says he never lobbied his father. Fine. I put out that like, hey, Chris Dodd, this is your buddy Joe's son, Hunter. Hey, I want to get an earmark I want you to put in. I don't think that was nearly as it. But he's always been cashing in on the family name. He's always had a job that in one form or another was around dealmaking that had people who had interest in front of what his dad could influence in federal policy. And, you know, going back years, it's, you years, I think some study looked at members of Congress

and found that like 80 of them, and about evenly split, had a family member or spouse on their office staff, campaign staff, super PAC staff or something. Everybody's got an idiot nephew. Everybody's got an idiot son who needs some job. Most people are like, okay, it's not good. It's not great, but that's relatively good. It's not great, but that's relatively harmless. That's what kind of happened with Hunter Biden year by year, decade by decade, in which what he was doing got more and more entangled with what his dad was doing. And the only thing he had to offer Burisma or, you know, Kazakhstan, real estate developers or Chinese financial, he didn't have any skills or knowledge or anything like this. The only thing he had was his access to his father. That was his benefit. That was his value,

that and the family name. And what had happened is it got worse and it got worse and worse. And there was never any limiting principle. There was never any red line where it's like, now you can't do this anymore, son. And so you have a situation in which Vice President Biden, and then later, you know, in between years, and then is on the phone with Hunter Biden's clients, allegedly just talking about the weather. Right. Sure. Sure. And now you tell me, because I feel like all of what we've been talking about has led directly to what's happening in the polls, where Trump, four times indicted, and talking about it. You know, this time last week I was interviewing Trump and he's going into depth on the documents case. And, you know, he's saying unorthodox

things for the Republican Party to me, to NBC. He is up four points now over Joe Biden in the general election. He's up four in a general election. He's pivoting away from these GOP rivals to the general. And it's working because in the Harvard Harris X poll that just came out, Trump in a head to head match up with Biden now. And we've seen Trump up maybe one, maybe tied some Biden up one. Trump's up four over Joe Biden. Haley's up four over Joe Biden. Tim Scott's up two over Joe Biden. And while it's not in front of me, I believe this poll showed Ron DeSantis losing to Joe Biden by four. Yeah, Ron DeSantis losing to Joe Biden by four. So, Maddie, the viewers are not getting this story about Hunter

and Joe and so on shoved down their throat the way they would if this involved Republicans. But it's I think it's reaching critical mass to where the mainstream has had no choice, especially with the impeachment, but to cover it. And even before the impeachment, people are starting to get it with the indictments, with the with the fallen apart plea deal. Like it's seeping into the narrative now and people understand he's too old and he appears to be corrupt. All the polls show that's how the American public feels. Wide majorities of Americans feel that on both of those fronts, too old and corrupt. Yeah. And I think with this particular case, what you're seeing is the blatant, flagrant hypocrisy as well. You know, I mean, the Republicans really are trying,

I think all the other Republican candidates but Trump really just are like, please, no more impeachments. Like, no more indictments. This is just not helping us because what it does is it creates a narrative where Trump is the grand victim of this partisan conspiracy, the establishment, the deep state. They're out to get him. And as you say, this just helps him.

It gives him free publicity. It gets him back talking to people, doing interviews, explaining why they're all out to get him. People can also see the sort of disproportionate sentencing. You know, there was the Proud Boy leader who got 22 years. And now, you know, we're seeing others who are getting prosecuted. And I think that people have cottoned on to that and they react badly and it serves Trump very well. It's really disheartening.

And I am excited to see some tough questions going by these GOPers to Merrick Garland. So often it's uncoordinated and it's totally ineffective. And now, you know, one of the questions they enough and he was had the ability to prosecute anywhere at any time, why was special counsel necessary? And he just keeps saying he asked for it. Yeah, he finally asked for it. I mean, I think we have that. So do we have that thought, Deb? On July 10th, 2023, David Weiss wrote the Senator Graham and said, I have not requested special counsel designation. August 11th, you announced that he's now the special counsel. What happened in that 31 days? As I said publicly, several days before my announcement, I think three days, Mr. Weiss had asked to become special counsel.

He explained that he had reached the stage of his investigation where he thought that appropriate. What stage is that? I had promised to give him the resources he needed. What stage is that? He'd reached the stage. After five years, what stage are we in? We in the beginning stage, the middle stage, the end stage, the keep hiding the ball stage.

What stage are we in? I think this one, I would go back to the videotape where I said, I'm not permitted to discuss ongoing investigation. Isn't that convenient? Something changed in 31 to 32 days from July 10th to August ongoing investigation. Isn't that convenient? Something changed in 31 to 32 days from July 10th to August 11th. I think it's too brave. Whistleblowers came forward and a judge called BS on the plea deal. You guys tried to get past them. That's what I think happened. Thank God for Jim Jordan. Honestly, like he's very effective. He's, but he knows how to question.

He zeros right in on it. And I agree with every word he just said, because what else, what else changed? Nothing else changed. Nothing. I mean, and to now get special counsel status once the charges in California and D.C. are expired. Oh, that's really helpful. Why the hell does he need it? And by the way, why did he need it? Like it wasn't for independence, right? Because Merrick Garland's been saying all along, we're not talking about it. We're not talking about it. He's fully empowered. So why the hell did he need it? Why? None of this is making sense unless you listen to what Jim Jordan said. What Jim Jordan said makes perfect sense. It explains everything.

What Merrick Garland and David Weiss are trying to do is dance on the head of a pin and they're falling off. It's very obvious to anybody paying a modicum of attention. Stand by, Jim and Maddie stay with us. We'll be right back after this. So John Fetterman remains in the news, a Senator now from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And for all the wrong reasons, as it kind of usually is with him, the Senate, you guys know, has now lowered its standards to allow people to show up dressed like the three of us are. But you know what? We're doing a podcast. We're not showing up as U.S. senators on the floor of the U.S. Senate to do the people's business.

John Fetterman, all along now, I mean, he shows up like he's at a college fat party in his weird little shorts and sweatshirt, his hoodie. It's disrespectful. And instead of saying, put on a damn suit, would it be so hard to wear a tie and a blazer, sir? They've now lowered the standards, Chuck Schumer, to meet where Fetterman is. So now they can all show up like that. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted out, she's in the other chamber, the Senate no longer enforcing a dress code for senators to appease Fetterman is disgraceful. Dress code is one of society's standards that set etiquette and respect for our institutions. Stop lowering the bar. Now, what's interesting about that is, of course, we're not surprised to hear Marjorie Taylor Greene took a shot at Fetterman, is he decided to respond.

He went on with Chris Hayes on MSNBC in what was just a train wreck of an interview. We're going to go through a few of the soundbites, but here's the first one in which he responds to her. Her platform, you know, really, she runs on more and more ding-a-ling, you know, pics, you know, on in the meetings over in Congress. So, again, I'm not really sure why she cares how I dress, but, you know, she really takes it a different way. OK, I managed to at least comprehend what he was trying to say there, Maddie Kearns. I mean, I got followed a bit, but the bottom line is he's thrilled. He's thrilled that now we're going to have a

bunch of schleps walking to vote for us on the Senate floor, looking just like him. And is this part of some loss of civility, formality, pomp and circumstance that mattered? Yeah, I think definitely. I think on one level, there's a certain vanity to it. I mean, he wants to be remembered for the guy who changed the dress code, who made it okay to wear your sweatshirt and your slacks. And also, as you say, there's a kind of symbolism to it. This is one of many examples that we can point to recently, maybe we'll get onto some of them, of just a general disintegration of standards, both in how you present yourself and how you conduct yourself when you're in private. We obviously saw with Lauren Bobar and her incident. But this is just, I think, a kind of depressing move.

I mean, the fact that he's trying to present himself as edgy and eccentric is one thing. But the fact that Chuck Schumer responded by quietly changing the dress code is just really, you know, very depressing. as to why I think it's really important that people with serious jobs who make serious consequences on other people's lives should be dressed in a way that reflects that seriousness. I remember once going for a visa and the lawyer had got everything sorted out and I was in the embassy and some guy who worked for the embassy who had just, he was mistaken because the lawyer had sorted everything out. Anyway, he denied my visa while wearing a Christmas sweatshirt. And I was just so mad about this because I was like, you're making a decision that like really upends my life and you're wearing a Christmas sweatshirt. Like this is just, what is going on? This is really just not, I feel like

you're not taking me seriously. I feel insulted. Yes, I can relate to this. I think I've told this story once before, but we were, when we lived in Manhattan, right across the street from us was this church. Now it was Methodist. I'm Catholic, Doug's Presbyterian, but we're raising our kids Catholic. And it was, our kids were really little. It was Christmas. Like there was no, we're not going to wake up our kids and go out in any event. Long story short. Um, we had a babysitter, she watched the kids and we just popped right over there for a quick service. And then I found out that at least this particular Methodist church, which is in the most liberal area of New York was more like a variety show than it was a service. And, um, I mean, it was bizarre. I've never seen anything like it um and the this woman's coming

down the aisle with like the spiky like colored hair and uh she's wearing a santa hat and you know it's like the most holy holiday in in well one of them uh in catholicism and um i'm like oh that's not really an appropriate outfit for christ Eve mass, but okay. And she was our minister. She went behind the lectern. I'm like, what's happening? I missed the formality of the Catholic church. But this is kind of, it's a pattern, Jim Garrity, where, you know, again, I feel kind of hypocritical because I wear Lululemon every day, but I'm doing a podcast. If I were doing U.S. Senate work, I would be in a proper suit. You know what, Megan? Actually, I thought I was feeling kind of hypocritical, too. So I actually I want to change into a suit for the remainder of this segment i just i don't feel right people usually i wear you know look i work from home uh which means i'm wearing business casual most days uh black tie and tuxes later on i apologize don't worry if you want to come off maddie if you want

to play i know i'm a little alarmed no no's much more, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. A beautiful day. I went more R-rated. You went, Mr. Rogers, I'm like, I'm giving you the striptease. He's taking off clothing, people. Because I know that me taking my shirt off is exactly what's going to bring in the viewers to the Mick and Kelly show.

But anyway, like, I'm being joking about this. And Fetterman said, ah, you know, people shouldn't judge me by what I wear. Okay. Let's judge him based on his record there in the Senate. He's missed more than 33 percent of the votes so far in this session. Now, a lot of that was because of his treatment for depression at Walter Reed. We're all glad that that treatment appears to be working.

His mood is better. He's not fighting very serious depression. And his description of that in a cover profile in Time magazine, it sounds devastating. So I'm really glad to see Fetterman is feeling better. I also noticed, though, he did this interview with the New York Times in late July, where they asked him, you know, how's life in the Senate? And he really sounded miserable. He sounded like he felt like the place was... FYI, listening audience audience he's now putting on his tie he's now removed his shirt collared shirt and he's now putting on a red tie keep going won't you um no and so he sounded like he feels like the chamber spends a lot of time doing dumb s word he also likes to use bad words he likes to use four letter words i'm not going to judge you

for doing that megan i think as you, the standards for a podcast and standards for the U.S. Senate are a little bit different. But I do think he thinks that adds to that authenticity there that, you know, oh, you know, this is who I am. I mean, at least you can understand him, at least when he's swearing. I understand the words coming out of his mouth. And he also this is something, again, I feel very sympathetic to. He talks about when you join the U.S. Senate, it's a guarantee you're going to spend 50 percent less time with the people you love the most, his family. And I heard that. I was like, wow. So you had this guy. He's had this life-threatening stroke that really left him in rough shape. of last year saying that he was fit for duty and had no major uh you know physical challenges and then we all saw in the debate that he was still in really rough shape having a very hard time uh communicating and so he goes through that but he gets to the senate he has depression that is so serious that he says he was not suicidal but he doesn't really yeah i'm talking about the most

serious topic imaginable and being like you know doing this ridiculous psych gag that i started five minutes ago and seemed like a good idea at the time and now quite doesn't seem like such a good idea at the time but anyway well your head your headphone cable is actually buttoned into your shirt it's a part of me maddie i am now man and machine complete cyborg this is the worst script tease ever i don't because i'm putting more on it's kind of that's that's an indication of like how the money is going. They're paying to put more clothes on. The heavy coat goes on next.

But semi-seriously, he seems like a guy who's had really serious problems. He's away from his family. And it sounds like he hates the job of being senator. And he literally has just made very clear, he does not believe the job is worth putting on a suit for. So I'm kind of left asking, why is he there? Why was it so important for him to be a senator? The state of Pennsylvania has like 12 million people. Quite a few of them are over age 30, which is residents of the state, which are the only real requirements

to be a U.S. senator. Could we find another? Would it be better for everybody? Even some other Democrat. I don't expect a Democratic senator to be somebody I agree with very much. But nonetheless, he just seems miserable. He doesn't want to be there. And it's like, if you want to do something else, go do it. Who could actually make the points that the Democrats in Pennsylvania want made

in a way that is comprehensible. I bring you this. It's been making the rounds. It's Sat-10. He's trying to address the autoworkers strike, I think. My message to the CEOs is, you know, it's seventy four million dollars, you know, collectively earning that. You know, how many yachts can they need to water ski behind it? You know you know i mean it's just crazy what what i i say again i all my references are to 70s tv maddie but in the words of archie bunker what i don't understand what he's saying no meaning i don't think anyone understands what he's saying i'm

not sure even he does i think this is the issue when somebody who's had a stroke, you worry understandably that they're not going to be able to do the job, then does the job anyway. And watching that clip, my first response is just, as a human being, it's hard to watch. It's hard to watch somebody try to express himself publicly and fail so desperately. Obviously, Biden already does that on a sort of daily basis, but at least he kind of can finish a sentence. But this is really, really hard to watch. And you just wonder, as you were saying earlier, why is he putting himself through this? Why are the people around him allowing him to put himself through this? Yeah. And here's a little bit more from his interview with Chris Hayes.

That last soundbite was from Michigan. Here he is back on Chris Hayes talking about the GOP and spending Saudi. I was I was very proud of my colleagues, you know, because they're really about governance. That's what it is. And on the other, the House, the whatever they call themselves, Team America or whatever they call themselves. I just like I just like bring your vote. You know, otherwise, you know, they need to go hump a different leg. I don't. I'm trying. I'm genuinely trying. Like, it's kind of funny because it's Chris Hayes, but actually he's like one of a very

small number, 100 to be exact, of really important lawmakers that the ones in the house come and go. The ones in the Senate were stuck with for at least six years. And that's what we've got. I'll just give you one more in the time we have from Chris Hayes sought nine. Well, of course, he's only going there. He's cynical and he thinks he can appeal to the voters in Michigan. But he also doesn't have a lot of competition either. You know, DeSantis, you know, you know, he doesn't, you know, he, you know, I address the way he campaigns, you know. So he's able to just, you know, skip, you know, debates because the others, they just don't have competition.

But, you know, I really don't believe there's no chance that Trump to win in Michigan. He sure isn't going to win in Pennsylvania, but it's just a it's a cheesy, cynical play. Oh, my goodness. Jim, honestly, it makes me feel like, you know, when you're talking to like an elderly person and they're kind of rambly and you don't know if they're going to land it and you're just like, God, you're just relieved when it's over. Yeah. Let's point out that like, you know, the expression of concerns about whether John Fetterman can still handle the job of the senator refutes the argument that Republicans are ageist in their criticisms of Biden and Feinstein because Fetterman is young and we still have very similar issues. Look, we told us in October he had no significant issues.

And here we are. It's September and And he's still having great difficulty communicating. Your heart goes out to the guy. But it really seems fair to ask, is this really the guy who should be representing Pennsylvania in the Senate right now? I mean, I got a feel for the Democrats on some level because look at I mean, half their representatives. It's like Dianne Feinstein and John Fetterman and Joe Biden at the top. I realize they put them there and they don't seem too concerned about it all. But like they can't make the points. They can't even make the top. I realize they put them there and they don't seem too concerned about it all, but they can't make the points. They can't even make the arguments. And yet they control virtually every important institution in America from government to culture. Stand by, Jim and Maddie,

stay with us. Don't forget, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east and the full video show and clips by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megan Kelly. If you go there now, you can find my interview with Doug Brunt, author of the mysterious case of Rudolph diesel, which is rocketing up the sales charts. Thanks to all of you. Thank you so much for supporting Doug and the book. You can find that full interview via podcast, wherever you get your podcast for free too. The Wall Street Journal just did a great review yesterday, calling it terrific, well-written, well-researched. All the reviews that have come in have been absolutely stellar. I know you're going to love it. It's a mystery about a man

whose name is a household name, but people don't know why. And most don't even know it's an actual man and what the hell happened to him in the 20th century. All right, guys. So while we're on the subject of politics and struggling to get sentences to go in the right order and to come out as you want them to. We would be remiss if we skipped right over the president of the United States, who spoke at the U.N. on Tuesday and seemed yet again to freeze up in the middle of his speech. The 21st century results are badly needed to move us along. That starts with the United Nations. It's just, it's getting hard to watch. And yet what they're asking us to do is watch it not only for two more years at the end

as his term ends, but another four. I mean, it just seems an obvious impossibility, Jim. Yeah, I think, look, it's not just the fact that Biden turns 81 in November. It's that he's, you know, in worse shape now than he was a year ago, which is worse shape than it was the year before, which was significantly worse shape than when he was, you know, his final year as the vice presidency. And so we can extrapolate from that. Chances are he's probably not going to be in a better shape a year from now and run, you know, late October, November of 2024 rolls around. He's probably going to be in really rough shape. And so this, you know, the idea that was fascinating is there's a CBS News poll that came out just this weekend. You add it up, 66 percent of Americans are not sure he's going to finish his next term.

Something like 40 percent think he won't. They think he will either, I imagine, pass away in office or need to step down because of health and other issues. And, you know, the rest, you know, they're good chunk are like, we don't know what's going to happen. And this doesn't feel crazy, dark speculation. This is just the actuarial tables and seeing what's in front of us. Yesterday, I kind of went through this thought exercise. Imagine some, you know, generic governor, democratic figure who, you know, Biden chooses not to run, Harris chooses not to run, and they just run any old Democratic governor. Well, any old Democratic governor would not be in their 80s. Any old Democratic governor could probably give a speech without being utterly reliant on a

teleprompter, as we saw in that clip. Any old Democratic governor would probably not just randomly say, you're a lion, dog-faced, pony-faced soldier or some weird comment like that. Any old generic Democrat would probably not make up stories about getting arrested to visit Nelson Mandela or used to drive a tractor trailer or any one of these other stories that Biden makes up that there's no historical record of that looks bad. And just kind of to bring us full circle on what we talked about earlier today, any other Democratic official is not running on gun control while having a son arguing that U.S. gun laws are illegitimate, unconstitutional, and in court for three charges related to guns,

isn't running around the country boasting that they've strengthened the IRS while their son argues that the IRS is partisan, biased and illegal and violates all the laws and all that kind of stuff. You know, anybody else you nominate probably knows how many grandchildren they have. Right. I mean, like really, Biden has the advantages of incumbency, but he really brings some unique weaknesses to the table in a 2024 campaign. You know, that poll I mentioned, Maddie, earlier showing Trump up for over Biden asked about age. Do you think Joe Biden is showing he is too old to be president?

Or do you think he is showing he is fit to be president? Ninety three percent of Republicans say too old. Forty two percent of Democrats say too old. Seventy five percent of independents. Those numbers do not spell a second term. They just, they don't. Um, and they are factored in with the corruption as to why, you know, he's now starting to lose on the generic battle ballot to not just Trump, but Haley and Tim Scott. I forgot Tim Scott was running. I don't like Ron DeSantis. No, because he's carved out an area that's more, you know, conservative probably, right? These others are more moderate on some of these issues beloved Like Ron DeSantis, no, because he's carved out an area that's more, you know, conservative, probably, right?

These others are more moderate on some of these issues beloved by the Democrats. But in any event, it's factored in. But I wanted to get to this Maureen Dowd column. You know, Maureen Dowd wrote, she writes for the New York Times and she's an opinion columnist. And it was after the Maureen Dowd column saying, my sister, who's been like a fan, now thinks he's absolutely disgusting because he won't acknowledge his seventh grandchild, that he did it. So she's got some power.

He's clearly reading Dowd and affected by her. So here's what she writes. I got to put on my readers. My eyes have been bothering me. So I'm going to read this one, my readers, which I kind of like. It makes me feel smart. Okay.

This is her conclusion about what's wrong here. Staff need to let Biden out of the virtual basement. My God. Really? She talks about he gave a speech on Bidenomics at a community college in Washington suburb on Thursday. He remarked that he wished he could he could do something, but I'll get I'll get in real trouble if I do that. Dude, you're the leader of the free world, she writes. Since he became president, Biden has sharply curved how much he talks to the press, rarely giving interviews. Then she says, when I watch him cut himself short or get cut short by the staff, I get an image of a yellow lab gambolling smack into an electric fence. Gambling, she writes. When the president stops himself and says, am I giving too long an answer? Or maybe I'll stop there or I'm going to get in real trouble. He seems nervous that his handlers might yank his choke collar if he rattles on. She goes on and says, the politician who has always relished talking to people, helping or being around people seems sort of lonely, seems sort of lonely, even without the mask. It's as though he's still

hidden away. He seems more timid, more cloistered. And when he's more isolated, he seems sadder. She writes that his overprotective staff has gotten into his head. I know he gets frozen on Hunter questions, but he can't hide from them forever either. The president's feelings were no doubt hurt the other day by the Washington Post column by David Ignatius, in which he said he shouldn't run and neither should Kamala Harris. I don't disagree, but I doubt it will make a difference. By the way, that's her throwing her support behind. He shouldn't run. His staff reinforces the impression that a fragile chief executive by overmanaging him of a fragile chief executive, overmanaging him and white knuckling all his appearances. It's not the staff's fault. And then there's this. I've covered Biden for 35 years. He has always been a babble merchant prone to exaggeration and telling stories too good to be true, saying inexplicably wacky things.

So when he acts like this now, it shouldn't be attributed just to aging. Certainly he has slowed down, but his staff has exacerbated the problem by trying too hard to keep him in check. Americans know who Uncle Joe is, quirks and all, slower and all. Let them decide. Biden needs to start looking like he's in command. His staff is going to have to roll with him and take some risks and stop jerking the reins. Let Joe out of the virtual basement. What do you make of that assessment of this problem and the proposed solution? Well, I think that if anyone has an idea of the full extent of Biden's limitations, it will be his staff. These are the people he's dealing with on a daily basis. These are the people who have to brief him,

prepare him for his speeches, his visits. And I think the warning sign isn't he just has really, he just has a bunch of control freaks in the White House. I think the concern is, and we've seen it, and I do think there's a difference between the way Biden's always been kind of gaffe prone and that way of speaking that betrays some serious cognitive impairment or even physical impairment. You know, we've seen him fall a number of times. And, you know, all of us have experience of elderly relatives and we know what decline looks like.

And this is what it looks like. I think it's a bit rich, really, to blame it on the staff. I mean, maybe we should give her her wish and the staff should just let go of the reins. And maybe she would then be writing a very different column. I mean, I sort of feel sorry for Biden's speechwriters because every time he delivers a speech, the focus from commentators becomes on the delivery and not on the substance. And there was actually probably quite a lot to remark on in his UN address. I mean, I wasn't particularly impressed, but, you know, there's serious considerations to be had about his foreign policy,

what he's doing or not doing about China, how he's responding to the Ukraine war, what his next steps are. And we don't get to discuss any of that because the conversation continually comes back to his health. And I don't think that's his staff's fault. In the meantime, he does have a challenger. I mean, technically, he has two challengers, Jim Garrity. He's got Marianne Williamson. It's all about the love. Go back and listen to my interview of her to find out if the love extends when we're on the subject of Donald Trump. And then there's our evil forces. They're gathering. Donald Trump is from the Black Lodge. He has come through from the Red Room. Sorry. What happened to the love, Marianne? Then there's RFKJ, who is still running and generating a fair amount of buzz for somebody who has been dubbed a conspiracy theorist and a nut and the man to be ignored by virtually everybody in the mainstream.

He has asked for Secret Service protection, which, you know, normally I'd be like, why does he need it? Nobody else has it. Nobody on the GOP side has it. Like why do we have to pay for him? But RFKJ is short for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And there's sadly a long history in his family of assassinations at the presidential or aspiring presidential level. And you could kind of understand the guy being worried. And he says he has received threats. And there was a guy just the other day. We have a video of the man, not the actual attempt, like the attack. I don't know if he actually tried to do the attack, but Friday in Los Angeles. Here's the guy. Now, I will say this. RFKJ has got Gavin DeBecker's firm protecting him. And

you could do no worse. I mean, no better. You could do no better. I love Gavin DeBecker. But what do you make of his pitch that he deserves Secret Service protection, which this White House has denied? Yeah, well, first of all, regarding Friday's incident, the man in question who was arrested showed up, had two guns, fake ID as a U.S. marshal, claimed to be part of Kennedy's security detail, and told the staff he needed to see Kennedy immediately. I don't think it's wild or crazy to extrapolate that this person intended harm. And then he was, you know, security detained. The actual security detained him. Police arrived, arrested him. Look, by the way, in case your listeners are wondering,

the standard issuance of Secret Service protection for candidates is usually right around when they accept the nomination of the major party candidates. The Department of Homeland Security determines who's a major party candidate, but they can adjust that after meeting with congressional leaders. And it's happened in the past. Barack Obama got it very early in the campaign in 2007. Major African-American candidate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of racist yahoos in this country who might be tempted to take a shot at him very similar story for herman kane in the 2012 cycle so yes you know yeah they can make exceptions and this seems like an entirely reasonable exception a because as you alluded to this country has a really bad habit of trying to assassinate people named kennedy uh and then the second problem is even if you thought, oh, this is exaggerated or everybody gets hate mailed, I think the incident on Friday makes it very clear.

I just want to ask the country, how many armed men do we want to come near someone named Robert F. Kennedy at a campaign event in Los Angeles, because we're up to two. And I think that's plenty. I think it's entirely reasonable to say, you know, look, Robert F. Kennedy, look, is there an expense involved? Yes. But if Robert F. Kennedy Jr., God forbid something ever happens to him. Can you imagine the backlash of knowing that the Biden administration and leaders in Congress chose not to provide Secret Service protection? Can you imagine how many conspiracy theories that would set off? In the end, one person in the Democratic Party has authority over whether another person

in the Democratic Party primary gets Secret Service protection after an incident like this. It looks really bad. And just kind of alluding to what Maddie said earlier, just a few moments ago,, you know, Joe Biden, like keeps like, like there's no upside to this. If he could say, yeah, give RFK Jr. protection. I think he'd get some praise for it. I think everybody would say, yes, this is a good idea. Biden keeps finding himself in these bad situations that are entirely of his own making. And regarding his whole aging and energy level in the Maureen Dowd column, look, Biden doesn't do morning events before 10 a.m. People have noticed this. People

have written about this. If you want to dispel that, you would start doing events before 10 a.m. He hasn't. The most reasonable conclusion from that is that he can't. And it's very similar with late night events. It's very similar with events on weekends that he needs lots of downtime to recharge. And he cannot maintain anything resembling the normal presidential schedule or the normal schedule of the presidential candidate. I know. Who is she kidding? Like, you know, just let him be. Uncle Joe, just let Biden be Biden. No, that's that's what got him in all the trouble. Like the staff only started to try to manage him once he started to wander off. And it was clear he needed the Easter bunny to show him where to go.

That was four or five days ago, man. When Stephanopoulos is pointing out about the, you know, guys falling from the plane in Afghanistan. That was four or five days ago. You know, this guy who's been telling us how empathetic he is, how much he understands the pain of others. He came across as a real, to use Charlie Cook's favorite word, a-hole. And he just, you know, like, okay, so I'm actually reading Franklin Foer's, you know, The Last Politician,

with the ideas that Biden is the last of the old-fashioned dealmakers, and he really knows how to backslap and get the deal done and get along with people. And he keeps giving anecdote after anecdote where the opposite is true, where Biden is pissing people off or he's rubbing people the wrong way or offending them. It's just one after another. It's fascinating. There's this entire mythology around him that does not match the reality of the man. Well, you should put that

down and pick up The Mysterious Case of Rudolph Diesel by Doug Brunt, because that one's climbing up the charts like a rocket ship right now. And it's a great read. Sorry. Shameless plug. Maddie Kearns, Ted Cruz is suggesting. Well, first of all, we had Rick Grinnell on the show, and he 100 percent believes that at the Democratic National Convention next summer, Biden's going to pass the baton to Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, governor of Michigan. Ted Cruz made news this

week by coming out and saying, same plan, different baton receiver, thinks it'll be Michelle Obama, and raised the point that that would remove the objection that we heard from like Sonny Hostin on the view of you better not sub out the black woman. Right. Like, oh, no, a black woman is getting elevated to the top of the ticket. Who cares who her VP is in this scenario? It would be embraced by every Democrat. It would be uncriticizable by every Democrat. We know she hates politics. Is there any chance of this in your view?

Well, I'm surprised that he didn't suggest Meghan Markle, who's clearly just would be delighted to accept this. She can finally put that revolutionary war matter behind us. We can unite the British royal family and the American presidency. That would just go beautifully, I'm sure, for everyone. Please, please let that happen. Yeah, Michelle Obama, obviously she has this celebrity factor and, you know, if Trump's the nominee, which unfortunately looks like he's going to be, then there would be, you know, there would be evenly matched in terms of that. She also obviously ticks that box. I just don't know how much, you know, you mentioned she hates politics. I just also don't know, is she really qualified as being in close proximity to somebody? You know, it's just, yeah, it's, it doesn't seem like a very sensible, it doesn't seem like a very sensible

option. But politics is so crazy now. You know, it was kind of crazy. We had Trump in the first place, never mind potentially again. So nothing's off the table. Oh, my God. I mean, Jim, is this just a Democratic, you know, dream that Ted Cruz is having fun fanning the flames of? Is there any scenario in which that actually happens? The short answer. So the first answer is yes. This is indeed a Democratic dream that Ted Cruz is fanning the flames of, and I think he's enjoying every minute of it. Look, Michelle Obama has always been a very popular figure in Democratic circles. And I actually think that if she were president, look, being there day after day, night after

night watching a presidency, I think gives you a very clear view of the hard realities of the job. I think that you may have a very good thing is that I'm a little bit more of a fan of Michelle Obama than the average conservative, because if you ever read Jody Cantor's book, this portrait of their marriage during the first term of the presidency, if you've ever felt that Barack Obama was overhyped, that there was a ludicrous amount of excitement for a very mundane guy, that there was, you know, all sizzle, no steak. Sometimes Michelle Obama feels the same way, as I suspect many wives feel about their husbands. She sees the actual man and she's not as impressed as everybody else is. So I actually think Michelle Obama, if she were ever convinced to do that,

would instantly unify almost all the party and all that stuff. But I don't think she wants anything to do with it. She's got a terrific life. She has seen the presidency. Jeb Bush at one point had said, I've seen what the presidency did to my dad. I've seen what the presidency did to my brother. I don't need to be president.

And I think that's a real truth about the hard realities of the job. I think every single person who runs for president should be asked, do you want to stay up all night writing letters of condolence to families of servicemen who died because of your orders? Because that's the job. It's not just happy rallies. It's not just being popular. It's not just traveling around on Air Force One to crowds that are chanting your name. Presidency sucks sometimes. It is a really hard job. And you're going to make decisions.

It's only good. Like, there's no good answer. There's no right answer. It's only a question of what is the least bad answer. And this is a very unpopular perspective in American politics, that the idea that this is a real serious job full of actual burdens and it's not, you know, being a reality show host and being entertaining or something like that. So I don't think they'll do it. I do think the possibility between now and the Democratic National Convention of the Democrats saying, holy smokes, Biden's

gotten really bad and I don't think we're going to make it to the general election day. You know, God forbid he has another fall. He sounds even more incoherent than usual. You could see Democrats realizing this point where, like, you know, having said that, Kamala Harris would have a reasonable reason to say, wait a minute. If I'm OK to be a heartbeat away from the job now, why would I not be OK to be a heartbeat away from the job or in the job starting in January of next year? Look, honest to goodness, the way the Democrats came together behind Biden in March 2020, ironically, as COVID was starting to bear down on the country, really short circuited an ongoing debate within the party. And they never really finished that debate. And they never really resolved that debate. And Biden cannot be this Obama-esque unifier for all these disparate factions within the party.

That's why he keeps getting torn between the Greens and the Unions and all these other factions, the Blue Dogs and what's left of them and the progressives, the AOC types. Biden just wants everybody to be happy. Well, you really can't do that with a job. At some point, you have to pick one side or the other and pick a direction and let the chips fall where they may. So anyway, I don't think it's likely to happen.

But, you know, you never know when Biden's health might force the decision on the Democrats. While we're on the subject of presidential tickets and the possibility of a woman at some place on it, second, second position or first position. Let's spend a minute on Kristi Noem because she is the governor of South Dakota, very, very popular and telegenic, has sort of a natural down-home appeal, was anti the COVID lockdowns in the way that Ron DeSantis was. And we talked about her earlier this week because the Daily Mail did an in-depth piece on its reporting claiming that she's having an affair and has been for a long time with Corey Lewandowski. Just threw up a little in my mouth. And it said that she that neither of them denied the story when the Daily Mail reached out to them. And I talked on the show about how, you know, she's been rumored to be potential for Trump's

VP. And Trump told NBC News on Sunday he he's open minded to the idea of a woman joining him on the ticket. And he, I think, gets along with Noem. So, you know, she's potentially being considered, though this I think this would be a real problem for her. I think in Republican politics, if it's proven that she's a woman, it's a sexist double standard. I'm not going to deny it. I realize Trump's history, but I think Republicans would have

a hard time with a woman who was a sitting governor who was actively cheating on her husband with young kids in the house. I really do. And he's allegedly cheating to Corey Lewandowski is married to a 9-11 widow. So we reported what the Daily Mail reported. After we reported that, they reached out and offered us a denial. So first they said, it's not true that we didn't deny it to the Daily Mail, that we gave them a long statement denying it, but we did deny it that we, hold on. I want to get the actual, what they actually said that they denied that, that, that the spokesperson for gnome fury says he denied the story on the governor's behalf and that he called it false twice. He called it false twice. Uh, then he slammed the reporter for the daily mail and reiterated, uh, his full statement,

which said it's so predictable that you would attack governor gnome less than a week after she endorsed Donald Trump. It's also not surprising that you haven't been able to get any other entities to publish this false misguided and inflammatory story. Even though you've been shopping it for months, your reporting is based on a false narrative from a disgraced DeSantis supporter. Who's been outed as an anti-Semite. The lot in there, the lot in there. Now, it is not true that any other entities refused to publish it. The New York Post took a deep dive into it as well with their own sources, with new details, citing multiple Republican sources who claim they've seen the two of them canoodling in public, very amorous with one another, rubbing each other in a provocative

way and so on. So we wrote back. I mean, I look, this isn't my story, but I report the news. We wrote back, OK, questions. Has the governor had at any time an extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski? Does she deny without qualification the allegation that she and Mr. Lewandowski have had a sexual relationship? We are happy to update our reporting with your response. The response was. Governor Noem categorically denies the false allegation. It was false when American Greatness reported it. It was false when she spoke with Megan about it. It is false today. Now, I'm just going to tell you as a lawyer and as a woman,

that's not exactly a no. If that were me, I would say, has the governor at any time in any extramarital affair with court? No. It's very simple. No is very simple. Only two letters. It's easy. No. Does she deny without qualification the allegation that she and Mr. Lewandowski have had a sexual relationship? The answer is no. Yes, that she does. Yes, I deny it. I deny it. And that's not what she said. Just denies the false allegation, denies what false out what what's false, right? Like because if you just deny a story, it could be anything in the story. It could be the overall tenor of the story. It could be there were 20 allegations, which there are in the Daily Mail piece. And overall, it

catches the wrong tenor of what's going on. Like, I don't know what's going on here, but I don't like the feedback I'm getting here and the way it's being very carefully worded. And I wonder what you think, Maddie, as as to my first proposition, which is if more comes out on this and it proves to be true, because now there are some reports, I don't know whether they're true, that her husband has moved out of the governor's mansion and has been out for two years. Do not know whether that's true or not. Whether she could realistically still be Trump's running mate. So I think there's two issues. The first I think you touched on, which is there is a bit of a double standard because she's female.

I agree with that, but I think it's actually probably more to do with the fact that she has presented herself as being somebody who upholds and promotes and strives for family values and traditional marriage and all that that means and all that that comes with. And so there's a hypocrisy scandal as well as the sex scandal, as well as the potentially there being an adultery scandal. And obviously with Trump, he's a bit more upfront about these things, or at least nobody's very surprised when there's yet another sex scandal with Trump. Whereas I think this really has the potential to do a lot of damage because it ruins her authenticity. It makes her seem like a liar. She did, you know, in her denial to American greatness in 2021, she said, you know, I'm a proud, God-fearing woman.

So, like, it's really quite hard to come back for that if it ends up being true. So, yeah, I think it could damage her. I don't think it's going to like deter Trump in any way. I don't care less, frankly. Well, you know, no, I actually can I just say it might. I know why you said that. My first instinct was to agree. But I did hear a story about I can't get into it. It's off the record. But I heard a story about him having an objection to a female politician who he knew people would say was sleeping around on her husband. And he

recognized that would be bad politics. Well, back to your first point then about the double standard. But I certainly think it's bad for her and i agree with you it's very it's a very strange way to reply if you're innocent um it's it's it's kind of easy if you're innocent you just say i absolutely deny all of this and uh like who are these people putting my family through this you know that kind of, that's what I would do. But I was saying the other day, Jim, it would be very clear. Like if somebody said, you know,

are you having an affair with Corey Lewandowski? It's a no. Yeah, a lot of women would be like, yes, absolutely not. Yeah, I know, Megan, my first thought is that Corey Lewandowski, man, he is.

It's just the Pete Davidson of the Republican Party. He is really. He's with her. Her. Jim, thank you so much better to my feeling. He was reportedly had an affair. I think it was. I don't want to disparage Hope Hicks, but there was a report that maybe they'd been together.

Who's like, well, the most beautiful person I've ever seen in real life. Anyway, I don't know whether that's true, but yes, your point is well taken. We've probably heard the same things. There are a lot of rumors going around for years that almost any woman in Republican politics who is considered attractive, there's a rumor that that person's having an affair with Corey Lewandowski. I believe the source of most of these rumors is Corey Lewandowski um you know the inclination of you know that's a I've come up for a while with Nikki Haley every sleazy guy in South Carolina was like you know that exceptionally attractive governor yep we were having an affair and it was totally wrong I was awesome but yes you know so look I whether, I think certainly this does not help. I think you're finally tuned. BS detector is ending up on a presidential ticket. If you are a governor of a swing state, you have a very good chance of getting consideration for being on a presidential

ticket because the perception is you will help carry your state. South Dakota is not a terribly competitive state for Republican politics. So there will be other people who I suspect would bring more advantages to Donald Trump at this and who would not have this rumor over their head, whether or not it's fair. And I think, as I said, going back to that example of Nikki Haley, this is an unfortunate consequence of being not just a woman in politics and a woman in Republican politics, but let's face it, an attractive woman in Republican politics. There are a lot of guys who would like to falsely claim that they're banging you just to enhance their own reputations, never mind what it does to yours. It's upsetting to me because I actually think that Kristi Noem is a beautiful person in more

ways than one. And I really hope it's not true. I hope I hope she didn't have an extramarital affair while the sitting governor with young kids. But even if she did, I really hope it's not with Corey Lewandowski for just, he's just beneath her in so many ways. I can't even begin to count them. Um, and I also hope that if it's true, she finds a way to exit her marriage or save her marriage, but just come, come to Jesus about it, right? Like that, that's not a situation that can continue to go on and her have a political future. So don't know again, for the record, she's denying it. She's denying it to us. And, um, you know, we'll see. I mean, these are two right wing, right leaning

publications, the daily mail and the New York post that is not like, uh, you know, salon doing some in-depth that they're, they'd have every reason not to do a story like that on Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski. And they would also happen to have a lot of Republican sourcing. So we'll see. They're challenging it. Wanted to get that on the record and discuss what it means for our politics. Jim and Maddie, stick around. We will be right back after this quick message. While we're on the subject of, you know, alleged bad behavior, let's touch on Russell Brand, because that's been the story dominating the news waves for the past four days now.

These three news organizations in the UK did a years-long investigation into him, coming up with multiple women who say that he sexually assaulted them. In one case, he allegedly raped a woman. She went to a rape crisis center. She then received counseling for five months, according to the reports at that rape crisis center. Thereafter, from the trauma, the alleged trauma, she gave over her underwear and so on to be frozen as evidence. She declined to press charges because she did not want a public battle with Russell Brand. All of this happened allegedly 10 years ago. Another one of the accusers says, and now she's an adult, but she says she was 16 years old when he began grooming her, that they had a sexual affair. I don't think that's the right word, but they were having sex with one another for three

months and that he did ultimately finally force himself on her to the point where she cried. She had to shove him off of her, punch him in the stomach to get him off of her. And that he said something to the effect of, I only wanted to see your mascara run anyway. And there are others. There are others. Maddie, this is such an interesting case to me for many reasons. By the way, the headline today is that he's been demonetized on YouTube, which I actually have some problem with. I mean, I tend to believe there's plenty of evidence against Russell Brand, unlike some of these me too situations, but I don't think his

relationship with his audience and his ability to make money should be cut off on cases that are 10 years old that he hasn't yet thoroughly had the chance to digest or respond to. I know they gave him eight days to look at the story, but that's not enough. These are very big and they could get him in trouble criminally and civilly, and he should be given a realistic chance to address these charges one by one. But there's been a division, a real division now in response on this. And so many of my friends, people I like and really respect and admire, have gone to the We Defend Russell Brand place. Just that's what we're doing.

We're sick of Me Too. We're sick of this bullshit. We're sick of seeing men's careers completely demolished based on anonymous allegations. And these are anonymous, at least to us, though I'm sure Russell Brand knows if he slept with a 16-year-old or not for three months. And I've been saying, keep an open mind. I think there's a lot of evidence in this case, unlike so many others. And we should not change believe all women, which was absurd, into believe no women, which is equally absurd. And I have had women texting me and contacting

me privately now for the past three days in tears. Women who are more conservative leaning or who are at least moderate liberals, who felt a new alignment with a lot of these guys on the right who are commenting on this, especially in the digital lane, and feel very upset and angry that there are so few voices at least saying, let's keep an open mind. They're not even saying that the reaction has been, it's bullshit. And some people online are actually saying she was 16. Where's her responsibility in this? My God, what are you saying? The conservative movement for the past two years has been losing its mind rightfully over the fact that they're trying to trans 16 year olds. They're letting 16 year olds make decisions about cutting off their breasts or going on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. And now we want to pretend that they're fully capable of

making decisions about having sexual relations with megastars who stopped them on the street, allegedly take them home and try to woo them into the bedroom. Oh, that she completely can consent to. But no, we can't let her make a decision on a hormone. Bullshit. Be consistent. Right. I don't the whole thing is upsetting me because of the players who are involved. But what do you make of it? So I agree with you that the allegations appear, when you look through the Times report, it appear credible. Whether they're true or not, that's something that will hopefully come to light.

I mean, I don't know whether the Met Police are going to prosecute these individual cases that have been reported on. I think that depends on whether the victims go to the police. They have received at least one report of sexual assault from Brand. And so there will be a criminal trial. But they certainly appear credible. As you say, there's a lot of evidence there. It's also not hugely surprising. I mean, this is a guy whose launch to fame was off the back of being so promiscuous. I mean, he was celebrated as being this wildly promiscuous person who claims he's slept with like over a thousand women. How he can say with

confidence what all of those sexual encounters were like, I don't know. I don't know how he can possibly remember that. I know it's a different thing. I don't remember everybody's hand I've ever shaken and the details of it. I don't know how if you have that many human encounters, you can you can claim to remember it, especially when drugs and alcohol are involved. And he's obviously spoken a lot in the past about his his addictions. to be credible. With regard to the people who are jumping to his defence prematurely, I think there's an element of correctly identifying that a lot of people who were complicit in the rise of brand, maybe even covered for him when he was working for the TV channel and so on, there's an element that those people are now delighting in this new information,

but they were complicit in his position of power to begin with. That's true. There's, you know, there's a double standard. There's also, you know, the element of the media that cried rape, you know, the boy who cried rape, the media who cried rape. They just, we've been through this so many times with Me Too that, you know, oh, here comes another. That's the kind of instinct.

And then there's also just the logic of my enemy's enemy is my friend. And Brand, of course, in the last few years has established himself as an alternative media broadcaster, sceptical of mainstream media, sceptical of a lot of people that maybe Ben Shapiro and others like also dislike. And so there's a kind of loyalty, a kind of brutal loyalty there. But to me, one of the interesting and disturbing factors of this case is that we seem to have reached a point where the only behaviour

anybody cares about or is willing to call unacceptable is criminal behaviour. We used to have this whole other category. It wasn't necessarily rape, but it was taking advantage. And that was when a guy used either, you know, his celebrity, his influence, maybe, you know, maybe preyed upon somebody younger or somebody who was just in love with him and he was just interested in using her for sex or somebody who'd had too much to drink. They weren't necessarily unconscious and incapable of verbally contending it at the time but like they they weren't in a really in a great position to make a good judgment and he knew that and he took advantage right

and that person we used to call a cad we used to say that's that person has behaved shamefully certainly conservatives I I would have thought, especially social conservatives, would say that person should be deeply ashamed of themselves. And one of the heartbreaking things, I read the Times report and the description of the mother of this 16-year-old girl who was aware that there was a relationship between her daughter and Brand, who I think at one point, I could be misremembering this, but this but I think one point was actually driving her um dropped her off there and he kissed her on the mouth and she still left her 16 year old behind right and she left her 16 year old there and she said to the times you know I what could I do it was legal and you're like this is what this is what happens when there's an emphasis on a consent only, like moral, like framework for sexual ethics, it's the only thing that matters if it's legal. Okay, and in the UK, a 16 year old can consent to sex

and therefore it's legal and therefore it's fine. No, I'm sorry. There's, even if the one incident in that report where he's alleged to have sexually assaulted that 16 year old, even if that particular incident didn't happen the rest of it is still appalling the rest of it is still completely immoral um and awful and and the fact that this was celebrated at the time i understand why people are getting annoyed that these people who were like oh yeah well like look at brand he's so funny he gets so many girls like he i think he's awarded like Shagger of the Year or something. You know,

the same people who are fine with that are now like, oh, you know, rapist. Like, just we're so delighted that this right winger is a rapist. I get I get being annoyed at them. But to me, the bigger issue is like, I'm sorry, Russell Brandt, even if he's not guilty of rape, he's still not the victim here. He's I don't even think he is a right winger. I don't consume his particular brand of commentary, Jim, but I think he's more conspiratorial than anything. I heard, I was very happy to hear Piers Morgan, Douglas Murray, Ian Hayworth, who's been on the show with a much more measured position, you know, on, on him. I just think as, you know, you tell me, but as a conservative man and as somebody who's more right-leaning myself, woman,

we don't need him. Why, why would anybody expend capital defending this guy? We have absolutely lovely, brilliant, honorable, thinking, polite, respectful men everywhere on this side of the aisle. And frankly, there's a lot on the other side of the aisle, too. But I'm just saying there's no need to own Russell Brand or make sure he doesn't get diminished in the face of these incredibly weighty charges. Yeah. If there's anything we've learned since, oh, say, the summer of 2015, and I am not picking that time period at random, that if you are a celebrity who is the least bit, not even conservative, anti-establishment, shall we say, anti-authority, skeptical of the center left authority that you get in government, in media, places like that. Man, there are conservatives who will line up to defend you

like it's World War I. They will go into that trench warfare, they will suit up, and they will go over the top to defend the good name of Russell Brand, who's been on their side for, I believe, a whole 20 minutes or so. And so, look, one of the other things I want to emphasize is that, look, these charges are serious. And whenever you hear an accusation that has a lot of specifics, a lot of details, it makes it seem more credible. It's not a guarantee.

But when there's not a lot of details, then you start wondering, OK, is this person trying to hide something like this? None of us or very few of us, I should say, actually know what happened between Russell Brand and these women. We may think we know. We may have very strong beliefs about what likely happened. And again, there are reasons we can look at the account of an accuser. Is it a specific time, specific place? Can we verify that they were in that time and place? Can we verify that the accused was in that time and place? Are there circumstantial evidence? Are there witnesses? All kinds of other things that come together. Think back to the Brett Kavanaugh

hearings and the lack of corroboration of the account of his accuser. I think that was a very big deal, right? Look, there are a lot of people in this world who are absolutely convinced, I can spot a liar when I see one. Actually, you can't. And to verify it, I'd like to say, I want to check your attic to see if you have any Milli Vanilli records. I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of people are really convinced. Ah, I could spot a liar from a mile away. Yeah, yeah, you're singing Blame It on the Rain just like everybody else, right? We all like to believe we're really good at that, but in fact, we aren't. The world has good liars. These accusers could be lying. I'm not saying that they are. Russell Brand could be lying. I'm not saying that he is. At this moment, I also keep in mind, we operate in a media environment, in particular, social media environment that rewards not just like hot takes, but like the instantly judgmental takes. Yes, these accusers are correct or no. Russell Brand is a good guy and I totally get it. I also totally understand the sheer number of people who say oh i knew all

along well why the hell didn't you do something you idiot you know like my favorite example of this was ron perlman talented actor beauty the beast hellboy etc when the uh harvey weinstein stuff came out everybody in hollywood was saying oh i've been hearing those stories for years yeah i knew about it and stuff perlman allegedly said he knew about it he was appalled by uh uh harvey's behavior and he apparently said he had gone to the bathroom at some event urinated on his hands and then he went and he shook his harvey's hand now i'm sitting there thinking well you got him uh there you go did you have any backup plan that did not involve peeing on your hands was there anything else you could have done could you call the cops could you call somebody else was there any other

figure who could have intervened anonymous tip other than saying well i'll bet he recognizes that was a wet handshake got you harvey in your face well probably not in his face that would be the worst he also had to pee on his own hand, which is just like, who's really a loser in this one, Ron? Yeah, exactly. I just feel like I want to say to my, my, you know, conservative colleagues out there, I understand that people are reeling still from the overreach of the Me Too movement. I have two sons. I'm married to a good man. I don't want to see anything like that happen to them. But this case is

different. The amount of evidence that has come forward just in the initial reporting, and reportedly there's more coming in each day to these reporters, I'm sure we'll see it, is truly flabbergasting. Most women do not go to the rape crisis center. Most women cannot produce contemporaneous medical records, therapy notes, put the doctors in touch with the reporters. And, and what we've gone to now on, on, you know, this reactive side is none of that's sufficient. And I, I believe that if Russell brand were charged, they'd still say it was bullshit. And if the woman got a conviction, I think a lot of these people would still say he was railroaded because of his politics. And it's just, there has to be some level at which your decency

just kicks in and says, it's actually not about the legality at some point. It's just about your gut and whether you believe it and whether you think this is an ethical good man whose lot you would like to throw in with. So everyone's going to have to do some soul searching on that. I hope they remember their daughters, their daughters and the world we're creating for them as they do. Jim Garrity, it's a pleasure. Thank you for putting your clothes back on. Maddie Kearns, thanks to you as well. That audio clip is going to go viral.

I just want you to know that. You guys are the best. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me. Okay. Thanks. I want to tell you that on Friday, Dan Bongino is coming back on the show. That is going to be super fun.

That was one of our most viewed and downloaded episodes the first time he was on. He's got a new book out. And by the way, he's coming on just as this big piece on Fox News dropped, courtesy of Michael Wolff, the author. So Dan and I have a lot to dig into. Looking forward to it. Hope you'll join us. Don't forget to subscribe to the show in the meantime. Go ahead and subscribe. People forget. Hit subscribe on that little button on the podcast so that you never miss an episode and on YouTube as well. We'll see you tomorrow.