The Megyn Kelly Show - Impeachment, The Sequel, with Eric Bolling and Dan Abrams | Ep. 51

Episode Date: January 15, 2021

Megyn Kelly is joined by Eric Bolling, host of America This Week on Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Dan Abrams, host of the Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM and ABC News legal analyst, to discuss impeachment and whether there's a legal case against Trump, election fraud concerns, hypocritical tech censorship, Trump's political future, the future of the GOP and the Democratic party, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShowFind 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. Today on the program, we've got Dan Abrams and Eric Bolling. This is going to be good. Dan is a brilliant guy. We've known each other for a long time. He's ABC News legal analyst. He's hosted the Dan Abrams show on Sirius, among many other titles and successes that he has. And Eric Bolling hosts his own show on Sinclair Media, and it's called America This Week. And we used to work together at Fox. So I would say, I mean, Dan is definitely more center

left. Eric has been pretty defensive of MAGA world. And we're going to have all perspectives covered pretty much on this show about impeachment and the social media crackdown and the future of the Republican Party right now. So you're not going to want to miss any of that. But before we get to our guests, let's talk about home title lock. I got a crash course in home title theft, and you better pray this thing never happens to you. This is a crime you're probably not even thinking about, but you're at risk. It can ruin you financially, and here's how it happens. The legal titles to all of our homes are kept online where they can be hacked.

You see, a cyber thief will find your home's title, forge your signature on a quick claim deed stating, oh, she sold my home, her home to me. I own it now. Then the guy will take out loans against your home until your equity is totally gone. You won't even know that this happened until the collection calls pour in. You find out you're not protected by insurance, by your bank, or by any of the common identity theft programs. That's where home title Lock comes in. If you have a relationship with them, if you've got one of their policies, basically, they will protect you. And in the very unlikely event that you become a victim of title theft while you're a member of Home Title Lock, they will spend up to a quarter million bucks in legal fees to help

restore your home's title. That's big. That's a lot of dough. So go to hometitlelock.com, register your address to see if you are already a victim, and then use code radio for 30 free days of protection. You need a relationship with these guys for protection of your home title. That's coderadio at hometitlelock.com, hometitlelock.com, code radio. Check it out.

And now, without further ado, we're gonna start today with Dan Abrams. You know, Howard Stern says he's king of all media, but you really are king of all media. I mean, from your website Mediaite, which I really enjoy, to your show on Sirius, which I also enjoy, to your books, ABC News Legal Analyst, to hosting the cop show on A&E until it was so unceremoniously terminated in the wake of the Black Lives Matter riots over the summer. That was BS. We'll get to that. You've done it all and you're doing it.

Are you exhausted? You're so tired. You know, it keeps me energized. You know, I just I love doing the different things. Look, you've seen it, right? The freedom that comes with doing a lot of different things where you don't have an employer, right? I mean, even with ABC News, I'm a consultant, right? I'm not an employee. And no one could believe it when I left NBC. I mean,

a lot of people don't know this. When my 9 o'clock MSNBC show got canceled, they offered me a daytime slot at MSNBC. And I said, you know what? I don't want to be a day side anchor. And I said, you know what? Let me just go do my own thing and I'll stay on as the legal analyst. They're like, come on. Everyone's like, no, no, come on. You're not actually going to leave and like, like give up an anchor gig. I'm like, I'm much more interested in being able to do a whole bunch of different things than to be beholden to, you know, a single employer where I can't do all these other things. So I got really lucky in terms of the timing and everything. And it's all, it's all kind of worked out. Well, this is a weird turn, but it's you kind of remind me of Kathy Lee Gifford, who she's kind of in the same boat as you and I think myself and, and in that, we've all

walked away from big posts, because we know ourselves and we know what makes us happy. And sometimes what makes you personally happy doesn't reflect what the viewers at home think will make you happy. And sometimes we misstep, but you know, eventually you get it right. But I think a lot of people have finally understood that, right? Like when you decided to sort of start your own thing at this point, people are like, oh yeah, well, that makes sense. I mean, she's a, you know, she's got a name, she's got a brand, she's got, but you know, you did that five years ago and people were like, are you nuts? You're giving up, like leaving the home ship to go do your own thing. And so, you know, look, as you know, it takes, you know, it's a different

skill set, right? To do your own kind of thing without the internal systems that exist at a media entity. Well, for me, it just took the realization that I don't get along with bosses. I don't do well under bosses. And I shouldn't be seeking out more bosses unless they're going to just let me be me. I'm so glad that it has worked out so well for you. It's been amazing to watch. Thank you. And I want our audience to know you've been such a huge supporter and friend of mine.

And I'm very grateful, Dan. You've been very cool my entire career, both in covering me and in reporting on, you know, things that involve me and just behind the scenes as a friend. So God bless you, brother. All right, let's get to the news. Okay, I really want to talk about impeachment with you. Because as I see it, I don't think here's I'll give you my take and then you tell me what you think. I understand the need to do it, like the desire to do it, even by those who aren't Trump haters. I get it because what happened at the Capitol was totally extraordinary and that level of awful. And while I don't think Trump stoked it in the moments before, if you look at his conduct from the day of the election to the day of the

riot, it was awful. And there's no question he fed this belief that the election had been stolen and that we had to, quote, fight to take our country back and doing anything else would project weakness. And, you know, if you look at the whole, it's more egregious than if you just look at the speech the moment before the riot. But when it comes to the legal standard and they're accusing him of incitement, which is a legal term, I don't think they've got him. And I do think if you're going to go that route, if you're trying to claim this guy engaged in unconstitutionally protected speech, legal incitement, they don't have it because that's got to be, you know, you said something so incendiary, it caused immediate lawless action,

and that you intended it to cause immediate violence. And they don't, they can't prove that. But that's if he gets charged with a federal crime. In the impeachment context, they don't have to abide specifically by the statute. I mean, they can talk about exactly what you said, which I think is right, which is that it's the context. It's the fact that for weeks he's been ginning people up with a lie, with a lie that the election was stolen. And by ginning everyone up for this long, and then to call them to the Capitol, and then to say the things that he said, you put that all together. And it's really problematic. So I don't think that they have to abide by the constraints that would exist in the federal statute with regard

to incitement. But look, I think it's a close call on the federal law. I agree with you that there are, there would be challenges for prosecutors if they, I don't think they're going to bring a case, but if they did. But I think in the impeachment context, they can bring in not just what happened in those hours before, but what happened in the weeks before and then what happened in the hours after. And I think all of that becomes relevant. Right. So it's I mean, legally, and I tweeted this out the other day, because there's talk about charging him criminally with incitement under the D.C. law. And that's that'll never fly, never fly under the Supreme Court precedent of Brandenburg versus Ohio.

You just they're not going to get it. So what they're talking about now is there's who would prosecute. Right. Because it was the you know, the U.S. attorney is typically the one. And now you've got the attorney. You've got different people now talking about possible prosecutions. I don't think the U.S. attorney is going to prosecute based on that law. And you're right that the Brandenburg test is a very high standard to get there for incitement. bad idea and you shouldn't do it. I'm I don't necessarily agree with that because you can as president, that's not the only bar between you and impeachment. I mean, you can do really bad stuff that isn't necessarily criminal. We saw this during the first impeachment. It's sort of

high crimes and misdemeanors. And we talked about whether abuse of power could could wind up in somebody's impeachment. I think there's enough precedent to get you there, depending on the action. So so the question is whether he's done that here, whether his behavior has done that. And let me so let me focus in on something you said, a lie, right, that that he didn't actually lose the election. Right. And this is an honest question. Are we talking about a lie or are we talking about a claim that can't be proven that he, in fact, might have won? No, it's a lie. It's just an outright lie.

And you know how we know it's a lie? Not a single member of Congress who is defending the president in the impeachment proceeding, not one Republican said the election was stolen. You know why? Because they know it's a lie and they know how incendiary that lie is. So, you know, you can argue that some of the, and this is where we conflate some of the arguments, right? There are real discussions to be had about state by state election procedures. And these are the things that get litigated both before an election, and I hope that they get resolved definitively before the next election. Those are fair questions to ask. Those are fair things to

bring into court. But that's why when Rudy Giuliani was sitting in a court in Pennsylvania, and the judge said, wait, are you alleging fraud? No, no, no, this isn't a fraud case. And then he makes the other argument. I mean, that's the problem here is that, that when they actually alleged the fraud and they had the affidavits, for example, in Michigan, the judge went through affidavit by affidavit talking about either why they weren't relevant or they weren't credible. And so this notion that legally didn't have it, but here's where I'm going with it. There's no argument. No, no, no. But let me get, let me get, let me get to where I'm where I'm going. And I'm not just for the record taking the opposite position.

But I think it's worth exploring because here when you talk to people who believe that the election was stolen and I'll tell you, people will tell me this. People who are, you know, well-educated, who are public figures, who you wouldn't know are secret Trump voters will tell me privately this election was stolen. I do. What do they mean by that? What do they mean? Yeah. So then I asked them, you know, like, well, because, you know, all the dozens of court challenges that Trump's team filed were rejected and that when they got in front of judges and were were invited to present the evidence of fraud, they they said explicitly, we're not alleging fraud. We don't have fraud. And where they tried to do it, you know, certain affidavits and so on, it was rejected universally, especially including by Trump appointed judges. Right. So it's not just all like,

you know, secret liberals in robes. What they'll say is things like he lost it back in the spring when the rules on how you could do a mail-in vote were changed and that that the mail-in votes weren't properly checked in places like Pennsylvania and the rejection rate for the mail-in ballots was lower this year than it's ever been before, even though the mail-in votes were something like four or five times higher than they've ever been in the past. And that the people who hate Trump so much that they suffer from Trump derangement syndrome and they think everything he does is equivalent to Hitler. How could you put it past them to knowingly steal an election when you thought the stakes were keeping Hitler from getting a second term. Right. The problem with the last argument, right, which is the main one, which is sort of these theoretical, well,

couldn't put it past them sort of. They're not based on evidence, right? It's based on, well, I could see this person doing something I could see. That's not evidence. And there is no evidence. And that's the important thing, is that when you talk about, there's a reason that Fox and Newsmax had to issue these apologies or put on these clarifications, shall I say, with regard to something like Smartmatic, is because they were just peddling nonsense. It was all BS. And whether they knew it at the time or they didn't know it at the time, they had to clear the record. So now we're at a point where we've now heard all of these claims about the voting systems that were designed to hurt Donald Trump and votes were turned. And none of it is true. And so when you ask the difference, it's like saying that because the president continues to make the claim, you know,

it'd be like someone saying to me, saying about me, you know, there was a murder right near where Dan Abrams lives. And, you know, he says he was sleeping at the time, but I don't know. I mean, no evidence points to Dan Abrams, but there's a guy across the street who knows Dan Abrams lives there and he's convinced he did it. Oh, well, you know, then it's maybe it's not a lie. Maybe it's just a claim. I mean, there's got to be evidence for us to discuss anything realistically. There is no evidence. I mean, what? Well, what about that? So you so you went right to the Hitler part. But what about the first part of my my argument that they did change the voting rules for COVID that that there were overwhelming numbers of mail in ballots and that the rejection rate for those

mail-in ballots in places like Pennsylvania was lower than it's ever been, even though the number of mail-in ballots were higher than it's ever been. It's not evidence that it happened, but this is what gives people pause, especially when Joe Biden's victories in sort of these Democratic counties that carried him over the finish line were way, his margins were way higher in these swing states than they were in a nationwide basis. And so it doesn't it wouldn't amount to proof in a court of law. It's why people it's one of the reasons why people feel suspicious. And that's why I ask you, what is the difference between saying it's a lie and there's no evidence?

I'm totally fine saying there's zero evidence of voter fraud. I don't know if I'm OK saying it's a lie. I don't know. How do you know? It's a difference between it's the responsibility of those of us who are going to be, you know, sort of in the public eye to talk about facts and the way that sort of things can transpire. You know what we know and what we don't know. That's how we put it. Right. No, no, no, no, no. It's a lie that voting machines turned votes to Joe. That's a lie. I agree with that.

Right. A hundred percent. So all the voting machine arguments. That's why Newsmax and OAN and Fox had to do the rollback on the smartmatic allegations, which were put out there really recklessly without skepticism repeated over and over. And they're, you know, they're going to be hoisted on their own petards for, for the risks they took on that. Uh, and I, I don't defend that for one second, but the greater discussion to me is something different. Well, but, but again, about, about the statistical analyses, right.

Um, particularly about like where there were more votes for Joe Biden versus, I mean, we could do that in 2016. And I could make an argument, the same level argument, which is a very, very, you know, which is not a one based in facts or evidence that somehow Donald Trump's results in 2016 don't make sense. Right. I could make that argument about going county by county. Oh, this doesn't happen. But, you know, you compare it to beforehand and it doesn't make any sense. And yet that's not an argument for voter fraud. I mean, the argument for voter fraud is so serious. It's so important. It's such a incendiary accusation that you can't just say, oh, you know, there were some statistics that I have concerns about. That means, so my point is, unless and until, and it's not unless or until there is no evidence of voter fraud, there is discussions to be had about how we have

no, but about how again, I'm fine with saying there's no evidence. Here's why I'm driving at this. I'm fine with saying there's no evidence, as I've said repeatedly on the show for weeks and weeks and weeks. But I do think when you cross over to it's a lie and I and I you're on shakier ground. And I also think when you then try to shut down people from saying it at all on YouTube, on Twitter, elsewhere, you're you're on you're on water. Forget shaky ground. You got nothing. That's not OK. You are allowed to believe what you want to believe in this country. And if you want to say it out loud, even on YouTube, even on Twitter, you should be able to. I forget Trump. I'm really concerned about the crackdown on free speech we're seeing. And that's sort of part two of this on people expressing their belief about this.

So let's let's separate those out, right? So let's agree to disagree on what I view as Donald Trump's lie about the election. He knows it's not true, or he's completely OJ'd himself into believing that somehow he actually won this election. See, I've got my money on number two. I actually don't think he's telling a knowing lie, just knowing the way he is. Maybe. That could be. That could be. And I actually think that may be true. Michael Cohen was on my radio show, and he thinks that's true. He thinks that Trump actually believes he won. So let's separate that out from other people, right?

Just not members of Congress, not leaders, right? Random people. Sure. Of course, random people should be able to say, but I don't have a problem. Well, no, of course they are. They're just getting, they're getting warnings when they, when they issue, when they, YouTube is shutting down all discussions of voter fraud on a, on a widespread basis. You're not allowed to do that. If you try to say it on Twitter, you get a warning. You get a warning. Yeah. And, and so the bottom line is you get a warning with disinformation. What about you shutting it down? You know, look, I don't know exactly what what's the standard that

they're using to shut down. What is I don't even I don't know exactly what what does it matter? You want to talk about if you if I want to get on YouTube and say people, I believe there was widespread voter fraud. I believe it because Donald Trump was running in an economy that had dwarfed all other economies before Corona, because he he no no president who's increased his share of the national vote by 10 million voters has ever then gone on to lose the electoral college or whatever. If I want to say that this is still America, I should be allowed to say that. And you feel the same. You can say it wherever you you can say it whenever you want. It's a question of whether you can say YouTube. Okay. But that's a private company. You said you should be able to say it. You can still say it. It's just a question of whether YouTube has to host it. That's a separate question. Why can I go on

YouTube and question the 2016 election, but not the 2020 election? Because again, questioning, again, questioning the election. And again, I don't know what the standard is that was used by YouTube as to, you know, what the discussion was. But I think you'd agree, right, that should YouTube monitor, restrict, limit QAnon talk about pedophilia and made up stuff against Democrats? Would you agree that that stuff should be censored, monitored? I don't know. Monitored, maybe. But my my free speech parameters are very, very broad. No one's when no one's restricting your free speech is about a question of where you can do it.

And so it's viewpoint discrimination. It's viewpoint discrimination. They only crack down on the conservatives. Yes, they do. No, for that. It's crossed over. Dan, don't insult conservatives out there. Insulting conservatives.

But I think it's an insult to conservatives to suggest that somehow QAnon stuff or the voter fraud. I mean, this is this shouldn't be conservative values. How about Victor Davis Hanson? Is he a nutcase? Is he a nut? Is he some crazy loon? Victor Davis Hanson has been out there raising real questions about voter fraud from the beginning. And he's a brilliant guy. And he's a he's a fellow at the Hoover Institution and taught at Stanford and was it was there. He's been raising questions like this.

Should he be banned from YouTube if he wants to put out a video? I mean, he's got a podcast. So so should his podcast be banned? Because what's happening right now is the baby's getting swept out with the bathwater as they say, like, you shouldn't be issuing threats to go storm the Capitol and bring your guns. They're also saying and no more discussion of widespread voter fraud. That's what got us into this mess. Well, you've gone too far now. Now you've gone too far. Look, I agree that people should be able to, you know, no one should be

punished for saying, I think there's voter fraud. I mean, I think that they should be, you know, corrected. And I hope that people who understand, know the facts, will be able to tell them why. And I engage at my radio show every day with Trump supporters who call in and I try and explain to them the various arguments. And I shouldn't even say Trump. So it's only because, again, I don't think it's just Trump support. It's an element of the Trump supporters who who simply, you know, refuse to accept that the election was won by Biden. I don't I don't attribute that to all Trump supporters. But the numbers just to jump in quickly, the numbers are pretty they're big on people who think the election, you know, was not legit. So which is why I think it's so important to emphasize that there wasn't a single member of Congress in the proceeding in the impeachment

proceeding who said the election was stolen. More with Danny Abrams in just one second. But first, my mother inlaw is awesome. I'm very lucky. And she is one of the, she's kind of old school when it comes to her technology. One time I borrowed her hair dryer and it was like, I don't even know what it was. It was like attached to a big box. It was like a hose coming out of a big box. So I'm just saying she's kind of old school when it comes to her technology.

And the same is true when it comes to her pictures. She still takes pictures with those little windup cameras you can get at CVS, you know, the kind like sometimes you see them at weddings in the middle of the table, which is great for her to preserve memories, but she never gets to see them. Never, right? It's like, what do you do once you have that? She doesn't always print them out. When she's got them printed out, she can never share them with people who aren't in her presence and so on. People, that's where Legacy Box comes in. Now, Jackie would never call up Legacy Box because I don't think she'd know how to get online and do it.

But if you have a Jackie in your life, you can do it for them. This is a great gift that you can offer somebody else or offer yourself. If you got a little Jackie inside of you, Legacy Box will help you preserve, digitally preserve your home memories, your movies, your photos, so that you never have to wonder where they are or how to get them, how to access them. I mean, it's not just pictures because videotapes too. Did you know that they don't withstand the test of time? These things start diminishing after 10 to 15 years. How long have you been married? Did you use a videotape to make it happen? Well, now's the time because the sooner you digitally preserve this stuff, the better off the recordings will be.

I actually sent in my own videotapes to these guys, my old VHS tapes. There were a bunch I sent. One of them was me arguing during lawyer training because I thought my kids would get a kick out of it. So I came back in a flash drive and boy, did we have a good laugh at my expense, the young wannabe lawyer me. So anyway, it can be something that's not that important to you. And you just want to have a laugh like I did or something that really does mean something like the birth of your child or your wedding anniversary or your wedding itself. And they make it super easy.

It's quick. It's easy. They basically send you a box. You put your original footage in it. You use that kit and then you send it into them and their team will create a digital collection by hand. It all comes back to you. It gets it can be stored in the cloud, a thumb drive, a DVD, all along with the original media you sent. Obviously, nobody wants no one wants the originals of me standing there learning how to argue cases.

Right. I think. Yeah. Anyway, there's a tracking system so you can follow every step of the process in case you're paranoid about them stealing it, which you don't need to be because they won't. And this is a great company. Over the past 10 years, Legacy Box has helped more than a million families restore and protect irreplaceable moments from the past. So go to LegacyBox.com slash MK to take advantage of this limited time offer and get 50% off. Five-oh. That's the best offer we have. That's an exclusive offer. It won't last long. So order their kit now and then just send it in whenever you're ready or start collecting the Jackie in your life, her cameras or her footage or her slides and send it in when you're ready.

Legacybox.com slash MK for 50% off while supplies last. But your point, I think, broadly about sort of the dangers of a few very large companies having so much power is well taken, which is that my concern is how big these companies are. Right. If you were to say to me, oh, you know, there's some company said, oh, okay, they're a private company. They can do what they want, right? That's the legal argument. But the practical argument is about the size and influence that these companies have.

Now, with regard to the argument that sort of conservatives are always sort of the one censored, which I know is the argument that's made, you know, something like Facebook, the leading stories and trends on Facebook are always from conservatives. It's always Dan Mangino.

It's always Dan Shapiro. Let me ask you this. Why does Amazon boot Parler off of its service and its servers and it doesn't boot Facebook, which is where, according to Glenn Greenwald, who's been studying this, most of the planning for the riot took place. So Parler's got to go, but Facebook is fine. Look, I'm not going to sort of explain Amazon's policies because I'm not there in the conversations, obviously, but I think the argument would go, and I would accept this if the evidence bore it out, which is the idea that Parler's moderation was simply not as vigorous as needed. And if you look at what was on Parler- Well, whatever Facebook's moderation was, it didn't work well either.

I mean, if you're going to look at end result and what gets through the screeners, Facebook's in a worse position than Parler. But that goes to your argument about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is that what they can't do is they can't just look to results. You can't begin to make decisions if you're an Amazon based on, well, let's look at how many people on Facebook said you have to have an objective policy. And you could argue it's not, but you have to try to have an objective policy, which simply says, okay, so here's our standard, which is if you don't engage in moderation by doing X, Y, and Z,

and Facebook and Twitter say they have all these advanced algorithms and this and this and that, and maybe they don't work well enough, et cetera. But Parler, and I'm on Parler, but it was a disaster leading up to January 6th. Not worse than Facebook. I don't defend what was on Parler, but to shut them down permanently? They didn't shut them down. They didn't shut them down. They just don't let them use the service. Amazon booted them off of the service. Dan, that's the death of Parler's business. That's it. It's over for Parler unless they can find somebody else to provide them service.

And it's a very limited universe. It is. But you know what they're going to have to do? And I'm confident that they can do this. Just engage in a little more moderation, right? That's not what they offered to do that. I interviewed the Parler CEO yesterday. just engage in a little more moderation, right? Don't, don't. That's not what they offered to do that. I interviewed the parlors of the O yesterday.

But now they have to do it. They offered to do that. Amazon said, no, that won't do it. Then they said, Amazon, can we, we'll use your technology, your screening technology to keep out talk of violence and so on. Amazon said, no.

And then they went to other providers whose servers they could potentially get on and said, here are all the million things we're going to do to crack down on these kinds of discussions even more strictly than we have. And they said, OK, we'll do it. And they spent all night, you wouldn't name the company out of respect for the guy who was trying to help him, trying to get these things back online, only to then be shamed out of having any relationship with Parler. To pretend that this isn't a viewpoint crackdown is to ignore reality. They don't want Parler out there because Parler has become known as the conservative Twitter. Jack Dorsey doesn't want it. Big Tech, which acts as a behemoth, doesn't want it. And I think there's legitimate reason to be scared if you're on the right half of this country about whether you're going to be able to say what you feel if it's not approved by Big Tech. Yeah. I mean, again, I think that I think that on the whole, that just doesn't hold up based on the numbers. I mean, again, you look at the Facebook numbers and you look at the fact how dominant conservatives are on Facebook and the

notion that, oh, that, you know, they're just a bunch of liberals. It's like, well, if that's the case, then they're doing a really bad job of what they're doing on Facebook. Well, that's not who's dominating there. But that's since conservatives have gotten a foothold in Facebook and taken over more and more of its platform. We've seen more and more pushback from Mark Zuckerberg. Right. I mean, more and more pushback isn't based on it. Look, the pushback isn't based. Let's mark Mark Zuckerberg is definitely on the left, right? But the idea that Mark Zuckerberg is going to make a decision based on sort of politics versus business.

I mean, look, the business right now on Facebook in terms of the sort of political stories is coming largely from conservatives. On Twitter, that's not the case, by the way. Twitter seems to be more like 70% liberal. Facebook, definitely different. But my point is just to sort of lump them all together and say, oh, you know, everyone's out to get the conservatives. Look, parlors are unique and I think a very interesting and important discussion to have. Right. Because that is exclusively almost a conservative platform. And there's got to be a way to draw the line

between simply conservative viewpoints and radicals who are planning violence. And if it's true, I hope what the Parler CEO told you isn't all true. I don't know. Right. Because if it's true that they are ready to engage in more moderation and aggressive moderation and they are seeking help. Of course they are, Dan. If you're a little company that's just started, you know this because you're a media CEO and Amazon comes to you and says, we're shutting you down. And by the way, they're claiming that they had zero notice from Amazon, that they have weekly meetings with Amazon. Amazon never once said, you got to do something more. They have a system in place. They have a jury of peers who reviews, they call them parlays, not tweets. So they were blindsided. Amazon says, we're pulling the

servers. You're off. You're offline. You know what? You wouldn't say, screw you. We are standing by our jury of peers. You'd say, Amazon, we will do whatever you want. Please don't ruin our business. And by the way, Amazon, I mean, Parler has said they are happy if if Amazon will let them to put out all of the correspondence, all of the all of the emails, all the text, everything that they've had with Amazon. So far, Amazon's not agreeing to that. Yeah. The problem is that Parler's sort of defining call, right, was effectively unmoderated, right? It was basically saying, leave Twitter because of all their moderation and come to us because we're not going to engage in that. Their approach is much, much closer to the

First Amendment. They're basically saying we're going to censor speech that that is unlawful speech under the First Amendment. OK. And but but apparently and again, you look at and there was an article on media about this, about sort of all of the things that were on parlor when they claimed that actually there wasn't, you know, sort of this talk of violence. It was you know, it was a problem. And, and again, did you do that for Facebook with regards to, again, when you, you have to look at the numbers, Facebook, go to Facebook. Why don't you post all the posts that were on Facebook? That one, what, where, where is the media article on all the posts on Facebook that led up to the Capitol Hill riots that this is this gets to the whole point. It's, I got to talk to not you. I got to talk to your dad, Floyd Abrams. He understands me. He is the story. This isn't about the First

Amendment. No, it's not. It will be. It will be soon. I understand that perfectly. Trust me. I practice law for 10 years, but they have become so big. There is case law that when you become this big and you control the airwaves as much as these companies do, you cross over into state action. And that's the future. That's the future for these guys. Look, and I even said to you, I said at the beginning, my concern is their size. My concern is their power. That scares me. It scares me, the idea that a few people have that much power and influence, be it Google, Facebook, Twitter, a little less so, but the size of these companies is ready to engage in sort of active moderation, I hope they're back. I really do. And when I say back, I hope they're back on know, this and that. No, no. In that way, I completely agree with you

that there ought to be a place where people who feel Twitter's too liberal ought to be able to have their own. Exactly. That's why it burns so badly because they, you know, Twitter is liberal and the response has sort of been, you don't like it, go create your own platform, which is American. I get it. And so they did. And the response now is, fuck you. So it's like, you're shut down. Listen, I want to shift gears with you on this, because I stole the last word. But I do know your fear is genuine, because as I sort of referenced at the top of the show, you've experienced cancel culture in a way that I thought was really unfair. And I tweeted about because you hosted the most popular show on cable live PD, which was on A&E.

And people talk about like Tucker's ratings or in a big night, Rachel Maddow's ratings live PD on its average night was outrating all of those shows. This it was great. It was so fun to watch. It was and it was like a sleeper hit. You know, nobody expected it, I think, to be quite that big. But it was American. The American people loved it. And crazily, it got canceled in the wake of all the the BLM protests and the terrible accusations being levied against police over the summer. And I don't know, I'd love to get you to talk about how you feel about that

and what the future may hold on that front. Well, look, I was very disappointed when it was canceled. And I was frustrated because, you know, I understood how much pressure the network must have been under. I wasn't involved in their discussions. But I thought and still think it provides an important insight. It provides an important look at how police officers do what they do. Now, look, there was an incident that had occurred that I think was the final straw, so to speak, because there had been a police chase in a controversial county with a controversial sheriff where a man died at the hands of police after a chase and live PD cameras were there. It didn't air on live PD for, because you know, the policy at the time was you don't show when someone dies on camera. I didn't even know that this had happened. I didn't even know about the tape, et cetera, but became aware of it.

And, you know, looking back at that incident, in my view, the mistake that was made was that we didn't air it. If I had known about it, I would have said, of course we should air it. And that would have, in my view, delivered on the promise of transparency in policing. Now, they went and shot this while Live PD wasn't on the air. It was during a break and they were taping for future episodes. We had certain taped elements. But to me, that was the that was the error. And, you know, look, my heart breaks for the family of Javier Ambler, who who died there. But people have made this, the people who wanted to see Live PD go away, and I think many people who simply just don't like police, wanted to find something to eliminate the show. And I think they found a number of things, which I think, and still still think certainly should not have led to the end of the show. And I believe that there were ways to make some changes, for example, on something like that happening, where, you know, there's an incident that is, you know, an ugly incident and a horrifying, horrible incident that still has to, we've got to figure out a way to air that, that, that, you know, and this goes to your feeling broadly about sort of more speech, you know, showing more is better. Transparency is better. And I think that was, you know, I think that's the, the, the change that I think would occur if and when Live PD comes back.

I hope it does come back because it was a great show. It was really entertaining. You did a good job. And I think, you know, placing one's hope in the marketplace of ideas winning out in the end, you know, and just a popularity in the same way there was a Roseanne reboot. I hope there's a Live PD reboot, although I wanted to include its original host, unlike the Roseanne reboot. I think that, you know, I think you share my view, which is that police officers who engage in wrongdoing should be held accountable, that there's a fair argument and discussion to have that increased accountability. But that doesn't mean that you sort of, you know, wipe this sort of this broad brush to say police officers X or police officers Y. You know, we don't do that about members of the military.

Incidents happen in the military. And look, and by the way, you know, one of the inspirations for the show was the embedding of the troops. Remember during one of the early 2000, when the American troops were, there were media members, journalists embedded with the troops. And, you know, the, and, you know,

it's so interesting that, that the live PD argument now has been, you know, Oh, live PD doesn't show police doing bad things. And the truth is that the argument at the outset was, oh, live PD is going to just show police, you know, in a too much of a positive light. And and, you know, it's sort of like shifts as to what the criticism is going to be of of the show, depending on on the day. But look, I think that if we can recreate, bring back the idea that transparency in policing is a good thing. Police officers are now wearing body cameras. I think that's a good thing. I think that the show is not just a good and entertaining one, but can be an important one. So just rounding back, because listening to you talk and your reference to what I've said, what you've said, what the Supreme Court has said, the answer to speech you don't like is not

less speech, it's more speech. What do you make of, I actually haven't had the chance to ask you this, what do you make of the news networks cutting away from Trump's voter fraud? Let's settle on unsupported voter fraud claims. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think they're obligated to hold, to stay for a press conference. They're not obligated. But what do you think of the decision, the choice to say, no, this is just too incendiary to run? Well, it's not just too incendiary. It's a lie. I mean, that's the problem is that. So I mean, but if you go by that, so they shouldn't air presidential lies.

When I say lies again, not all lies are created equal. Right. Political leaders lie. Politicians lie. When the when the president of the United States is lying about our democracy being broken, when the president of the United States is lying about the election, literally him winning in a landslide. And look, if he was right, I'm not surprised that the Capitol would be stormed, right? I mean, if it was true that literally he won in a landslide and that the election was stolen from him based on corrupt election officials and voting machines and all the things that he's alleged, my goodness, I'd expect that there would be an overtaking of the Capitol. This idea that our democracy is fundamentally broken. That's how serious, that's how serious the lie is. And that's why it's so

important. And that's why I do think it's okay that when the president starts talking about all of this, you know, these specific nonsensical issues about the election having been stolen from him. You don't think it's better to let him say it and then correct it? No, because then he can go on for an hour. I mean, again, you'd have to do it in real time. If you could do it in real time, yes, I'd be okay with that. But then you get into the business. Look, CNN has gotten served with the chyrons. They're ridiculous. Their Trump derangement syndrome is a real problem. I would not have cut away from the president. I mean, there's always the question of time as a news anchor. There's only so many minutes in your show.

How long? I mean, if he goes for 45 minutes, but it wasn't about that. It wasn't. And I would not criticize that because we all have to make those choices as news anchors. But it wasn't about that. They were open about that. They were like, these are lies and we're not going to air them. And my own view was that's not the way you do it.

You let him say what he wants to say. And then you fact check him at the end, which I think is a much greater service to the audience. And I said at the time, you know, you talk about lies, you know, consequential lies. If you have your if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. That that was hugely consequential, hugely consequential. Somebody's health care, somebody's well-being, somebody's life. And that lie was told over and over and over. And I just like the thought of us cutting away from Barack Obama once we knew it was untrue. Like, I'm just not going to air those lies anymore is absurd. I never would have actually you actually think it's comparable. You actually think that the comparison to the comments that so many political leaders have mischaracterized legislation. They always do. They always mischaracterize legislation. And I'm not going to defend it, but the notion that you think that that's not a mere mischaracterization of legislation. That was a fundamental lie he told to get a law passed that would change one sixth of the U.S. economy without without support,

without majority support. But this is the ultimate whataboutism. It really is. It's like... Sometimes whataboutism is important. Sometimes whataboutism is the way you point out hypocrisy and a double standard. That's true. That's true. That's true. But this to me is such a far... And I know, and the number of times I've heard this particular, it's this single incident. And again, I'm not going to defend Obama, but the notion that somehow that's comparable to saying that the election was stolen to me borders on absurd. I think when you're talking about lying directly to the American people over and over about something that could affect their life, their life,

their ability to stay alive. But the problem is, it's pretty big. There are too many other examples like that of leaders, you know, from Obama to Clinton to Reagan to Bush. I mean, we could sit here and we could we could isolate real lies that they told the American people. That's my point. So you let the politician lie. If the politician lies, the consequences are you fire them. You fire their ass. They don't get a second term. And guess what? That happened. It's not some stupid news anchor. And nine times out of 10, these are not the brightest bulbs in our intellectual pocket. But if that's your position. To decide what is true and what's not true for the American people, better to come on with a fact check of they filed 24 claims so far. 24 out of 24 have been thrown out of court, not just by judges who were appointed by Bill Clinton, but by Trump appointed by Bush appointed.

Like that's what you do as a news anchor. And I feel like the reason I'm on this is because I thought what they did with him on that is indicative of the huge problem we've seen with the media all along during Trump. Whatever your feelings are about the guy, I don't care if you hate him, you think he's the devil incarnate. One of the reasons we're in the mess we're in, where the people don't trust information they're being given, where they believe the Kraken was coming and they stored the capital believing that everything had been stolen. One of the many reasons is the total collapse in trust in media. And for that, the media has themselves to blame. But again, I would say that to sort of minimize the Trump lie and say, oh, they should air it and then they should fact check it. The problem is that there are five

people dead because the president kept echoing this lie again and again and again and again and again. He kept saying it because I think you're right that I know I think you're out on now you're on a thin read. Now you're on a one that that's that's blaming Bernie Sanders for the Steve Scalise shooting. Wait, you're actually going to tell me, wait, wait, wait, you're going to actually suggest to me that it wasn't the president led lie that led to the storming of the Capitol? I think you've got cause and fact, but not proximate cause. Okay, but that's a legal answer. I'm talking more broadly. No, no, but it's important.

It's important, Dan, because politicians say incendiary things all the time. And most of America is sane. They don't say things like this. We haven't had something like this. And they don't run out and storm the Capitol and murder people. The vast majority of Americans who heard that lie or untruth or unsupported statement and even those who believed it did not go storm the Capitol. So I think you're it's I'm not defending anything Trump has done. He's behaved abominably. He doesn't have an adult relationship with the truth. I get all of that. I'm just saying that to then blame the behavior of a bunch of loons on explicitly those statements, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of humanity and the buildup to this moment over the past four plus years in trust. I'm not going to see that. That's the information. That's where you start to make excuses, right? The four years. I'm not making excuses for anybody. Sure it is. No, absolutely not.

When you include that in one of the reasons why people attack the Capitol. I'm saying there's more than one person to blame. There is more than one person to blame. There is one person to blame. Failure to believe. No, no, no. You don't think the media is totally sacrificed. It's complete sacrifice of its credibility to the point where they can be written off like that.

Affected those people's ability to understand what's real and what's not? I mean, I'll answer that question. But but first, I will say the notion that it's somehow, well, it's the president, but it's a lot of things. He called them to the Capitol. This was his rally. He told them to be peaceful, too. If you want to get into what he specifically said. But again, but he also used incendiary language. Again, this is why my point is what happened. Which he's done many times before and on a number of subjects. And it hasn't broken out in violence. We could debate this all day. I want to make clear. Look, I want to make clear. OK, just just for the record, I'm not defending anything that

happened. I know you're not. I'm not defending Trump. But I want to because people sometimes have difficulty understanding. But you made a separate point about the media. And look, in particular, what breaks my heart as a sort of, you know, lover of the media and also as a political moderate is the level of distrust by conservatives of the mainstream media at this point. And it really, it upset, it really upsets me. And I try to think about how can that change? And something I've, you know, I've talked about publicly is, you know, I think that it would be helpful and there's no way this is going to happen on a sort of across the board, but it would be helpful if more members of the media would be honest about their political

views, right? And sort of, because the problem is you get all these people who, you know, the mainstream media on the whole is left of center, and they don't admit it, right? There's no, there's no admission on the part of the mainstream media. Yeah, we're typically left of center, and some sometimes very far left, in terms of the people who tend to go into journalism, right? I think that you got to start from that point. You have to start with that admission and then have a discussion about where do we go from here? And I think part of the place to go from here, and I think let's take Trump completely out of the equation for a moment, is that there has to be at these news operations, more political diversity in the point of views of the people who are working behind the scenes. I think that that would go

a long way. Now, it may be so broken, at least for the next few years, that that wouldn't make a big difference, right? I mean, expect CNN to try to pivot back to the middle. And there's no way anyone who is, you know, even right of center will ever say, oh, I could trust CNN. So, so, you know, it's a challenge. But, but I think it is so important for the mainstream media to try to figure out a way to bring conservatives back into the fold. Well, it's funny because of course I have many of my own experiences on this front, but I will tell you, having been somebody who's right of center, I don't call myself a conservative, though frankly, I have no idea what the hell I am given the way the country's shifting. I don't think I should try to define myself anymore.

I agree. people who are not like they are ideologically think it can end in ruination and despair. And just one other point on that. Um, a couple of years ago, I went out and I spoke with a bunch of tech giants. I mean, the presidents of the tech giants who were calling me in, um, and asking me my opinion on how they could be to borrow a term more fair and balanced in their, in the way they present the news, in the way they call information online. And I said, you know, I won't get specific here about who I spoke to, but I mean, it was the presidents. You need, you need more conservatives on, on your board, you know, whoever's reviewing the information and making these decisions, you need actual conservatives. I'm not talking about the Washington Post, Jen Rubin, right? Or Steve Schmidt, right?

These hardcore never Trumpers who are obvious liberals who used to wear conservative clothing. You need legitimate conservatives here who are open-minded to help you make these decisions. And I just think there may not actually be a desire to do it. People are so entrenched in their tribalism right now, in their partisanship. They say they want to do it, but they don't really want to do it. They find those views abhorrent. They secretly might harbor the feelings we heard Don Lemon espouse the other night, which is, you know, if you voted for Trump, you're a Nazi, you know, you support the Klan. And so once they start to hear the person talk,

there's a recoiling. And so I feel kind of hopeless about, I don't think my heart is broken, as you say, but I definitely feel hopeless. And I feel kind of angry about the destruction of media and what was to me a suicide. Well, look, and again, this becomes a longer discussion. I think that, you know, that Trump broke the media in many ways. And, and I think he did it on purpose. And he succeeded. But there is no doubt that I think some in the media, you know, allowed it to happen. So it's, look, it's tough. It's, it's, there's no, there's no finite answer to the question of how to, how to fix the lack of, of trust. But, you know, look, I know I've always taken very seriously and always take it as a, you know, as a great compliment when someone says to me, you know, look, you're a straight

shooter. Tell me where you're coming from. You know, you play it straight, et cetera. And I know that everyone in the media views themselves that way. The problem is that a lot of them don't live their lives that way and don't work that way. again, the Trump derangement, for lack of a better term, it's just short-forming, you know, blinding bias against him, is I understand how awful he can be. Trust me, I understand. But as journalists, we're supposed to check our personal feelings. We're supposed to try really hard to stick to facts and straight analysis. And I just, it just, it's become advocacy journalism wherever I turn. And there's so few who I trust not to do that. You know, it's, and to me, it's disheartening because you have to work so hard now to find the facts. How many articles do you have to read every day? How many different papers, how many different sources? So you can make sure you know what's real, right? As opposed to

somebody's spin or incomplete presentation. It wasn't always thus. Look, I think conversations like this, people like you who are a little to the left, a little to the right, and I, talking and debating is really healthy. I'd love to see more of that. So maybe we'll expand the show. I agree. The Kelly Abrams show. Take it on the road. Yeah, exactly. Listen, thank you for always being so smart.

I mean, Dan was one of the only people to get the Duke lacrosse case right because he wasn't blinded by ideology. And you've been right on a lot. Not during this particular conversation, but in general. Exactly. All right. All the best. Always a pleasure. Eric Bolling is going to be here in just one second.

But first, let's talk about Armbrust USA. We all know by this point where the coronavirus came from. But you know where your mask came from? Because it matters. That PPE shortage we faced as a nation was due to the outsourcing of American manufacturing to China. Well, the founder, Lloyd Armbrust, of this company started it to start bringing back manufacturing to the U.S. and ensure that this kind of thing never happens again. This is a company that produces the

materials and the masks in its Texas factory. And if we don't want the country to shut down interminably, the truth is we're going to have to mask it up. And you may not like it, but you know, you got to do it. And the truth is not all masks are up to the task. Unlike these cloth masks, you see, or gaiters or bandanas, the non-medical ones, Armbrust USA surgical masks are FDA listed and independently certified to have the highest level filtration. They exceed the highest safety standards. So, you know, why, why put it on if it's not going to do its job? This one will. It's triple layered. It's breathable. It's lightweight. They come in a bunch of really nice colors. My whole family's been enjoying it. They're hypoallergenic and again, made in America.

So let's stay healthy. Keep our economy going. Go to Don'tShutDownMaskUp.com. Enter code MK for a 15% discount on your first order of Armbrust USA masks. That's Don'tShutDownMaskUp.com and use the promo code MK for 15% off your first order. If you're going to have to wear these things, wouldn't you like to wear one made in America by somebody who shares your values, go for it. Okay, so joining me now is my pal, Eric Bolling. And I've been really looking forward to this conversation, Eric, because you've been a Trump supporter. I think it's fair to say you've absolutely been able to report on him with open eyes toward the good that he does. I've heard you be critical of him in the past as well. And I haven't yet heard your take on these claims that he's responsible. I realize he's had incendiary rhetoric for sure. I mean, he's been pushing the electoral fraud thing really, really strongly and the stuff with Mike Pence and all that. But the notion that he's to blame for what happened at the Capitol, what do you make of it? So this is a really, really difficult thing.

Absolutely. Clearly, you're 100 percent right. I've been a Trump supporter. I've been a friend of his for going on almost 20 years now. I knew him before he was even a host of Apprentice and then Celebrity Apprentice. So it is clear. And I've always said, like him or not, he gets things done. He got things done on television. He got things done in business. And he was getting things done in D.C. He shook up D.C.

I wrote a monologue this week, and you were on the show, Megan, and it was all about how what I didn't see coming was the dislike for Trump coming from both sides. I knew the left would dislike him. I didn't see that the right would dislike him just as much. And what they tend to do is they want to protect their gravy train. They tend to protect what was going on in D.C. status quo, the swamp, so to speak. And he was shaking that up a little bit. He was threatening the swamp and he got it from both sides. I will tell you, he called me about three weeks ago and we had a discussion.

This was after he had lost the election. And for the record, since day one, since November 4th, I had shown November 4th. I was calling Joe Biden president elect because Trump lost the election. Anyway, after that, Trump calls me, I'm in watching a football game with Adrian. And he's going on with this, yes, but I'm going to, you know, we're going to work to overturn this thing. And I just, I didn't have it in me to say, hey, you lost, but I did have it in me to say, look, I think whatever happens on January 6th or 20th or after January 20th, you're going to be the biggest media entity on the planet. And what I was trying to tell him was that he lost the election and he's still going to have a media profile. It's going to be massive. And there's a way to use that, to use what he's done over the last four years to be sort of a power broker, to be a kingmaker, so to speak,

in the Republican, or at least on the right, right, right of center. I believe that, but he didn't hear it. He didn't want to hear it. He was, he was saying, I'm going to win this. And I really thought that he's a smart enough man to realize that he had lost and he needed to continue to fight because his base likes him fighting for the win and, and, and representing them. They felt that they were being, you know, marginalized over the eight years of Obama and continue to fight for them. So, but after,

you know, as we went into losing Georgia, when the Republicans lost Georgia, and then Trump wanted to do the rally, I felt that was ill-advised, you know, and if I made some calls over there and some friends over there, I'm like, you know, I'm just not getting this. I just don't think that Donald Trump, the man, understood that his base and to which the extent to which his base was ready to, quote unquote, fight for real. And so when he said, let's go march over there, I don't think he meant let's go march over there and storm the Capitol, I think he meant, let's go let them hear our voices, because that's what he's always done. They've always been loud. There's always, you know, there are rallies, even that go back to the Tea Party, the right has always been vocal, but they were never violent, right? And so I think it probably, I haven't spoken to him since, so I can't confirm, but I think it probably took him by surprise when all of a sudden the Capitol started getting ambushed. And that was wrong. Those people broke the law. They were awful.

They're terrible. They should be held accountable. They should all go to jail for doing what they did. But they heard a dog whistle, you know, and it was loud and clear to them. What they heard was get over there and go knock the walls down and drag people out. Unfortunately, I don't think that was the intent of Donald Trump. I, again, I'm not in the guy's head. I don't think, but shocked me, shocked me that there wasn't a bigger pushback as to, hey, stop, stand down, get out of there. You know, and then you also have to. And again, I'm not trying to defend this, anything that's happened. But but where were if the FBI did know that there were plots and preplanned plans to storm the Capitol and then hurt people or whatever they had plans. Why weren't they, why wasn't there more security? Why weren't they beefing up

the perimeter? Why didn't they call, you know, they could call in the National Guard. I know Bowser could and Trump could, but they could also, you know, petition the Department of Justice to call in the National Guard and lock down the Capitol if the FBI in fact did know, which is what's being reported right now. Here's my point. Donald Trump went from what I thought could be a media monster, a mega media entity post January 20th to I think his brand is severely tarnished. And he's a friend of mine. And I'll tell that to him to his face. I think he he probably diminished, if not ruined his his ability to run in 2024, unfortunately, for him. And I certainly think that some of the people that wanted to stay in high-level politics are going to have a hard time.

I still think it's still a brand. I still think, you know, I'm not ready to say it's over for MAGA World because I think there still is a substantial MAGA group audience. And the sane ones, the crazy ones, the fringe, they got to figure out a way to cut off the fringe, cut off the fat, and they may still have a stake there. Not necessarily a filet mignon anymore, but maybe a New York strip. Let's call it that way. Ground chuck. There's a lot to unpack in there. I definitely want to get to what does this mean for the younger Trumps? Because I think one of the things he did was not only did he really hurt

his own brand, but he hurt his kids' ability to run for political office, which may be a good or bad thing, depending on how you view them. He hurt his kids' ability to run a thriving business. They're already talking about taking his name off of buildings that were already suffering thanks to coronavirus shutdowns and so on, these hotels. So, I mean, you got to be thinking, was it worth it if you're in the Trump family? Was this worth it? He could have pushed this to certification when the election was certified and then dropped it and accepted reality, but he just, like a dog with a bone, couldn't let it go. And frankly, if you look at Trump's history,

I guess that was totally foreseeable. He just, he just doesn't, he doesn't let anything go. He doesn't. So let me just jump back to what you said. They heard a dog whistle. This is an interesting, this is an interesting, because if you look at Trump's actual words that he spoke leading up to that rally and the people walking over to the Capitol, in my view, there's zero. We're going to the Capitol right now. We are going to hurt Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, AOC. And we're going to, you know, take back this election together. Right. It has to be that explicit legally for it to be incitement. But you're raising a different question. What did he say and how is it heard? And that's the question over four plus years now, five plus years of Trump either being president or running for. Has his base gotten to the point where they see hidden messages, not so hidden messages in things that he says any way you could have known that i didn't see it i literally watched that and i and i'm as as much in tune to his base and the man himself speaking to him interviewing a time speaking to him randomly on phone because i've known him a long time i saw the group going

over there i actually started seeing like wait they they it doesn't look like all of a sudden there became violence i started seeing the pepper, which at first you didn't see. I was like, they don't look very violent. Now, in hindsight, we know they were. I don't know that he could have. Maybe there was intel that said all he has to do is blow the blow the silent whistle and, you know, no one else will hear it except for them. And they'll run over there and go crazy. It's possible.

I just I I honestly think he was as shocked as as the rest of us were i mean i look at him again as atrocious and horrendous as that video is of the family dancing in in the tent prior to the to the rally you know i i think if there was knowledge of that this was going to be some sort of battle cry in a few minutes it would have been a lot more somber a lot more well that's okay so that's the difference That's the difference. So an interesting question is, if those rioters, if those protesters hadn't turned into rioters, if they had marched over to the Capitol, stayed outside of the Capitol and said, we want to take our country back. Trump won. Biden's illegitimate. I don't think we'd be here. But no. But now. But you're still.

But you are seeing Democrats claim that that. Encouraging people to sort of storm the Capitol to pressure them to overturn a legitimate presidential election was impeachable so that the mere like if you look back at the weeks and weeks of Trump saying illegitimate, we won, take our country back. This is fraudulent. We'll never concede. Some people believe that in and of itself was impeachable conduct because it's one branch of government effectively assaulting another, the legitimacy of a presidential election that had long since been decided. What do you think of that? Short of the mob, could this have been impeachable conduct? If that is going to be the standard,

then almost any political speech could be interpreted as impeachable or illegal. I just don't think, how many times have you heard, fight for your rights. Fight for your rights. If what he, and again, what happened is bad.

I got to clarify this because the left is going to go ballistic on me. I'm not defending anything that happened. It's awful. It's terrible. I just don't know that that that Donald Trump, I don't think he would be impeached had they had there not been violence. If they just surrounded the Capitol and chanted, you know, we won. I don't think Donald Trump would be impeached right now. And I think his reputation and brand would still be intact. So I agree with you. So that raises two additional questions. Number one, should the violence have been foreseen? And number two, even if it hadn't been foreseen, is he nonetheless responsible because he created the circumstances that led to it? And then there's the third question, which you kind of touched on, which is why didn't

he speak up sooner as it was going down? As it was going down, he was sending out nasty tweets about Mike Pence. There are reports that he was enjoying it as it first unfolded, though I haven't seen anything that specifically says he was enjoying the violent shots as opposed to the march over there. So. So how about that? Like, should he? Should he politically be held responsible for creating the circumstances in which it happened and for being so politically out against it? Politically, politically, that that is a fair question. Yes, he should. Absolutely. he should have had people surrounding him that, that would say, you know, if you, if you put 40, 50,000 people here and then, you know, and they're jazzed, you better be careful because, you know, we'd have to be, you know, we have to be careful. We don't want them to send the wrong signal and have something bad happen.

Yeah. I just politically. Yes. Yeah. I guess that's fair. I don't, you know, I, I, when I see an impeachment though, yeah, it's political. But I also feel like it goes it supersedes politics there. It's it's it's everything else, too. It's it's it's legal. It's yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they're doing it. I think it's very clear they're doing it because obviously, since he's going to be out of office when and if a Senate trial takes place, they they want what they've always wanted, Eric, which is for him to never run for office again. And this is their way of trying to officially make it so he can. And I'm not talking just about Democrats. You know, I think some of the people

who have been loudest against Trump over the past week have been the never Trumpers who morphed into all right, I'll deal with him begrudgingly because he's more on my side than the Democrats are. Um, but when given this event, you know, they were like, that's it. My initial instincts were right. Never Trump again, get him out, make sure he can never resurface. You're a hundred percent right. And, and, and I looked, they should want to impeach him so that he can never run again because Politico had a poll this week that showed that if on the right, who would be the most likely 2024 candidate? And Trump, Donald Sr. was at 40 percent by far the top choice. Don Jr. is down at six. Here's what my concern is.

I honestly thought Ivanka Trump had a shot to be the first female president of the United States. I think her brand was intact. She didn't, she didn't get involved in some of the, the kind of pseudo fringy things that were going on in different places. And she kept her powder dry, so to speak. And I think she's trying to, I have to tell you, I never thought that never Ivanka Trump doesn't seem I don't believe all the awful things people write about it. I hate her because she's his daughter. But let's be honest, she's not a dynamic personality. She's not. She's sort of like a Scott Walker type who I really like, but you know, not not exciting, not dynamic, doesn't motivate people. Very teleprompter based. I would

say out of the three kids, Don Jr. is the one who's got the most flair akin to the dads. And but I don't know. I think Trump may have taken him out on on his way out, you know. Yeah. As of now. But so so all these things, these things tend to be big right now. The left is just having a field. I see. I told you, I was right. We were right. He's terrible. Look how awful he is. Look what happened. And they're piling on. The question here for them is, and I have friends who are wildly liberal, friends who I worked with at Fox, who are producers, who produce very conservative content, who are actual liberals, who've been telling me this is going to happen for a long time. And my question is, if it becomes too much of an end zone dance, you're spiking the ball

in the end zone left and right. I mean, you cannot turn on anything that's not Fox or Newsmax or whatever and not have them calling for him to go to jail and sedition and all these things. If they spike the ball too heavily, does he become a sympathetic character? Right now, he may be. The one thing you can always count on is Democratic overreach. They will take any victory and turn it into a loss. That's what's happening right now with the parlor being banned and Trump being banned from Twitter. And now the impeachment, you could definitely make a case. He's leaving. He's leaving office and he's leaving under a cloud of shame, given what happened last week. Why can't that be enough? All this other stuff is only ginning up Trump's base more. And I'm not talking about don't make

them angry. Don't hurt their feelings. I'm talking about what is politically smart for the left to take the win that those rioters gave them politically, I speak of now, and go to the moral high ground, try to legislate while you have some goodwill on your side rather than dance on the grave, dance on Lane from Forbes magazine, the editor of one of the editors of Forbes saying that if you hire Kayleigh McEnany or Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Kellyanne Conway, if you hire them, whoever you are, corporate America, we will assume that everything you say, Forbes, not him, not a guy writing an opinion piece. Forbes magazine will assume everything that company says is a lie. I mean, that is, that is like cancel culture on steroids right there. So not only do you want to cancel something, the president says, now you want to cancel anyone who ever worked with them. Is this the first layer? You know what I realized, Megan,

being a, being an advocate of our friend of Trump's and, and pro Trump for a long time. And by the way, got us out of foreign wars, got us three Supreme Court justices, lowered our taxes, regulations got rolled back on and on. No one remembers that. But I always supported that for those reasons. anyone who was who was a an advocate of trump or a pro-trump talking head here the left wants you to denounce donald trump in all ways shapes and forms he's awful he's a dictator they want you they're begging you to do that they're demanding you do that or you will be canceled too but here's what's going to happen if you do that they are going to pat you on the back and say good job and then kick your ass on the way out the door because they're not going to hire you they're not

going to follow you anymore either hell. You are literally you are literally going to be a person without a country because. No, look at Betsy DeVos. So Betsy DeVos, who I like, I like what she did. A lot of the stuff she did as education secretary was really important, like restoring due process rights on college campuses. But so she resigned. She's one of the ones who resigned as a cabinet official in the wake of the riot. Is that going to lead to a group hug by the Democrats? No, not not for any of the Trump supporters. And even, you know, Liz Cheney does the love that they have for her. And I think it's ridiculous how Jim Jordan and others are trying to crap on her and boot her out of leadership because she voted to impeach. But she's not going to get any love from the left either. She voted her conscience and Republicans should be able to understand that and support it, even if she took a different position than they support. I feel like Jim Jordan, he ought to just be quiet. He's grateful to the president, I think, who stuck by him, even though he had his weird little, I don't know what happened when he was a wrestling coach at that university, but it was sketchy. And, um, and now like the, the somehow he has this,

I guess, loyalty to Trump that makes him want to stab any Republican who feels differently than he does, which is as I see this internal civil war amongst the GOP, I think, you know, how's that going to go? How are you guys going to win another election at this rate? There is a civil war. And a couple of weeks ago or maybe probably right after the election, I was on China TV. Don't kill me. But then I said there will never be another Republican president in America. Not in my lifetime, maybe ever, because like it or not, that's what happened. Trump bifurcated the right. The right was establishment. He came in. He upended the apple cart. And then it became three lanes. Now, now you have the established, the old school Republican, the old timers, the Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney's. Then the never Trumpers, the people who can't stand the guy who are on the right, but they just they couldn't send the Liz Cheney's people.

Just they're never going to be a pro-Trump. And then the MAGA world. I mean, it's literally three lanes on the right. And those three different factions don't get along with each other. And somehow you're going to beat a Democrat. And by the way, Democrats, the party of diversity, the big tent, the young, the future, nominated in a 78-year-old guy to be president. Their speaker of the House is 80 years old. Number two is 81 years old. The number three is 80. The vast majority of them are white. I mean, they're united. They didn't say, hey, we need to have young blood in their fresh blood and nominate someone who may not have beaten Trump. They wanted to win. They were united to beat

Trump. They wanted to win. They wanted to win. I don't know if you're right about this. OK, so I agree with the point in general. But when you're talking about winning presidential elections, you look at Kamala Harris. You think she's going to beat the next Republican nominee? She couldn't even get the nomination. She was she was not embraced by the Democratic Party. She got dragged by him because he wanted diversity. That's what I do. Not because she's going to beat he said explicitly. Not because she's so good or she's so popular. Who is the name of the Republican nominee that can that can unite the party? And remember, the Republicans are at a demographic disadvantage voting wise. So you you have to have someone that's going to embrace MAGA, never Trump and establishing Republicans

to put up a fight to, to beat a lefty. Doesn't matter. What about a split ticket? What about a split ticket? Like a MAGA person in the vice presidential role and somebody like a Tim Scott in the, in the lead? Maybe, maybe, maybe I just, or Nikki Haley. I don't know.

She's, she's been loyal to the president, although she's kind of, you know, I like Nikki Haley, but she's also not as inspirational as you'd want as an, as a politician. So, so that's what, that's what Ted Cruz tried to do, right? He tried to bridge, he tried to, you know, kind of straddle that divide of, I still got a foot in, I still support the president. I got my foot over here, but, you know, I'm still, I'm still, you know, one of you Republicans and he got burned for it. Now he's, I think he's lost his ability to run for president. I think he's toast, too. I think so, too. All right. Here's another one. I've been mentioning him. I know he's not that well-known, but how about Daniel Cameron? Kentucky AG,

he's the one who refused to push charges. He's a rising star. He spoke at the GOP convention. I see him as the GOP's Barack Obama. He's this he's this really smart, rising star lawyer, diverse, articulate in a way that makes you want to stand up and scream for your country. You know, like, yes, he's inspirational and doesn't have much of you know how they want to find sometimes Supreme Court nominees who don't have that much of a record that can be used against them. He's kind of like that on the Republic, unlike the presidential side. And so I don't think he's hateable by MAGA or establishment Republicans. I don't disagree. And I heard him on your podcast that was a couple of weeks ago, and he's very good when, you know, he's, he's, he's politically, he's a, he's a neophyte. I mean, you can say Barack Obama, what had he done?

It was a US Senator. This guy's going going to be he's going to be Kentucky governor. And that's better than a senator in terms of executive authority. I don't disagree with that. That's where I put my money. I think Kamala Harris is imminently beatable. I really do. And I'll tell you what else is going to help the Republicans in the in the midterms and four years from now. And that is people like AOC and the nutcase lines we're getting now about how everyone's a white supremacist and what happened at the Capitol was about white supremacy and all the lectures and the critical

race theory mandated sessions and like all the divisive culture wars that the Democrats refuse to abandon. Even now that Biden's been elected, we were told he was going to be more moderate. No. One of his first comments was this is about white supremacy. And if these had been BLM protesters, the crackdown would have been much more severe. It's like more severe than what they shot a woman. Right. I mean, like, what do you what more did you want? The police over the summer sat there, arms crossed and watched the riots take place. They got on their knees in some cases and washed the feet of the protesters. So spare me if this had been a different colored skin group, we would have seen a different reaction. Anyway, here's why I ask it. I saw AOC's, it was awful. I mean, like listening to this woman, what she really wants to be is famous. That's what's clear with this woman.

What she really wants to be is famous. She sat there, did her little Instagram thing, talking about such a victim, how traumatic everything was. And then she launched into her same old lines. And here's just a sample of her reaction. Listen, a lot of people have have drank the poison of white supremacy. And that's what Donald Trump represents. Just is. And if at this point you haven't recognized that and you don't see it,

maybe you have a lot of work to do too. Okay. So this is, by the way, part of a feature we call Sound Up where we digest and dissect a certain sound bite of the week. But not only is it her, Don Lemon made exactly the same point this week. If you voted for him, you support white supremacy, you support the clan. Then you get, um, Ibram X. Kendi, you know,

how to be an anti-racist with a, with an op-ed today, uh, going on about how the people saying that the, what we saw on Wednesday is not America. You're in denial. White terror. This is a quote. White terror is as American as the stars and stripes. That's America, he says. If you can't see it, you're part of the problem. You get things like, as I mentioned, Chris Ruffo, who's been doing a great job of writing about this critical race theory and how it's being shoved down everybody's throats. Third graders now, third graders out in Cupertino, forced to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, rank themselves according to their power and privilege, acknowledge that they live in a dominant culture of white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied Christians who created and maintained this culture to hold power

and stay. That's what's going to get the next Republican elected, Eric, push back against these insane culture wars. That's logical. Makes common sense. Megan, I'm going to disagree with you, though. I, yes, I agree with everything you said. I think AOC, they're doing the same thing. They're, they're, they're guilting, they're guilting people into, you can't, if you, if you voted for Trump, you're a white supremacist. I mean, that is absolute insanity. How about I'm a conservative and I'm thrilled that there are three conservative Supreme Court justices. Does that have anything? Does that play or or no, it's because I'm a white supremacist. I'm at D.C. No, it's because the Klan also likes him. Therefore, you like the Klan. That is their logic. It's cancel culture. It's it'sting people into, it's a false, the false equivalence. I mean, but here's what's happening.

Here's the problem. You talked about third graders. The left now has, we know they've had culture. They know, we know they've had Hollywood. They certainly now have sports. We realize that. They have the media under wraps. They have 90% plus are lean left in the media.

They have academia. They've been working on that for decades. Now they have media. You yourself weigh in quite often on Twitter about some of the wacky things people are doing to their children in our schools. And now they have politics. Their demographics are leaning towards liberals in politics. Megan, I feel the same feelings you feel. I just don't see the pendulum. It's swinging. It's clearly swinging in their direction in a big way.

I just don't think the pendulum swings. I don't know how you get the thing to stop swinging back to the right, because every time it makes sense to do it, oh, no, you must be a racist. You must be a white nationalist. You must be you must have some deep seated misogynist or, you know, a xenophobe to think that way. And they guilt. And of course, the people on the right, we conservatives, we have no guts. We don't have any gumption. We're like, oh, wow, maybe you're right now. I'm just not going to vote. I'm just not going to say that on TV. Just one example of that. When I was speaking out at one point about the complete elimination for due process of young men on college campuses, I got so much feedback from these left wing feminists saying, that's your internalized misogyny talking. Actually, it's my internalized lawyer talking. I'm a constitutionalist. That's that's what I'm that's what's who's talking. But wait. So so what's the best thing now for the Republican Party for Trump to be quiet and go away or continue being as bellicose as i've called i've tried to get get through and they're not taking my call right now i would have said stand down just stay away and by the way this is the hardest thing trump can't do this he's not just not he doesn't have the makeup to do this but i would have said and if i do talk to him i take a year off don go go golf for a year but but stay out of the media, stay out of the political fray. Let this heal.

Let this go away. It will. I mean, as you know, Megan, when we were – I mean, there's negative stories that would pop up and you just lay down. You lay low for a while. You get out. Go take a week off. And healing happens and people forget and you come back because he can still be a huge voice he can still be a huge voice in politics on media etc but but right now the left is anything he does

left is going to destroy him and any one of his followers any people who who who follow him or who move i don't know go on any of his shows take a year off let this let this passage this too shall pass for him, and he can come back strong. I don't think he's got it in him to do that. I think he loves the spotlight. He loves the attention, and he'll figure out a way. It's one of those quirky things where

sometimes people will accept the attention, even when it's negative attention and lacking the other kind of attention. They'll accept the negative attention. Boy, he's going to get a lot of negative attention if he decides to keep popping up. Yeah, he's never been able to stop running his mouth ever. I mean, that's just been his lifelong go to. But I think that one of the biggest problems for him politically and what happened at the Capitol is it's not the loss of the more moderate Republicans or any Republicans. That's not

that's not it. It's he gave the people who already loathed him a great argument for mainstream businesses and others to not associate with him. That's why the PGA pulled its relationship. That's why all these major banks are saying we're not going to do business with him anymore. That's why there is now some credibility to the threat that if you hire somebody who was in his inner, inner circle, you're going to get a shit storm rain down on you like you've never seen PR wise. You know, that sort of those lists the Lincoln Project was making, which are awful and absurd, just got a lot more real because now he's given them the excuse. It's not just, oh, we had policies that we think were bad and, you know, we think he's bad. And how could you

support him? It's it's going to be the man incited a riot that led to the death of five people. He incited a questioning of the fundamental principles of democracy, right? So that's going to be tough for him to get out of. And I think his business to him in some ways may be more important than even his political role. Yeah, I think that's precarious for him because a lot of his stuff is branded. It's not necessarily his ownership. It's a branding issue. And I'm not sure what their deals are, how long they are. And I guess they will be at risk going forward. It's 100% right, Megan. He gave or his supporters gave or supporters, the people who stormed the Capitol, I don't know who, whatever, his crazy fringe right, gave the left the excuse to say, hey, we told you, we told you so. And

that's pretty powerful, right? We told you so powerful. But also what's even more powerful added to that we told you so is the hypocrisy, because the right was supposed to be the party of law and order. All the finger pointing that we did over the summer at Antifa and whoever Black Lives Matter, whoever were ripping up Main Street USA, we said, oh, no, no, we're the party of law and order. And then what did they turn around and do? Not only did they hand them the excuse we were that you were right about us, we're doing it and we're complete hypocrites because we're breaking the law. People are dying at because of what we did.

It's just it's a very potent, potent tool. It's right. It's an argument on there. But I don't think that argument holds any water. I mean, I realize with the left, they're going to believe what they want to believe about the right. But I just don't think that that's a valid criticism in any way, because the the right sort of the Republicans condemned both events. They condemned the Black Lives Matter riots over the summer and they condemned this riot and and in no way supported what we saw go down to the Capitol. Meanwhile, when the when BLM was rioting, you saw virtually every media

personality go out there on the mainstream and defend them and said, you know, remember Chris Cuomo, like whoever said you had to be polite in the sort of protesting or rioting or whatever, however he put it. But he was defending along with so many others on the left in the media. Now I realize I will grant that storming the Capitol while it's trying to perform a democratic function, such as, you know, confirm the votes of a presidency is in a league of its own when it comes to what you choose to storm, right? Like where you choose to unleash violence, but unleashing violence is bad no matter no matter where it is. And it seems to me there's only one group of of politicians or sort of one party that's been pretty much uniform in condemning it. Right. Agreed. 100 percent agree. Except that that that same party showed up on the Capitol steps on January 6th.

Look, you remember back in the day when the left was saying, oh, these Tea Party protests, they're so violent. And then you leave one of their protests and they'd be cleaning up the mess afterwards. And it's like, well, there's no violence there. They were just painting it. They were trying to paint them with a violent picture. The problem with January 6th is it was the Tea Party only, but they became violent, right? And that changed the narrative.

It changed the narrative. It became indefensible because they broke windows, they broke in, and then God forbid, and God rest their souls, people died too. So I don't think that these people, the MAGA crew can claim right now, unless they somehow disowned that group and figure out who they were and figure out where all this planning came from and who organized those, and then completely disowned that group and said, we're not part of them. They infiltrated what we were, a peaceful protest, almost like what Antifa was doing on Black Lives Matter over the summer. I think that could be a similar take on the right, but you can't just say, oh, we didn't

do it, or it wasn't supposed to happen this way. They need to be held accountable. Those people who are on that's inside. It's not it's not enough to have Liz Cheney stand up or Mitch McConnell stand up and say this is wrong or even Trump in his belated video. You got to have like the MAGA protesters. There's got to be some group out of the MAGA core to come up and take the mantle on this and forcefully condemn it.

And also to prevent future violence, Eric, because I don't know about you, but I'm worried about the next week. I'm not worried about it. I don't think, I think this was a faction that wasn't part of, it wasn't real MAGA, but in order to be credible going forward to be this MAGA group, which has millions, tens of millions of people supporting the president and the cause. But to be credible, to have any sort of credibility left at all, you have to weed out the cancer, cut out the cancer. Who are those people that did that? And by the way, don't ever do it again.

We don't want to be paying the price for your stupidity and your violence. It's so hard hard though. Those are the people who are truly brainwashed. You know, there are people who love Trump, who they'll vote for Trump. They don't care about any, anything really. They just, they just see him as their warrior. But then there are people who are brainwashed by Trump. There really is sort of a cult. I don't speak of MAGA in general, but I just mean within that faction, there is a cult-like group who have openly said, I would die for him. Now that's not normal. It's not healthy. And those are the people who can be easily manipulated with very little explicit direction. It doesn't require explicit direction. And I don't know how they get deprogrammed because I think that group,

sadly, is sizable. Therein lies the question, which part of the group is far right fringe? And what you described were the people who hear the dog whistle. They're the people who the vast majority of that crowd probably didn't hear. Let's go storm. Let's go break in. They may have gotten caught up in it and they did it. But there probably was the group that heard the whistle. They were hoping it was going to come. They heard they prepared for it.

They brought zip ties and whatever the hell else they brought and waited for the call. And somehow they heard that. How big is it? I think it's a small group. I think it's a small, violent, radical, like all groups have, faction within the MAGA. Megan, I've been hanging around these people for four years. They're pretty much just people, middle American people who just feel like they've been ignored for 20, 30 years.

And they're not violent. And they're just happy that someone is saying what they feel. They're not looking to break windows and drag people out. That's right. But in order to be credible, in order to move forward and move beyond it, if MAGA wants to be a thing that's not just some sort of fringe group that's never going to have their own television network, they're going to have to be subscription-based and off of any sort of area where ads matter,

they got to weed out the bad. They got to weed out the people who are violent. Here's my last question. What is something to feel good about right now? Well, I don't know. Honestly, I'll be, and I'm being 100% honest with you. I have a new puppy. I feel good about my new puppy.

I don't – I have a new podcast, Bowling With Far. In a really odd way, and this is not a – it's not even out yet, but it's an odd thing. Like how in the heck – I'm so happy to be able to talk about culture and sports and business and not what did Donald Trump tweet today and why did he tweet that? It's going to be a little different. Megan, I don't know. That is true. The stock market isn't crashing like everyone predicted with a Biden and a Democrat win in Georgia. I mean, we can be happy about that, I guess. Well, I like what you said in the middle there because A, New Puppy is good. B, so is New Podcast and love Brett Favre. So it's the two of you together. Yeah, yeah, it's and we're going to talk, like I said, but I want to say the other thing is, look,

love Trump or hate Trump. He's taken up way too much of our headspace. And I used to say, you know, the beginning of his presidency, this is exactly what he's always wanted, which is just to be talked about by everyone in the world nonstop. And one of the one of the reasons I wanted to get away from Fox was I just I just wasn't in the mood to do it. I just wasn't in the mood to do it. And I wasn't in the mood to do it. And I've gotten back to doing it because I'm back and covering the news and he's always the news. And I do think it'll be good for us as humans,

as a country, as a globe, to move on from the constant obsession over Donald Trump. Well, let's just hope we don't obsess about the next guy. No, on to cannibalism. So much healthier, better. I want to thank Eric Bolling and Dan Abrams for being with us here today. Hopefully you've heard a lot of differing viewpoints, right? The goal is to get us all to think, challenge our own belief system, see if the other side has better arguments, and emerge ideally a better person.

That's the goal, right? I don't know. Some days we nail it. Some days not. But mostly we nail it. But I hope you enjoyed the discussion. And listen, today's episode was brought to you in part by Home Title Lock. Put a barrier around your home to protect yourself from home title theft.

Go to hometitlelock.com now to learn more. Hometitlelock.com. And don't miss the show on Monday because we are going to have a day off show, so very timely, with two people I've really been wanting to speak to about all the madness going on right now. And that you heard me mention one of them on today's program. Representative Steve Scalise will be here. Don't you just want to hear his take on what happened? This is a guy who got shot while trying to play baseball on Capitol Hill with other representatives because of a man who was crazy, who had believed crazy rhetoric and had gotten himself into this dark, dark place.

He was a Bernie Sanders fan. Some people tried to blame it on Bernie Sanders, which was unfair. I don't know. I'm wondering what he's thinking right now as he watches everything. And we'll also be joined by Dennis Prager. Dennis is just, he's sort of,

he's like the godfather of political commentary. He's just, he's got a really 30,000 foot way of taking you through these events because he's got a great life perspective. So like you, I hope, I'm genuinely interested in talking to him and hearing his perspective. We'll do it together. We'll hear it together on Monday. In the meantime, have a great weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. The Megyn Kelly Show is a Devil May Care media production in collaboration with Red Seat Ventures.