The Megyn Kelly Show - Judge Threatens to Jail Trump, Kristi Noem's Lies, and the "End of Everything," with Victor Davis Hanson | Ep. 783

Episode Date: May 6, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Victor Davis Hanson, author of "The End of Everything," to discuss the latest details in the sham Trump trial, Trump getting fined again for violating the gag order and the judge threatening jail time, Lawrence O'Donnell's embarrassing comments and coverage making himself the center of the story, how Hope Hicks' emotions on the stand were ridiculously psychoanalyzed by pundits, Nathan Wade’s softball interview with ABC's Linsey Davis, his claim that his “personal life” shouldn’t matter and the only issue is a "workplace romance" with Fani Willis, lessons on what reporters should be asking Wade, Marilyn Mosby hoping for a pardon, the lie in her book about meeting with Kim Jong Un, how she's now ruining her chances at VP, her new physical look and persona, her failed attempt to look “strong” by writing about killing her puppy, what's happening now on elite college campuses, claims of emotional distress that should require canceling finals, why top universities will go the way of Bud Light and Target, the topics in his new book, how wars in the past and today could bring about "the end," what signs of decline to look out for in America that could signal "the end," and more.  More from VDH: https://www.amazon.com/End-Everything-Wars-Descend-Annihilation/dp/1541673522/Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. It's Monday, which means former President Donald Trump is back in court in New York City. He started the day getting fined $1,000 for, the judge said, violating the gag order. This is that comment he made about the jury being 95% Democrats. That's ridiculous. Remember, that was the one he fixed by saying on the tail end of it, like in New York City, which could have been a broader commentary on jurors here.

But no, this judge would never miss an opportunity to punish Trump and to act exasperated at his absolutely terrible behavior, you know, like speaking about the allegations against him and the criminal trial against him. Now, a stern warning that jail time could be next if there are more violations of what is clearly an unconstitutional gag order. I don't know. I feel like Trump should be hoping for it. I really do. What more can happen to the guy besides jail time to rally people behind him and realize what's happening here? I'll ask Victor Davis Hanson what he thinks, whether jail time on these alleged gag order violations might be good for Trump or bad for

him. That's in two seconds. Meantime, Columbia University has canceled its commencement. Boo-hoo, as the hateful protests continue. And I couldn't care less. I don't feel bad for them at all. Why'd you send your kids there? They shouldn't have gone to Columbia. You knew what you were getting. Please. You go to SMU, you go to Columbia, you're going to be having two very different experiences. Reconsider if you're normal. Reconsider Columbia University. You knew that. You knew that when you sent your kids there. That's why they're not going to have a commencement. And by the way, those same kids didn't have a commencement four years ago when they graduated from high school because of COVID. So there you go. You made a bad choice. Also, a once and now former potential Trump VP pick, Kristi Noem, embarrasses

herself again while on her book tour. It's almost like she's trying to ruin her reputation. Joining us today, Victor Davis Hanson. He is absolutely brilliant. I'm so glad to have him with me for the full show today. And he's also the author of a brand new book that you must go buy and read. It's called The End of Everything, How Wars Descend into Annihilation. And Victor is an expert on warfare. He's been writing about it and teaching about it for a long, long time now. The book is out tomorrow, but it's available for pre-order right now. The End of Everything.

It's rising up the Amazon charts at this moment. Let's make it number one. That'll really irritate the people at Stanford. He's at the Hoover Institution. Victor, welcome back to the show. Thank you for having me, Megan. So we'll get to the book, but there are a lot of lessons in these ancient warfare stories for modern day America.

And it's almost as if the outcome of our current day fights has been foretold. It could certainly be predicted based on some of the battles that you write about that may include names half the people don't know as a daily, you know, on a daily basis. But the lessons are all there. Let's just let's just kick it off with that. There's so much news to get to, but I just kick off what you think people will getage, the capture of Constantinople, the destruction of Christendom in Asia Minor, and then the fall of the Aztecs. And they all were very similar. All of these targeted places and empires and cities thought they were still robust, even though by any outside measure they were in decline.

They were very naive. They thought that if they revolted or went to war against a stronger power, either allies would be on the horizon to help them, or something magically would happen to reinforce their defense. They had no appraisal of the type of people they were facing, an Alexander the Great, or Scipio, or Hernan Cortes or the Sultan Mehmed in the case of Constantinople, who really wanted to destroy them. I don't mean, and these are not destructions, Megan, where they're Genghis Khan or Tamerlane, they sweep in, they kill everybody, rape the women, take the slaves and leave. They systematically destroy the civilization. They destroy the infrastructure. They enslave any survivors.

They kill all the people. They wipe out the language, the religion. And in 30 or 40 years, these places don't exist. And there's no memory of them, really. And when I look at the modern world, it was very strange that all the people on the contemporary scene who make these threats, we, like these targeted cities, and they're very rare. I mean, most times you lose a war, you don't get completely erased from history and your existence, destroyed. But when we hear what the Iranian mullahs say about Israel as a one-bomb state

or it will no longer exist, And it's good to have all the Jews in one place because they can take them out. And we think that's ridiculous. I think there's 25 instances where a Soviet, excuse me, a Russian general or somebody in the Russian parliament have talked about using nuclear weapons to wipe out Ukraine because they feel it's an aberration, it doesn't exist. The same thing is true of Taiwan. And I mentioned that in the epilogue, that they've repeatedly said they want to destroy Taiwanese civilization. It's an aberration.

It doesn't really exist. And when I just mentioned that in the book, the Chinese publisher gave me an ultimatum, either take that out or we're going to cancel the Chinese translation. Which had been pretty, yeah, and I didn't do it. So they canceled. They were so sensitive about that. One of the strangest people is Turkey, Recep Erdogan. He's told the Athenians they're going to wake up the capital of Greece and see a rain of missiles. He's told us that our nuclear weapons at Isilir Air Force Base are not

really ours. They've been in Turkey so long, he feels he has proprietary rights. He's threatened to wipe out Tel Aviv. He said he would handle the Armenians the way his grandfathers did, that is the Armenian genocide. And so I went through all those. And it's very funny how we all dismiss them because they are very rare occasions and the chances that they might happen are not necessarily great but

they do happen and I think we should take them seriously and I don't think if you look at us compared to where Carthage was or the Byzantines there's very similar very similar problems we're borrowing a trillion dollars every 100 days. We're short 40,000 recruits in the military. We have an open border that's not secure. 10 million people have walked across. After Afghanistan's humiliation, the Chinese

ballooned Gaza, you get the impression that we've lost all deterrence abroad. I don't think anybody ever thought that we would see the anti-Semitism on campus in the 30s in Europe. But yet we just say this is just America, this is what makes us great, or this is why we're diverse. All these platitudes are very similar to what people were saying inside the walls when they were destroyed. Don't worry. The Romans would never do this. Nobody has ever breached the walls of Carthage.

And the Macedonians will come to the rear and help us. And we're Carthaginians. We're the city of Hannibal. Didn't do much good in the 11th hour. You write about how civilizations have collapsed over time and how they sort of marched to the abyss, not necessarily knowing that it's the abyss and that, you know, the next step could be one's last, um, showing how societies descend into barbarism and obliteration. And I realize like those terms may seem excessive to describe America right now, but on some days, not really.

So you and I have talked many times about societal rot, cultural rot, just absolute. It feels like nihilism, what we're doing to ourselves. But what would you say are the top three indicators that america's following that path right now well one of them is that uh we have destroyed the system of law equal application of the law and i mean that in the broadest sense there is no federal immigration law it's not to the border's course it doesn't exist and we have 10 million people here we all know they came in illegally that we all know they're residing illegally and yet we're subsidizing and if anybody said when the medicine is seen as worse than the d's were disease were in bad shape no

one will say they they need to go back the 10 million and we'll do with the other illegal aliens later on but at least the 10 million and And we don't, if somebody commits a violent act, they're usually in a big city out the same day. It's not that we're lax on crime, there's actual people who believe it's not a crime. So, and then when you look at Trump is going through or the January 6th versus the May 2020 and June 2020 riders. So there's, I think everybody feels that the law doesn't exist as blind justice, that it's applied through ideological or democratic lenses. And that's one big thing. The other is I don't think they have confidence in the military anymore.

Not just that we're so short recruits, but they feel that it's ideologically biased, it's woke um the the working class white males who died at double their numbers in the demographic in iraq and afghanistan we all counted on we kind of demonized them millie and austin did and said they were prone to white rage and white supremacy and they ran an investigation and they just announced in de they found nothing. But they really turned off that demographic. And they are the ones, that demographic is why we're short 40,000. All the other demographics are joining the military at previous levels, but not that demographic. So I'm really worried about our military.

We don't have a military production that's necessary to replace artillery, the mundane things, bullets, artillery, drones, javelins. But we're spending all this money with these defense contractors on these $200 million jets. But we need the basics in large numbers, especially if we were to go to war with China. And then I, so I'm worried about the military and I'm worried about the absence of a little law to just finish its financial, this debt. We're spending more money to service the debt than we are on the defense budget. That's it. Neil Ferguson wrote a good article not too long ago, a colleague of mine at Hoover, that for him that was a barometer of modern collapse when a late 20th century or 21st century state

spent more to service the debt than they could spend on their own defense. Well, that's dark. It is dark. As the expert, how would it end? If it's in the process of ending, this an all-time record, Megan, 55 million people were not born in the United States. And that's the highest number, and it's the highest percentage, 15%. And when you're letting in 2 million a year, you're going to see large pockets of areas where people are coming from different places, but they have nothing in common, and the host has no effort or no desire to make

them have something in common with other Americans. So we're making enclaves, and we're starting to break up under our federalist system, which is great, but people are all going, I don't mean all people, but from Illinois or Minnesota or New York or California, you're getting over 2 million people a year that are going to so-called red states, low taxes, traditional values, and safe. And, you know, the government is not physically insolvent, etc., etc. The blue model has failed. So we're starting to divide geographically. And any time you add a geographical force multiplier to cultural differences,

and you can really see it. I know when you travel a lot and you go to a Tennessee and you go from Tennessee from New York city or from just coastal California to Florida, they're like two different worlds and they're not, it's like the 1850s, it seems to me, when we also had a geographical element to political differences. So I think that's one of the things. Financially, I think historically, when you have that level of debt, you can either inflate the currency, and we're trying to do that to pay back bondholders and debtors with cheap dollars, or we can renounce the debt. People have talked about that, and we're doing that.

We're telling people who took student loans, it was about $1.8 trillion that they don't have to pay. We're giving away billions of dollars, and that's just the way of the government saying that these students have renounced their debt. They wouldn't have forgiven them if the students had made their payments. And then also you can appropriate capital that happens in Rome, that happened in Byzantine. And we're starting to talk about that. I was, when I researched the dying citizen, I noticed there's a lot of thought by the left put into things like we're going to take your 401k, but we're going to give you, for each $100,000, we will give you years of Social Security credit.

And so people, you didn't build that attitude. When they say you didn't build that, you can see where they're going. But they have to deal with the $36 trillion in debt somehow. And we're borrowing over $2 trillion a year. And Joe Biden just, you know, he just, we're going to give this to Ukraine. We're going to give this overseas. We're going to do this, this, this. And there is a limit to it, despite what modern monetary theory says, that there is. Yeah, it's catching up to us. You know,

this discussion is reminding me of, um, my eighth grader who's been preparing for a debate he has to do for school on whether we should abolish the electoral college. And he's arguing that we should not abandon it. And some others in the class are, you know, have been assigned to argue the opposite. So he's been researching a lot and I've been learning a lot myself just about a lot of the reasons behind it and so on. I mean, we all have a working knowledge, but it's been a fascinating exercise. And some of the things that you're pointing out right here are the arguments in favor of keeping it. Right. Because if we have a system where it's just the popular vote, You're going to have politicians who only campaign in the largest cities to the coastal elites and the smaller states and cities and towns are going to

be forgotten. And one of the reasons it was instituted to begin with was a worry about cultural differences and preserving them in these, you know, these 50 state experiments. But if they were going to sign on to a federalism principle where the feds had power over them, they wanted to make sure that they were adequately represented even though they were small. They didn't have as big a populace. And there was real worry about people in the larger states

and the larger cities forcing their worldview on the smaller colonies or states and so on. And the second piece of it was, you said, appropriation. And it's starting to happen more and more. As you say, we'll just start by messing with the 401ks a little. We'll just start by making the trucker pay for these snot-nosed college campus protesters student loans just a little here or there. We'll just call it forgiveness.

He won't really realize that we're taking his money. And that was the other big thing that they were worried about was appropriate, was that they would have a president backed by, you know, elites in these big cities who would start appropriating land in particular in the smaller parts of the United States. And that these folks would effectively be without a voice to object to it if they didn't have the power that they have through the electoral college, where you have a number of electors of your house representatives plus your two senators. Anyway, the whole thing is kind of fascinating. And as you talk about the possible dissembling, it takes me back to what was important to the founders in creating the company and the country to begin with. They were very, you know, they were really geniuses. And we,

I get so angry when people malign them, because in the case of electoral college, they also mentioned that they felt that vote fraud would be almost impossible to stop entirely. But one thing about it was, there would be so many different states that you wouldn't have a coherent method to throw an entire election. You might have states, but they wouldn't coordinate. But if you had a national election, one party could have a national uniform balloting system, and then they could throw the entire election. But they thought there would be too many players in the electoral college for one particular ideology to control.

But it brings up another moment. The left, you know, in the old days of Bill Clinton and even before that with Jimmy Carter, when the left had an agenda that didn't appeal to 51% of the people, they tried to, you know, in case of Bill Clinton, he'd say, no, no, no, I'm going to have kids wear uniforms, or I'm going to have a sister soldier moment, or I'm going to have police officers, 100,000 police officers. But they don't make that effort. They want to change the system. They want to change the electoral college once the blue wall fell in 2016.

They used to brag about it. They'd say, well, before the election even starts, we have Illinois, California, New York. They'll never be able to defeat us. And we have Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio. And now that's gone, so they don't like it. But they got rid of half of the 160-year filibuster. They want to get rid of the nine-person, I guess that's 160 years, the nine-person Supreme Court. They want to pack that. They want to bring two states in the union to get four senators, D.C. and Puerto Rico.

So the left is trying to, and, you know, there's also a talk when I was, I didn't realize how serious they are, but in the case of the Electoral College, And, you know, there's also a talk when I was I didn't realize how serious they are. But in the in the case of the Electoral College, they have this national voter compact where each vote, each state legislature votes that their electors will violate the constitutional mandated duty to reflect the in-state popular vote. But they're going to reflect the national vote. And the plan of the National Voter Compact is when you get 270 electoral votes, that is enough states that have that number, then it won't matter that the electoral college in theory still exists. I think we're only about 10 electors short. In other words, in this next election, if they get one or two more states to vote and say Donald Trump wins those states, to take the example, but Joe Biden squeaks by in

the popular vote, those states would then vote for Joe Biden and they could elect him. So that's a pretty radical thing. The other thing they're trying to do is they look at the Senate and they don't know what the founders and the Federalist Papers said about it. It was decided it was created to represent people as residents of particular states. And they wanted to empower states and not just destroy them in federal and through the federal government. But you read all of these law articles and you see a lot of people talking about, well, it's not fair. There are 750,000 people that vote uniformly for each congressperson, 435. However, Californians have 20 million people per senator and Wyoming has 250,000. Therefore, we should make the Senate popularly elected. And then you wouldn't have an upper or lower house or the Senate 30 years versus 25 years to be a house member.

We would never have formed a country. We would never have formed the United States of America if that were the deal. No. It would just be a popular, mass, Athenian-like mobocracy. And that's what they want. They really do. And so this type of progressive... Because we hear it every four years since Trump won the electoral college in 16,

but not the popular vote, you know, especially more and more of the Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college because they think they can run the numbers with large pockets of votes in New York and California. And they will like, I'm sure a lot of Democrats don't vote in California and New York because they know they got it locked up. You know, it's like, what's the point? I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't either for that matter, because they know the other side has it locked up. But if it were a national popular vote, you can bet they'd be getting every citizen in Los Angeles, in Oakland and beyond to get to those polls.

So they'd have a lot more power and they probably would vote. This is one of the reasons why Republicans don't want it. But you hear it more and more and more out of left wing think tanks. And now we'll see what happens in this election. But guarantee if Trump wins again by winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote, there's gonna be another push. And so we're really having debates about the foundation of the country, which is one of the reasons why I asked you, how does it end? And I do think the push to get rid of that would be one of the reasons why I asked you, how does it end? And I do think the push to get rid of that would be one of the key things for the reasons you're outlining in your book.

These are the erosions that happen in otherwise strong societies as they began to fall. And getting rid of the electoral college is not what it's all about, but it's just saying that the things that it was formed to protect are eroding at rapid pace right now. And that might be a final death knell. It's one of the reasons why we have to pay attention. Some of these principles, again, outlined in Victor's latest book, The End of Everything, How Wars Descend into Annihilation. And right now, Victor, domestically, we're not at war, actual war, but we certainly have profound and important cultural, financial, military, rhetorical wars

that we're fighting all the time. Yeah, I mean, we've never, I don't think people realize we've never done this before. We have never impeached a president twice. We have never tried a president as a private citizen in the Senate once he left office, we have never had states try to remove the leading presidential candidate off the ballot. We've never put the leading presidential candidate in an election year on one party and allowed local and state prosecutors to go after them. And all of it is predicated that the right wouldn't do the same thing. In other words, you wouldn't have a Utah prosecutor who say, you know, somebody mailed in illegal money

to the Biden campaign in Salt Lake, therefore I'm going to indict the people in the Biden campaign here in Salt Lake. Or, you know, once the Republicans got the House, they decided not to impeach Biden in the way they had Trump. Or we haven't seen states take Biden off the ballot. But there's a big discussion among conservatives is that if the left keeps changing the system and trying to do things we've never seen before. And you keep telling them not to do that because it'll come around to them. At what point do you have to do something? And then if you have to do something like in like manner, then are you just tick attack eroding into third world, you know, oblivion. And that's what I think that's a problem that Republicans have. They say

to the Democrats, stop talking about packing the court. Don't allow people to go to Supreme Court justices' homes and threaten them. Schumer, don't go to the Supreme Court and scream and yell. You know, people on the right did criticize January 6th, but they're saying don't take people off the ballot, or we're going to have to do that. Or don't impeach presidents twice, or we're going to have to do that. Don't try to get rid of the filibuster because you're in the majority now. And maybe we should try to get it. But would you like to lose it now that you're in the majority? And so would you want a special counsel going after the Biden family as soon as he leaves office?

Because the Hunter and Jim, Frank Biden, they've all got criminal exposure, much more than Donald Trump. And do they really want to create that system? And they all think, I guess they think, well, we're so morally superior and intellectually keener than the right, Neanderthal right, we get the special exemption. That's who we are. And they don't. They're clingers or they're irredeemables, and they wouldn't dare do what we're doing. And that's why they're so afraid, Megan, if you read lately, when they look at these polls, there's all these articles now that come out about Donald Trump's going to be a dictator. They take, you know, his joke about being a dictator per day. He's going to do this. He's going to do that. Even though he's been there for four years and did nothing of it and did nothing of what they did, but they project on what they would do.

They say to themselves, well, we know what we did to Trump. And if they had done that to us, and we took power, I know what I would do. And therefore, he must think like we do. So he's going to go back and get us the way we would get him if they had done this to us and we had won the election. That's why he's, he's down there in article two. He's not up there in article one and they've, they've grown and grown and grown the presidency. I mean, both sides have done this. I remember, you know, the unitary executive theory under Bush, but these days it's the Democrats were lecturing us about, about Trump wanting to be a dictator as Joe Biden takes out his magic wand and transfers trillions of dollars in debt, as you point out, from the working class or the debt from the rich to the working class without anybody's permission, takes out his magic wand, completely revises Title IX, redefining what a woman is, young women's rights, due process rights

for young men at the point in life where their entire future could be determined. You get expelled from a college for being an alleged rapist, but it turns out your alleged rape victim was just a woman who consented to the interlude but had Sunday morning regrets. That's a life changer. That's not a year changer. That's a life changer. That's not a year changer. It's a life changer. With his magic wand, he took away men's due process rights. So the executive right now is growing and he's at very large levels of power. Joe Biden is with his pen and his phone that he got from Barack Obama. And under those circumstances, we need more checks and balances than ever. We need the Senate to have robust powers like filibusters.

We need the Electoral College. We need something to stop just the rampage of majority rule because it will lead to the breakup of the union. And we've got these 20,000 political appointees. You know, the Heritage Foundation is trying to think of how to vet 20,000 people that Trump, if he were to win, come in this time, he wouldn't be startled during the headlights, but they would have a whole team. and the executive branch. And then you think about all the abuses about the DOJ, Bruce Ohr and the Steele dossier. He was a lifetime member. And then you think of the FBI working with Twitter to censor the laptop disinformation. And then you think, wow, John Brennan was the CIA director.

He lied two times under oath. Nothing happened to him. Andrew McCabe was the FBI director. He lied four times, oath. Nothing happened to him. Andrew McCabe was the FBI director. He lied four times per jury. Nothing happened. James Clapper not only lied, but he said, I gave the least untruthful answer I could think of. So it's almost like these people are judge, jury, and executioner. When they want to go after you, the private citizen, they can cite you or fine you or say you've violated the law and internally, administratively, they can refuse your appeal, then they can level the fine. And your only recourse is to go to court where they have a million times more resources than you do. That was never intended to create these bureaus, like the EPA, for example. We have people out here in this farming area, Megan,

that there's an Inland Water Act that people passed in the legislature, the state and the Senate and the House years ago to make sure that canals and rivers were clean and that there wasn't runoff. But now the EPA thinks, wow, we could extend that theoretically to a low spot on a guy's farm. So when it rained and it drained off for about three or four days before it dried up, we could run out there and test it, see if there's too much nitrogen and then fine it. And they're doing that all the time. It's like the raisin administrative committee.

There's a rate. I know you won't believe this, but it's a former raisin grower. You don't own your raisins. The government does. So if you pick your raisins, your grapes, you put them on the ground, you dry them, and you say, you know what? I don't like the price. I'm going to stack them up in my barnyard and I'm going to have them washed and stemmed on my own little machine.

They will fine you and put you in jail because the government comes in and says we we own those and we're going to determine how many can go on the market and how many either have to be fed to cattle or sold overseas to keep the price high and that was never intended and all of that stuff is we're seeing it in the left now because that you know the press is a watchdog for the right, and the press would never allow the right to do that, but there is no press for the left. you know what? The Atlantic Magazine or Washington Post or NPR, they're always going to be receptive for a phone call or to contextualize what we do. So I don't really have to worry I'm going to get caught. And it's so interesting. This is, I feel like what's great about all of your books and this one too, again, it's called The End of Everything, How Wars Descend Into Annihilation by Victor Davis Hanson is they

take, I feel like on this show, we take large news stories and we try to condense them into small digestible bits that people can manage and their day-to-day news consumption. And you do a great job of the opposite, taking what we're seeing in the country and expanding it beyond, like, where does it, what does it mean? Where's it going next? What's the historical context for what we're seeing? Which is an important piece of understanding the stakes of these everyday news items that we kick around.

I mean, you mentioned the Trump indictments and the four criminal trials against him. And I kicked off the show with the threat by this judge that he could put the former president of the United States in jail any day now. And he says, if Trump violates his clearly unconstitutional gag order, I mean, I just think the gag order is, it's not going to withstand judicial scrutiny, but if Trump violates it again, he's going to put, if you believe the polls, the likely next president, and even this judge acknowledged he might be the next president, into jail.

And there Trump will sit, Victor, day after day, however long the judge says he has to sit there, not going to his trial, not campaigning as a jailbird. Now he's, I guess, I don't know, what do you call him,, jailbird, as he's facing possible prison time for these other cases, this case. I don't know why he didn't. Why didn't he put a gag order on Michael Cohen going, you know, on TikTok trying to raise money and commenting on them? He just threatens. He says if Michael Cohen keeps talking, I might have to expand the gag order i might have to well no i might have to how about john joe biden said at the white house dinner he's got he laughed and said stormy weather that was the president of the united states editorializing on an ongoing criminal case and so you know that's a hard call for donald trump what to do. If you just keep talking and protect your First Amendment

rights, and then you're gagged and put in jail, and what's the shelf life on that? I think the first response would be immediate sympathy, and that would show up in the polls, how outrageous it was. But I think the left thinks, well, you get your little bit of sensationalism, but we're playing the long game. And we're going to do this, you know, all of May, you get your little bit of sensationalism, but we're playing the long game. And we're going to do this, you know, all of May, all of June, all of July, all of August. We're going to bankrupt him. We're going to keep him off the campaign trail. He's going to get busted.

He's going to say crazier and crazier things. And you're going to finally say, make it all go away. I don't want to vote for somebody in jail. That's just not going to reflect. I don't care how it happened. I know it's unfair, but it's going on too long. That's their theory. And they may be right about it. We'll see. around it because that's part of our job here. I have got to show you this bit. I apologize for showing you this bit, Victor, but I must. So this is Lawrence O'Donnell, who hosts a primetime show on MSNBC, who apparently attended the Trump trial last Wednesday and Thursday or Thursday and Friday, And was absolutely gleeful about the fact that Trump looked at him, that Trump made eye contact with him on day one.

So this was his Thursday evening monologue in part. And just just consume it. Take a listen. At 426 p.m. today, Maggie Haberman posted this to The New York Times live update of the Trump. Take a listen. It's at 12. Donald Trump and me in that role. And I have my interpretation of what Donald Trump's face and eyes were trying to say to me and what drove him to create a final moment in the courtroom today that was worthy of New York Times reporting. Boris Epstein was sitting right in front of me and knew I was there. He should have told Donald Trump, when you walk by O'Donnell, don't give him the satisfaction

of making a moment about him. But defendants like Donald Trump always make mistakes in courtrooms. And mistakes are what has landed Donald Trump in criminal courtrooms. Just stand by. Here's part two. OK, the next day he returned to court. Here's part of the monologue from Friday night. I guess because Donald Trump does apparently whatever I tell him to do, he did not glare at me again. I said right here on the program last night that it was a mistake for

him to do that. He shouldn't have done that in such a goofy and public way that Maggie Haberman at the New York Times felt compelled to report it right away. No one in the courtroom had seen Donald Trump do anything like that today. Even though I was sitting in an even more prominent position, he did everything he could possibly do to not look at me within his peripheral vision, because whenever his peripheral vision got close, he immediately twisted it away in the other direction. He just wasn't going to give me that gift again. He made such an effort yesterday to look at me that today's effort, not looking at me, was just as obvious. I don't think he was afraid. I think he just got good advice right here at 10 p.m. last night.

Oh, my God, Victor. p.m. last night. The hubris, the hubris that Donald Trump is sitting there thinking for 10 seconds or two about Lawrence O'Donnell. Donald Trump is looking around and if he did notice him, he said, who in the hell is that guy? I have no idea who he is. And he knows that. I mean, he's he has a very small audience. Nobody knows who he is. And he knows that. I mean, he has a very small audience. Nobody knows who he is. And yet he tries to quantify the precise time at this time and 10 o'clock as if he's... And then when he quotes the New York Times, a reporter... Everybody knows what the record of the New York Times has been, especially in relation to Donald Trump. They were the ones that told us that the Steele dossier was Russian collusion, that the laptop was Russian disinformation. They told us about the bank being, they're notorious for lying on any context that has to do with

Donald Trump. They despise him and they want Joe Biden to be elected. So Donald Trump doesn't, he doesn't even know who the guy is. And yet it's really, you know, Nicole Wallace was kind of the same way. She said, if Trump is elected, people like me won't be on the air. No, they don't care about you. You people are, they're such narcissists. They think they're so important because they're actually left-wing and unintelligent. Who cares?

Nobody cares. And I don't think Donald amazing but his life depended on it he wouldn't know he was he would not know who to see his name lawrence o'donnell in the new york times that they wrote about me me he for the listening audience he spotlighted his own face in the trump courthouse audience way the hell behind donald. Like I was there. He, I swear he was looking at me. I matter. This is what's so pathetic about the modern day press corps. That's to a T they make it all about themselves. And then another clip in that same monologue, one of those nights, he said that he's sure Donald Trump is watching the Lawrence O'Donnell show.

He's been known to watch it and then he's watching. Okay is watching the Lawrence O'Donnell show. He's been known to watch it and then he's watching. Okay. That's not happening. No, no, no one's watching that show. No, no. Maybe Maggie Haberman of the New York times. So then substantively what happened last week was a hope hits Hicks took the stand long time, um, campaign PR person and representative of Donald Trump when he was running and when he was in the White House. And she gave testimony. She was compelled to give testimony by the prosecution. And she said that she does think she does recall Trump acknowledging that Cohen had made this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. So that's something that the prosecution

is trying to prove that Trump knew about it. My own take is it doesn't matter, but the defense is, I guess, going to argue this. But then she also said she thinks the reason that Trump was worried about these women coming forward was, yeah, the campaign a little, but much more so Melania. He cares very much what Melania thinks. This is, the defense is going to say, see, the payments had a dual purpose and therefore they weren't a campaign expenditure. The real argument should be, it doesn't matter what was in Trump's head. The only thing that matters is what the nature of the payment is. Is the nature of the payment such that it can only ever be a campaign expense, like a polling fee, or is the nature of the payment something that could possibly be something other than a campaign expenditure?

And this particular payment falls into category two, which means it's not a campaign finance violation. Anyway, they're proceeding with this myth that we have to get into the purpose and Donald Trump's motivation. Both sides are proceeding with it because of the judge's rulings. And Hope Hicks talked about how he was worried about Melania. Well, the left wing freak out over the fact that when Hope Hicks ended her campaign or her direct exam with the prosecution and the defense lawyer stood up and started asking her some biographical background, like how long did you work for the Trump organization? She cried. She broke down for a moment in tears and they took a short break. Now, I don't know why Hope Hicks cried, but I imagine it's very stressful to get up there and testify against your former boss, the president of the United States. And you

don't want to be there. You've been forced by a prosecutor you probably believe is unfair. And you don't want to be in the spotlight like this. She never gives interviews. She doesn't go on TV. This is not somebody who wants the spotlight. I'm sure it was stressful. Whatever. Here's some of the armchair analysis we got. Take a listen to earlier on MSNBC, Ari Melber and his take. She said she was nervous today from the stand. She answered the questions confirming she's under subpoena. She's paying for her own lawyer. And in a moment that does matter for a jury, this is still a human exercise. Hope Hicks broke down crying on the stand at one point.

It was apparently, best we can tell and from the reporters in the room and the wider context we have, a genuine display of emotion for her as she felt the weight of this moment, the raw pressure of testifying about her longtime boss, and maybe the details were tough for her to share in this manner. Now she goes on, he goes on from there to discuss on his show about how, you know, bringing up that time of like when she was working for Trump was just so emotional for her, you know, like, oh, the better days, the good old days. Like, how the hell does anybody know? They tried to do it. Andrew Weissman was up there. It was the exclamation point. It was the icing on the cake, her raw emotion. It was like, OK, calm down. Testifying is a

stressful situation. Everyone wanted to use it for their own purposes against her. And the final comment on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, which I watched so you don't have to, was I don't care why she cried. I don't care. Did she cry on January 6th? Did she cry for the immigrants and the families who were separated by Donald Trump during his administration? I don't care why she cried if she didn't cry for them. Yeah, she she might. She could have just as easily cried than the fact that she liked Donald Trump. And she was subpoenaed to testify by an attorney who was going to try to warp and change and extract any type of meaning that would be unfavorable to Donald Trump. And she knew she was in that position where she had to testify

and she was trying to tell the truth and she saw the truth and she understood that everything she said would be used against someone whom she didn't feel had done anything wrong and she didn't want to come forward because he hadn't done anything wrong. That's kind of a stressful situation. But, you know, we get back to the equal application of law. Hillary Clinton hired the DNC to pay the Perkins Coie law firm to pay Fusion GPS, to pay Christopher Steele, who was a British subject, a foreign national who was forbidden by statute to work for a presidential campaign to collect a false dossier and seed it. And then she wrote that whole thing off, not as a campaign expense, but as a legal expense. And the Federal Commission overseeing elections

fined her over $100,000. But they could have easily said it was a criminal statute like Alvin Bragg. But if Donald Trump had said that he said it was a campaign, they're arguing he said it was a legal expense when he should have said it was a campaign. If he had said it was a campaign, they would have prosecuted him and said, no, it wasn't. It was a legal expense to cushion. It was just they know what they're doing. And, you know, this thing is like the E. Jean Carroll case. They passed a special bill in the legislature to waive the statute of

limitation. So she had one year to file. Otherwise, it was way past the statute of limitation. This thing, they had to gen up these misdemeanors to a felony federal offense, what the federal attorneys didn't think was worth pursuing because it wasn't really a federal offense. And therefore, they got around the statute of limitations. And then even that wasn't enough. By energizing it into a felony, they had to call on COVID and say, well, COVID gives an extra year. So all of these things would never have been leveled, not just against the Democrat.

They would have never been leveled against Donald Trump. He would have never been indicted if he just said, I'm tired. I'm not going to run again. They wouldn't have indicted him. They know that. It's all about politics. Yeah, it is. And they know it. And then you listen to, I mean, again, back to Lawrence O'Donnell, his biggest complaint against Hope Hicks, again, was that she didn't quit earlier. But she goes, he goes on to put out out she didn't need either of these jobs. She was born rich in Connecticut. She could have tried to do something more worthy with her life. And he says, we have a monster in the presidency, not because of Donald Trump, but because of people who voted for Donald Trump and some people who worked for his campaign.

What is Lawrence O'Donnell saying then that when all of the Republicans for the last 50 years have tried to get Hispanics and black voters and poor white voters and John McCain couldn't do it, Bob Dole couldn't do it, George H.W. Bush couldn't do it. George W. did a little bit, but couldn't really do it. John McCain couldn't do it. Mitt Romney couldn't. So this supposedly monstrous person says, we, we, us, us, our farmers, I love Latinos, I want to help people, I'm going to prevent Chinese. Whatever you think of him, he created a nationalist populist movement within this so-called caricatured aristocratic party. And he's taken the entire white working class away from the Democrats. They don't have any of them. And he's now appealing to about 20% of the black constituency, African-Americans, and he may be almost even with Latinos. So how is that possible in the mind of Lawrence O'Donnell? How could that be? If he's appealing to poor people and middle class people, while Lawrence O'Donnell's party, if you look at who votes Democratic, they're two constituencies. They're people in the higher zip codes and the donor classes,

the billionaire class of the Democrats. And they're the very subsidized poor. But the middle classes are going for a guy that he thinks is a monster, but he won't tell us why they're voting for this monster. And he knows why. Because he's an elitist and he's alienated people with these elite issues like an open border and transgenderism and banning gasoline, all of that crazy stuff. Well, beyond Afghanistan and the locks of deterrence and the inflation and printing money a trillion dollars every three months. Well, he knows that he wants us to believe he's horrified by the fact

that she was, quote, born rich, even though I'm sure he's got kids. They were born rich. He's rich. His party is no longer the party of the working class at all. They are the party of the rich. And yet he wants to save a little special disdain for Hope Hicks because she was born rich and worked for a monster.

Stand by. He's got a quick break. Check out his book while we go to break to the end of everything. I had Kristi Noem, Fannie Willis back in the news and college craziness.

As we're on the topic of Trump trials, guess who spoke out this weekend for the first time? Nathan Wade in an interesting move because he had apparently agreed to sit down with Kristen Welker of NBC. He, he bailed on her and embarrassed NBC and showed up a couple of six weeks later on ABC where he sat and was asked precisely zero difficult questions. I mean, zero. Um, I will give you one exchange that I thought was of particular note to me in particular. Here it is, Deb. Run that sound bite we just talked about. So you didn't realize when you took the case, your life was really going to be under a microscope. I did not realize that my life would be in danger. The microscope, I don't have a problem with. The truth is, you know, if the worst that you could find was the fact that I had a relationship with someone or that I happened

to be going through a divorce, that's okay. That's okay. I have nothing to hide. Now, a responsible journalist would follow up with, well, that wasn't the worst that we found. What we actually found was that you perjured yourself, both in your divorce case and in this case, where the judge found you told a story that smacked with the odor of mendacity, where he was obviously deeply distressed at your ethical choices. And by the way, why did you do that? Why did you say under oath in your divorce proceedings that you were not having an extramarital affair when you clearly were? Was that not an inappropriate ethical lapse? Why did you testify in your affidavit that she always paid cash for everything when that seems to be patently untrue. Why, sir, did you go over to her house from 12 a.m. to 4 a.m. and then try to tell the court that it was because there was a Porsche dealership nearby?

Those are some things that you might feel some shame about, not just your extramarital affair, which you claim began while you were separated, but you were still with your wife when it was underway. So those are some of the things an interested reporter, you know, somebody who's open-minded to actual facts, Victor might've asked of Nathan Wade didn't happen. Yeah. I would have asked him what in your background made you qualified to prosecute the most important case, probably in the United States at the time when you've never tried a felony or criminal case in your life. What recommended you to Fannie Willis?

It wasn't your judicial experience. And what did you talk to when you went to the White House? And why did you bill the Georgia District Attorney's Office for 24 straight hours of legal service? And I think you bill them and correct me, you should ask me if that's wrong, that you bill the time you were in the white house soliciting apparently counsel from the white house counsel's office. So there, you know,

it's that whole, I don't think, I think that one, that particular gambit won't work. I think it's too it's too far gone now, tainted. And at some point they're going to have to shut it down because of both of them in that record. And maybe if it ever had to change. He disagrees entirely. She did. She asked him about criticism from the left, of course, like The Washington Post, that that this was reckless, that they imperiled a very important case. And that's why the left is mad at Nathan Wade. Here's what he said at SOT20. Do you think that you've done any kind of damage to this case?

None at all. Even the public perception of it? There again, this takes me back to the initial statement that I made. My private life became the focal point of the case. My private life has nothing to do with the merits of that prosecution. Quick follow-up, SOT19, take a listen. Workplace romances are as American as apple pie. It happens to everyone. Apple pie.

But it happened to the two of us. Do you regret that thing? I regret that that private matter became the focal point of this very important prosecution. This is a very important case. I hate that my personal life has begun to overshadow the true issues in the case. It's unbelievable how, like, just... Why this became an issue is not because you happen to find love while prosecuting Trump.

It's the fact that you were hired by your boss. Fannie Willis is the person who was in charge ultimately of bringing you in of your paychecks, which she just rubber stamped when she was in the office. She paid you more than she paid the other two special prosecutors who are brought in, despite as Victor points out, you not having the same qualifications to try a massive RICO case against a former president of the United States. And then you took her all over the world on the taxpayers dollar, thus creating an incentive for the two of you to keep the case going, to indict the case because the romance was happening before the indictment came down and then to keep the case going, none of which was pressed in the interview by someone who was supposed to be a member of the press corps. Yeah, I mean, the basic question is he knows that when he says it was all about his personal life is that in any courtroom, if a member of

the prosecuting attorney's legal staff lies under oath pertinent to the case, and he did when he denied that relationship, then how can they, with any credibility, press a case and have the defendant expect to be telling the truth and put the defendant on her oath when their own staff is lying under oath? So the case should have been dismissed. And I think no other county that was removed would ever try him. And they know that. So I think all of these, all of these things, I think the left knows that they're all going to eventually be thrown out on appeal, maybe at the federal level or maybe at the Supreme Court.

But they don't care because they feel they're doing damage right now. And all they want is Trump tied up, money going out of his campaign, his pocket, getting him angry psychologically, physically, wearing him down. And then if we learn after the election that they were all fraudulent and just a joke, they'll think that's, you know, it's it's kind of like Harry Reid when he lied about Mitt Romney's not paying his taxes and said it worked, didn't it? When that's the attitude to me, Victor, it's it's infuriating because to watch a member of the press completely fall down on the job and not ask any difficult questions of the guy, it makes my skin crawl. She should have gone in there with his interrogatory and she would she should have said you lied under oath. This is a sworn document. You're an officer of the court. You lied when asked for any receipts or any documents whatsoever that might show any travel with a woman other than your wife during

a set period of dates. Didn't have to be while you were happily married. It was any time prior to the divorce. That would have included periods of separation. In fact, they were specific on that because his excuse on the stand was, well, we were separated. It included specifically while you were separated. You were required to say what you had done during that period, too, with a woman other than your wife. You lied and you said there were none, that no expenses had been paid, that no trips had been taken, that there was no time between you and a woman, not your wife. That's what you said under oath. And only when that became an issue in the second proceeding that you have against Trump, did you go back to your sworn interrogatory answers and change your answer to quote, amend your answer to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, which is against self-incrimination.

But when asked about it on the stand, you tried to say, oh, that's not the privilege I was trying to raise. I was trying to raise a privacy privilege, which is made up, sir. Why did you do that? Didn't you violate your duty of candor to the court and to your constituency? It's not that hard. Use your brain. Do some research. I just wrote it for you. If anybody else gets a shot at Nathan Wade, do it. If you have any suffering, it's so infuriating. This is why we never make progress. People like this get away with it. Why didn't the judge, though, throw it out? Everybody said he was sober and judicious and he was a model of, it was spineless.

And the same thing with Jean Carroll. She said that she couldn't remember if it was 94, 95, or 96, but she did remember it happened because she had a designer dress, which we now know didn't exist at the time of her accusation. So all the judges in all of these cases, it's really my mother was a she was the second female appellate court judge in California. And the first almost the first at the same time, two women were appointed Fresno County Superior Court. And so I grew up, you know, she had judges. She had them socially over and we had an enormous respect for judges. And I've lost that respect watching this, this circus now,

because all of these judges, the judge in the Carroll case, the judge in the Latita James case in Goron, hamming it up to the cameras, the judge in the Latita James case in Guarong, hamming it up to the cameras, this judge, they're all political. And it's not even a trial, it's a circus. And I think, you know, I wish Donald Trump would find a strategy that he could show that it's a circus without tweeting and getting himself in jail. But I'm not sure he can. I don't know what else you're supposed to do except sit there and watch the circus proceed.

And you can't do that if you're running for president. Well, something interesting is happening to not a Donald Trump prosecutor, but one of these woke left-wing prosecutors who's tried to make her mission in office more about letting people out of jail and putting cops into it than finding actual bad guys. And that's Marilyn Mosby. She was the prosecutor in Baltimore during the whole Freddie Gray situation, who for the listening audience, if you're not aware, this is a black man who was killed in his so-called allegedly rough ride by cops who they claimed cops intentionally killed the guy by giving him a rough ride in the back of one of those police vans where he got knocked around and broke his spine and died. And the cops were all acquitted or had hung juries, all of them.

And she was the woman behind the prosecution. She was the one stirring up anger. She allowed the cops to get pelted with bottles and rocks while they were trying to keep the streets of Baltimore safe. She fanned the fires of rage and outrage in the wake of Freddie Gray's death, as opposed to just calming things down and saying, let's wait, let's tell all the facts play out, which did not back the story that the cops did anything wrong. Instead, she tried to be like one of these college professors on the Columbia campus, Victor, and make herself part of the drama. I too hate the cops. I too think this is my moment. And we have a little bit of that from back in the day. I think it was 15 when the Freddie Gray situation happened in Baltimore. Here's the throwback to the past. To the youth of this city, I will seek justice

on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. And as young people, our time is now. Yeah, 2015. This is our moment. And our time is now. Well, you know what happened to Marilyn Mosby? She got convicted not once but twice, two guilty verdicts in two separate trials, two counts of perjury and a single count of mortgage fraud. Why? Because during COVID, she decided it might be a really nice time to get a property in Florida. And she lied, says the court and the jury, to say that she had suffered an adverse financial consequence during the COVID pandemic shutdown, which allowed her to withdraw $90,000 from her retirement account thanks to a provision in the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act,

or the CARES Act. And it was a lie. It wasn't true. She was making bank back then. She was having no financial problems as a result of COVID. She had gotten her full salary, which was $248,000 a year. She was doing just fine. She just wanted property in Florida. And she bought not one, but two vacation homes there at the time. One withdrawal was for 40 grand. The other was for 50 grand. And she got her two vacation homes. We're not allowed to do that. That's illegal. So she got tried and then she got tried for perjury and she was convicted. Well, guess what? This is the piece de resistance in the story. Now there's an online petition to pardon her, asking Biden to pardon. And guess who's behind it? Andrew Gillum, the disgraced guy who ran for governor against Ron DeSantis.

Tiffany Cross, the fired. She was too racist even for MSNBC, the fired racist MSNBC ex-host. And Angela Rye, who is from CNN and has made her podcast with these other two all about race and how bad America is. And they're not the only ones pushing for a pardon. Ms. Mosby went on Joy Reid's show playing the victim and saying, Victor, if they can do this to Marilyn Mosby, they can do this to anyone. Take a listen. I've done absolutely nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing criminal. I noticed a petition asking President Biden to pardon you. Is that what you want? I mean, I think that that's appropriate. I mean, I think I don't believe that I know that I've done absolutely nothing wrong, nothing criminal. I want this justice system that I fought so hard to equalize and to balance the skills of justice where the business model is based off the backs of black and brown people.

For the people that I fought for to understand and recognize that I need them to fight for me. They can do this to Marilyn Mosby, who had the audacity to challenge the status quo. They can do this to anybody. I'll give you one little additional detail and then I'll give you the floor. The highlights from the petition to get her a pardon from those three and their podcast and getting all sorts of signatures now in support of a pardon for her. They allege that she should be pardoned because this Department of Justice is trying to make an example of Marilyn Mosby because, quote, we all know the system wants to send a clear message to young lawyers and progressive prosecutors like Aramis Ayala, Kim Fox, Kim Gardner and countless others that there are consequences for attempting to balance the scales of justice. So Biden's DOJ under this theory is trying to target the Marilyn Mosby's

and Kim Fox's of the world because they're trying to balance the scales of justice. Got it? Yeah, I think I do. I think we're not supposed to talk about race, but all of these people, as Fannie Willis did, went to a church, they talk about race nonstop and it's all predicated. And remember the Jussie Smollett, that Kim Fox in Chicago. That was Kim Fox. And she let it go. Yeah. And so there is a record that all of these prosecutors, Letitia James campaigned on getting Donald Trump,

so did Fannie Willis, so did Alvin Bragg. And then when they get into trouble, they either campaign about race or they go to a black church. And then everybody's supposed to say, we're not going to mention race. But since they bring it up, there's something wrong with a particular profile of young black women who are prosecutors, who are injecting race, race. And Jussie Smollett, Kim Fox, was communicating with the staff of Michelle Obama, as I remember. And they're prejudicing their cases in a racial fashion. And it brings up a larger question. It's not all about race, because we have George Gascon in Los Angeles.

We had Chasey Boudin in San Francisco. There's a lot of white Latino prosecutors, but it really brings up the question of what these law schools are doing. They're training people in critical race theory, critical legal theory, this Jacobin ideology that the law is fluid. And then if you are left wing or you're progressive or you're DEI, then you deserve exemptions. And any time, you know, in history or any culture, when you take a particular group, tribal group, defined by their religion or their ethnic background or their race or their gender, and you say to them, you're protected because of whatever reason, past history or recompense that we need to pay you back or reparatory action, whatever the reason is, then there's no deterrence. And so all of these prosecutors find themselves in legal problems or ethical problems.

And the subtext is they all believe that no one is going to hold them accountable because they will go play the race card and you know it's i'm not saying that a white conservative prosecutor is any more intelligent any more uh moral any more ethical but there's less likelihood that they will find that they're exempt. In other words, they know that if they do something wrong, they will be held more accountable. And it's so ironic because what we're watching is the flip side of the Jim Crow South, where in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, if you were a white prosecutor and you were dealing with any matter in your jurisdiction, especially with African-American, you could do almost anything and get an exemption, especially if you misused the court or you lied, if it was a matter of race. And here we are now, had just completely gone 360 and are using the same paradigm, but mirror imaging. And we're telling these African-American prosecutors that we're not going to hold you accountable for ethical behavior. And you can play the race card whenever you're an extremist and we don't dare

mention it. And, you know, that's what empowers them. They feel as she did, she didn't mention, she didn't say once on that interview, Joy, here's the case. Here's the two condos I bought. Here was the money I got. Here's where I got the money. And here's where I was losing money. So I was eligible for this government benefit. Just like Nathan Wade said, this is the charge against me. I perjured myself, but I want to explain to you why I didn't perjure myself. And here's the evidence. They never do that.

They never do that. I would never give anything to sit across from Nathan Wade and say, can I see your text with Fannie Willis from 2021? Can you show me your phone right now? Like, you weren't expecting this. Would you mind pulling them up right now? Let's go to 2021. Let's see.

Let's see whether there were any loving texts. Just, just you know show it to me if there was nothing of course he never would and no no interviewer would ever do such a thing it's just so infuriating and god only i mean i just don't see if biden pardons this woman there there's just no way he can do that she's i think he might well because i think he's feeling that. She got cut red-handed. I know, but he's losing. Because he has lost so many of these constituencies, the white, democratic, lunch bucket, old, middle class, working class, it's such a degree. And he's bleeding with both Asians and Latinos. He's going to have to do something with the black community. And look what he's done already. To the Ukrainians, he said, do not attack Russian oil refineries, because we want the price of gas to be low during the election.

To students, he said, we're going to give you this and this and this so that you'll vote for us. And he's pandering to each one of these constituencies. And he doesn't look at us as Americans. He looks at us as each little mosaic and kind of each little tessera is a piece of my mosaic. And I'm going to deal with these guys and these guys and these guys. Title IX for this group, transgendered for this, cheaper gas for the commuters, my students I'm going to pander to by forgiving loans, and the Palestinians and radical Islam I'm going to be, on the one hand, on the other, anti-Semitic, but

Islamophobic, even though there's no evidence that it really exists on campuses. And that's how he looks at politics. but Islamophobic, even though there's no evidence that it really exists on campuses. And that's how he looks at politics. And I think he will seriously consider whether to, it depends, it only depends on what the black community in politics sees as an important issue. If they go to him and say, she's very popular, this would be a good token, then he'd do it. If they go and say to her, well, she's kind of crazy, don't worry about it, he won't. But it's not going to be based on the facts or the morality. It's going to be based on sheer political utility.

We kick this off by discussing people like Mosby who want to make herself part of the story, like she did after Freddie Gray. And that's gone on for a while now, including after Ferguson, which was right around the time of Freddie Gray and Michael Brown. I remember covering this on Fox, and I believe it was Columbia Law where the students asked to not have to take their finals because they could not function in the face of such extreme emotional distress. Do you have any idea what lawyers do? Any clue whatsoever? Well, they're at it again. Columbia students right now, law students pushing to cancel all exams. Student editors at the

Columbia Law Review are urging the law school to cancel tests or at least make all courses pass fail. Highlights from their statement. We urge the law school to cancel exams and give all students passing grades. The violence we witnessed last night has irrevocably shaken many of us, left us and many of our peers unable to focus and highly emotional during this tumultuous time. I've got news for you. The law is not for you. Pick a different profession. You know, maybe like gardening. It can be mildly frustrating, but in general, stress-free. You should not be lawyers. If you cannot function or focus because you're too highly emotional after some protests, you're going to be dealing with murderers and child molesters.

If you do criminal law, fraudsters who have completely bankrupted people. If you go into the more white collar, if you want to do civil litigation like I did, you could be talking about people who are dead in a product's liability case. You could be talking about 30,000 people losing their job if you fail to argue this motion successfully. If you cannot function because you're a little stressed out, you're going to be a shitty lawyer. Find a different job. It's not about canceling your exam. They go on to say this follows the growing distress that many of us have felt for months. Our students are not well on that. I agree with them. Victor, this is so pathetic. One thing that I like, I don't like it, but we have got moral clarity about all these demonstrations. They've just blown up a lot of the left's charades.

We've known, anybody who's been in the so-called elite campuses has known for years that they're mediocre. At Stanford, where I work, they let in only 20% of the student body is so-called white. That's not important, but it is important that they threw out the SAT and they don't rate comparative GPAs to achieve that. And so they are letting in students who, by their own definition, cannot do the work that they themselves used to require because they were in competition with other universities and said, we're preeminent. Now, what are they doing?

They're giving 60 to 80 percent A's at all these campuses. They're watering down the courses and half the workload or they're introducing new courses. And then they're creating these helicopter privileged helicopter parented students. And everybody's watching us. And they're thinking, wow, these kids tore up the Portland State Library. They were like animals. They destroyed it. Wow, did you see what they did at USC and UCLA? They made a mess. It's worse than a homeless camp.

And then you know who has to clean it up? All these poor maintenance people. And they left up a janitor at Columbia. And there's all these poor middle-class policemen that they spit in. And then there's Byron Donalds come here and they call him Uncle Tom and a traitor this Middle Eastern students. And they shout, you know, go back to Poland or the final solution. We don't like these people. They're spoiled. I think the Americans are concluding that they're spoiled. We don't like these administrators and presidents that won't stop it. And they're scared. And we understand why it continues, because the faculty, the president,

the blue state city council, the blue city mayor, the blue state governor, they all agree with the agendas of these left-wing students. And that's been really a lot of moral clarity. A lot of it is we always were told, you can be against Israel, but you're not anti-Semitic. They're showing you that they're one and the same. Every time they try to rough up a Jewish kid or chase him into the library, they never say, right, before we do this, you look Jewish to us. Could I ask you if you support Israel or not? They don't. And the same thing about, well, we're for Palestine, but we're not for terrorists like Hamas.

They are. They're the same. Their flags are there. They have Hezbollah banners. And another myth that they blew up is, oh, the Democratic Party has this base, the kind of crazy base, you know, transgendered issues, open borders, the squad, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the Black Caucus. But this is not the, they're one and the same. Joe Biden cannot open his mouth about any of this without saying Islamophobia. He cannot just say this is an anti-Semitic. This is what the Democratic Party is in total. And Joe Biden, to the degree he knows he's there, the people around him, his wife and the Obama advisors, this party now is completely Jacobin left wing. And there is no base. And then maybe there's a Fetterman or two, but that's it. And that party is committed to open borders. They're committed to these demonstrations. They are anti-Semitic.

They do not like Israel. They rejuvenated Iran by design. And that's who they are. And I think American people are seeing that today. And the longer this goes on, it's going to hurt them. The exchange between the protesters at SUNY New Paltz and the head of the school there, it was infuriating. It reminded me of what happened at Evergreen in Washington state. The smugness of these protesters as though they hold all the cards and the capitulation of the head of school who was coming at it from the same angle. Like he has no negotiating power and they're completely in charge. It again makes my skin crawl. Here it is a bit in SOT3.

This isn't ending until our demands are met. We don't control the contract pieces the way you laid it out. But it's our money. We are giving you this money. And so we are paying your bills. We are paying your paychecks. It is your responsibility, President Wheeler. It is your responsibility to figure it out. What I would like to do is to be able to work with you to bring your concerns to the places where they can make an impact. You can come here, come back with what they say. There's a card with the demands on it. You can take it to your people.

I hear what you're saying and I also have to say that I would rather that this not escalate the way other campuses, because you all have done a phenomenal job. That's up to you. That is your responsibility. A meditation will come from the police. Good. I hope they like, I hope that gentleman gets it.

He likes this because he's going to get a whole lot more of it. And so too will Northwestern, Rutgers, University of Minnesota, all of whom have caved to the demands of the protesters. They're all on bended knee begging for these students to forgive them for being so awful in their alleged support of Israel. They're creating things like an Arab culture center at Rutgers, a department of Palestinian studies. And on it goes. They they're not fighting them. They're like, you know what? You're right about everything. Take over our campus. And here's goes. They they're not fighting them. They're like, you know what, you're right about everything. Take over our campus. And here's our new Arab center. Yeah. And all all he had to say was, I want to remind you, it's not your money. You pay tuition,

which is a fraction of our expenses. Here's where the money goes and comes from. It comes from the taxpayer. They give us tax-free income on our endowments. They subsidize your student loans to the tune of $1.7 trillion. They give us massive federal grants. The endowment, such as it is at these schools, comes from alumni who give money. That was their money. And without it, you wouldn't be here. You are subsidized in every aspect. You think it's expensive? It would be twice as expensive. And he could easily say that. All you have to do is, we're just looking for one person who says, Ben Sasse was really good when he said, no, we're not going to do that at the University of Florida. And they would fold. You just have to say, we saw that with the Arizona State Union young woman

who was kicked out, and she broke into tears and sobbed. I can't believe this is happening to me. This generation is, they're hothouse plants, and they need to be exposed to the real weather. And I think it's, you know, I really, I know this sounds crazy, but I really do believe after being on the Stanford campus and watching Harvard and Yale and Princeton and Columbia, they are going the way of Bud Light, CNN, Target, and Disney. They don't know it because we're in the, you can't stand out and say, but a lot of people are not going to send their kids

there and they're going to lower their standards to get more people to come in because the top students will not go there. Employers will say, if I hire that graduate, they won't know how to analyze. They won't be skilled in composition or oral fluency. They won't be mathematically confident, but they will go to human resources the day they get here. And I don't want those, I don't want those people in my, in my company. And I think that's going to happen. And they're destroying their brand. It's amazing as you watch these students, every time we see one speak up, like in that last video, it's very clear there's somebody who's very gender confused leading the charge there. I don't know what it was, is it a he or a she or what they go by. But Joseph Massey, our favorite poet,

he was calling them Osama non-binary. And that's exactly right. When you look at these videos, Osama non-binary would really want us to offer more support for Hamas. And we're listening. These university presidents are listening. We've got to talk about what's happening at the University of Chicago and the demands, not only for goggles and alleged like gauze to bind their wounds, but HIV tests, plan B. And I'll tell you the third most outrageous thing when we come back after a quick, quick, quick, quick break. Don't go away. More with VDH. Don't forget to buy his brand new book right now. Go do it now. The end of everything. Okay. Be right back. Okay. So University of Chicago, I mentioned in the tease, Victor, these students have updated their supply needs where they're continuing to protest there. As I

mentioned, they want goggles. They want medical tents. They want tables. They want HIV tests. They want plan B. I guess they're having a lot of sex there. They have to figure out whether anybody got pregnant and abort their babies while they're sitting there. And they want dental dams. Dental dams.

Because they're having a lot of oral sex, too, which they want the public to fund. You can't make this up i mean you would think they would say well we want gloves and plastic bags and garbage bags and bins so that we can clean up after ourselves and we can be live in a hygienic healthy place and not damage our own nest our university but instead it's how can we satisfy the base in our base appetites it's you know it just gets back to that original thing we were talking about right before the break these are not normal students this generation these are the results of an affluent leisured society that told them morality ethics does not count've got to get a cattle brand on your back that says Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and you've got to be launched onto your trajectory

and your title and letters after your name, your salary, your zip code. That's all that's going to matter. And it comes from the parents as well. And the faculty, they're not really adults, Megan. The faculty are just big students, adult students. They went out into graduate school. They went to these types of schools, elite schools. They went to their graduate school. They went right back into academia. They've never worked at 7-Eleven. They've never tried to drive a semi. They're not out in the real world. They're not in the corporate world. They're not in private enterprise. They don't know anything other than tenure. And they can always whine and cry and somebody will listen to their stories. They're neurotic. They're narcissistic as a group.

Not everybody, but as a group, they are. And now we're seeing it's like a scab. We tore it off October 7th and what followed tore off the scab. And what we saw for the first time for many people is a very putrid wound underneath. And, you know, at least when May 20th, June 20th, July 20th, all of that mess, Joe Biden kept saying Donald Trump is to be blamed. Donald Trump is to be blamed. It's on his watch. But Trump was in the opposition party or the opposition ideology to that, and he wanted to stop it. It hurt him nevertheless. But this time, Joe Biden is a Democratic incumbent president, and these people are people on his left

or Democrats. So it's even worse. It's like Humphrey in the 1968 student protest. I mean, the protest against the opposite party, people expect. But when you're in the same league with these people, and you can't stop it, or you won't stop it, it really hurts you. And I think that's one reason why he's dipping in the polls the last two weeks. The scene of these people, they're not very sympathetic, kind people, and people do not want to associate with them. They really don't like them. It's amazing to hear that. The ones at Princeton saying that they're going on a hunger strike,

they're not going to eat anything, they're not going to drink any water. But you can support them if you just want to have a 24-hour fast too, if the hunger strike is too much for you. Let's face it. We all know they're not going to hunger strike if they're going to be fine. It's a joke. And these people over here want us to really feel for them while they're, I mean, it's interesting to figure out their priorities. They're not asking for condoms. So they're, but they, so they just want like the after effect things like, okay, if I get HIV from all the sex I'm having, I need a test for it.

I need the plan B pill so I can, I can abort my baby that I may conceive here while I'm having all the unprotected sex. But if there's oral sex, I do want a dental dam, which it's been a long time since I've understood what that is, but, uh, I guess they don't want like HPV that you might get from oral sex. So that HPV they're like, that's where they draw the line. HIV might as well give it a shot and then just test for it after. I mean, look, who are these people and where are they finding the privacy or the time to do all these things? I, I don't know. Um, by the way, I don't know where they get their Instagram account, these university of Chicago people. And, um, from a recent post, they, they added tips from BLM on how to protest. One of the most important, if you are white, put your body between those who aren't and

cops who may arrive. OK, so the white bodies need to protect the black bodies if the evil cops show. I mean, the same themes right through all of these protests. Same what we read. I mean, the Politico had a big article on how this is Soros and Rockefeller and Gates funding the organization that's funding a lot of these protests. It's like, you're right. This is a capture by the left. And we're just seeing their little soldiers having all their sex, which I doubt because they're not attractive on these campuses.

You know, I think it's really a wake up call to traditional people and conservative people, maybe Republican people, that their attitude so far when they saw Take a Knee or what happened with the Oscars or any of this stuff in the popular culture, they just said, I'm done. I don't go to first run movies. I don't go to Tonys. I don't go to Oscars. I haven't watched an NBA playoff. I don't want to watch the Take the Knee stuff. I'm done.

I don't listen to NPR. I don't, you know, i don't you know i don't watch pbs anymore i don't watch but i don't think that's enough that that monastery of the mind just to to vacate because these people don't want to let you go they'll find you they want it they've taken over all these columbia used to have my dental day. Yes. Columbia was famous. Jacques Barzon and all of these, even Lionel Trillian, all these wonderful scholars. It was famous for their Western Civ and Great Books program. And they've destroyed it.

Yale was famous for their great strategy program. Don Kagan, all these great scholars i get really upset because we just let these people these vandals come in and hijack all of these wonderful institutions that they control now and our attitude has been okay write them off uh i'm going to tennessee blue mountain hill you know blue ridge mountains or something and just get away from this and i can understand that but we can't all do that we've got to start start fighting back and being blunt with them and not worrying about when they call you, you know, racist, homophobic, whatever the term is. You just have to be blunt with them because they are in the minority. And I think still, even at this late date, when you look at the polls on Biden's agenda, none of the issues from crime to energy to foreign policy to to the border poll, 51 percent.

And so you're right. We lost something like the loss. We lost the loss of Harvard and Yale and Columbia, Princeton. Like that matters. They used to be great institutions that we were super proud of. They did. But you could get a great education in the classics. No longer. No. And why did we just say, OK, it's fine to have Columbia has one third of all the students are foreign students.

Did we audit them? Does Columbia determine who gets a student visa? Did anybody say before you get a student visa? That's a real stat. Yeah, let's go look. Just to underscore that, Victor, one third of the kids, the students at Columbia are from other nations. They're here on student visas, not even American students. Go ahead. It is. And almost all of them are from illiberal regimes or from places like China. They're from places like Egypt, Jordan,

the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Iraq. And we never say anything about it. And then they come over here, and for the first time, they use our freedoms to protest against their magnanimous host. And they know that if they were to do the same thing, go back, if they had purple hair, and there were transgendered or gay, openly, they'd be killed in Gaza. They'd be killed in the West Bank. They would be killed in Syria. They'd be killed in the West Bank. They would be killed in Syria. They'd be put in jail in Egypt. If they demonstrated against the government, they would be hounded out. Their family would be hounded out. And so it's so funny, especially in the case of women, because they don't protest in the Middle East. They have a

secondary status. They come over here, and rather than enjoying the freedom and giving a little bit of credit to their host who said, you know what, I don't have biases against foreign students. If you meet our criteria, welcome the world in. Rather than saying, wow, that is really weird. Russia doesn't do that. China doesn't do that. Or in the countries that do, don't have the wherewithal to give me this beautiful dorm and this food and this class. And I'm going to repay all that by what? Death to America?

Take over the classics department at Columbia? Trash? Yell and scream? Call for a whole people to be wiped out? And at some point, you know, they're in great... They have no gratitude. They're ungracious people who do that, who come in as foreign students. And at some point, you know, they're in great, they have no gratitude. They're ungracious people who do that, who come in as foreign students. And I think that's another thing.

Boy, Megan, if the Republicans take over the Senate and the presidency, I hope there's enough people with sense that says, you know what, we're going to look at the whole thing. Do we need a million foreign students here that are unvetted? Do we need to give them endowment income that's on tax? Do we need to really be in the student, do we need to be in a student loan business? We weren't for years. Why subsidize all this? Do we need to give these massive federal grants to campuses that don't follow the Bill of Rights of due process or freedom of speech. I think there's going to be a big move to that. And these people are putting their heads in the noose and they don't understand it. But we'll see. And, you know, a lot of people are also saying... We've got two minutes to the end of the Sirius XM show. Can you stay an additional 10? Can I

get you for 10 extra? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good. I want to continue this and we're going to have to do the hard wrap in a minute. Did you see the students at GW University? They held a mock trial against the provost. They were chanting off to the guillotine, guillotine, and then yelled off to the gallows with you.

This guy at the Stu studio has been doing good work on this, but like the calls for violence and getting a little bit more explicit, guillotine, guillotine. I mean, like to your point earlier, can you imagine? Imagine a bunch of white students going on some historically black university campus and chanting things like guillotine, like dying a death like that.

And you go off to the gallows with you. How long do you think they tolerate that? Not very long. And it's going to get remember that for Israel to survive, they're going to decide not Netanyahu as they claim, but all of them, that entire wartime bipartisan coalition government. They're all on the same page. They have decided that if there's going to be no more October 7th, they've got to destroy Hamas. And the only way they can destroy Hamas is going to Rafala.

And if they do that, there's going to be greater and greater protests, even though schools are going to be out. And so we haven't seen anything yet. This is going to be, to paraphrase Kamala Harris, what she said in 2020. Remember, she said, these demonstrations are not going to stop, nor should they stop. They're going to go all the way to the elections. She thought that was cute because, as we learned later, the left thought that it really helped Joe Biden. This time, they're not going to help Joe Biden. And she's not going to say that. She won't say to, she won't say that this time. I dare, I bet my life she won't say. These are great protests.

They're going to go all the way to the election. They're banking on these kids going home for the summer and this stuff dying down. Because this is terrible for their side. And that's why we're seeing more and more leftists say, this is not good for us. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations This is not good for us. Probably love great people like Dr. Laura. I'm back. Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly Megan Kelly.

You can stream the Megan Kelly show on Sirius XM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the Sirius XM app. It has ad free music coverage of every major sport comedy talk podcast and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe

and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Okay, so VDH, Kristi Nom is out there on her book tour. The book launches this week and she's trying still to do cleanup on her. I murdered my puppy story, changing the story yet again. And in the midst of this book, telling some untruths that seem pretty blatant, including her. Once again, it's got the same theme. She

tried to build herself up with this story that turned out to be false in the dog story. It was true, but she misjudged the mood of the American people when it comes to puppy killing. And the story that's been outed as untrue is her alleged meeting with Kim Jong-un. She got asked about this by Margaret Brennan on CBS's Face the Nation. And I'll let you just listen to the soundbite, sophomore team. You talk about meeting some world leaders and one specific one, quote, I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. I'm sure he underestimated me having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. I've been a children's pastor after all. Did you meet Kim Jong-un?

Well, you know, as soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this passage. And I've met with many, many world leaders. I've traveled around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we went forward and have made some edits. So you did not meet with Kim Jong-un? That's what you're saying? No, I met with many, many world leaders, many world leaders. I'm not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders. I'm just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn't have been in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted. All right. This is unbelievable. So she did not, she never met with Kim Jong-un. It was a lie. It wasn't true. Mound up in her book.

And she says, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made changes. So she doesn't have the nerve to just say, it's not true. We made a mistake. I apologize. as soon as it brought. So she doesn't have the nerve to just say it's not true. We made a mistake. I apologize. And this is who I mixed him up with because I don't know if she wrote any, any piece of this. I don't know who was making up the lie, but I do know it wasn't just brought to her attention. She read it into the audio book herself, which to Margaret Brennan's credit, she asked her about. Listen here. I know you read this book before it was published because you released video of your recording of the audio book. You didn't catch these errors when you were recording it?

Oh, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected. And you're talking about a book that hasn't been released yet, that's been corrected before it's been released. And you haven't said one thing about Joe Biden saying that he was in prison with Nelson Mandela, that he started the civil rights movement. Okay, nice try. But deflecting to somebody else's bad behavior does not mask hers. She read it as soon as it was brought to my attention. And then I've met with many, many world leaders, many, right. But I'm not going to talk about the meetings as if Margaret Brennan just has some burning desire to hear about Kristi Noem's meetings with foreign leaders. She put it in her book. She's trying to

test whether it's true because she knew accurately that it wasn't. And Kristi Noem's trying to brag about her self-importance without doing the very thing she says she does in this book, which is make hard choices and be this tough leader. She's not tough at all. She's too scared to even admit she lied and she screwed up in her book. It's an ongoing theme. There's another meeting she claims she had with Emmanuel Macron that she claims she canceled, which also turns out to be untrue. Her publisher is having to undo that every day. We get a new one, Victor. So what's going on with Kristi Noem? I don't know, Megan, but don't you feel that when you've been looking for when somebody has been examining you or you're going to make a new course correction in your career

or somebody is going to give you a promotion at that time is when you go over very carefully your CV or what you say. And yet she's obviously thinks she's on the shortlist of vice presidents. So she's got this memoir coming out, but rather than going over everything, so she doesn't end up where she is now. She sort of exaggerates things in the worst possible. Why, when you're going to go under all this scrutiny, would you exaggerate? And the sad thing about it is, does she really think whether she's going to be picked as a vice president or not is going to depend on whether she met with Kim Jong-un or not. But she thinks she does. And she thinks that she's in South Dakota and she wants to have foreign relations experience and met world leaders. So she

does this. And the other thing is, I, you know, I've watched her career and I don't want to get into personality, but something's going on there. She doesn't look the same. She doesn't talk the same. Her commercials are different. They're all about her. And I don't know what's happened. She's altered her appearance radically. And her personal life shouldn't be any concern for people, but all I can say, if you're on the vice presidential selection team for Donald Trump, that's the last thing you need right now. And prior to this, she'd been a pretty good chief executive of a small but important state. And she was kind of really played up her out west cowgirl, hard work, her husband and she raise this family, nuclear family. But then why? Why do things that just obviate all that? I don't understand it, but it's a very natural thing, apparently. She's gone like I'm I'm not opposed to fake hair at all.

I got to put a couple extras in here and I love it. Sometimes they're in, sometimes they're not. She's gone full. I mean, she's like Lady Godiva with the extensions down here. And she's a sitting governor trying to be considered for vice president. It's not professional. She's obviously had a lot of Botox and filler. It's a lot in her face. She did a weird ad for capped teeth, which I guess she's also had. She's trying to be like some sort of a glam queen instead of a respected leader. I know it. I think she looked at Sarah Palin's who came from a small state and didn't have a lot of experience and what they did to Sarah Palin. And I think she thinks they made fun of Sarah Palin.

They said, I think Nick Cook, remember remember Nicole Wallace was one of her handlers. And they kind of leaked to the press, Sarah Palin doesn't know how to dress. And she's kind of a buffoonish. She was very pretty, I thought, naturally pretty. She was. I'm going to get a professional, sophisticated, glamorous look. I'm going to say that I met with foreign leaders. That's my supposed vulnerability. And it just, it lost all authenticity. That was her strength, that she was a down-home person that lived in a normal, sane place with a sane husband and great kids. And she could, she was actually very pretty. She was aging very naturally, I thought,

wonderfully. And she didn't need any of that. She didn't need to brag about all these people she didn't meet. And I think she's taken herself completely out. And also the nature of the brag, Victor, right? The nature of the brag is I stared him down, you know, how she allegedly, I have it in front of me here someplace in the soundbite transcript. But, oh, yeah, I'm sure. Yeah, I'm sure he underestimated me having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. Oh, you're so tough. You know, you're so. Meanwhile, it never happened.

And she's trying to act like she was the victim. She came out with a statement saying, oh, this morning in a 15-minute interview, Margaret Brennan interrupted me 36 times, once every 25 seconds on average. But when liberals go on Face Nation, they aren't interrupted even once. In the fake news media, there are two sets of rules. The conservatives are always treated differently. That's why Americans don't trust the fake news. I resent this. I resent this because you and I both know this actually is a problem with a lot of folks out there. That's not what happened to her. I watched all 15 minutes. Margaret Brennan barely interrupted her. She's counting moments where Margaret Brennan was trying to wrap overly long answers by just doing what anchors do. It's like, well, well, that's she was totally

appropriate. I defend her fully in this exchange. And how dare she try to use an existing liberal media bias, which we all know is there, to excuse her lies, her obfuscation, and now new lies about the dog incident, Victor? Before I play that soundbite, what do you make of what I just said? Well, she's right. You're absolutely right that she's right about it. But that's caused to be very careful because she understands that that's what the left wing may do. And you know that when we all get interviewed by accident or ambushed, or we write, if you write a syndicated column and you're on the conservative side, and I think I've written over 2000 of them now in the last 30 years, 25 or 30 years guest and regular, you know that what

the left is going to do. So that doesn't make you that doesn't increase your exposure to, you know, criticism, you kind of double down and say, is this right? Is did I Pat? Am I exaggerating? And you kind of underestimate or you under report what you're doing because of that media. And I know that that's maybe not fair, but it seems to me that when she went on there, and I don't know if I would have gone on there, but she went on there, she should have had in her mind, they're going to ask me every single question to embarrass me. And here's what I'm going to answer. Honestly, she's going to say, you know, I exaggerated or I made that up, or I shouldn't have done that. And I take full

responsibility and it's never going to happen again. And that would have ended it. She, she couldn't because she read the audio book and therefore she had to own that. It was her line. The same thing with the dog incident, Megan. Let me show you the dog incident. So she, she's trying to do revision. This is the last, I know you got to go, but this is the last one. So she's trying to do revisionist history on the shooting of the 14 month old dog because there's been such backlash to it across the aisle. And now she's trying to do revisionist history on the shooting of the 14 month old dog because there's been such backlash to it across the aisle. And now she's, and keep in mind in the original book excerpt run by the guardian, but quoting her book, the story was the dog was, uh, she took it

out on a bird hunt. It was uncontrollable. It was not, it was disruptive. It was brand new. She hadn't been trained. And that on the way home, she had swung by a friend's chicken farm and the dog Cricket started attacking the chickens and killed a couple of them. And then Chrissy Noem reimbursed the farm owner for the chickens. And then she killed Cricket with a bullet between the eyes in a gravel pit. And she said, when she tried to get a chicken out of Cricket's mouth, Cricket went for her, which I mean, frankly, that's not totally unknown by dogs when you're trying to take a high value reward out of their mouth. It doesn't say that this is a bad, aggressive dog who needs to be put down. So now she's changed it.

She did not say in the book he was a serial killer. He was a serial attacker of people or children or anything like that. But here's how she's spinning it now in Sat 16. This was a dangerous animal that was killing livestock and attacking people. And I had little children at the time. Our operation had many kids running around and people in interaction with the public. And I made a difficult choice. I think you're a mother too, and you have little kiddos. Would you make a choice between your children or a dangerous animal? And I think I would ask everybody in the country

to put themselves in that situation because that's what I faced. Because you put it in a part of a chapter called Bad Day to Be a Goat. And then after you shot the dog, you quote, realized another unpleasant job needed to be done. Walking back up to the yard, I spotted our billy goat. You said he smelled and would chase kids,

so you took him to the gravel pit and shot him twice. How do you justify that? How was the goat a threat? And I'm asking you this because it seems like you're celebrating the killing of the animals. Not at all. This has been a story that my political opponents have tried to use against me for years. It's well known in South Dakota and it has been to other people. And I want the truth to be out there and to understand that these animals were attacking my children. What? They were. Now we've gone to the cricket was attacking the children, killing livestock. OK, a couple of chickens got eaten and attacking people as it snapped at her when she tried to take the chicken. But she's inflated. She's she's lying, Victor. She's she lied about Kim Jong Un.

She lied about Emmanuel Macron to the point where the publisher is now correcting those two excerpts. And she lied there to Margaret Brennan, in my opinion, seems very clear. She lied about Emmanuel Macron to the point where the publisher is now correcting those two excerpts. And she lied there to Margaret Brennan, in my opinion, seems very clear. Well, but her point to put these stories, because I haven't read the memoir, but is the point, it seems to me that she's trying to tell her audience that although she is a woman governor, she does tough, macho stuff. And maybe she doesn't have enough experience. But people on the national stage, when she's Trump's vice president, wouldn't want to screw around with Kristi Noem because she's capable of shooting a billy goat. Is that the idea? She can kill puppies. Yeah.

I mean, I live on a farm and I've lived here my whole life. And I was sympathetic to a degree i had a a dog that when you're right driving a spray rig there's a pto shaft and the dog came out of nowhere ran in got caught and i won't get into detail but completely eviscerated i mean you could see the inner the dog had about a minute and i always carried a gun because there's coyotes that would come up to the the tractor and stuff and i put the dog out of its misery and buried it because i didn't want to take it all the way in town that's humane yeah it was disassembled the dog i mean there was a leg missing and it was still alive so so i put it out but i would never this is the

first time i've ever said that publicly. And I got really depressed for about a week, you know, and I didn't, it was horrible to see it happen. The dog flew up 20 feet in the air from when the shaft caught him. And, but it's not something I would want to talk about. And it didn't show my character one way or the other. If you're on a farm, things like that happen. But you don't, you don't revel in them. You don't brag about them. You just feel bad about it. And you don't know what to do when you're out in the middle of country and you don't want to and you know, you don't want to go take a box full of a dismembered dog who's still alive and wait in line at a vet for a but why she thinks that that's a sign that and and we you know i have four dogs

you've heard them bark megan i don't think they're very they're very well mannered sometimes and once in a while if they find a dove or something on the farm and i take it out they will snap at me the idea you would shoot that dog after it's just incomprehensible. Yeah. And I have grandkids that come out and everything. So I there was so many, I think you did a good job. There were so many loose threads that are inexplicable other than she wanted to make a point that don't screw around with Kristi Noem. She's capable of being real tough. Kim Jongun, she was tough with him. She's tough with dogs. She's tough with goats. She's from South Dakota. And she would be a much better candidate than Sarah Palin would be. And you should pick a small state female governor. And she's also very, very...

If she's really tough, she should come on this show. I've been very fair to her in the past. Very fair. When her book came out, the last one I had her on, we had a great exchange. And I will ask her very hard questions. And we'll see how tough she is. If she can withstand my questions as somebody who's trained in cross-examination, then we'll see. Maybe she can rehabilitate herself. But so far, she would be a great chance.

Megan's making a lot of laughing stock out of herself currently. Yeah. But she could come on your show. And when you ask her, she could say, that was something that was untrue. And I regret it. I got caught up in the moment on the dog. I tried to portray those tragic incidents in a fashion that was not accurate. Maybe I didn't mean it that way, but I know why I did it and why I did it was wrong. And anytime you have to take an animal's life, it's not something to be gratuitous about. And she could be fine. She could just tell the truth to you. Yep. But I don't think this strategy is not working. No, she should come with some humble pie and a sword to fall on and a hat and it should be in her hand.

That's how the interview should go. If she wants to rehabilitate herself. Last question on her. Is there any chance now Trump picks her as Veep? Well, it's a long I mean, we've just seen one candidate implode. We don't know what the others are going to do. They can all implode. And I remember Thomas Eagleton when he was a really nice guy. And all

of a sudden we found out he had electric shock treatments in 1972 and they kicked him off the McGovern ticket. So anything can happen. But as if as of now, unless you come come up with a mea culpa that's sincere and honest and exact, I don't think that Donald Trump doesn't need that right now. He needs a solid, non-controversial person that the media will have trouble. He needs a guy, I'll be candid, he needs a guy like, I'm not saying guy male, but he needs somebody like a Ron DeSantis, a Tom Cotton, a Mike Pompeo, a Glenn Youngkin who have been through the whole gamut of left-wing attacks. They've stood up. They've been in government.

All four of those guys are great. Somebody like that. And you don't want to just balance by gender or race. I think just because of the volatile situation that Trump is in, he needs somebody that's sober and experienced and veteran he can trust. And somebody like that, I think, yeah. Victor, wish you would do it. Wonderful to see you, my friend. I can't do that. No, not at all. Okay. Too smart for that nonsense. All right, go get his book. It's called The End of Everything, How Wars Descend into Annihilation. I'm promising you, you will enjoy it. You will feel like a better person.

You will feel smarter and better able to comprehend and ultimately discuss the complex issues facing America today. Speaking of people who might be on Trump's shortlist for VP, Vivek Ramaswamy is back with us tomorrow. We're going to see you then. And by the way, I just want to let you know that if you have any interest in my Strudwick and my own travails with my dog, he's still alive and well. You can go sign up for our American News Minute. Go to megankelly.com and you just put in your email. We don't sell it. We don't bother you.

We don't send you a bunch of crap. We send you one email on Fridays with some highlights from the week and all the news of the week in one minute or less. But I will confess to you, and this week's update on Strutwick is epic. Epic. It was particularly terrible this weekend. And I told him, you better shape up or I'm shipping you off to Kristi Noem's farm. That's what's gonna... No, I didn't. But I thought it, but I wouldn't actually do it. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.

Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. Thank you.