The Megyn Kelly Show - Judge Violates Trump's Free Speech, and What Noem's Lies Really Expose, with Vivek Ramaswamy and Buck Sexton | Ep. 784

Episode Date: May 7, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Vivek Ramaswamy, host of "The Truth Podcast," to talk about why the gag order on Donald Trump in the NYC trial is a violation of his free speech, how the possibility of jail time for Trump will backfire on the left, why everyone stating opinions including Trump must be protected,  the "vibe of authority" in the corporate media today, how they're hoping for a humiliation of Trump, the performative lies they tell, a former NBC and CNN reporter's absurd description of her recent dinner with MAGA supporters, ABC News president Kim Godwin's "retirement" after getting pushed out, the National Association of Black Journalists making the exit a racial issue, the "sword and shield" of DEI, bratty antisemitic college students protesting, the how the new generation is lacking meaning in their lives, the overreach of Congress' new "antisemitism" bill, and more. Then Buck Sexton, co-host of "The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show," to talk about the way Kristi Noem's "phony" exploitation of her identity has been happening for years, her "cult" of fans, whether she's really a true conservative, how she was a Trump VP frontrunner why it's important to be honest about what her new book exposes about her, the actual audio from the audiobook of Kristi Noem describing the puppy murder story, how it reveals horrifying judgment, the value of truth and forthrightness when it comes to our politicians, near-nudity on the Met Gala red carpet, the disastrous Kardashian effect on our culture, men wearing dresses and the end of masculinity, and more. Ramaswamy- https://www.youtube.com/@vivek-2024Sexton- https://www.youtube.com/@BuckSextonFollow 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 was a, quote, dry but important day at the trial of former President Donald Trump yesterday, according to the New York Times reporter in the courtroom. But what happened before court kicked off has the media so excited, the threat of potential jail time. They're so excited about it if the former president violates his unconstitutional gag order again. That plus Kristi Noem, she's still going. She continues to embarrass herself during her media tour over her ill-fated book. We will get to that later with Buck Sexton, who had it out with Kristi Noem back in 2021

after calling her a phony at the time. But joining me first today is host of the just relaunched show, The Truth Podcast, available on all podcast platforms and YouTube. And that host is Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek, welcome back. How are you doing? Good to see you, Megan. How are you? Good to see you too. All right. So now you've presumably had a little time to relax, see your family, and you're getting back into the show. How's that going? It's good. I mean, it's a part of a portfolio of things I'm doing in the private sector. I,

during the campaign, did something a little bit unusual, but I enjoyed it, actually. And I said that if I was elected president, I was going to continue it from the White House because I think we need more honest conversation. One of the things I loved in the campaign was just speaking my mind freely and speaking my mind in the open. So after having taken a little bit of a pause and a break from public life and time with family and, let's just say, recalibrating and collecting a year's worth of lost time with the family and kids. I'm now starting a number of activities in the private sector. And this is the first major splash I'm making, which is to relaunch the podcast that we started during the campaign. But I'd like to take to the next level by maybe broaching some frontiers that many other

politicians or even others in the conservative media movement haven't really touched. And a lot of the other activities I'm taking on in the business world and otherwise, I'll be able to talk about the reasons why I'm pursuing those through this podcast as well. Great. I love that you're getting back on with it. People want to hear from you now more than ever. I would like to hear from you on this Trump, this Trump trial and where we are, because this judge continues to fine him some $10,000 so far for alleged violations of what is to me, clearly an unconstitutional gag order. You went to Harvard undergrad, Yale law school, and have written some great op-eds that I thought were so insightful and really genius, even before you started to run for president. So here's Trump yesterday saying, you know what,

because the Trump's, the judge there said, if you violate it again, I don't want to do this to you, Mr. Trump, but I may have to put you in jail. And here was Trump speaking to that yesterday. I have to watch every word I tell you people. You ask me a question, a simple question. I'd like to give it, but I can't talk about it because this judge is giving me a gag order and said, you'll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what? Our Constitution is much more important than jail. It's not even close.

I'll do that sacrifice any day. But what's happening here is a disgrace. All right, so I'll get to the media reaction to that. But what do you make of the real threat now? It's a real threat that they may put the former president of the United States and likely, you know, certainly GOP nominee back in. Look, I think that it will automatically backfire instantly politically, even though they intend it in the other direction. But the question is, is this a First Amendment violation or not? I believe it is, because when you have a president in the middle of a political election, a presidential election, who cannot defend himself against what are fundamentally political attacks against them, or even debates that have major political consequences in the middle of an election. And then you try to stifle that person from speaking, engaging in political speech in the middle of an election. And they've absolutely made this a relevant issue in the election. So the idea that this is not political speech is nonsense. That is an affront to the Constitution.

And if we are a country that prizes one thing, it is a country that allows you to criticize the government. And if they're saying that this man cannot criticize the government, that would be a First Amendment violation no matter who it is. But it's a First Amendment violation on steroids when it is a political candidate who is unable to criticize the government led by the political party that he's actually running against. So then the question is, are these entire charges themselves politicized in the first place? Or are we talking about this technical legal sphere that's different from the realm of politics? I think if you look at the merits of this case, Megan, frankly, there are none. That's just worth taking seriously. What exactly is that legal theory? A lot of people have a lot of trouble saying what Alvin Bragg is even pursuing,

and for good reason, because the charges are big. Everybody who's honest has trouble saying it. Nobody has any idea what Donald Trump is exactly being prosecuted for, but I'm gonna give the clearest statement that I think I can, because it's worth smoking out. It's even uglier once you see what it is. The basic theory of this case is the underlying crime, besides the falsifying business records misdemeanor, the thing that makes it allegedly a felony, is that Donald Trump,

according to Alvin Bragg's theory of the case, should have used campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment. Well, let's just try the other foot. If Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment. Well, let's just try the other foot. If Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal hush money payment, the prosecution would arguably have a stronger case to go after him for that, right? That would be a misuse of campaign funds. People normally give to political campaigns to advance political causes. Well, if you're using that to advance personal goals, including making personal hush money payments instead, they would be prosecuting him for that. So that's a perfect litmus test for whether a prosecution is politicized or not. If the defendant had done the exact thing that in this case, the prosecutor is saying he should have done and could have been

prosecuted for it, then that means they were going to get him going or get him going coming. And it does not matter what the actual underlying behavior was. And so that's what we're seeing today. That's what this alleged prosecution is about, is really fulfilling, speaking of campaigns, a campaign promise. And it was a campaign promise made by Alvin Bragg before he was elected to the position that he's in, which is to go after Donald Trump. And so if the whole thing's a political exercise, this is just a cherry on top, saying that he can't even respond to those political attacks at behest of imprisonment. Our founding fathers wouldn't be rolling in their graves. They'd be doing backflips. But the ultimate irony on all of this, Megan, is if that does happen, I think most Americans are poised to see right through it. And this will backfire on

steroids as well, just as the prosecutions have in propelling Donald Trump to the presidency. I think you're right. I really think you're 100% right. You have a great point about criticizing the government and how that in particular should be allowed as it is allowed. And this judge recognized that it's allowed. But the thing about the jury was really galling to me because why can't Trump criticize the jury? He didn't say juror number four is a hack. He said, and he got fined for this. He said, and I just pulled it up, that jury was picked so fast, 95% Democrats, the areas mostly all Democrat. And the latter clause seemed to be a modifier because he realized maybe he shouldn't be technically speaking specifically about these jurors. But why shouldn't he? Why can't he say

the jury's mostly all Democrats? That's his opinion, having sat there day after day through one year. And that, too, is an attempt to say you're not allowed to get the public ready for what's going to be a verdict against you in all likelihood because they're partisan opponents of yours. He just got fined $1,000 for pointing that out. That can't be OK. Yeah, so a lot of people really it becomes difficult when you're sorting out what is the First Amendment protect and what doesn't it. So I have a simple rule of thumb here, Megan, but let's just take the different things that people will say. Well, yes, the First Amendment protects speech, but it does not protect incitements to violence. It does not protect fraud. It does not protect making false statements

in a commercial context. That's fraud. It does not protect interfering in the proceedings of a court. So if you're gonna distill it down to one thing, what is just from a First Amendment perspective, the First Amendment protects all opinions. That's what it protects, right?

An opinion, no matter how heinous it is, no matter how much you disagree with it, no matter how unpleasant it is to hear, no matter the context, the First Amendment protects all opinions. And so, so long as Donald Trump is actually expressing an opinion grounded in facts that he's also citing to bolster his opinions, it's protected speech as far as I'm concerned. That's true if it's Donald Trump or anybody, right? Anybody expressing an opinion about a trial during their own defense. Now, against the backdrop of the political context of this trial, it's unambiguous as you're expecting, you're expressing an opinion in the context of a political election where that

trial would not have happened but for that election. That makes this a cut and dry case where he should absolutely be able to say anything he absolutely wants about those jurors. And specifically, he was actually talking about the selection process of those jurors that makes this unobjectionable. And so in many ways, is Donald Trump going to be hurt by that fine? No. I mean, if you think about the amount he's paying per second in legal fees, it's probably in excess of those fines. You know what? The judge indirectly may have actually done him and done all of us and done this country a favor by exposing how rotten this entire process is. If he takes that next step and puts him in jail, I think it would be regrettable for this

country. I think it would set an awful precedent. I think we should be ashamed as American citizens on the global stage, having other countries looking at us, throwing a former U.S. president in prison for daring to engage in political speech in the middle of an election. If that happened in a different country, we would call that a banana republic or the stuff of autocracy. But happening here as an American citizen, I would be embarrassed as others look at our country. But ironically, I think it will continue to have the effect that all of these sham prosecutions have had, which is to further put Americans on the side of Donald Trump, even the ones who otherwise would not have been. Because it's not that they're Trump on Trump's side, even it's that they're on the side of

justice in this country, one standard of the rule of law. And the idea that you get to speak your mind freely. And if you're going to get put in jail for doing that, if they do it to Donald Trump today, they're going to do it to somebody else tomorrow. And I think it's disgusting. And I think that most Americans see through that as well. Well, I don't think the media finds it disgusting. Here's a little example of how they reacted. You're going to be shocked, shocked. Watch. And the judge threatening the ex-president with jail time. It is really clear that the judge is depending on the seriousness of the next violation, contemplating putting him in jail.

I mean, and frankly, if that happens, it's not going to be because of anything Judge Mershon did. It's going to be Donald Trump's own choice. I know from my own reporting, I'm sure you do too, that Trump didn't eat on foreign trips because he was so afraid of germs. There's no way Trump himself wants to go to jail. Certainly not many black defendants who, if they came this close to the line, would have already been held in contempt of court and would have been incarcerated by now. And so he is getting the doest of process. And the idea that Donald Trump actually would want to go to jail is ridiculous. Anyone who knows him knows that he doesn't even like to stay in a hotel. He won't eat food when it goes on. Right. You have to use the bathroom, his hair, his makeup, his skin, his skin like he will be pulled apart.

He doesn't have the metal to do it. So Donald Trump is terrified. You've got to believe just by his his issues with odors and smells and, you know, fear of disease. He threw down the gauntlet. If he doesn't throw Trump in jail, he would look entirely like a paper tiger. And Trump got that message. How much bravado? You know, this is not somebody who's thinking, you know what, I'm going to have a really great time at Rikers. Can I just make this the point in the program when we say, no, this is normal? Oh, my God. Honestly, Nicole Wallace is the worst. She's the worst. Why she barely moves her lips when she's speaking. She barely has. It's just like

a little hole that words come out of. I can't quite get it. It's like I said yesterday. And she's so sanctimonious for vague. She can't. She doesn't know anything. She knows nothing about what Trump's habits are when he travels overseas. None of them does. But they want to pretend like they're in the room with him in the bedroom, in the bathroom, in the dining room with Trump. And they can tell you exactly how he's going to respond if he gets a day in jail. Well, look, she knows nothing about Donald Trump's habits. She probably knows even less about the law or an understanding or care about that as well. And I think that manner of speech is really funny. I don't like to pick on these minor details, but you actually hit the nail on the head there. It's all part of this air of sanctimony,

right? The air, the vibe of authority without actually having any of the content of that authority. And I think that's what so many of the modern media have actually become is the air, the genteel sort of atmospherics of having authority in the manner that you speak, the sanctimony that drips from it, but without having the first basis of an understanding of how the law or the constitution works. And so it's completely backwards versus somebody who actually didn't speak with the right mannerism, but actually knew what they were talking about. That would be far preferable to me. Now, the schadenfreude, the level of rejoicing in somebody else's suffering, this is, I've never

seen something like this, but we know that's exactly what we're to expect here from the media. They've been playing for this for a long time. The entire plot has been to really portray Donald Trump as a criminal. That's been, I think, a big part of the Democratic Party's goal in this objectionable pursuit of prosecutions against him. So it's no surprise that the media has played interference for them on so many other topics is going to run interference here as well. I think that's the less interesting part than to examine what is exactly the consequence here. Let's say Donald Trump is, God forbid, I think it'd be bad for the country, but thrown in jail. I do think that they've kind of put themselves in a box here because Donald Trump believes,

I believe correctly, that this is an affront to the Constitution. He has a right to speak in the middle of an election. He's running to lead this country to be the commander in chief. So for him to buckle at behest of what this judge, who has no regard for the law or the Constitution on this set of issues, I think would be a bad outcome. So I think Donald Trump should continue to express his opinions because he's running for U.S. president and both he and the country deserve to hear his opinions on he's running for U.S. president. And both he and the country deserve to hear his opinions on a matter of public importance. But the judge has now put himself in a box going out of his way. He didn't have to do this, but going out of his way to be able

to threaten jail time. I think that that is something that unfortunately sets this up as a reasonably likely outcome. And you know what? Donald Trump's made a lot of sacrifices for the country, running for president, serving as U.S. president. This wouldn't be the biggest of them. And so I think it would set a terrible precedent. I think it's to be bad for the country. But I think it is reasonably likely that it does end up there. And as sad as that is, it's exactly what you would predict once you've opened Pandora's box with these prosecutions based on really no figment of a legal theory to back it up against a former president, a man running for U.S. president in the middle of an election.

This is just the necessary consequence and all the drama that follows. It's unfortunately what they signed up for in the first place. And I think that this is just the tip of the iceberg of what we're going to see in the next six months. They're thrilled about it because they want his humiliation. That's what you heard them talking about. Well, how, you know, he's not going to be able to have his hair the way he wants it. They want his humiliation. That's why they were so angry that he leaned into his mugshot and went on the mugs and it went on T-shirts. And so they're waiting for him to be humbled, to be humiliated.

And they keep waiting for the next chapter. Maybe Judge Mershon will get him there when he throws him behind jail bars and we can watch that and revel. The media, of course, has been a massive problem. You experienced it when you were running and before and after. This is a small ball story, but it's indicative. There was a reporter for NBC News, then she moved on to CNN. Her name is Michelle Kaczynski, and she posted a thread on X last night. She was very well known at both of those outlets. A thread on X last night, revealing her horror at a dinner she recently had with people who turned out to be MAGA. At first, she said, they seemed great on the surface for like an hour. And then she says the closeted guests over a few drinks began to slip their true MAGA

natures. And she says, she marvels at how a quote, normal group of people could support a politician like Trump Trump of whom she does not approve, uh, going here from the daily mail report. One of the couples, uh, attended top Ivy league colleges. She writes, uh, but now that it was university time for their own children, they were adamantly not letting them apply to any Ivs and were weird about explaining why, though the kids were double legacies. Okay, moving on. She criticizes their position on quote, climate change and the fact that they use that term in air quotes, not scientists, clearly, and goes on from there. Now, Vivek, this is a woman who I've been around in the media long enough to remember. Left NBC was pushed out, I believe, shortly after the following incident, which went everywhere. She was doing a report on flooding after a hurricane in some American town, and she did the report from a canoe as though she was stranded. This is the only way to get around. And in the middle of her live shot, firefighters

walked through the live shot with the water up to their ankles. We actually pulled the clip just to show you. I mean, this is the dishonest media in a snapshot. Watch this. NBC's Michelle Kaczynski, I guess she's in the canoe, is in Wayne, New Jersey this morning. Michelle, good morning to you. Good morning. Well, obviously we're getting a nice break from the rain, but not the flooding. This is essentially now part of the Passaic River in this neighborhood. I'll take it. Is there some kind of severe drop off there between the foreground? We still go back. We saw these guys a second ago. Michelle walking, these holy men walking on top of water. What's going on here? Why walk when you can ride, you guys? When you have a ride like this,

why would you want to walk? Is your oar hitting ground, Michelle? Of course not. That was the end of her career. That's my opinion. At NBC, she was gone shortly there. Now she wants to lecture us all on how evil MAGA is and her horror at being exposed to the closeted Republicans and their views on the IVs and climate change and so on. What do you make of it? You know, the people that did her party remind me probably likely of the firemen who were just walking right past her. People who actually probably had something more worthy to do that were actually there for purpose, had little regard for her presence there or whatever antics she was taking on. And, you know, that probably looks like a woman who's been doing this her entire career. So it seems like the same pattern continues. And this is a big part of the reason

I'm actually, there's a lot of things I'm looking at doing with my time, but launching, relaunching a podcast, why I'm going to take the time to do that is this gives me a motivation to exactly engage in the kind of conversations that American people are hungry for, regardless of what the mainstream media is stuffing down their throats. And I think it just typifies how the whole thing has actually become a charade. It's not just a sort of form of lying, Megan. I think mainstream media has lied about a whole range of topics, and I've talked about this extensively during the race. You've talked about it extensively for the last 10 years. Nonetheless, I think it's not just the lie. It's the pageantry around the lie that I think is actually far more bothersome.

It's a production. It's almost like it's not just a lie. A lie is any more pretending to be that you're in the interest of objective news, but you're telling somebody false information. I think it's become closer to like a Broadway production in the same way that she's putting on a show. She recognizes, and they're even talking about it on air. Why would you walk when you could instead be pretending to row? That's effectively what they're doing in the totality of their other reporting too, is she

could just be talking about the actual disagreements, the policy disagreements that she has between Republicans who are in that same room. And there's such a more interesting direction to go. It's like the equivalent of if she had just been reporting and interviewing those firemen. But instead, what they're actually creating is an alternative production that, you know, I think historically that business, maybe they think they're entertaining their audience, but it isn't even entertaining anymore. And I think that once you see that, you get closer to the flame of what's going on. It's not just they're spewing falsehood. It's like the equivalent of putting on a theatrical production and one that, like most theatrical productions, is failing. And I think

that that's why it's going to come to an end very soon. You've set up my next clip perfectly, which is of Lawrence O'Donnell speaking of NBC. This is him on MSNBC, freaking out about the fact that yesterday at Trump's trial, what they spent most of the day doing was documenting the payments that were ultimately made to Stormy Daniels and the receipts of how that was done. Of course, no one's denying that the payment was made, but they need to get that in front of the jury. It was not an exciting day in court, but it was to Lawrence O'Donnell. Watch. They wrote it down. The conspiracy was written out on paper. That is rare in criminal prosecutions. Prosecutors are usually left explaining to juries that, you know, criminal conspirators don't write it all down.

But that is what they did in the Trump office on Fifth Avenue and in the White House. Today, Donald Trump's jury wasmind, convicted felon Allen Weisselberg, put the conspiracy in his handwriting on Michael Cohen's bank statement. And then another financial officer in the Trump shop put the whole thing in his handwriting on Trump company stationery. Final handwriting in the conspiracy presented to the jury today were Donald Trump's signatures. Oh, my gosh. He had a breaking news chyron up the entire time. Breaking news. No one's trying to hide it. We understood that these payments were made. This was a perfunctory day in court. This was not the apex of the prosecution's case, but the media can't get enough of it. It's like crack to them.

That's right. I mean, it's an addiction. It's a breaking news. He's like breaking the news, like breaking the existence of actually distinguishing what is important to report to the public versus not. And it just bothers me. He has no clue. He's describing this to his audience base as they wrote down the conspiracy. Just if you had any first idea of the backdrop of what this case was about, like let's just hear the first clue about this case. This allegation of falsifying business records, right, which is the first and state based the New York based charge that Alvin Bragg is bringing. A, that's outside the statute of limitations.

But B, at most, even if that alleged conspiracy, I think a lot of that is actually also false and mischaracterized, but at most, that would be charged and could only be charged under the law as a misdemeanor. Unless you make up all of this other nonsense about this being a constructive campaign contribution that wasn't recorded as a campaign contribution, which, as we talked about before, rests on a completely flawed legal theory on its own. And it's completely misleading their audience of creating again that atmosphere. It's all about atmosphere. It's all about vibe of pretending like this is some sort of devious conspiracy. And you put up images of different handwritten documents.

The audience doesn't know what to make of it. And the whole point isn't that their audience is too stupid to follow. It's the fact that these people were reporting to them or actually too stupid to report on it, but have just created this atmosphere, this vibe, the equivalent of that other woman with her theatrical production rowing across that river when in fact, somebody could have just walked straight across it as we saw in real time. That's the equivalent of what they're doing with their portrayal of these documents. When in fact, the average viewer, what you need is actually somebody explaining to them what's

actually going on. It's the equivalent of those firefighters walking straight across. And that's what's missing in most of the media today. But we get to sit here and complain about what they're doing. They're in a dying business. And what we need is more alternatives to people to be able to explain to ordinary Americans, hey, here's what's actually going on. And more people are hungry to seek that information out for themselves. They've been lied to systematically for the last 10 years. Most people understand the basic premise that, you know what, you fool me once, shame on me, and fool me twice, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

And I think that people are hungry for checking what they're hearing through MSNBC or through NBC News or CNN. And I think that's a good thing. And so this is part of I take it to be a growing up of our culture. We had to have, I think, in the last 10 years grown up, Megan. I think that's why we're seeing the decline in the influence of of histrionics like this from MSNBC. And, you know, I take that as a mark of progress. It's a good thing. Mm hmm. All right. One other point on the media. The president of ABC just got booted. She says she's retiring. She was reportedly forced out, Kim Godwin. And as she goes, you've got the National Association of Black Journalists criticizing ABC for basically getting rid of a black woman. They're saying,

we're concerned over recent media reports that seem to be written with the intention of undermining the leadership of the first black woman to take the helm of a global news organization. So you're not allowed to criticize her because she's the first black woman to head a news organization. Many of the latest articles surrounding her leadership fail to demonstrate basic journalism by providing alternative viewpoints. They want more in the articles about how she was actually the greatest thing since sliced bread, even though her bosses didn't seem to think so, and neither did her underlings, according to the reports I've read, including by Oliver Darcy, who claims to have spoken to some dozens of internal ABCers. There seems to be an intentionality to cite anonymous sources

as Godwin's detractors, coupled with the use of derogatory or stereotypical terms to describe her. Meantime, these reports are totally ignoring sources and facts that speak to Godwin having significant support inside the organization. Now, let me tell you what's happened. She's gone now. This didn't work. She got canned, or she says retired early. This is what this group does. I'll just say for background, when I went over to NBC, the same group came out and threw a fit because the woman who had been in my time slot prior to me was Tamron Hall, who happens to be Black. And when NBC called the National Association of Black Journalists to say, why are you giving us such a hard time about this? We have plenty of black prominent faces at NBC. They said, we're just doing a favor. Somebody called in a favor, which is clearly Tamron Hall, right? The people who ascend to positions of power, whether it's as an anchor or a network executive

or a prosecutor, we've seen some of that in the Fannie Willis, Nathan Wade, Marilyn Mosby, who's just got in trouble. She's got convicted twice of fraud related behavior. She was a former Baltimore prosecutor. They rise to these positions of power if they happen to be people of color sometimes. And when it doesn't work out, Vivek, they use the race thing as both a sword and a shield, right? It's something that I'm fine to ride to the top. It's fine if it's a chip for me. It gets me this advanced position. But then if it doesn't work out, I get to play the race card again, you see. And my termination is 100% because of my skin color or your negative reports in the case of the NABG, BJ, are because of skin color. Meanwhile, as I point out in my case,

someone who happens to be black behind the scenes is using skin color as a weapon. Again, it's just, it's everywhere. It's why it's so pernicious. And these promotions based on race don't work out. And then when things settle down, the natural consequences get ignored by the same cast of actors. What do you make of it? Yeah, I mean, I think you hit the nail on the head. I think it's starting to get a little bit old and I think it is fostering, unfortunately, Megan, a new wave of quiet frustration that manifests as anti-black racism in this country that would not have existed but for this actual kind of racialized behavior. There's an article, it's a different type of media, but it's the same type of media treatment of, it's a scientific media, this is back when I was still in the biotech industry, that examined this detailed investigative piece, it was sort of in the healthcare press, it was like, I mean, detailed investigative reporting, bombshell reporting,

that found that black residents, so people in medical residency,. It was like, I mean, detailed investigative reporting, bombshell reporting that found that black residents, so people in medical residency, those who are black were systematically more likely to be fired than their white counterparts and didn't finish their residency programs at the same rate, revealing a layer of systemic racism in the field of medicine

that had not previously been exposed. And it goes through all of the explanations of the data points of how consistently, no matter what geography, no matter what institution, it was black people who were more likely to be fired from their competitive residency programs midway through. I read the whole article. The journalist, she must have been, I don't know if she was in an early stage of her career. I assume she's a young journalist making a big bombshell story here. I just emailed her afterwards and asked her, had you considered the possibility that systematically the people allowed into med school and the systematically people who are allowed into residency programs have lower scores when they're a particular race, in this case, black residents and black

med students are admitted systematically at lower scores. is it surprising then that the people who actually tended on average to have lower scores are the ones that aren't thriving in residency programs? And might that play some role, some impact on actually seeing a disparity in the races of people who end up getting fired during residency? And her response was, I think it was genuine. She was just saying, I hadn't considered that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. And I think it shows, I mean, this must be people who are younger in this profession of reporting on this have become so inculcated by the narrative that I think it just takes basic analysis. Somebody who points a basic obvious fact that her own editors, her own publisher, her own supervisors should have for any base level of reporting for a

journalist at least called out one contrarian hypothesis that didn't have a single mention, a 2000 word investigative bombshell piece. And I think it shows, you know, most people see through that, right? And so I do think it is fostering this kind of new wave of racism, even anti-black racism that we otherwise wouldn't have seen. Because when you tell people you can't criticize somebody, you can't air your opinion, that manifests itself in new and more toxic ways. And so I think it's unhealthy across the board. And yes, if you have people systematically put into their jobs that wouldn't have otherwise gotten that job on the basis of their genetic attributes, like race or gender or sexual orientation or anything else, then if you apply meritocratic criteria afterwards, you are going to see a disparity

in who's fired or not. It's not a controversial thing to say if you got your job because of race, but then you're measured based on performance. Yes, I think it is likely that people of certain demographic attributes may be more likely to get fired from those positions. I think the right answer across the board is forget the attribute of race or gender or sexual orientation in the first place and just hire the best person for the job. If it's in journalism, who's actually going to do the best journalistic work and report that to their audiences? If it's in medicine or in science or engineering or whatever it is. And I think that ironically, then you're going to see less of those disparities and firings on the back end. Most people know this intuitively,

but when you force them to bottle it up, I think they start to harbor animus, even racial animus. And the very people who are supposedly fighting racism through these anti-racist efforts are the ones actually throwing the kerosene, throwing the fuel on the final burning embers of racism in the first place, starting the whole cycle all over again. And I, sadly, Megan, I think that's where we are. It's so true, Vivek. I feel like we're just in the beginning of this wave where all these DEI programs, which now are being renamed, now they're just changing them to inclusion because DEI has been adequately stigmatized. Now it's just inclusion or our old school in New York is now really renamed DEI to belonging, which it's just about belonging, which is a nicer word for a very problematic thing. So as a result of all these programs,

all these folks who were, you know, maybe not qualified were elevated based on skin color or their lady parts or their heritage. And maybe some of them make it because they're, they have the merit and many won't. And then, and so this is the beginning wave of let's see how they do. And if they don't do well, they're going to blame that too on race. And what's the end result of that going to be? A hesitancy to hire these people. So this whole game, it does not in order to the benefit of the very people they hope to elevate. Oh, it's self-defeating, of course, Megan. But I think that that's why they're codifying

a lot of those on the front end as well. It's an interesting jujitsu move that you described. You now are gonna see a retreat in the use of the word DEI, different word, same concept. You actually see that in the corporate sphere as well. You know, ESG has earned itself a negative valence, a negative connotation as well.

I founded a firm called Strive that competes against BlackRock. We pushed hard on this. Now what are we seeing is a retreat from the use of that term, but they call it sustainable investing or whatever it is instead, adopting the same sort of social criteria. But they know this is going to have a discursive effect on stopping the hiring of those people on the front end on the basis of demographic attributes. And so that's why those are codified in some senses of quota systems. But where that then goes upstream, I guess, it still hurts the very people it was supposed to help. Not because they're less likely to be

hired necessarily, because there are still effective hard quota systems to make sure that they're filled, but in the attitudes that people have towards them. And I think that's the most unfortunate aspect of it at all. Yeah, that's the scariest piece. I mean, it's really sad, actually. I've been in environments, I've built companies, built organizations where I don't look at, I could care less about what somebody's demographic attributes are. I care how good they're going to be at doing the job, which happens to have resulted in hiring multiple black women in positions of executive power. I didn't hire them for that reason. I hired them because I thought they'd be the best person for the job. But one of the things that happened was you saw

a lot of frustration from people around them and would say, and it made me sad. In one of those settings, she happened to be a very highly paid person, high ranking in the organization. And you'd have people scuttlebutt around the people who couldn't make it in the same way that she did saying, oh, she only got her job because of her race and gender. When in fact, in the context that I was operating the company, that was flatly false. And I think that's the sad consequence of this is it does hurt the very people it was supposed to help, not necessarily because they're not going to get the jobs or whatever, but because they're going to be viewed differently. I mean, somebody like Ben Carson has been through this his entire career,

ended up graduating at the top of his class, but wasn't regarded in the same way because many of the people who look like him are known to have gotten that position in the field of medicine or whatever else because of these racial quota systems. And I think that in that sense, it leaves us worse off, literally creating a form of racism. I'm not just talking about the anti-white and anti-Asian racism that's embedded into the entire program of affirmative action and the DI agenda. There's a lot of that, anti-white and anti-Asian racism. And a lot of people will say there's no such thing as anti-white racism. I disagree. Any discrimination on the basis of race is definitionally racism and it's problematic. But it's not just the anti-white and anti-Asian racism.

The law recognizes it as illegal. Keep going, sorry. Yes, it does. It's a good reminder to people it is illegal. But even worse than that, the net consequence of that is it actually throws, fans the flames of even an anti-black racism that otherwise would have retreated to irrelevance, right? Once you reach the promised land that the civil rights activists wanted in the 1960s, it's precisely that you have this sort of masochistic desire to restart the whole cycle. And that's exactly what's happening, hiding in plain sight before us today. Yeah, I'm going to take a break, but I will say we're on the tail end now of a four year period where the country lost its mind post George Floyd and got rid of SAT scores, started to

discount actual grades, then went full DEI in terms of its admissions to all these IVs. And now they've inflated the grades. So now these same folks who got into Harvard and Yale, who otherwise would not have been admitted, are just getting A's and A minuses as a gift. It's not because they've earned it. And then there'll be a pathway into med school for based on those same falsities. And at some point they're going to hit corporate America or medical America, God forbid. And the realities of all that puffing up are going to hit them and the rest of us. And that's when the shit's really going to hit the fan. All right. stand by. Vivek stays with me. Quick break. Don't go away. You cannot tell me in the United States in 2024,

you cannot tell me where I can or can't walk. These are terrorist supporters and they are supporting Hamas. What is worse, me saying the F word or them praising Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis? I'm not the problem. You know I'm not the problem. I'm a law-abiding citizen. These people support terrorists. Why are you punishing me? Can we get some space, please?

Can we just raise your voice? Okay, I'm not going to raise my voice. I'm not raising my voice. Excuse me. Excuse me. So I can't stop you from calling. Okay. I cannot.

And I'm not going to try. Okay. But I don't understand what your purpose would be. Because I think you know where we're going to let you. And do we want that? Respectfully, I am not the problem. Please, if you need to cover up your face, cover up now. Cover your face, guys.

I want to let all of you know you are not going to intimidate Jewish people. You can hide behind your masks as long as you want. We will not be scared. Okay. Unbelievable scenes. That was MIT, according to the Daily Wire. And one Jewish student handling these protests, the anti-Israel protests, like a boss, I have to say it was perfectly done. I refuse to pretend that I am the problem. Why are you telling me to not go on my campus, police officer? Why don't you escort me right across my campus and through this encampment, as is your job? And the cop, I believe, was out of line and saying, you can do it, but you're going to be disruptive. Who cares? It's his right. He's going to disrupt their takeover of his campus.

Vivek, what do you make of what's happening on the campuses right now? I mean, what's happening on the campus? First of all, we're learning a lot of this is manufactured, Megan. This is not actually students. Second thing is I think what we're seeing is if you look at, I think it was Michigan's graduation, where you saw just the raucous cheer at the commencement, 90 plus percent of people in the audience cheering as a few of the disruptors to the proceedings were removed. I think the reality is most people on the college campuses do not agree with the use of these disruptive tactics to destroy their universities. So I personally think this actually presents a, not to take it to the realm of politics for a second,

but a political opportunity for Republicans if they just have the courage to show up this year on college campuses this fall. I mean, you look at swing states, most of them have great college football teams. People are going to be tinged by what ended up happening this spring. There's an opening to say, you know what, you might not have thought of yourself as a patriotic pro-American conservative or whatever, but many people on those college campuses are hungry for the alternative to what they're seeing set up in these artificially set up encampments and artificially constructed building takeovers on their campuses. And so I think that's the first learning is this is not just a supposedly a tyranny of the majority that these people are standing up against chanting intifada when, in fact, if you listen to the audio, many of them are chanting infitada. They don't even know the word they're supposed to be chanting. But the majority of people on the campus don't

agree with that. This is a tyranny of the fringe minority. And that presents an opportunity for conservatives, Republicans this year if they're willing to step up and seize it. The other thing I would say, though, is, Megan, is even many of those protesters who are supposedly protesting, they don't really know what they're protesting for, especially those who are students, right? That example of people chanting infitada when in fact they're trying to say intifada. They don't even know what they're saying. Right, exactly. It could be gotostada for all we know. And so I think it's just another symptom of, you know, I think that there's a, I mean, it's understandable that there's

the debate about antisemitism, but I think it's a symptom of something deeper that's going on, which is a generation that is truly lost for purpose. Not the whole generation, but the fringe minority still. Even that fringe minority is really just hungering for purpose and meaning and identity, and they are looking for it any place they can find it. It's like the equivalent of, you know, you have these commercial parades in Manhattan and one week you'll have the Dominican Republic parade and the other week you'll have the Puerto Rico parade. And the next week it'll be the India Day parade. And when I used to live in Manhattan, when I was in my early twenties, one of the things you would

notice is it was the same people in each of the parades. They were just paid people who were doing the same music and backflips. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that in that context. But that's what it reminds me of here, where the same people who are marching for one cause in the aftermath of George Floyd's death are the same people setting up encampments and quasi-violent riots in a different context. They are starving, just as other people are doing it for money in the context of commercial parades. In this case, they're doing it in a perpetual search for satisfying their own hunger for purpose and meaning. And I think that in response to it, we have to, if we really want to fix the problem as a conservative movement here, I'll say,

we got to do better than just pointing out their endless hypocrisies because they'll keep giving us endless hypocrisies. And I think we're going to be in this constant cycling churn unless we offer an alternative vision to say, hey, you're actually hungering for a purpose. There's one of them represented in that flag right behind me, the American flag. If you have a hunger to be part of something bigger than yourself, that's what America actually offers. If you don't pledge allegiance to that flag, you're going to pledge allegiance to quite a different flag instead. I think that's the genesis of the transgender flag, why you'd see more transgender flags on the streets of Washington, D.C. in the month of June than you do see American flags.

And so if we want to get out of this sort of cycle of psychologically deranged people latching onto causes, showing up to protest when it's one cause today and a different one tomorrow, and the irony of standing for the transgender cause and standing for the Hamas cause is they're fundamentally incompatible with one another either. You know that if you want to try to go to most of the Middle East and hold up an actual transgender flag, see how you're treated. It doesn't even make any sense that you're espousing the same kinds of people espousing fundamentally incompatible causes on different days of the week. It's a deeper hunger for purpose and meaning. And in that sense, I think it's actually a reflection of a failure of the patriotic pro-American pro-conservative movement to offer an alternative

vision that's actually able to satisfy these people's search for purpose and meaning. And so I think it's not so much that most of them are anti-Semitic as it is that they're psychiatrically deranged, that they're lost. I don't say that in a disparaging way. I say it in a way that reflects a deep-seated kind of mental illness that has really taken a foot of a generation in America that if we're serious about fixing it, we're not going to do it by scolding it out of existence. We'd have to call out these hypocrisies as they occur, but we got to do the harder work of actually addressing the root cause of that mental ailment. And until we do, we're just going to see more of this time and again. That's fascinating. I think you're right about that. We've seen what looks very much like deranged behavior. I mean, the students trying to pretend that they're just like the Selma march're in the middle of your protest over your cause. But time and time again, we're seeing these absurd

examples of this behavior. But of course, as with anything in America, we overreact to the news of the day. And I think you feel as I do about the latest example of that, which is this so-called anti-Semitism bill that passed overwhelmingly in the house where we're now trying to redefine in the law, the definition of anti-Semitism. It passed 320 to 91, 70 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted against the measure, but overwhelmingly popular. And the new definition of anti-Semitism is going to recognize a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as a hatred toward Jews. And then there are examples, including accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group and making

dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews, such as the power of Jews as a collective. This is crazy to me, Vivek, that it is not illegal to be a racist, to be a bigot, to be an anti-Semite, to be a transphobe in America. It's illegal to make hiring, firing decisions based on that, harassment based on that. But we've lost our way if this thing passed as healthily as it did. Absolutely, Megan. And this brings even some of our earlier discussions full circle. We talked about in the context of the Donald Trump gag order, what does the First Amendment mean? It means you get to express all opinions, right, regardless of the content of that opinion. So then, you know, I see these people on college campuses are hungering for purpose and meaning. There's a

great purpose, the United States of America. That's a purpose that can fulfill your hunger to be part of something bigger than yourself. And what is America? It is a place where you get to express any opinion. No, that doesn't mean you get to disrupt the way a college campus operates. No, that doesn't mean that you get to disrupt the way that a commencement proceeding operates or that you're able to be violent. That's not the expression of an opinion. But if you're talking about the basic expression of an opinion, no matter how heinous that opinion is, and I do think it is heinous to be able to make comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany, it's disgusting, but it is an opinion.

And what makes America great, what makes America itself, is that you get to express those opinions. And so in many ways, what the conservative movement should be doing is standing for the ideals that this country was founded on and use that to lead the lost, deranged, mentally ill, Gen Z and generationally lost members of the other side to say, hey, here's what it means to be an American. Instead, what we're actually doing in response, many of us, I mean, not us, but many people who have a little R after their name and serve in the House of Representatives

is to adopt the same methods of the left in a way that actually erodes our own moral authority to talk about things like free speech, to be able to say there are certain opinions that legally cannot be expressed. And Megan, this is not a bill that was proposed. This is a bill that has passed Congress, the larger of the two chambers of the Congress, now awaiting passage into law in the United States Senate. I think it completely erodes any moral authority that we have to ever preach about free speech if we are literally restricting the content of speech or opinions that can be expressed and codifying that in a federal statute. It's disgusting. And I think that we need we're at a moment where we actually need more debate within the right. I think that there is a risk of papering over a lot of those

disagreements in an era of an election year about foreign funding for wars, even in places like Ukraine or elsewhere, to surveillance state measures, FISA 702, to speech restrictions here at home. That's one of the things I'm hoping to do on my podcast is actually open up into the open, even some of the debates on the right, within the right that we're not having. I got to leave it at that because I'm up against a break. But Vivek, I hope everybody tunes in. It's the Truth Podcast. And as you heard here today,

he's always worth listening to. Thank you, my friend. Great to see you. Thank you. All right, coming up next, Buck Sexton is here. Don't go away. We are getting reports that former porn star and porn director,

what I really want to do is direct all of the, well, yeah, you know, Stormy Daniels is expected to testify at the trial of Donald Trump today. So get ready for the media to get excited. This is the most exciting thing to happen to the nerds since Pamela Anderson, yeah, probably since Pamela Anderson divorced, what's his name? Tommy Lee. Or since Anna Nicole Smith went up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, that's the real thing that came into their world. And Kristi Noem's embarrassing media tour is continuing. My God, why is she doing this to herself? She was like on the short list for VP and now she's a national laughingstock. Her book is officially out today. My next guest called Kristi Noem a phony back in 2021. What did he know then? Buck Sexton is the co-host of the Clay and Buck show and host of the Buck

Sexton show. Buck, great to see you. Welcome back. Hey, Megan. Thanks for having me. You, you're like a Nostradamus. I mean, that word in particular, a phony, in light of her book claiming originally that she met Kim Jong-un, that she stared him down because she was used to dealing with little tyrants who underestimated her. It's all lies.

She tried initially when this came out to say, oh, it was my team and I had it corrected as soon as it was brought to my attention. That's also a lie because she recorded the audio of it in her own voice saying the exact alleged lie. Now they've had to pull all that from the audio book. It'll be on the bookshelves in Barnes and Noble and elsewhere today because they couldn't get it out of the written book. But it's out of the electronic. And now she continues to try to dodge and weave around this error. If you want to be super generous, here's just a sample of her on with Jesse Waters last night's hot 20.

They're also attacking you. I guess you said you met Kim Jong-un. Did you meet him? I've been to the DMZ. I've been to North Korea. You know, people, I don't talk about my conversations with world leaders. And so when I looked at the book and I saw that excerpt, I decided to make a change to the content of the book. And that's been done. So you didn't have a conversation with Kim when you were at the DMZ?

I don't have conversations about my conversations with world leaders. I've been working on policy for 30 years, Jesse. And that's what most people don't remember about me is I'm old. I'm a I'm a mom. I'm a grandma. I've got three little grandbabies. You're not that old. So maybe you did have a conversation with him, but you don't want to talk. I will not talk about my personal conversations with any world leaders. It just won't. And I'm not going to do it. What have you. I know.

I'm sorry. It's an absurdity. It's infuriating. It's I tell you, I guess as somebody who cross examined for a living for 10 years, that kind of clip drives me insane. Buck, it drives me insane. There is a way of pinning her down on her nonsense. And I've yet to see anybody do it. Oh, well, this is who she is and who she's always been. I mean, you pointed out, I appreciate you calling me Nostradamus. I just like to think that I have the tool set of a CIA analyst from back in the day when we used to obsess over details and specifically veracity. One thing about being an intelligence officer, in the good sense, forget about all the deep state stuff and all the things that have happened that people get upset about, is that you have to spend a lot of your time sifting through

information and then verifying information, because you generally get a lot of stuff that is nonsense. And then the stuff that you think is good, you have to really, really be sure. Okay, how does that apply to Kristi Noem? This is the Kristi Noem playbook. And it's to get caught being ridiculous and being a fraud, and then to stare at people and say, well, this is how we do things on the ranch, sir, and just act indignant. And people have been going for this for years. I mean, you mentioned the little incident from a few years ago, and people also saw this on Tucker Carlson's TV show on Fox around the same time. She very openly said she was going to sign a bill that would have protected women when it comes to transgender men pretending to be women in sports. And then she went back on that. And then she tried this whole routine of, oh, it's a trial lawyer's dream. And, oh, you don't understand Section 7259 of the South Dakota Constitution, sir. No, you lied. We actually just know you

lied. We're not all stupid. And, you know, I'll say this, people who know me and have known my work, I mean, I've been doing this a while, even back in the day when I was getting started. And Megan was so kind to have me on her massive show on Fox and the A Block talking about terrorism. Thank you, Megan. Many, many times. But many times. And I always appreciate that. But, you know, you look at this and you see how she's been doing this for a long time. And there's nothing new really here. There's nothing that I think people should understand. She's been pretending to be ultra conservative in a very red state. And what she does is the moment she's challenged on

something, she runs the same routine, the same playbook that she always has in the past. And like, for example, on the transgender bill, she tweeted that she was going to do it. And then she just created this whole nonsense about how, well, no, actually, I never said, well, it's in writing, you clearly said it. But she exploits, I think, a sense of identity, and a sense of people feeling like they have a connection to her because of her personal story, or whatever it might be. And then she always goes on offense. And so she essentially, there's like a little mini gnome cult in the moment that you call her to, to account, she all of a sudden gets angry at you and she doesn't take accountability for it. And this is, by the way, on COVID, she also decided not to protect people from vaccine mandates, private ones in her state.

Ron DeSantis made a different choice, but she got very upset. That's one of the things that you guys fought over. They had to dust up, whatever. Here's a little bit of that from 2021. When I'm not governor anymore, how do I know the next governor won't use that exact same precedent to use it to limit the freedom? But you are the governor now, Governor Noem. And and right now we're at a point where there are mandates going. People are having to get shots right now. People are facing losing their jobs right now. Why not be a person who is taking a stand in favor of individual freedom, which I believe is actually the primary purpose of the Constitution?

Why not do that? And there is nobody in this country that would say that I know other governor took more heat over defending liberty and freedom than I did this last year. I mean, I think Governor Ron DeSantis might disagree, but keep going. Keep going. You keep going, Buck. Oh, it's just so obvious. And the truth is that she always points to not shutting down her state during COVID.

I haven't even gotten to the dog shooting, the bragging about the dog shooting. We're going there. and we have the audio. The dog shooting on top of the dog shooting and then making a joke about how she wants to shoot the president's existing dog. This is like sociopathic. I'm sorry, I don't want to jump around too much. But she's like a serial killer. Oh, I mean, on COVID, I sniffed this out because she was playing this whole game and I saw what she did to Tucker on TV. And I've seen what she's tried with other people, which is everyone else is dumb but her. You know, when you're speaking to some of the smartest minds in media and you're speaking to people that have been in this game a while and your response is always, you just don't know enough, sir.

This is how we do it on the ranch or whatever. You're the problem. And that's been the case with Christina for a long time, her aggressive strategy, the little cult she's built around her and people all go, this is what I wanted to get to before. Anyone who's known my work for a long time, I mentioned I used to go on your show. I don't attack people on the right. I generally have a no enemies to the right. I don't pick fights with people. I love I love the success of fellow radio hosts. I mean, I I applaud the Daily Wire doing cool stuff. I love Dan Bongino fighting for America like I'm on the team. But when I see somebody who's being a fraud and taking advantage of people on my side who are well intentioned and who will want freedom and who want effective and competent leadership, it does bother me, you know, when they're being lied to in a way that I think affects them. So that's where the original thing with with known came up. And now, yeah, I mean, I was right. I was right all along. And I'm right now. And some of the people that have emailed me, you know, years ago,

why are you being so hard on her? I was like, because she's a phony. And now everyone knows she's actually kind of worse than a phony. She's a phony. She's a poser. And she won't be honest about her own shortcomings, even when she's caught red handed. That exchange with Jesse Waters. I don't have conversations about my my about my conversations with world leaders. I don't. No one's asking you about substance. We're asking you, did you meet with him or didn't you?

You're the one who brought it up, ma'am. You put it in your book. meet with him or didn't you? You're the one who brought it up, ma'am. You put it in your book. Did it happen or didn't it? And by the way, when you then claim when it was brought to my, who brought it to your attention? When? Why did you read the audio book? When you read out loud, I met with Kim Jong-un and I stared him down. Did it occur to you that you were telling a lie? Because most of us would have a very clear memory if we had met with the leader of North Korea. It's kind of a big deal. Did you correct it then? Were you embarrassed? Did you go back through tooth and comb over your entire ghostwritten memoir to make sure there were no other errors? Because you also appear to have lied about a meeting with Emmanuel Macron. How many lies are there in this book? And why should we believe you

on anything, especially now your revisionist history about why you really shot your puppy, which she's now claiming the dog was basically a serial killer and not her. It was a, it was a 14 month old dog of a breed that I'm familiar with and have, and have dealt with in the past. The notion that that kind of a dog is a threat to people. She's again, she's lying. And for anyone who's like, well, why are we spending time on this? She was the number one VP candidate, according to the betting markets. And this is the kind of thing in a super tight election. What do I want? I want Donald Trump to win. I want Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.

I do not want some abject fraud to be the difference between victory and defeat for the Republicans. How could I take any pride in my job if I would be silent when I truly believe, and as you pointed out, I've believed it for a long time, that this is somebody who is dishonest with her own supporters and is dishonest with the American people, and also brings a kind of nastiness. And I haven't even gotten into the personal stuff, and I won't because I don't think I need to go there. But we've reported on it. You have reported on it. Yeah. The audience, we reported on this show, the Daily Mail's in-depth reporting about her

alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski and the denials of which were absolutely pathetic and transparent. And I believe 100 percent it happened. That's my opinion. I have excellent sourcing on this and I absolutely agree with you. So I'll just, I'll say that. I mean, I have a lot of people that I know in DC and in political circles, and we talk a lot and guess what? But I'll put that aside because honestly, I don't want to be, I don't want to be accused of being, having a double standard because, you know, some male politicians obviously get away with a lot of stuff in that realm. But on the telling people the truth about what you stand for and where you'll

actually fight and whether you're a person of any integrity whatsoever, make it. I mean, I can't help but laugh. She's saying she won't talk about meetings with world leaders based on a section of her book where she's talking about meetings with world leaders. And she thinks this is she prepared this. She went on Jesse Waters show and Jesse was, you know, Jesse's a very nice guy. Jesse. Too nice there. I think, I mean, I like, again, see, I don't want to, I don't want to attack people on the right. We have communists. I'm not attacking Jesse. I've known Jesse a long time. I think he would take my feedback as Jesse. A hundred percent. I didn't mean it like that, but I'm just saying like,

even just, you know, I don't want to call him out for being a little too soft in the interview, but I mean, I think he was, but it's okay. I really like Jesse. But the point is, she thought that was,

people are looking to her for an answer on this. She thinks that's a legitimate answer and she's defiant about it. Notice there's no sense of remorse, whether it's the dog shooting story, which she included in the book, and people can, I love dogs, and I tell everybody that, so I'm very honest about where I'm coming from. She included that in her book because she thought it made her look like she makes tough

decisions, so she should possibly lead America, not just as vice president, everybody, the whole game plan is vice president to president. And I'm sorry, like that to me is just a bridge way too far for a person who has no record of actual legislative achievement to be proud of and lies in a way that makes a mockery of all. It makes a mockery of all of us. Well, we're going to pull the lever and be like, yeah, I'm so excited about the gnome candidacy. Really? Let me. OK, so we finally have because the book hit today, including the audio version, Kristi Noem, in her own words, describing the murder of the 14-month-old puppy Cricket. We've condensed it into a two-minute clip. Here it is.

Cricket was a wire hair pointer, about 14 months old, and she had come to us from a home that had struggled with her aggressive personality. I was sure that she'd learn a lot going out with our older dogs that day. I was wrong. Within an hour of walking the first field, Cricket had blown past the group, gotten too far ahead. She'd flushed up birds that were out of range. She was out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life. The only problem was, was there was no hunters nearby to shoot the birds that she was scaring up. I called her back to no avail. I hit her electronic collar to give her a quick tone to remind her to listen. I then hit the button to give her a warning vibration that told her to come back to me now. No response. The hunt was ruined and I was livid. Some neighbors who recently purchased a puppy from

us asked me to stop and to check on their pup on the way home. Suddenly out of the corner of my eye I caught a glimpse of Cricket launching herself out of the back end of the pickup and racing across the yard. All three of us chased Cricket around in circles, flailing after her while she systematically grabbed one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite and then dropping it to attack another. She was like a trained assassin. Eventually, I got my hand on her collar and she whipped around to bite me. There were bloodied bodies and feathers everywhere. When I got back into my truck, Cricket was sitting in the passenger seat looking like she had just won the lottery,

the picture of pure joy. I hated that dog. As I drove home, I realized that I had no choice. Cricket was untrainable, and after trying to bite me, dangerous to anybody that she came in contact with. A dog who bites is dangerous and unpredictable. Are you listening, Joe Biden? She was less than worthless to us as a hunting dog. At that moment, I realized I had to put her down. As I pulled into the driveway, I decided I had to deal with this problem myself. This was my dog and it was my responsibility and I would not ask somebody else to clean up my mess. I stopped the truck in the middle of the yard. I got out my gun, grabbed Cricket's leash, and I let her out into the pasture and down into the gravel pit.

It was not a pleasant job, but it had to be done. There you have it, in her own words. So a few things about this. And I, you know, the people in the, in your audience who are dog lovers, I have a ton of them in my audience. I think they know where I'm coming from. I'll try to get past the horror of thinking that this is some kind of a cool story to show that, you know, you'll make the tough decisions, you know, to shoot your own as a 14 month old dog. I want to analyze this as objectively as I can. Why is she including and people say, oh, this doesn't matter. Really, this person wants to be president of the United States. I think it matters a lot, actually.

But put that aside. And then also talking about how she shot the goat because she didn't like the goat and everything else. She smelled bad. Same day, by the way. And has photos of her the same day that she's put horses down. She takes photos of this to commemorate it. Does that seem normal? How many people listening to this have photos of them celebrating horse put down day when

they shoot their horse? OK. All right. So those are all facts. Those are not in dispute. She said she brings up all of the issues of it being bad at hunting. So, so were you, are you killing? And she said she hated it before the incident where it tried to bite her. It sounds to me like she thinks the dog isn't worthwhile enough to her as a hunting dog. So she's going to kill it. I mean, that that's the part, or at least she's moving in that direction. And then when she says the dog turned around to bite her, it didn't bite her.

I have a puppy. Puppies nip and are playful and get overexcited all the time. Somebody should look up the breed of dog that this is. It's not an 85 pound pit bull. Okay. This is a little bird dog. It's like a midsize sporting dog. The idea that this is a danger to people, any dog would go after chickens. It's a 14 month old dog. And she could have given it away. I, Megan, this is a true story. I have a friend who is an absolutely avid hunter, sportsman, everything else he had. I think it was the same breed of dog. It looked very similar, was not a good bird dog at all. Just, he's like, it was untrainable. He loves his new bird dog so much. He had it cloned, which is a whole other conversation. So he could have the same dog. So this guy's really into his bird dogs. This guy's really, you know what he did when he had a dog that he couldn't

train? He said, I hired everybody. He found a single mom who was a family friend who had a little boy who wanted a dog. They love that dog. What is she doing? This whole thing about how she had to put the dog down, she had to go kill it. I don't know. Maybe give it a day. Maybe think about it. This dog had lived with her for 14 months, never bitten anybody before. One bite and she kills it. This is horrifying judgment in the act and horrifying judgment to tell the story. And I'm just going to say this. There are people who unfortunately, and this always happens, if you ask any of the FBI, why aren't frauds reported more? You know why frauds aren't

reported more? I mean, monetary frauds, because people are embarrassed that they were taken in by it. So the actual number of fraud that occurs, the monetary number, much bigger than what is officially reported, because nobody wants to say, oh, yeah, like I sent the fake prince $10 million or whatever. They'd probably tell them that. But I sent them 50 grand. Nobody wants to say, oh, yeah, like I sent the fake prince $10 million or, you know, whatever. They'd probably tell them that. But I sent them 50 grand. You know, nobody wants to admit this. Kristi Noem fooled a lot of people and she fooled a lot of great people, people from rural America, people from South Dakota, people who believed in her. And I understand that there is this sense. Look, I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. Nobody's perfect, right? But let's look at reality and

let's see what she has shown us. And let's make a conscious and real decision as Republicans to have some standards of truth and forthrightness and judgment in our politicians. I mean, that's basically where I come down on this. Yes, I agree with all of that. I thought she was great, too. I admit. And we really wrestled about whether we would even report the Corey Lewandowski news because I really was her fan. But it was a big story. And my feeling was we would report this if it were about a man, if it were about somebody on the short list, you know, being considered for VP, we would report it. And we're not going to treat her differently just because she a woman. So, and by the way, there are pictures and there's a lot,

there's a lot behind that particular allegations. It does. It's not one of those things that was just hurled. Um, but the, there's a lot to digest in here and I wanted to make a couple of comments as well. So she's upset because the dogs scurried the birds around when there was no hunter nearby to shoot. He flushed up the birds, she, Cricket, out of range. Oh, dumbass dog who didn't understand exactly how Kristi Noem wanted it to hunt, even though it was just a puppy. And she, several times, the dog was having the time of her life. She talks about how she looked like she'd won the lottery. She was the picture of pure joy. I hated that dog. Why did she hate her? She hated the dog because she'd won the lottery. She was the picture of pure joy. I hated that dog. Why did she hate her? She hated the dog. She didn't hunt right on her first time out. The

dog, by the way, had just been shocked. It's fine. I understand the shock collar. And she hated her because when the dog was killing chickens, which I'm convinced at least my Stradwick would deal and they they see chicken the way we see chicken, like food. They don't understand the modern niceties of how you're supposed to be around chickens. They see it's food, it's prey. And by the way, it's in the dog's nature. That's why you hire it to help on a hunt, to go retrieve the dog. I mean, retrieve the bird. Anyway, I'm sure my Stradwick would eat chickens if I put him around and he's the sweetest lug that you'd ever find in your life. And she seemed, if you hear the audio, to take delight in it. She wants us to believe that it was a tough decision because it would be a tough decision for

anyone else. It would definitely be tough to decide to kill your innocent 14-year-old puppy. That is a tough one. But it wasn't for her because she was motivated by anger and she clearly hated her dog and I would submit is not an animal lover in any way. but it's meant to be, this was meant to be a launchpad into national, true national politics, a vice presidential or cabinet role, and a future run at the presidency for her. Everybody knows it. It's obvious from her little spokesperson who's running around sharing polls all summer about how she's the VP that they fear most and all this kind of stuff. So this is not some theory. We all know what the game plan was here. She's writing this memoir. Why not say, I mean, did she cry? Did she cry after she had to shoot her own dog? Obviously not, because she hated the dog. So she shot the dog in anger.

Is that the kind of decision that you make when you're in a bad mood? I'm going to go kill the family dog. It had lived with her for 14 months. By the way, depending on who you ask, puppies become adult dogs anywhere from 12 to 18 months. So this whole game that some of the gnome supporters play, it's not a puppy. I mean, it's basically a puppy. It's a puppy. Okay. And if you're fighting about whether or not it's a puppy, when you're talking about killing a dog under these circumstances, you're already losing. But I mean, it's it's interesting to see. I'll tell you, I got a lot of pushback on my show. You know, Clay is not I have a dog. I grew up with dogs and I love them. And maybe I have an irrational attachment to canines like

I think that there are family members. My audience is totally with us. There are some who said, oh, maybe, but they could see why this is controversial as well. I mean, the vast majority are with us. Clay, you know, my co-host on our fabulous show, Clay tried to be very, he's not a dog guy. So he just took the perspective of to share this story is such political malpractice that that alone, I mean, to think that people, to think that if you're going to win over suburban moms in Pennsylvania and Arizona, which is the only reason you're being considered, by the way. That's the only reason you're being considered as VP. Correct. The only thing here is to get women, married women voters in the suburbs to really

go for Trump. OK, that is your goal as VP. You had one job and you're telling this story about, oh, yeah, on the ranch, we just handle the business ourselves. The whole thing, it was political malpractice. But Clay wasn't coming down on her as hard. I mean, I think it bothered him, but as hard on the shooting of the dog itself, because people say, well, she was doing the whole it was a danger. And what about old Yeller? I'm like, old Yeller had rabies, everybody. It was a mercy. It was a mercy killing.

OK, no one's saying that when you put it and then people say, well, I put my dog down when it was 15. I'm like, yeah, it was a mercy after a long and wonderful life with your family. Everyone does. Why? I don't know. But there's such a desperation to defend her horrible conduct. I bring it up because with the North Korea thing, now it's fine.

Now it's just people. She lost. Now it's flat. Now it's flat earth or land. Now, if you don't see who we're dealing with here, do you know how many people have met? I mean, again, I work in the CIA. I ran two presidential briefings. It was me, the president running it for the CIA, vice president in the room.

I have some idea of how this stuff goes. The number of people who have met with Kim Jong-un, who are American, who are C-3 level officials, I think you could count them maybe on two hands, maybe on one. I mean, it is tiny. It would be a huge deal. And what you're saying is the governor of South Dakota is not on the list, Buck? I mean, I think this is when she was a congresswoman, too. I mean, I haven't read the book yet, but I'm assuming you're a no-name congresswoman from South Dakota and you think you're going to be like chilling out with Kim Jong-un and staring him down? It's fantasy land garbage. But the reason somebody could

include that in a book like this is they're so used to just having the people who like her. And there are guys and Megan, I can't speak from this perspective there, but, you know, there are guys who they see she's attractive. You know, I live in the real world. She's a, she's a good looking woman and they give her more than a little leeway because of it. I'm not saying this is I object on this. This is exactly what pisses me off. Some people will accuse me sometimes of being too hard on my own sex. It's not that I'm too hard on my own sex. It's that I have very high standards for them and I know they can meet them. I refuse to lower the bar for performance for my own sex. I know what we're capable of. We can be

all the things. And I don't, her behavior, her stories about herself are as fake as her hair. It's gotten to the point where she's trying to glam herself up. She's trying to, she has to decide whether she wants to be a pinup girl who's like got the guns and it's super tough, or she wants to be a leader who's smart and sober and could take this country into the next generation. She's ruined the second possibility with all of this nonsense. I see her entirely differently than I used to before. And the lying about it has made it even worse. I mean, in revising the dog story in the wake of the controversy, she's changed it to the dog had attacked people. Who? That's not what you said in your book. That would have been a detail you should have and

would have included. All you said was the dog tried, but didn't to bite you, not people, not a danger to your kids. And by the way, it was when you were trying to take a high value item out of its mouth, a dead chicken, any animal would be reluctant to, to part with it. So she's lying even in the wake of it. And by the way, did you see the reports today? She wanted to include this dog story in her first book about not my first rodeo. That's what we had her on for in 21. And some smart advisors around her said that would be very stupid. That's not going to have the effect you think it is. And apparently now she has a different team. Did you see that?

Now, I will try to be as specific about this as possible because everything that I have said so far about all of this, to the best of my knowledge, is 100% factual. I think there was an AP story that said that it has been a lot. Now, granted, coming from, I'm sure, I know what they'll say about this. It's Democratic oppo and you're just playing into the left's game. I know all the all the talking because that's what our team always does if you ever say anything you know you're you're playing into the left's game and you're holding down or holding down a prominent woman in politics

whatever they've been they've been dirty fighters the whole way um so there's really a tremendous poetic justice in all this like I don't I don't applaud people's downfalls as a general matter either I'm breaking a lot of rules here I will just say I don't attack people's downfalls as a general matter either. I'm breaking a lot of rules here. I will just say, I don't attack people on the right. I don't like being mean. I don't like applauding downfalls. She absolutely richly deserves this. And it's important for the country that everyone sees exactly what's going on. I think that, where was I a second ago, Megan?

I got so fired up. You were going to reveal some other report that you said you'd see. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Associated Press, that the reason it came out the second time is that there were eyewitnesses to the event and that it was clear or rather to the day. And it was clear to her that she was basically pissed

off at her dog because it was bad at hunting and she killed it. And so it was to get ahead of the story that she told the story this time because because it would come out in oppo. Now, I can't verify that other than the AP reporting, but doesn't that make more sense? Because again, how could anyone who has any kind of a job in politics that requires winning an election be that dumb? Yeah. It's a good question. How could anyone think? And then the Kim Jong-un thing too, the way to like how could anyone think you know it's and then i mean the kim jong-un thing too the way to handle that for anyone saying i'm writing a book right now i've got to have the cia review it it's a whole you know it's going to be a good book though megan we have to talk

about it when it comes up uh thank you and i'm actually writing it unlike people that have all the ghost writers do it i'm actually writing uh writing my entire book um but But the idea that the way to respond to the pressure on this is to almost be indignant and act like she's protecting sources and methods. Like, I don't I don't you know, I don't talk about my meetings with world leaders in the section of my book where I'm talking about my meetings with world leaders. The way that no one was asking about guys, this was a collaboration. I have numerous people working on it. Somebody misunderstood something. Totally embarrassing mistake. We're obviously... But notice she doesn't do that. It's, oh, I meet with a lot of leaders and I'm very important and I do

a lot of good things on the world stage. Really? That's how you respond to the most... Honestly, the most embarrassing memoir flub I can think of for a politician. I don't know. And it violates the cardinal rule of do no harm. That's the rule in a please choose me as VP memoir, right? This is not a new act where somebody who is reportedly on the shortlist releases a book. This is how amazing I am. Look at my long resume. Everyone's going to love me. The first rule, do no harm. You don't need to say anything controversial. Just stick to the farm stories. The story about losing her dad on the ranch is very heart wrenching

and very tough on the whole family. She grew up legit out in South Dakota. I get it. That's a great personal story. Stick to that, not the puppy killing. But the thing about the story and the puppy killing that makes me think maybe it wasn't that it was gonna come out

is I would have written about it differently had I been in that position. You'd, you'd expect her to say it did bite me. And if it really did bite other people, it bit all these other people. And it was a very hard decision. I loved the dog and my kids love the dog, which was why it was so hard. Why would she be writing? I hated it. And it was so joyful when I put a bullet between its eyes, like her something's off on her EQ is what I'm going for here. But yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, I, she also, um, you know, she, like I said, she has a reputation behind the scenes. Uh, unfortunately, uh, the truth is she was able, I think, to get away with a lot more than she would have because she had a lot of the Trump base behind her because a lot of people liked her. And I can understand why. I mean, you know, I just happen to be in a situation. I had people from the South Dakota Statehouse reaching out to me directly. You know what I mean? So I got drawn into this a little bit. They're like, this woman's not who she says she is. So it wasn't like, to be totally

honest, it wasn't like I just happened to stumble upon what's going on here. People reached out to me who know state politics there much better, and they told me what's going on. But I think she was able to get away with it for a while. You know, Trump has had generally positive things to say about her. And so that shielded her, but it shielded her in such a way that I think she didn't learn some of the key lessons she should have to be at the national level, right? It's like, you don't want to, if you're immune from criticism all the time, you end up as Kamala. You end up as somebody who has no idea what they're doing, isn't competent, has been sort of pushed along. And I think there was a bit of that on the right here. And so it's a moment for some introspection and we're learning a lesson and someone is showing us showing us who they are.

And yeah, before it's too late, before it's too late, importantly, right. It's like there's lots of choices for VP that could really advance Trump's ticket. She's not one of them. All right. There's a lot more to discuss. We're going to get, uh, get to some of that. I, I am going to ask Buck Sexton, this former CIA officer about the Met Gala. Stay tuned for that. That's next. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.

Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the 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 MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. So Buck, last night was the big Met Gala in New York. And I'm just going to say, not for nothing, I have gone to this thing a couple of times. When I went to this thing, it was A-listers everywhere. It was all of Hollywood's most favored darlings. Now it's like a bunch of social media, online influencers and the Kardashians, truly. And like some singers who I'd know, but the Hollywood A-lister game is pretty much

over at the Met Gala. And so are you Anna Wintour, because you're a bitch and no one likes you. Anyway, um, they host this thing. It costs $75,000 a person to attend. The celebs get invited and it gets, you know, comp, they don don't pay. They're the lure to get the nerds to pay 75 grand to go sit next to them. And it's the most out of touch event you could ask for in New York. Honestly, it was absolutely painful. Every time Doug and I went to one of these things, we wound up talking like to the accountant who financed the party and could talk to us about New York City waterworks. You try to talk to these celebs, it's just too painful. There's just nothing to connect to, absolute vapidity. So that's what is happening on the inside there. And I've told the audience before about how all these models

were smoking in the women's room. Guys were blowing cocaine in the men's room. Very classy. Well, it's gotten no classier because last night what we had was a parade of nudity. They're nudists. It was like they forgot their clothes. The theme was the Garden of Time, something related to sleeping beauty. And I guess they went all the way back to the Garden of Eden because I'll just show you a couple. Rita Ora, Doja Cat, and of course, Emily Radzikowski. I don't know how you pronounce her. She never wears her clothing. Emily's whole thing is, let me show you how naked I can be. I mean, this is actually pretty clothed up for her, but it's all see-through. And my first thought on the nudity, Buck, I'm interested in

your feelings on this. I know most red-blooded american men approve of nudity, but you also care about our culture my feeling is If I wanted extra attention and I wanted to just come out on this show one day naked I could get a bunch of clicks buck. I could get a bunch of clicks. I'm still capable of getting some clips clicks, but I don't do that because I have some dignity. And I would really prefer that while my looks are important to me, people know me first and foremost for my mind. There is a whole section of America now that does not have that value. And these women like that, Emily, I think she's an actress or a model or a model. Okay. Doja Cat is a very successful, interesting singer. Rita Ora is an accomplished actress. So what's happening? Because it seems to me they've seen

Kanye West's wife, Rita, or whatever her name, Bianca Sensori. And instead of saying, where are her clothes? Why is she just wearing a sofa cushion? They decided to follow suit. Oh, there's so much going on here. I will say this is the first time I've ever been tapped as celebrity nudity expert. Gotta say, I think I'll do okay. You're a man. You got this.

I mean, I'm a guy. I'm a guy. I got a pretty wife and I like pretty ladies. So I'd say this. First off, on just like the Met Gala, I should tell everybody, full disclosure,

I feel the way about galas the same way that I do about going to movie theaters, which is that I go once every two years to remind myself that I don't want to go again. And it lasts at least a year or two. Like I'm just not, I don't like sitting next to people that I don't choose to sit next to. I don't like being at a place where everyone Harvey We sat with Harvey Weinstein one year, Buck. Harvey. Wow. Yeah. Can we do another podcast where I get to ask you questions about that? I got thoughts.

I'm very curious what he's like. Anyway, so I'm not a gala person in general. I also, my advice to everybody for weddings is make it shorter, make it easier on your guests, stop being a bridezilla, et cetera, et cetera. So I just, okay, that's my feeling about galas. So I'm not the guy who would, if I had a billion dollars, I wouldn't pay 75 grand to go to the Met Gala because I don't care. But I would say about the celebrity component of it and the nudity aspect of it, this is a little bit of what the social media race to the bottom creates. People, I think, and I really mean this, I think that women

in society, in America particularly, I can't speak about what it's like elsewhere. I assume it's pretty similar in Western Europe and other places. They are valued more on appearance than they've ever been. And also there's more value to their appearance as in it's immediate and monetizable in a way that wasn't even really possible a while ago. And so I think that there's a fixation on the dopamine hits that people get from the attention and the clicks. And that overrides whatever internal self-esteem, whatever sense of dignity a person may have, a woman may have in this case, it gets completely shouted down, you know, in their processes and their thinking about this by, I know this is going to get a lot of attention. I'm going to get a lot of clicks.

And if I don't do it, my competitors are doing it, right? If I'm not in the public eye, you know, you can kind of tell like who really wants to be in the public eye because they'll appear in the Daily Mail like so-and-so like on their fishing trip. Paparazzi isn't really a thing anymore. Okay. We're looking at you. She's the queen of it. Oh, I just happened to get caught on my yacht in this perfectly posed position. My love affair is real. Who is it? I didn't hear you. J-Lo. J-Lo.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. No, absolutely. That's what I'm saying. Like, you can tell who sets up, oh, like this person just caught going to get coffee. It's like, you actually weren't because your publicist called them

and you want to be seen and you want this to be... There she is. She would show up to the opening of an envelope. She would never miss a chance to be on camera the only people those pictures of those celebrities are real when they're very fat and old and they're like this celebrity looking amazing on her way to starbucks which is the daily mail's way of just getting the photo on and not being called mean if ever if anyone thought i

wasn't a christy gnome fan let me tell you i you, I think that Jennifer Lopez is the most overrated celebrity across the board, probably in my lifetime. Like I, she is not a good actor. She is not a good singer. She is from what I can tell, not a very nice person from what I read. I don't know. I've never met her, but in terms of her work, her work is overwhelmingly trash. Her songs are terrible. Her movies, she can't act her way out of her paper bag. And she's famous because she was a latin star at a time when there you go back and look you know you can see there was an explosion of interest in uh in sort of like latin celebrities around the j-lo era um and selena had died yeah i mean selena was killed selena had good songs uh but yes selena had been killed i think

by her manager right it's a horrible story yeah uh but yeah i i think jennifer lopez is is uh the most overrated like actress musician probably since since i've been alive and then i would just say on the social media and the getting naked thing um you know i i i do wish that there was a little bit more of a uh of a voice like i think that there are people who could weigh in on this that would be listened to, who could say, you know, hey, ladies, like, we really don't need to do that.

But they don't want the heat from the people that are going to say, this is how it is. Like, the degradation of the culture becomes this self-fulfilling prophecy because the people who benefit from it keep doing it. Other people feel like

they have to compete with them. And the people who still maintain it keep doing it. Other people feel like they have to compete with them. And the people who still maintain their dignity and have a voice are like, I just want to have a peaceful, happy life. And I don't want the lunatics all in my mentions or sending me emails or worse, death threats or whatever it may be. So I hope that that changes.

I think that's true in sports too, by the way. It is one thing to go out and do a saucy picture. This Emily Ratajkowski is incredibly gorgeous. And I'm sure people there's a reason people pay to look at her. But to just really put your ass on display in public at one of like the season's events, you know, of the year where you're supposed to be making a, like a legitimate fashion statement. And your statement is look at my naked ass. Look at my naked boobs. It's like an arms rating. It's like an arms race, but a butts race. You know what I mean? Like it's, it's, if one of them, one of them is showing a little bit of the booty and the other one is showing a

little more of the boob. And this is kind of what ends up, what ends up happening. And then, and then leave it to the Kardashians to always take it next level. I cannot stand their influence on American culture. I cannot. So Kim Kardashian, who, again, denies that she's had any work done. It's a lie. Oh, of course. I mean, that's like, that's like liver King saying he didn't take steroids kind of alive. But anyway, keep going. Sure. Her waist here has got, hopefully we can get a more clear picture of it because it is like, you could get, it's like this, you could get your hands around it. What two hands could go around the waist. She must have like three corsets on. She had a famous, famous corset on a couple of years ago where she admitted she took breathing classes and how to wear it. And once again, she goes out and creates this image like, oh, it's just me.

You know, I just dieted. I don't believe it. I mean, she looks like she's had a rib removed. I swear something's gone wrong. And she's always looking for the next level of attention. That is not a healthy image to be projecting to American girls. She doesn't give a shit. She's writing these pictures and her quote image all the way to the bank. So she was there, her sister with like the Madonna breasts, like the pointy bra. That was the younger billionaire one, Kylie, the mom was there and that's perfect for what this event has become. Their currency is attention and they'll do anything for it.

Unfortunately, it's been incredibly lucrative for them. But I have, and I know we're running short on time, but I live in Miami and maybe I'm a pretty traditional guy, but you're on the forefront of some of these very negative trends for women down here. I didn't even know what a Brazilian butt lift was until I moved here. I mean that seriously. And now I will see, you will see, yeah, do not watch the real housewives. I will see women and it's the same. They have the Kardashian, a super tiny waist. And I have friends here in the fitness industry. They're just buddies of mine. And they'll talk about, and you know, I know guys who are also surgeons, plastic surgeons, they'll talk about how they've done procedures there. And then they've made these enormous

derrieres, sometimes even sort of putting an implant under the muscle. It's a dangerous surgery. It's actually has a pretty high complication risk. And there's something very obtuse about the, about the aesthetics involved in this. Like, why do you have to create a fake artificial butt? I think that I didn't know I was going to be talking about this today, by the way, but also the, uh, it's always a surprise here on the MK show. The tattoos and the plastic surgery, um, are also for women are out of control. I was going to say it's out of control. I, I, I, you know, aesthetics are about moderation at some level. It's about, you know, what's within bounds and it's gotten, I've never women, they've got little tiny tattoos everywhere. They've got so much done. All they're trying to convince all these women to start doing

Botox at like 22. Now I'm sure, you know, you've heard about this and get caught preventative, but all this stuff, I'm like, what ladies same with guys, just be normal. I mean, look at Ben Affleck. Guys are doing this too. I don't want to make just about women. They're, I'm like, what ladies? Same with guys. Just be normal. Look at Ben Affleck. Guys are doing this too. I don't want to make just about women. They're making, they look like freaks. They are paying tens of thousands of dollars to look like freaks. Why?

Ben Affleck showed up at the Tom Brady roast the other night and he was, I don't know what he did to his face. There was speculation. He either had a facelift or he got heavily Botoxed or he got filler. I don't know, but I really prefer my men to be men. And I want to be the pretty one. I don't want my, my man to be the pretty one getting as many procedures as I'm getting. And I really don't want him to be in a dress. And yet, Buck, that leads me to the men last night. Look at this. Are these men? What are these? Okay, I'm going to show you. On the left, we have Jordan Roth. Okay, he was in this full-length flower gown. I don't know who that is. Is that Jordan Roth? I'm looking at a

different picture in my packet. Look at this. These that a nun? These are men. I don't even know who these people are, but look at this. It looks like a bride. Okay. Look at this guy. Full length flower gown. Where, what happened to the men, Buck? Where are they? Well, society elevates anti-masculinity. I mean, that's part our society does, pop culture does. And there's a really in-depth conversation that is ongoing and I think very much worth having about why that is. I think that masculinity is inherently a challenge to centralized government and totalitarian control, which I think that the leftist ideology in this country absolutely wants to achieve. So strong men stand in the way of their ability to just make us all, you know, cows that are fed and maintained and we're safe and warm and don't

ask any questions to borrow from Solzhenitsyn. And I think that we're seeing that this is something that people are ideologically pushing, even though it doesn't sell. I mean, you know, everyone can see this. Like you make Top Gun, you make a kick-ass movie about, you know, being, being a badass and doing great things and the heroes and everything else. You make a ton of money. They don't want to do that. They want to do this. They want to have guys. No one wants to see this. They want to, and no woman wants to be taken to bed by these guys either. And I don't know that they want to go with women either. It was a disaster. It was a fail.

And the big headline out of most of the publications was it was a bore, which is the worst thing you can be. Buck Sexton, you are not. You're the opposite of all those things. It was wonderful to see you. Great to see you. I always have so much fun. Thank you for having me.

Same. Okay, before we go, I want to tell you about Doug Brunt's latest podcast. Speaking of my husband, Doug Brunt, um, it's his latest podcast episode and he's now launched a YouTube. Okay. And he's would love for you to subscribe. If you'd like to see my interview with Doug, you can go subscribe to his podcast, which is called dedicated with Doug Brunt, or you can go to youtube.com slash dedicated with Doug because his podcast is which is called Dedicated with Doug Brunt, or you can go to youtube.com slash dedicated with Doug because his podcast is called Dedicated. It's about authors and he interviews really fun people and they do drinks and they're quick. I think you find them really

interesting. Here's a little bit of my sit down with Doug Brunt. Person today that you most want to interview. That's easy. There's no one who comes close to this person. Ooh. Yeah. Literally everybody would watch that. They would. Most fun interview you've ever had. You know, when I hear that one of those guys is coming up, one of those shows, I get excited. I get happy. One piece of advice for the audience. Is that like an R-rated way to end? Are people picturing something naughty? Thanks for betting me. Good times. I think you'll enjoy it. Doug's always smart and entertaining and does a great interview. And, uh, today's was just super fun. And in that interview, you will hear the answer to that tease I gave you a couple of weeks ago, which is which celebrity did Doug mistake at one of these big galas for a homeless person? The answer, you can find it at youtube.com

slash dedicated with Doug. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.