The Megyn Kelly Show - Media Covers Up Their Role in Biden Cover-Up, and Rubio Goes After Dem Senators, with Victor Davis Hanson | Ep. 1077

Episode Date: May 21, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Victor Davis Hanson, author of "The End of Everything," to discuss the viral interview between Megyn and Jake Tapper, how Tapper admitted that the “conservative media was right” about Biden, how the corporate media is using Jake Tapper’s book to cover up their own culpability, how the left media and Democrats used Biden until he was no longer useful, the way the media themselves perpetrated the Biden cover-up for years, the "Biden office" claiming Biden never had a PSA test after 2014, the dubious claims that his White House physicals wouldn't have caught his serious cancer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s heated exchange with Sen. Van Hollen during a Senate hearing over the left cozying up with illegal gang members and USAID waste, Rubio as a potential major 2028 player, the way the left and media are trying to spin Afrikaner refugees coming to the U.S. under Trump as having a racist motive, how the New York Times is totally missing the story, Trump sparring with South Africa's president over murders of white farmers in his country during an Oval Office meeting, the truth about the story that the media is trying to suppress, and more. More from VDH: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/victor-davis-hanson/the-end-of-everything/9781541673526/ PrizePicks: Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/MEGYN & Download the app today! | Use code MEGYN to get $50 after your first $5 lineupFirecracker Farm: Visit https://firecracker.FARM & enter code MK at checkout for a special discount!FYSI: https://FYSI.com/Megyn or call 800-877-4000Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order. Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Wow. Just a ton, a ton of reaction to our interview yesterday with Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on their book about Biden's cognitive decline. But it seems the media still has not learned its lesson. You're shocked. Plus, Secretary of State Marco Rubio blasting Democrats on Capitol Hill yesterday in some must-see fiery exchanges. He's so good. He is better than ever, Marco Rubio. And you watch him and you think, is it going to be JD or is it going to be Rubio as the likely front runner when Trump is done? I don't know. We have a depth, a depth of

talent to choose from. So here to help us break it all down is Victor Davis Hanson. He's senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of the book, The End of Everything, How Wars Descend into Annihilation. Prize Picks is a great place to turn your sports knowledge into cash. With millions of members, Prize Picks has made daily fantasy sports accessible to anyone who's interested. You just pick more or less on at least two players for a shot to win up to 2,000 times your cash. Enjoy the basketball playoffs with PrizePix. Don't miss your last chance to add your favorite players from the court to your PrizePix lineup. Whether it's points, rebounds, assists, take your pick of more or less for your shot to win today.

Sign up now and get 50 bucks instantly when you play five bucks. You don't even need to win to receive the $50 bonus. It's guaranteed. The basketball playoffs are officially here and the action is heating up on prize picks. They offer Venmo, Apple Pay, MasterCard, and more for quick and easy deposits into your account this sports season. Download the app and use code Megan to get $50 instantly after you play your first five bucks. Code Megan to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks run your game. VDH, welcome back. Great to have you. So a ton of reaction to the exchange we had with Tapper and Thompson, who I felt a little bad for

because Thompson really did try to cover Biden's mental decline. And really, I didn't even get to mention it. But yesterday, he did a great job, Thompson, for Axios of trying to follow up with Kamala Harris on all of her reversals when she ran in 2024 from Kamala Harris in 1920 and got stiff armed. But man, he did try. So for a large part of yesterday's interview, he was just sort of a bystander as I tried to press Jake Tapper on how he can be the one who unearths, you know, the truth of this cover up, of which many people think he was a part. Right. So we we had a back and change over that. He ultimately wound up admitting he got it wrong. Conservative media got it right. Here's a bit of that in Sat.1. And Alex and I are here to say that conservative media was right and conservative media was correct and that there should be a lot of soul searching, not just among me,

but among the legacy media to begin with, all of us, for how this was covered or not covered sufficiently. 100%. So, I mean, I'm not here to defend coverage that I've already acknowledged. I wish I could do differently. So, Victor, he's out there on this media tour. And now what we're seeing is media outlet after media outlet cover this book like, oh, new revelations. It appears that President Biden was in significant cognitive decline for those four years and sort of taking the opportunity that the book offers to totally whitewash their own role in helping cover for him during that time. Your thoughts on it? Well, what Jake Tapper doesn't tell you is he just he didn't just deny that Joe Biden was cognitively impaired. He really was rude and attacked people who said that he was. And I remember that Laura

Trump, he didn't, he cut her off and he made fun of her. And he said that she was basically a cruel person. He, he knew that it wasn't just a matter of a stutter. And he did that on numerous occasions. So that was number one. And then number two, he could have come forward any time after Joe Biden left office or even after he was stepped down. He didn't. He only came forward really in connection with this book. And then three, if you think about it, he can say all he wants post facto about an apology, but he's going to profit enormously off the, I guess it's a conspiracy or it's either incompetence that he was a central part of. And yet it's easy to say, well, we're sorry. But he's shown nothing, I think, that suggests that he wouldn't do it again.

And nobody's going to resign. Nobody's going to pay a professional price. Nobody's going to say, you know, I'm discredited. I just need to take a leave of absence. When you compare all the journalists that they destroyed during the Me Too phenomenon in 2019, and then you compare it to this, this makes that look just like amateurish. You know, I'm not trying to deprecate the seriousness of sexual harassment, but they went after everybody, and they destroyed entire careers. And people never recovered from that. Some of them were just sort of randy. They didn't really, I mean, they weren't criminally guilty of anything.

They weren't Harvey Weinstein. It was kind of a witch hunt against something. Think of Kavanaugh and others. But this was much worse because this was the president of the United States. He had all sorts of, I mean, if you look at what this president did, he destroyed U.S. deterrence with the debacle in Afghanistan. He told Putin he wouldn't react unless it was a, basically, if it was a minor invasion. He distanced himself from Israel. He took the terrorist designation off of the Houthis. He empowered Hezbollah. He was responsible, I think, for two theater wars on his watch. He had hyperinflation. And now we're starting to say, well, maybe he didn't do any of it. The auto pin,

maybe he didn't even know who he was pardoning. Maybe he didn't even know where he was. And then it gets worse, Megan. You can say all you want if you're a doctor that after 70 men don't get PSA, but that's average American men over 70. And most of the people I know, I'm 71, they do. But the idea that the President of the United States wouldn't, nobody's going to believe that. And nobody believes that he didn't have a serious

problem that was covered up. And that was part of the, so what I'm getting at is, let's say, multi-layered, multi-faceted effort to delude the American people for cheap political purposes. It involved his medical team, involved his staff, involved the surrogate people who were really running the country, and it involved the media. That cheap fake, cheap fake, that was a talking point for six months, that if anybody questioned him or they looked at a video where he was lost or wandering, they said, it's cheap fake, cheap fake, cheap fake. And they were, and now who else has apologized besides Jake Tapper? No one exactly. And now they're using, they're using him. It's, it's kind of infuriating to watch them pretend like this is a real aha moment for them to read this book. Like, gee, for the first time now, I'm really seeing it. Like, I'll give you this from

The Washington Post, which was all over the cheap fake narrative. I mean, I could give you headline after headline that I researched in preparing for the Jake interview. But Washington Post, trust me, was one of the worst offenders on that cheap fake narrative. Now they have an editorial board post online. If Biden was too frail for his job, voters should have been informed. Yes, they should have by you. This is it's just like the New York Times. We were lied to on covid. These newspapers of record after the fact, like, well, the government should have told us we were lied to. Yes. And many of us knew you don't trust the government on things that may look that may make it look bad. You you press the claims. You ask others. You go around the lying liars who lie to try to bring the real story to your audience. And none of you did that because you had an agenda. You were totally on board with the whole deceptive scheme.

They were, and they knew that if they told the truth, the vindictive staff would call them up and say, we're not going to let you, you're not going to get a question, or you're not going to be allowed to interview, or you're not going to be in the press room. And they folded like a tent. The question I would have for Jake Tapper is twofold. Would you have apologized and said that you feel humility if you hadn't written this book? In other words, you were just one of the many people who have not apologized. And two, is your apology central for this book's sales? In other words, what if you didn't apologize and you just said, I wrote a book and this is what happened. There was a conspiracy and I didn't have any part of it.

Wouldn't that hurt your interviews? Would you get booked by people? Because people would say, well, he's writing a conspiracy and he's unapologetic. He was part of it. But what I'm getting at is he's only apologizing because he's in a process of making several million dollars off of something that he was culpable for. And he knows that if he didn't apologize, his interviews, his book tours, and his sales would be impaired by it. So the apology is central to give him a second chance or some type of contrition so that people will say, well, he feels bad and he was the one that kind of exposed it now. But he wouldn't apologize if

he hadn't written a book and he wouldn't apologize unless he thought it was central to the book's success. He said he called her a few months ago, which was obviously post-debate and, you know, there's no question that it was while he was writing the book that he called her, no question at all. Here's a little bit more where we got into why he didn't why he did not cover the infirmity much earlier. Sought to. It could only ever work if you allowed it, if the press allowed it. Some of us tried not to and some of us were complicit. The Biden White House did not like me. OK, this is I do not have great connections with the Biden White House.

Well, clearly, you have a lot of sources. You say you talked to over 200 sources for this book. This was after the election. You have some you could have called and worked. No, that's the point, is that they were not being honest. That's the point. Well, how did the Wall Street Journal get it in June of 2024? And Jake Tapper and CNN couldn't find sources for this story then before he dropped out? Annie Linsky and Siobhan Hughes did an amazing job in their reporting.

And they should be heralded. And I heralded them. I had them on my show right after the debate to talk about their great reporting. But Annie Linsky- But you did not put them on when they published that story, which was before the debate. Correct. If we're going to do this, let's just stick to the facts here, okay? When there is a damaging report- Jake, that's what I've been doing all along. I'm talking about what you just said. One of us didn't miss the biggest story of the century when it comes to presidential politics. And one of us did. The business about the Wall Street Journal reporters and with all due respect to the two reporters on that story, I meant what I said yesterday. Everybody who read that story was like, OK, somebody's finally

doing it. It was in June of 2024, Victor. We'd all been covering this at length in conservative and independent media for years by that point, for years. I mean, it's like, great, they finally took a shot and they got some Republicans to go on record in that piece, which immediately was dismissed because it was only Republicans who are on the record. But now he wants to pretend that like, well, that was a watershed moment when finally the Wall Street Journal got a couple of people to go on record about the infirmary. It's like, oh, please. They were very, very, very late to the party. And Jake did not book them right after that report hit was was early June. He didn't he didn't put them on at all. And Jake did not book them right after that report hit, which was early June. He didn't he didn't put them on at all.

He put on a Democrat co-chair of the Biden campaign and then didn't vigorously cross examine him with all the evidence, not just what was in the journal report, but all the evidence that we had seen of Mr. Biden's infirmity. You know, this revisionist history around like when we knew is infuriating because all of us know it was there. It was in front of our very eyes for years. CNN was a platform. Maybe not he, not to the same degree, but he was complicit. CNN was a platform to attack The Wall Street Journal and to attack people who said that even as late as they did. And they still do it. They were doing it until the announcement of the book. And we haven't heard it. The thing that I think

is most critical is if he has all of these auto-penn pardons and no one has really asked him, why did you pardon Dr. Fauci or why did you pardon Adam Schiff? There's been no journalistic follow-up asking Joe Biden. And all of these, I guess he's desperate for money and he's doing these post-tenure interviews. Nobody asked him, did you remember this tenure? Did you remember this tenure? And the second big question is, if Jake Tapper wants to redeem himself, he could write a long essay now who was running the White House. We need names. Who were the people? Well, he did name names. He did. I asked

him that. They were in the book. I asked him and Alex Thompson and they gave us names. It was Mike Donilon. It was this guy, Steve Ricchetti, and a couple of others, Jill Biden. He's also said Hunter Biden. I don't mean the actual agents that were doing it, but who was thinking up the initiative? Who said, let's get out of Afghanistan like this? Who said, let's distance ourselves from Israel? Who said, Janet Yellen, don't worry about inflation? Who was the one that weaponized the FBI? We know Anthony Blinken did the 51 intelligence authorities, but were they Obama operatives or who was the one that weaponized the FBI? We know Anthony Blinken did the 51 intelligence

authorities, but were they Obama operatives or who were they? Who was the person? The book does say Anthony Blinken understood that he would be standing in for Biden on virtually anything having to do with foreign policy. The book points out that Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor, whose name had been forgotten twice, he kept calling him Steve, Biden did, was well aware of Biden's deterioration and was part of the inner circle. They talk about Anita Dunn, who had that special governmental employee status, same as Elon had, that just kept getting renewed and renewed and renewed. So she didn't undergo much scrutiny, was one of the inner circle. She knew. They don't really take a lot of aim at Karine Jean-Pierre and Jen Psaki. Gee, I wonder why. But there's no question they knew. I mean, they were as close to the inner circle as you

could get. So no, they don't say like, this is the person who made the decision for X, Y, and Z. But we do now at least have names. And if somebody on the left who's got access to guys like Mike Donilon, if they don't do their jobs now and get that man in front of a camera, stick a mic in his face, Steve Ricchetti too, and find out what they knew and when and why they're guilty of this cover-up, then it's yet another dereliction of duty. See, I think a lot of people, fairly or not, feel that it wasn't just a cover-up, but if you look at the mechanisms by which Joe Biden got the nomination, because it was evident in 2020.

Cory Booker on the debate stage said, I don't know what he's talking about when Joe Biden would flub or forget his match. So they knew as early as 2020. And then Jim Clyburn changed the date of the South Carolina primary. So he was coronated. In fact, the Democratic Party didn't really have an open nomination for eight years. He was nominated and he was nominated and, you know, and then he was coronated and then he was removed. And then there's been no Democratic action. Yeah. Well, it's very frustrating now to watch the gaslighting continue because there was gaslighting in this book. And for me, it was

cathartic to be able to confront Jake with some of that. And, you know, to his credit, he came on the show and he said yesterday he knew I was going to give him a hard time and he showed up anyway. A lot of people thought he was going to cancel. And I was saying to them, he's not going to cancel. He'll be here. And he took his licks like a man. And I respect that. I do. I respect that. But now what's happening is extra infuriating because CBS, the Washington Post, CNN, they're all using this to make themselves sound like these doe-eyed, innocent, G-O-G. I've just learned so much. The ladies on The View.

I've learned so much from this book. And it's not that there aren't new revelations in the book, but it's a farce because the underlying narrative is what is truly important. And they all knew, like Washington Post having the nerve to come out and say, we voters should have been informed. That's literally your job. This is the paper that broke Watergate. They were so vigorous in their testing of presidential lies when it was a Republican in there.

But now that they had Biden, a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, they lost all curiosity, Victor. But see, I think it goes back. I don't want to belabor the point, but I think we've never seen anything like the Democratic Party of 2020 when all of the candidates just disappeared. And then the dates were changed. And he had not won a single caucus, not New Hampshire or Iowa. Then he was coordinated. And then they used the COVID-19. He was in the basement. And so what I'm getting at is from the very beginning, they knew that he was old Joe Biden from Scranton, this ossified centrist,

and that was very useful for them. And then a group of people who otherwise would have had trouble pushing the most progressive left-wing agenda, really, in modern memory, found this waxen effigy very helpful. It wasn't that they were covering up because they were astounded at how debilitated he was. And they had to make the, it was more, we know he's debilitated, but Jill and Hunter and the Obama people, this is kind of an opportunity to push through a more radical third term of Obama. So they knew it all along when he was nominated. And that's why they could go to him and say, you're going to get out.

And he- Well, look at this, Victor. Look at this. This is April 2020, April 2020. OK, before the 2020 election, which was in November, of course, here is Joe Biden. Oh, do we have this? You guys are I don't know if we pulled this over pull over top five from yesterday, but I'll show you Joe Biden on CNN in April 2020. Stand by. Before we get to that, I'll show you one other. Here is Brian Stelter. Now that they're now now CNN is out there saying, oh, gee, you know, we learned a lot about his infirmity. My gosh, this is shocking. Well, here's CNN back in June

19th, 2024. This is before the debate on these so-called cheap fake videos that the rest of the media was dishonestly using to portray Joe Biden as infirm. Satnai. We've been worried for years about AI deep fakes, that computer generated images are gonna trick people into believing something that's totally false. Cheap fakes are a little bit simpler. They're cheap. They're just distorted, out of context videos, chopped up in certain ways. The Biden administration, the Biden campaign is so worried about right now. But make no mistake, they are worried about this. This is a real problem. This is not some made up fiction. The videos are oftentimes made up, but the problem is real.

And now here's more, okay? Because CNN today out there like, gee, oh, wow, they're interviewing Jake like this is all new to them. Let me just give you a couple of examples. August of 21, Chris Silliza, he's upset because Republicans are hitting this issue. He says to raise doubts in voters' minds about Biden and his age in particular. This is the sort of gross, lowest common denominator politics that drive people away from public life. Chris Silliza got it so wrong. He's one of the only ones to actually come out because he had to go independent. He got fired from CNN to say, OK, sorry, I got it wrong. Now I would like to be one of the ones who who apologize. We have that. OK, let's watch.

This is a guy who is the president of the United States for four years and thought and ran for a second term, at which point he would have been in his mid 80s had he won and served. So that to me is a really serious conversation about how did we get to this point, given that there were there were a lot of signs that suggested that Joe Biden definitely should not have run for a second term. How did we get to this point? It's a media story. We got here because of you. It's a politics story. It's a sort of transparency story. Because of you, Chris Eliza and CNN. Here's a couple more, Victor. July 12th, 2022, not for nothing, but it was a month prior to that, that the Megyn Kelly show did a full two hour show on Biden's mental decline, including by interviewing one of the foremost dementia experts in the world. But here's a month after that,

CNN's John Harwood taking issue with the allegations that he was not cogent and capable. What's true is the presidency is a hugely taxing job mentally and physically, and that Joe Biden is old. What's not true is the trope pushed in conservative media that Biden is not currently mentally capable of doing the job. The president is engaged and acute. February of 23, John Avalon of CNN, Republican slurs that Mr. Biden is mentally impaired are fear mongering politics. June 25th, 2024, two days before the presidential debate that would seal Joe Biden's faith, fate, Oliver Darcy on CNN lamenting how for years MAGA media has been portraying Joe Biden as a senile, mentally incapacitated elderly man who cannot remember what he had for breakfast, let

alone run the federal government. That might sound like an exaggeration to those who don't tune into Fox News or listen to talk radio, but it's been a real and constant theme in the right wing media universe. To support the narrative, these outlets and personalities have seized on Biden's verbal gaffes while ignoring Trump's and presented out of context video clips to their large audiences, a deceptive but effective strategy. OK, this is that's CNN. That was CNN, who now is using the Jake Tapper book to act like the guy in Casablanca. Shocked, shocked. There's gambling going on in here. Yeah, these are the same people, if you would call in 2019 and 20, they hauled up and the the media went gaga, they hauled up a Yale psychiatrist, Bandy Yee, and they brought her before the Senate. And she telediagnosed Donald

Trump as mentally unfit. And she wrote a book about it, and they lauded her. And she was all over the media that she said that they needed an intervention. And then we also had this weird psychodrama between Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein. Rod was going to wear a wire, and the FBI interim director was going to go in and trap Donald Trump and record him speaking. And this was going to be proof that he needed to be 25th amended, amended, removed. And all of the left media got in this fury. And finally, Donald Trump took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment because he was so worried that people had started with this narrative. And so these were the same people who thought there was nothing unethical

about diagnosing somebody as cognitively unfit, who obviously wasn't. If you look at those long rally speeches and constant interviews and impromptu and ad hoc repartee that Trump did every single day, 20-hour days. Let me just tell you one thing on that, Victor, and then I'll give you back the floor. Two weeks after Jake Tapper had on Laura Trump and gave her such a hard time saying, like, how dare you try to cognitively diagnose Joe Biden? Two weeks after that, he had on Mary Trump and allowed her to make the case that they ought to be able to diagnose Donald Trump and his weird mental problems in her mind because it was obvious and because she had some sort of a background in psychiatry or psychological whatever. Two weeks later,

he let Mary Trump do it. Yeah. And I think when you when you look, I went back and looked at a lot of the debates. And when you look at the 2000, not 2020 debates on the Democratic primary, when Joe Biden would say things, the other candidates were stunned sometime. They had no comprehension of what he was saying. And if you looked at Bernie and Buttigieg were the only people who had won a caucus. And then all of a sudden, Jim Clyburn changed the South Carolina date. Presto, he was gone. Buttigieg stepped down, Warren stepped down, Sanders stepped down. And then it was old Joe Biden. And then all these news came out that he was actually a moderate. And then he was going.

Then he went in the basement and that was a useful vessel. And that's why they really didn't have an open primary. They didn't have an open primary in 2024. They put Harris without an open primary. He was nominated by a coup and he was deposed by a coup. But the point is, what we thought was a debility and he was kind of an empty vessel and struggling with cognitive problems, I think the hard left wing of the Democratic Party found this useful and advantageous because they could wheel him out in certain cases. He could say stuff. And then if you look what he did at the border, we have never had anybody who destroyed a border and invited in 10 million people. It was just lunatic.

We never had anybody who's printed $7 trillion. We never had anything like since maybe 75 in Vietnam, anything comparable to that Afghan pullout. It was just Mallorca. It was like an alternate reality listening to Mallorca's talk for four years. And so they got what they wanted. That's what my point is. I really think they found him useful because he put a thin veneer for as long as he could maintain it. And then when he was no longer useful and they said, you know what, we can't push this left-wing agenda anymore because he can't even function as a veneer, they got rid of him. They just deposed him. They

just called him in a room and said, you're done. And if you complain, we made you, we got you nominated, and we have the right to get rid of you. And then there was no primary, there was no other our very eyes live did they have to admit the jig was up. Two things I want to show you. First, I mentioned that soundbite on CNN. This happened on CNN in 2020, where he could not function in talking about the coronavirus. Watch this. Kinds of things that have to be done. During World War II, Roosevelt came up with a thing that was totally different than the, he called it the World War II, he had the war, the war production board. Oh, my God. And then and then there's this. So to the point you were just making about who was governing the country, who really was the president. President Trump weighed in on this a bit yesterday. He's on Capitol Hill trying to get support for his big, beautiful budget bill.

And he took a moment to make the following point. Watch this. Look, it's a very sad thing what happened, but I really wanted to start looking into this whole thing with who signed this legislation, who signed legislation opening our border. I don't think he knew. I said, there's nobody that could want an open border. Nobody. And now I find out that it wasn't him. He auto-pended. Who was operating the auto-pend? This is a very serious thing. We had a president that didn't sign anything. He auto-penned almost everything.

He opened the borders of the United States of America. And I kept saying, who would do such a thing, allowing criminals to pour in from all over the world? You know who signed it? Radical left lunatics that were running our country. And the auto-pen signed it it and they didn't want him and they were disappointed in getting him because they wanted bernie sanders and then after about two weeks they said wait a minute this is a gift he'll do anything that's amazing victor that's basically

what you were just saying that the president totally agrees he was absolutely right and that's the biggest that is the biggest scandal and i think they need to call on everybody on every pardon and ask who operated the auto pin, who was there and what they did. They need to do that. And they need to do it right away. And I think it's and then the other big scandal and they don't stop because now we are told that the most observed, most diagnosed, most monitored man in the world did not have a PSA test for, what, 11 years?

Since 2014. That's what they want us to believe. And by the way, just by the way, so the audience knows, this was put out again by, quote, the Biden office, not by a doctor, not by Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who was his handpicked by Jill Biden, loyalist doctor throughout his term, but just quote the Biden office. Let me see a doctor assuring us with his name that that's true. If somebody other than Kevin O'Connor, ideally, but at least Kevin O'Connor, let's see him come out to the cameras and do a full-throated press conference on this. And then maybe we'll start listening, but at least Kevin O'Connor. Let's see him come out to the cameras and do a full-throated press conference on this, and then maybe we'll start listening. But, quote,

unsigned by the Biden office, I'm convinced, is a lie. No, it is. And I know, I think you, everybody knows people over, I'm 71, and I can tell you that no urologist in the world, if you want a PSA test, they will give you a PSA test. And if he has one in 2014, we just need to know the results. Was it negative? Was it positive? Was it high? Was it low?

They don't say that. That's what's interesting. So they say he last had a PSA test in 2014. They don't say what the results were. They do say this was the first time he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, which doesn't mean he didn't have a sky high PSA in 2014 that he just chose to treat quietly. There are pictures of bruises on his hands throughout his presidency. There had been speculation at the time. Was he getting some sort of IV treatment when he was going home to Rehoboth Beach House all those weekends? Was he getting some sort of treatment? All of those questions are unanswered. Go ahead. They need to get Dr. O'Connor and they

need to bring him in very politely and put him under oath and said, did you in the last 11 years, to your knowledge, but especially when you were the White House physician, did you give either a PSA that was officially recorded or did you do a PSA that was privately recorded for your own diagnostic purposes? Did you? Yes or no? Under oath. And I just don't think any, and I don't want to be a doctor at all, but I don't think any doctor in the world would believe that the president of the United States had not had a PSA. And when you look at Obama's medical records, you look at Donald Trump's medical records, that's their PSA. And I just don't believe that's true. And I think they don't. Yeah, that's true. They don't believe and they want us to believe that he didn't do the testing. And they talk about like the PSA, like it's some sort of

difficult thing to do. It's literally just an extra box on your blood test. And by the way, I have real questions about whether a normal annual blood test would not have shown any abnormality if he had cancer raging through his body. But, you know, aggressive metastasized bone cancer or prostate cancer. I'm not sure what the answer is to that. But Dr. David Samadi was on the program on Monday, world-renowned prostate surgeon. This is what he does. He operates on men with prostate cancer and said, there's no way that they could have said, like they did. And again, the statement from the Biden office that he has the kind of cancer that is responding to hormones if they hadn't been giving him hormone medication for prostate cancer,

that there's zero chance. It's not those of us who are not cancer doctors didn't that didn't jump out at us. I just figured there's something about this kind of cancer they can see in your blood work. Oh, it's type A that will respond to hormone treatment. No, he said that's not true. The only way you could say it responds to hormone treatment is to have tried the hormone treatment and to have seen the PSAs go down, down, down. So they lied. They lied in that statement. No one's raising this. No one's pointing this out. No, nobody's pointing it out. And who knew about it? Who knew? Are they trying to say that no one who was with him every single day had no knowledge that he was going somewhere for treatment or somebody was coming in? That's just impossible to believe. scandal under, and are they going to come out and finally tell the truth about it? Are they going to say, look, the president of the United States was elected with cancer and hit it, and the cognitive ability, was it separate? Was it connected with the, there's so many questions,

and you get the impression their whole solution to this is, well, he's gone. He's not president. We're looking forward. We don't not president. We're looking forward. We don't look backward. We're all done. Now we can go back to performance art, Tesla rioting. We can go swarm ice stations. We can do all this other stuff and just concentrate on Donald Trump, the Hitlerian figure. And you guys just, there's nothing here.

Forget about it. These were the two biggest scandals. And I think in any presidents, you know, we had FDR who tried to mask it, Grover Cleveland, JFK, but nothing like this, nothing like this compounded the cognitive problems, the medical treatment. And then he wants the American people. And there's thousands of urologists in the country. What do they think when they hear this concocted explanation? They know that it's completely illogical, impossible, fantastical. You know what I mean? It doesn't make any sense. So why would they issue it that nobody would believe it? And that's exactly right. They're just banking on more complicity once again, and they're going to get it as you've got, you know, David Axelrod on CNN saying that this

coverage of his mental infirmity needs to be muted or set aside. Hakeem Jeffries, it's conspiracy theories, all this talk. Go ahead. Why did why did they announce it just two or three days before the book came out? To tamp down the discussion around this book. That would make perfect sense to try to guilt people out of discussing the big cover-up, attempted cover-up. So in other words, and this is what I think we're all thinking, they use the serious medical condition and they use it as leverage for their own political purposes. And then in addition to that, they were quite willing to demonize anybody who saw what they were doing as the real insensitive people, not themselves, who were using cancer as

a way of deflecting attention from a very incriminating book. I think that's right on brand. I mean, in preparation for yesterday's interview, we went back and started pulling all sorts of stuff. And I'm going to show you, I mean, there's a pattern. There's obviously a pattern of lying by this White House around anything related to Joe Biden that makes him look bad, but especially his cognitive decline and the measures that those around him were going to cover it up, which is exactly the same theme as we are discussing now with respect to this prostate cancer diagnosis. Joe Biden having a medical issue and those around him suspected of trying to cover it up. Here is TJ Ducklow, deputy press campaign, press secretary for the campaign.

We don't have that one. Okay, we're going to bring it over. He was on with Brett Baier and was talking about his use of the teleprompter in public events. And Brett pressed him. We'll get to it. Hold on. Before I get to that, I'll stick with this to start. It was, okay, yeah, the videos. We have that, right, Debbie? Yeah, we've got that. Here is Joe Biden during the campaign trying to challenge Donald Trump. And you can see for the listening audience, multiple jump cuts in this tape, meaning you see him talking straight to camera and then from the side he's being shot and then back to straight to camera. And then you see him from the profile. And that means there are more than one camera on him. And it's a way of hiding the person's

multiple flubs of what appeared to be a very simple script. Here it is. Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hadn't shown up for debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. Now, it was obvious what they had done. We talked about it on this show explicitly. Many others did as well. Here was Morning Joe reacting to it. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays. Oh, wow. Yeah. And now watch watch today. Morning, Joe.

Now, one thing in your specific case, Joe, our reporting indicates that Joe Biden, who, as you know, is a frequent viewer of the show, saw when David Ignatius wrote that column in, I think, August 2023, saying that Joe Biden should not run for reelection because of what he had been hearing about this. You largely agreed that you'd been hearing things about this, but that there was really no alternative, that Kamala Harris was not up to the job. That's what Democrats were telling you behind the scenes. Joe Biden saw that. Joe Biden said to staffers that he wanted to convince you that you were wrong. And he focused on you like you were a constituency, like you were farmers in Iowa, like you were the Kiwanis Club in New Hampshire. And he made sure that you thought-

Former Joe. He made sure that you thought differently. I think he did this with a couple people. I think he did it with Meacham. He might have done it with Evan Osnos. He knew that there were people that had to be convinced that he was fine. And he tried to prove that to you. How embarrassing. How embarrassing. Yeah, I don't think he had to prove anything. I think they willingly volunteered. I don't think they were coerced at all. I remember Meacham and Scarborough, they volunteered how cognizant and how, you know, how alert, how powerful, how strong Biden was. And I don't think Joe Biden, this idea that they were targeted is just silly. But they had people volunteering for that role. Exactly. He didn't need to.

And again, in a way, it's more running cover, right? Like, this exchange, while it may be true, is a way of letting Scarborough off the hook. Like, there was a fraud perpetrated on you, poor Joe, that, you know, no man could have seen through, which is another lie. I know. I don't think, you know, in 2020, I wrote about Joe Biden hiding in the basement, that he was cognitively impaired. I did that. I got so many hate letters and people from Stanford University. And, you know, in one case, I was called up before the faculty senate for what I was writing or what I had said on Fox.

And you get attacked. There were so many people. There were 50, 60 people who independently said this is something very wrong with this man. He should not be president in the manner in which he has been nominated and the manner in which he is campaigning in 2020, we've never seen anything like it. I always said this is not the 19th century in a log cabin where you just sit out in the wilderness and watch the thing pass you by. It was incredible. It was almost like a drive-in movie. He was in a car and then all the other people, like 20 people in cars honking their applause.

And it just kept going on. The more that you tried to point it out, the more hatred you would incur from letters and text and everything. And it wasn't just, to be frank, Megan, it wasn't just the left that was angry. It was the Republican establishment said, don't say that. That's cruel. Just tamper. It was really something else. And that's why people are so bitter, because these people who attacked people who tried to not just

tell the truth, but to inform the nation that this was an unprecedented conspiracy, and we'd never seen anything like it. And it was very dangerous because we did not know who was responsible for this radical agenda that was far more radical than Obama. And Obama could have never pulled that off because he was suspect as a radical himself. But the use of this ossified figure from our past that had passed himself off as a moderate and an aged moderate was a useful vessel. And when you wrote about that, people got, they accused you of being insensitive, mean, hating old people. It was, everybody incurred that hatred. So it's really frustrating to see all these people come out of the woodwork now and say, well, you know, I knew it, but I didn't quite want to say it. But I feel humiliated because, you know, they're going to do it again. They're doing it again with the medical

story and they will do it again and again and again. There's no consequence. I don't know anybody who's had, you know, anybody who's resigned because of this. Is Scarborough going to resign? Is he going to say, you what i i tried to uh convince all of you in america of something that was clearly false and i apologize and i resign i don't think he's gonna do that no he didn't sound very contrite when he sat down with mark halperin yesterday at all and he'll never admit that he wasn't fooled for one second He knew he knew what we all knew. They all knew. That's what's so galling about this whole thing. I wanted to show that T.J. Ducklow thing just because it's so irritating. We knew that Joe Biden was using teleprompters during campaign events back in

2020 during covid. And now it's come out that not only were they using multiple cameras so they could do the jump cuts. I read this to the audience yesterday from the book, but just as a refresher, this is from the book, Original Sin. Biden often couldn't make it through one or two minutes without botching a line or two in certain five minute video addresses to compensate for it. Aides filmed Biden with two cameras instead of one. If he messed up, the edit was less obvious with a jump cut. Other politicians use jump cuts, but Biden aides noted to themselves how much more often they had to use them for him. When they recorded videos, much of the footage was unusable. The man could not speak, said one person involved. It wasn't his stutter. It was his inability to find words to remember what he was saying to stay on the train of thought.

Aides would sometimes make the videos in slow-mo to blur the reality of how slowly he actually walked. Every shoot was anxiety-inducing for Biden's team. Doing the videos without the extra camera would have been impossible. At times, the president had such trouble communicating that the videos were unsalvageable, and the Biden team just opted not to release them. At other times, they released video whose heavy editing was so obvious that they immediately regretted putting them out and on and on. And then it did come out that he was using the teleprompter to do well, notes that he just read off of for donor events. And then the teleprompter for campaign events where he, even in those instances,

couldn't always be relied upon to just read the text that was in the prompter. And here is T.J. Ducklow with Brett Baier in 2020 on the use of the prompter. Does Joe Biden ever use the teleprompter during local interviews or to answer Q&A with supporters? Brett, we are not going to get this. This is straight from the Trump campaign. But yeah, they're using it. And what it does, Brett, is it's trying to distract the American people. I'm just...

Brett, they talk about it every day because they don't have a coherent argument for why Donald Trump deserves re-election. But you can't answer the question. Brett, I am not going to allow the Trump campaign to funnel their questions through Fox News and get me to respond to that. It's amazing. The lies, the abject lies. They were using cheap fakes all the time.

So that they were projecting onto other people what they were doing. They were cutting videos and rehearsing things and lying about teleprompters. Then Brian Selter gets on and says, and Jean-Pierre says, this is cheap fakes. They knew that term because that's exactly what they were doing. And again, I don't know where you go from this. Another thing that's mystifying is that Joe Biden is now a private citizen,

but he was president of the United States. And I think at some point, somebody has to try to tell us what was going on. People can speculate, but I don't know if anybody that has medical expertise has ever said, was it a result of two serious aneurysm operations? What was it? Because we're just going to fade into history now. We know with FDR that he had polio or maybe Jean Barr syndrome or something like that. At least people knew that at the time. He tried to hide it, yes. But we look back in history and we can see what was wrong with Woodrow Wilson. He had a serious stroke.

But are we going to, in 20 years from now, are people going to say, I had no idea, but Joe Biden was non-compos mentis? Was it because of medication for advanced metastasized prostate? Was it Parkinson's? Was it dementia? Was it Alzheimer's? But we're never going to know what it was. It just all disappeared. He left office and it's like, okay, it's all over with. You don't dare talk about what's going on. It's over with. We're looking forward. He may have had a little problem with cognition. That's where we are right now. It's really galling and they're not going to stop. I mean, they're never going to fully own their behavior. They're just going to move on. Memory hole it. You know, like I I covered the cover up when it hit the news. You know, when that Tapper book came out, I did cover it. I was shocked and it was terrible what they did to us. They're just going to join the parade of victims who have been misled, misled by this White House like they're actually among us. It's all Russian collusion, laptop disinformation, same old thing. Same thing. All right. We have much more to get to, including an extraordinary meeting that's

happening right now. I'm just getting breaking news from the White House where President Trump is confronting the president of South Africa with what Mr. Trump says are videos supporting his claim that there's a genocide against whites going on in South Africa right now. The South African president seems dumbfounded and not happy and not in agreement that he's actually seeing what Trump says he's seeing. This is amazing. We're going to get into that story next. Don't go away. Here's an idea for someone who has everything. Hot salt. Yes, I said it. Hot salt. Exquisite, savory heat. Now you're interested, so let me tell you about Firecracker Farm,

a wonderful little family company that makes hot salt, a delightful spice-infused sea salt. It has the perfect amount of heat and amazing flavor that makes everything taste better. Word's getting out, and people are loving it. That's because it's made with love. People can feel it and taste it. It's a small batch family operation, so supplies are limited. It comes in sleek stainless steel push grinders. Plus you can take them anywhere. When you run out, they have refills. A little too spicy for you? Just mix it in with some regular sea salt to tame the heat, but you won't need to. It's blended to perfection. Honestly, it's the best thing to happen to food since fire. So what are you waiting for? Go to firecracker.farm right now and use code MK at

checkout for a special discount. Firecracker.farm, code MK. Get some hot salt before it's all gone. You're going to thank me. This just breaking, Trump accepted the jet from Qatar, putting out the following statement from the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar in accordance with all federal rules and regulations. The Department of Defense will work to ensure property security measures and functional mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the president of the United States. For additional information, we refer you to the U.S. Air Force. This was

controversial, is controversial because they, um, yeah, Qatar's got a very checkered history when it comes to terrorism in the United States, for one thing. Can this plane be secured in a way that will satisfy everyone, that they're not listening to the president of the United States, for one thing. Can this plane be secured in a way that will satisfy everyone, that they're not listening to the president of the United States and his security team while on board it? And because it looks like lining the pockets of this particular president, it's worth 400 million. He says, it's not a gift to me, it's a gift to the United States, or in this case to the Pentagon, but he'll be riding on it soon. And only when it came under fire, did he then say, oh yeah, we'll leave it for other presidents to use too after I'm done with it. And then when it gets retired, it will go to the Trump presidential library.

I won't be flying around on it. In other words, post my presidency. Now, I don't know whether he'll live up to any of that, but right now it appears we've accepted a $400 million gift from Qatar. Your thoughts? You know, it's a very complex story because there's so many different narratives. Like Senator Mullins said that it was discussed during the Biden administration. I don't know if that was ever confirmed or not, but the more you read about it, it's kind of a white elephant. It's a 2013 plane and it's the latest 747, but they haven't been making them for 12 years. So they're kind of white elephants in the sense they're a good plane,

but they're very hard to maintain and to operate with extra pilots. They're huge. They take an enormous amount of fuel. Most people that have large jets prefer 757, 777, 787. So they're kind of a white elephant. As I understand, they had it on the market, Megan, since 2020, and no one wanted it. And there was a rumor that they gave one to Turkey, the other one. Yeah. So the problem is that you get the impression that they wanted to unload this white elephant that you really I mean, it was it was configured in a way that wasn't really practical for people. And then when Trump said, I think that was not wise to say that it would be given to the foundation, he could have said one of two things. Well, we have a plane, and if the Air Force doesn't want it or other presidents don't want it, then we'll do what Reagan did and just put it out there and not fly it, because who in their right mind would want to fly around the United States with a gas-guzzling, out-of-date, hard-to-

maintain, expensive-to-operate jumbo jet. And I think he would have avoided a lot of the problems. Maybe that's his position. Now, the other thing is, Gutter always does this. They built that Al Oled Air Force Base. We didn't build it. They built a billion dollars. I've seen it. It's huge. And they just presented it to us. And the military, I wrote at the time, is this wise to take this big gift? Because they looked on one side to Iran, and then they looked at the Gulf, and they were saying, we're going to play both sides. And we're going to be the conduit between terrorists and legitimate governments and Iran and the Saudis and the Sunni monarchies.

But this is a precarious position. We have Al Jazeera. So we want protection. So we're going to build this billion dollar base and give it to you and you don't have to spend a penny. And that's what we did. And then they came back and we said, well, we need this and we need more and we want a bigger run. They said, fine, we'll do another billion dollar. So this is a long history that we've had with them. And I think what was behind it was that Donald Trump cemented all these deals and he did one with gutter. And they thought we're going to compromise them or we're going to give a gift. And it didn't look good to turn the gift down.

But if you look at the actual value of the plane and what you're going to have to do to it, and it'll probably, the time to refit this plane might not be that much quicker than the two Boeings that are on order anyway. So I don't quite understand. There's no utility. There's no upside is what I'm saying, either in the plane itself or – and I guess the only explanation I can think is Donald Trump is transactional. He didn't want to offend his host by turning down something that they had already tried to give to Turkey successfully and has no market value because no one wanted to buy it well i mean the report said that trump was very unhappy with air force one and even some of the reporters writing on it said it had gotten really kind of rickety you know like the takeoffs were very bumpy yes yeah and it's it's like a you know aircraft carrier in the sky and you know trump is used to flying on a luxury plane and he didn't like this and suddenly this gift is offered and that plane is absolutely stunning and gorgeous and i can see why he was like, hell yes.

That looks like a much nicer way to spend the next four years. Right. I mean, I think I just I just think he's going to have to say that if he wants to get out of it, he's going to have to say the U.S. military has taken gifts. We watch this country very carefully. In my first term, I was very tough on it. And the rules are it's going to be an Air Force jet. If the two Boeings are still tardy, the next president will use it. It'll be retrofitted. And it's just a stopgap measure. And if they want to give it to the Trump Foundation,

we will accord it the same status that Ronald Reagan did with the 747 that's at the library. Legally, it looks like it's OK because it would be a violation of the emoluments clause if it were a gift or a fee for service situation unless Congress approved it. Congress didn't approve it, but they're arguing at the DOJ this isn't a gift to Trump. It's a gift to the Pentagon that will stay government owned until it's retired and that he's not performing any service to receive it. There's no, you know, quid pro quo with Qatar. That's the argument. I mean, that doesn't answer the question about whether this is this feels ethically wrong. It puts us in a position

where we're somehow beholden to Qatar, which most Americans don't want. It just feels kind of gross. It does. And I think it raises a larger question that Donald Trump was very successful in pointing out the corruption of the Biden family consortium. They were into everything. Thirty million dollars, Hunter on the plane, Burisma, the quid pro quo, sweetheart deals on his taxes, this friend that paid his bills. And so now that he's a second term lame duck, you're getting the impression there's a lot of people around him that are heavily involved in the Middle East, in the Gulf states with investments, hedge funds, joint ventures. And I think it would be really wise for him because he's staging a very

controversial counter-revolution that's very necessary. In other words, he's looking at economics, cultural life, social life, military life, diplomat, and he's trying to reset the entire progressive agenda. No Republican has tried that. And what I'm getting at is there's a very thin margin of error, and he can't afford any distractions. And if he would, I think they need some ethics or someone just to separate all the people around him, and I'm not going to mention names, but you hear almost daily, not just in the left-wing press, that someone is entering a joint venture or a hedge fund or an investment fund or a private club or something. And you've got to be very careful about all that. That's all. You've got to be very careful.

You have to have an outside adjudicator say, you know what, we're not going to do that. We have to be above suspicion. Yeah, I know. Exactly. It's just it just feels like, OK, it was rickety, like it was bumpy. OK, but obviously it was safe and may not be the most wonderful Air Force one it's ever been. But it's damn sight better than most people's flights. I can tell you that right now. Anyway, it's happening. So there you go. Moving on to Marco Rubio. He gets, he goes in front of the Senate foreign relations committee yesterday. It was a thing of beauty. It was a thing of beauty. He was so good. This truly is Marco Rubio in full flower. As they say, he's better than ever. He really is sharp and like verbal, verbal jujitsu in a way he was not doing even

10 years ago. Every time you get him, when you sit down interview in the hallway of Capitol Hill, now in front of these congressional committees, just A++ level aptitude and ability to process his thoughts and take on multiple arguments at once. Like it's one guy under fire from all sides and he's got it. It's very impressive. I have to say, um, here he is in an extraordinary exchange. So these guys were up against it because he was on this committee. Rubio has what? 20 plus years in the U S Senate. He knows how it works there. He can't be bullied. He knows the points of order better than anybody. So Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the one who went out to visit

Abrego Garcia at the El Salvadorian jail, used his entire seven minutes, instead of probing to get answers, just to grandstand, just to say what he thought about how terrible Marco Rubio, who was confirmed unanimously as Trump's secretary of state, the only person in Trump world to get that kind of a vote. He just railed on him and said how horrible he was and ended it with this little spike the ball in the end zone moment of like, I'm, I'm ashamed I voted for you. And I, I take back my vote if I could. And Rubio, most witnesses would be like, okay, Rubio was like, oh no, I'm talking. I'm taking the microphone and went right to the chairman and said, Mr. Chairman,

I want my time. Then Van Halen tried to stop him. He took it. He got that microphone. He went off. It was great. Here's some of it. And I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for Secretary of State. I yield back. May I respond? You may, sir. Well, first of all, your regret for voting for me confirms I'm doing a good job. Well, I'd like to. I can't respond to everything he said because much of these are untrue,

but I'll go through a few. First of all, I'm actually very proud of the work we've done with USAID. For example, I don't regret cutting $10 million for male circumcisions in Mozambique. I don't know how that makes us stronger and more prosperous as a nation. We spent $227,000 for Big Cat's YouTube channel from USAID. We spent $14 million for social cohesion in Mali, whatever the hell that means. In the case of El Salvador, absolutely. Absolutely. We deported gang members. Gang members, including the one you had a margarita with.

And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger, and the evidence is going to be clear. In the days to come, you're going to see who you went to. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath. Here's another point, OK? There is a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch.

No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy. And he went on. It was beautiful. Yeah, it was. And he went on. It was beautiful. They have a reassuring calm, but they're very tough and they don't back down and they're not afraid of controversy. And when you sent Rubio down to Panama after all the media was going crazy, we're going to invade Panama. And he went down there and he just solved the problem, sued everything over, but did not back down. I wish because I do think they have so many balls in the air. They've got the Ukraine war. They've got the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

They've got the hostages with Hamas. And I think they need to – I know that Volkov is a special envoy, but no special can be doing all of that. Yeah, Witkoff, excuse me. And it would be very wise, I think, if all of that was bundled back into the State Department and Rubio himself and let Rubio pick the special envoys and operate, just outsource, because he's very competent and he's on the same page with Trump. But I just I think the American people feel that when he is conducting 100 percent of our foreign policy to the degree that it's delegated by the president, it's reassuring and he doesn't make slips or gaffes. So and I understand he's he's probably the most powerful secretary of state given the national security portfolio that we've had in a long time. But I wish that these major

negotiations, and there's three or four of them that have got global and historical importance, that he was the point man on it. And I think that would be wise. He is 53 years old. J.D. Vance just turned 40. They're both very formidable. J.D. Vance just turned 40. They're they're both very formidable. J.D. Vance much more aligned, I think, with the restrainer wing of the Republican Party. But Marco Rubio has been talking that talk, too. But he's closer to Trump, I would say, on foreign policy where he's he feels the restrainer influence and doesn't reject it and sees its wisdom, but isn't afraid to bomb Soleimani. You know, that's Trump.

And also, I would say Rubio, who's not afraid to be very strong in his language about, for example, Hamas and what they did to Israel, who has no quarter for Iran. And that's where there is a little split between some of the hardcore restrainers. And that may include J.D. and guys like Marco. So you're kind of seeing the future of the Republican Party develop and, you know, come into its own. And Mark Halperin was on Fox last night making the following point about those two. Watch this, SOT9. When he was back in the Florida legislature, he was tagged as someone destined for, you know, a national profile and his presidential campaign disappointed his supporters. But he is just one of the stars of this administration. If you, even if you don't agree with his policies, his, his, his knowledge

of policy, his knowledge, his rhetoric, his confidence, and his winning over MAGA. He went a rough spell with MAGA over immigration. And now he is one of the heroes of the movement. And I said earlier today, I'll say it again. I really do think J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio could end up being a preordained ticket in 2028, unlike we've ever seen before. I mean, you can dream, Victor. That would be amazing. It would. And I've been amazed by Mark Halpern, that he's really come into his own after. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I've been really. Everyone subscribe to NextUp with Mark Halpern that he's really come into his own after. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I've been really. Everyone subscribed to next up with Mark Alpern. It's out there as part of our MK media network.

Keep going. Yeah. He's been, I think he's very good, but the thing that, the, the, the Marco Rubio kind of, you said the two wings,

I guess, I think what you would call it as Jacksonianism and Walter Russell Mead has used that term a lot. In other words, the idea is that we don't look for optional military engagements in the Middle East. We don't want ground troops. We don't want to slay dragons overseas, but we're going to be no better friend and no worse enemy. And if you screw around with the United States, we're going to retaliate disproportionately. And that was Soleimani. That was Baghdadi, that was the Wagner Group in Syria. And when Trump left, he had really established the idea with North Korea, with the Houthis, that he was

unpredictable, but he would retaliate. And if he retaliated, it would be disproportionate. So don't provoke him. And that was why Jake Sullivan bragged just, I think, three days before October 7th. He said, our portfolio in the Middle East is the calmest I've ever seen it. What he was really unknowingly saying is that we have eroded this the last three years, but it was so strong that people still felt that the Trump-Jacksonian policy was in effect, even though we delisted the Houthis as a terrorist organization, even though we tried to beg the Iranians to get back in the nuclear deal, even though the Afghanistan disaster, even though we distanced ourselves. And that finally ran out is what I'm saying. And they destroyed what had happened. But Rubio really does represent a nice fusion of mega neo-isolationism or non-interventionism and deterrence. And I think

that's why he's getting a higher profile, because he seems to me, just as an outsider, to reflect more the natural inclinations of Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not want to get in a landlord. And Trump keeps mentioning him. Like when Trump talks about the future of the Republican Party and somebody says, is it J.D., is it J.D.? Trump keeps saying, J.D.'s great. Marco Rubio's great too. Like he keeps making space for him.

And Donald Trump thinks as a businessman, he thinks war is bad business. Blowing stuff up is not what he does. And he thinks it's a waste of time. But at the same time, and that's a MAGA strain, but at the same time, he understands that if you broadcast your MAGA, MAGA, MAGA, MAGA, and it's not worth getting involved, people are going to involve you. And the only way you can prevent that is from time to time show force that makes your deterrence credible. And that's what Rubio and I think Trump agree on. Let me ask you something about speaking of foreign policy, what's happening now with Russia and Ukraine.

It's not going very well, the attempts to end this thing. We signed this minerals deal with Ukraine, but Trump and Putin spoke the other day and Trump came out and said, you know, all sort of flowery. Oh, great. Had a great talk. Great talk. But Putin came out, was like nothing, nothing much happened, you know, like kind of no change. And now I'm looking at the New York Times here on the front page. Their headline is Trump's shift on Ukraine. You all fix it. U.S. backs off Putin splitting with allies. They report as follows. Mr. Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders after his call with Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump told Zelensky after his call with Putin that Russia and Ukraine would have to find a

solution to the war themselves just days after saying that only he and Mr. Putin had the power to broker a deal. So that, I mean, if that's the case, because, you know, the other piece of this is, um, hold on. I just want to get the exact reporting, right? They say, um, okay. Unless he again reverses course Monday's developments left Mr. Putin with exactly what he wanted, not only an end to the American pressure, but the creation of a deep fissure inside NATO between the Americans and their traditional European allies who say they are going ahead with sanctions anyway. The point that they seem to be making is that Trump's giving up whatever leverage he has on Putin. He just pulling out of it. The

U.S. just pulling out of this thing means pulling out of our support for Ukraine, which means likely possible collapse of Ukraine. Putin, I mean, he could keep it going. He could take over all of Ukraine if we don't have any involvement there. It would be up to the Europeans, which no one wants to hear if it's their country's fate. So what do you make of where we are right now on that conflict? Well, after what we saw in Afghanistan, I don't think Donald Trump is going to pull all support out of Ukraine. That would be a disaster. He'd be blamed for it. He's not going to do that. I think what is holding up everything, I think Donald Trump realizes now belatedly, but it's still only been 120 days versus a three-year war, that Vladimir Putin's challenge is that even though he has all of the assets in his favor, he's got 10 times the GDP, 30 times the area, four times the population, he has suffered a million casualties, dead, wounded, and missing. Probably there's a million

and a half total. And his military has been really destroyed. His GDP has been warped. And he wants out of it. But he's got to tell the apparat, the military and people that it was worth it. And so far, what he sees that he's gotten out of it for the million casualties is he's advanced 40, 80 miles and places beyond Crimea and Donbass. He's institutionalized that he's not going to give them back. And he's got that Ukraine won't be a NATO. But he doesn't think at this point, given the blunder that he committed, that he can go back to the people that have the power to get rid of him. And there are people that have the power to get rid of him in Russia, that they're not going to accept that. And yet he can't go on because he is bleeding. Maybe he's got more

resources and he can bleed out Ukraine first, but he's damaged the Russian military for probably 10 years. And we've never seen anything like this in Europe since Stalingrad in 1942. Never. It's got more casualties now than Stalingrad. And the weird thing about the whole thing is Donald Trump gyrates and fluid, but he is the only president, I'd never heard a word in 2014 from Obama about Crimea and Donbass or from Biden about the human cost. Biden said, well, just give it what it takes. But there was never anything. This is horrific.

A million and a half people dead, wounded, maimed. For what? And Trump, so he really does, that's all he talks about. It doesn't make any sense. And so I think psychologically, whether he knows it or not, he's invested in it. And then more importantly, he's learned that Vladimir Putin started the war, Vladimir Putin has objectives, and no one, not even Putin, knows at what point he can stop the war and stay in power. And I have a feeling that if we just persevere a little bit longer, and I don't mean give it whatever it takes, that there'll be a point where Putin will negotiate. But Trump is in a very difficult

position because the MAGA majority of the party wants to cut completely off and just say, let the Europeans do it. The Europeans claim they're going to put 40,000 troops. They won't do that. I can guarantee you they will not do that. And they say they're going to give them $200 billion. I can guarantee you they're not going to do that. All they're going to do is attack the United States and then hope that we intervene in the way that we have, and then they piggyback on. So whether we like it or not, the existence of Ukraine as an independent nation depends on us. And that's very hard to

reconcile with the MAGA doctrine that we don't get in the affairs of others. And when you add that Russia's got 6,000 deliverable nuclear weapons and almost daily threatens to use a tactical nuclear weapon, the whole thing is a mess. But I still think that the only chance for this thing to end is for Trump to find out how much Putin is going to take before he stops. And I think he can't give in to Putin, but he's got to convince him, no more, you've got Crimea, you've got Donbass, go back and tell everybody you institutionalized that and it was not determined until you win.

Go back and tell them that, yes, Ukraine will not be in NATO. Go back and tell them there's a DMZ will not be a NATO. Go back and tell them there's a DMZ here and we'll have a ceasefire basically where the battle line, but there's not, it can't, you're not going to get any more. All you're going to do is, is find yourself killing innocent people and your own people for what? And I think Trump has come out. I mean, he goes between like, I'm out and I'm going to put secondary sanctions out there. I'm not going to do business as the United States with any bank that does business with Russia, which he knows actually would hurt. Now we're talking.

That is the one thing that Biden would not do. It's very ironic because everybody said the only thing that will stop Russia is a secondary boycott, that people who deal business with Russia will not be doing business with us. And that's very rare to do. It's very rare in history. But if you do that, it's almost like a declaration of war because it is final. We did that with Japan, and it was pretty tough in Pearl Harbor, not that we deserved Putin, but he's the only one that has even broached the subject of the only thing that would stop Putin, that would really stop Putin. Well, that's where we are today. It's very slow going. All right, let's shift over to the White

House where something extraordinary just happened. You've got the leader of South Africa. Now, what's been happening in South Africa is post apartheid. It seems very much like the shoes now on the other foot and they're perfectly happy to discriminate against the eight percent of South African citizens who are white. And to be honest, it looks like they're enjoying discriminating against these eight percent white sins of the father and so on. That's their justification. So now Trump has let some it's fifty nine South African white farmers and their families come to the United States saying that they're refugees fleeing persecution. And he's used the term genocide. And we've been doing our own research to find out what exactly is happening in South Africa, because unlike Jake Tapper, we don't just take the word of the president. Sorry, Jake, but the left, I should say left wing reporters.

We actually started kicking these claims and trying to figure out whether they were true. And we can't support genocide so far based on what we've seen. But there is 100% threatened violence. And there has been some violence against farmers, though they don't distinguish in the numbers that they release when it comes to race. So there's no way that we have been able to figure out of knowing exactly who's died. What we know is the following. And I'm going to get to what's happening at the White House. I'm just giving the audience some background. Overall, there is consensus that there's some violence occurring against white farmers in South Africa. It is disputed just how much and how big a problem this is via the nonprofit

Afroforum, which is a South African land forum that focuses on the interest of Afrikaners. They said in 2022, there were verified 333 attacks on South African farms, including 50 murders the year before that, 415 attacks, 55 murders, but they're not broken down by race. However, we do know that whites in South Africa own about three quarters of the farms. So if you're seeing all this violence on farms and you know that whites own three quarters of the farms, the odds are good that a lot of whites are being killed, or at least were in 2021 and 2022. Via The Federalist in 2024, April through September, citing South African police stats, there were 197 reported farm murders and 154 attempts and nearly 600 total cases of assaults on farms.

Okay, so all of that is pretty good evidence that there are white farmers being killed or attempted murders on those white farmers. FYI, the UN defines genocide under the Article 2 of the convention as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part or in part. So it's open to interpretation. And so what happened now is the South African president, Ramaphosa, shows up to the White House because they have deals they want to negotiate. We're mad that they turned in Israel to the Hague for war crimes in Gaza, and they would like to do more business with us. But we are also saying we're not going to have economic meetings and summits in South Africa because you're doing this

and we object to it. So this was an attempted reconciliation of sorts when this guy comes over here and sits down with President Trump in the Oval. Okay, now here comes today's developments. President Trump stayed, now reporting here from the New York Times, staged a video screening in the Oval showing some kind of documentary that purportedly shows violence against white farmers in South Africa. The delegation from South Africa sitting in silence, watching, looking somewhat bemused and perplexed, according to the Times. They write, this is an extraordinary scene. The Trump team clearly came to the meeting,

prepared to play videos, backing up what the Times describes as their false claim that there are mass killings against white South Africans. As an aside, the Times is very upset, as is most of the left wing, that Trump has given refugee status to these 59 white South African citizens. They are convinced it's because they have white skin. Suddenly, they're very concerned about refugees coming into the United States. Not the 3 million that Biden allowed, but the 59 that Trump allowed because they're white. And before I show you what happened today at the oval, let me show you just a little bit of how the New York Times has been covering this ongoing problem and their take on it. We're going to play, it's a little on the long side, but let's play 11C from their New York Times podcast, The Daily, which aired on Monday.

For decades, white South Africans ruled with an iron fist, overseeing the country's cruel system of racial oppression. So why is President Trump now welcoming them to the U.S. as victims. Today, John Eligo on how the MAGA movement became obsessed with AfriConners. And if you think about it, this is the perfect thing to capture Trump's eye. Because if we look at his ascendancy to the presidency, part of his whole pitch was to be this president who would ensure that the forgotten white man would be taken care of, right? That we would fight back against sort of this demographic shift, these demographic changes, these brown people coming into our country and invading our borders. Trump's presidency and his whole political identity has always had an element that has really spoken to the folks all around the world who embrace these sort of theories,

these feelings that white people are under threat. And so here he had an example. South Africa could now be the example that he points to and says, like, this is what could come for us here in America. And how much has it been about circumstances within the United States, the perceived threat level against white citizens here? In other words, is this about the tale of the Afrikaners or that cautionary tale that Trump and those around him feel it represents to white Americans. Okay. So you get the flavor, Victor. They're upset that the refugees are white. That's not allowed. Your thoughts on it before I take you to inside the Oval and some more of what we heard. Well, one thing we

did know is they applied for refugee status before they got here and they were granted that. We know that the first thing Joe Biden did was say that refugees who came to the United States could declare, I shouldn't say refugees, anybody who came to the United States could declare they were refugees after they got here. And they got rid of the idea that under the first Trump administration, you had to apply for refugee status in your home country. So first of all, what they're basically saying is, and this is a racist thing, what they're saying is, if Donald Trump has people who apply for refugee status and he allows the men, say 60-something, 70, maybe even get to 100, and they happen to be white,

that's proof of racism. But if we let in 10 million people and maybe 3 million have applied for refugee status after they got here and we let them in and the vast majority are not white, that's okay, but we can't make these people apply in their own country and they're under 100. And so what I'm getting at is the left is, it opens another issue very quickly, Megan, and that is people are using the word white in kind of a racist context. I haven't seen in recent times, I'll give you just a few examples. We had Caitlin Clark in The Foul the other day, and she was called a white gal. And then we had Jasmine Crockett talk about she didn't trust the Democrats not to nominate white boys. And then we had Ilyan Omar,

a tape service where she called basically white men the greatest terrorist threat. And so the left has taken this idea, and we saw it with Milley and Austin said, white privilege, white rage, white supremacists, we're going to ferret out in the Pentagon. They found no, by the way, that Pentagon report that finally surfaced found no such systemic white racism in the military. But it did account for 45,000 people not joining the military, but it did account for 45,000 people not joining the military. And the data shows that they were overwhelmingly white males who felt under the DEI, they were under suspicion unjustifiably. And by the way, they were the demographic that died at double their numbers in the general population in Afghanistan and Iraq. So we just basically alienated them. And then when we got rid of DEI, they came back. So it's been the bar, like everything else with the left, the bar has been

lowered. And you can just now say that Donald Trump is a white racist. If that were true, there was a Rasmussen report, as you know, came out two weeks ago about the first 100 days. And what was interesting about that was 39% of African Americans said they approved of the first 100 days. 62% of Hispanics said they did. And they were much higher than whites. He's favoring white immigrants as refugees. Why in the world are people of color supporting him far more than any other Republican candidate in modern memory? And I think what we're seeing is that the Democratic Party and the left realizes that their boutique issues, transgenderism, open borders, no deportations, basically DEI, pro-Hamas, appeals to nobody. And they are a party of the very, very wealthy bi-coastal elite and the subsidized poor. But my point is, African-Americans and Hispanics are starting to look at a Jasmine

Crockett or an AOC in the same way working white people look at the architects, a Senator Holland or a Nancy Pelosi. They don't feel connected with them. And what's getting them really angry is Donald Trump is appealing to people in terms of middle-class solidarity that kind of transcends race. And that's really hurt them. And they're very angry about it. So they've got to keep trying to tell their former constituencies, he's a racist, he's a racist, he's a racist, white boy, white boy, white boy, white males, white males, white privilege, white, and they drive it into the ground and it has the opposite effect. People are sick of it. And they know that they don't appeal to working class Hispanics or blacks. They don't care about them. They dump illegal immigrations

and immigrants in the inner city. They don't care about the real grande communities that were impacted. Oh, even out in California, there's news today that Governor Gavin Newsom can't make his budget. And it's because he's opened up their public health care system to all these illegals who have flooded across the border. And he won't admit that it's his policy of making taxpayers pay for their health care that's bankrupting him. He's blaming it on Trump's tariffs. But we are seeing the consequences to these disastrous policies. Speaking of California, 50 percent of all the births in California, 50% are on Medi-Cal, our version of Medicaid.

40% of everybody in this state is on Medi-Cal, 40%. 27% of our population, resident, citizen, and non-resident was not born in the United States. And so if you look at California's budget 40 years ago, it was about 7% to 10% Medi-Cal and about 30% infrastructure. That's flipped. And so all of this tax money, 13.3%, highest income tax, highest gas tax, 10th highest sales tax. What did it get us? It got us the lowest ranking in infrastructure, bottom 10 in public schools, half the nation's homeless, one third of people on welfare, 21% below the poverty line.

And Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown accelerated that. And they're stuck because they can't- And now they want to blame Trump, which is just so rich. No, they can't say, well, we have 13.3 income tax. We got to raise it because 300,000 people are leaving every year that pay that. Right. And so they don't know what to do. And they replace them with people who have no jobs, who are living on the government dime. So all the earners left and now all the glommers are there

trying to live off the government dime. And he's too much of a you-know-what to admit his policies got Californians in this boat. And he's in a big trouble because why these legislatures are all elites along the coast. What we've had a transformation here in the center of the state and the north of the state and the Inland Empire where middle class Mexican-American people. And that's 46 percent of the population, are increasingly taxpayers, middle class, and they're tired of it. They can't find a doctor. They can't buy insurance. They can't afford gas. One quarter of our population can't pay their power bill. They're in default. And all they see in the news is Trump trying to get these people out of the country and

people like Chris Van Hollen going to visit them in their El Salvadorian jails. All right. I've got to squeeze in a break. And we will be right back because there's more to do. And we got to show you some sound rights from inside the oval on that South African thing. Let me tell you about Financial Yield Solutions, Inc., known as FYSI. If you are handling your own books or you have a bookkeeper, you risk inaccuracies, missed deductions, and blind spots in cash flow. FYSI's team of seasoned accounting professionals, corporate and tax attorneys, handle every journal entry, bank reconciliation, and month-end close with unmatched precision, delivering clear and timely financial reports that keep you in control.

They've weaved advanced tax avoidance strategies into your bookkeeping so you can capture every deduction before you file and plug you into their network of industry leaders and referral partners for real world growth opportunities. Set up your free consultation to learn how FYSI's experts will transform your books into a growth engine and accelerate your business to the next level. Act now to claim your free $5,000 business assessment. It's available only for a limited time. Visit fysi.com slash Megan, use promo code Megan, or call 800-877-4000 today. I would like to introduce you to a new brand of Angus beef. You can order it directly from Riverbend Ranch,

which is located just a few miles from West Yellowstone, Montana. Riverbend Ranch raises their cattle a lot differently than most ranches. For example, they never use artificial growth hormones or antibiotics. They track the health of every animal from the day it is born and can guarantee that it has been healthy every day of its life. And they handle their animals humanely and with respect. But most important is the quality of the beef. You'll find it as tender and flavorful as the finest restaurants. And that's because they have spent the last 35 years selecting cattle for tenderness and flavor, aging their beef to perfection for 21 days. The result is some of the most tender and flavorful beef you have ever tasted. You cannot buy beef like this in a grocery store. And since it is shipped directly from the

ranch to your home, you get a much better price than going through the middleman. Order directly from riverbendranch.com. Use promo code Megan to get 20 bucks off your first order. That's riverbendranch.com, code Megan. And be prepared, once you taste it, you're going to be coming back for more. Again, that's riverbendranch.com, code Megan. 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. VDH is back with me and I skipped this one on Marco Rubio's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But the issue of immigration and these so-called refugees came up in his exchange with Tim Kaine.

And in particular, they got into a bit on these Afrikaners. Watch a little bit of that in SOT 10. I'm going to ask you, what's so well-justified fear of persecution? Yeah, they thought their farms were being burned down and they would be killed. I think that's a pretty good justification for wanting to come. They're afraid for their lives. And should it be applied in an even-handed way? That's an easy question.

Our foreign policy doesn't require even-handedness. It requires prioritizing the interests of the United States. The phrase says you are entitled to entrance as a refugee if you demonstrate a well-justified fear of persecution. No, no, you're not entitled. So could you have a different standard based upon the of persecution, you're not entitled to have a different standard based upon the color of somebody's skin. Would that be acceptable? I'm not the one arguing that. Apparently you are because you don't know the fact that they're white. And that's why they say that that would be unacceptable. No, I would say that a very

easy thing. The United States has a right to pick and choose who they allow into the United States based on the color of somebody's skin. You're the one that's talking about the color of their skin, not me. He's so good. He cannot be bullied. But that's just to give you a flavor for how the Democrats sound about these 59 South African citizens. So here, the president of South Africa shows up in the Oval. And first, what happens here in South 40 is President Trump shows them video of what President Trump says are burial grounds in South Africa. Watch. Now, this is very bad. These are the these are burial sites right here, burial sites,

over a thousand of white farmers. And those cars are lined up to pay love on a Sunday morning. Each one of those white things you see is a cross and there's approximately a thousand of them. They're all white farmers, the family of white farmers. And those cars aren't driving. They're stopped there to pay respects to their family member who was killed. And it's a terrible sight. I've never seen anything like it. Now, this is The New York Times' description of this. This is an extraordinary scene. The Trump

team clearly came to the meeting prepared to play videos backing up their false claim that there are mass killings against the white South Africans. Ramaphosa began by turning to the video and smiling, visibly surprised. He had been sitting in his seat silently, keeping his eyes elsewhere. I'd like to know where that is because this I've never seen, says Ramaphosa, suggesting without directly saying it that Trump is being misled. And this video is from somewhere other than South Africa. Then he tried, the South African president, to explain land law. And Trump had an interjection of his own when that happened here in Sat 43. We've got to deal with the past. The government and your government also has the right to expropriate land for public use.

And you're doing that. your government also has the right to expropriate land for public use. And you're doing that. And we've never really gotten underway with that. And we are going to be doing so. You're taking people's land away from them. We have not. And those people, in many cases, are being executed. They're being executed. And they happen to be white, and most of them happen to be farmers.

And that's a tough situation. I don't know how you explain that. How do you explain that? They're taking people's land away. And in many cases, those people are being executed. And in many cases, it's not the government that's doing it. It's people that kill them and then take their land. And by the way, there's no question that in January, South Africa passed a law that makes it legal to seize privately owned land without compensation. That's very clear. That is the law now in South Africa. So all that goes down between the two of them. President Trump's trying to make a point. The South African president's rejecting it, but President Trump is showing video. And then this guy, I guess it's a professional golfer named Goosen, his last name, Ratif Goosen. He was brought along by the South African president. He's supposed to be a

witness for him. But the more he talks, the worse it seemed to get for the South African president's claim that there's nothing to see there. Listen to him. I grew up in an area in South Africa that is a farmland area, Balagwani. And there is some issues up there, obviously. My dad was a property developer as well as a part-time farmer. And, yeah, some of these buddy farmers got killed. The farm is still going. My brother's running.

But it's a constant battle with farms trying to get... They're trying to burn the farms down to chase you away. So it is a concern to try and get water out. So does your family and your brother, do they feel safe on the farm? They live behind electric fences you know try and be at night safe but it is it is constant whenever you leave that that something could happen it's nowhere to live. Both of them has been attacked in their houses. My mom's been attacked in her house when she was 80. So it is difficult.

He's white, by the way. Your thoughts on that in our last minute on SiriusXM. We'll carry this over on pod. Yeah, I think everybody knows that the left's attitude is that because three generations or two generations earlier there was apartheid, everybody who has descended from the white minority that exercised power is still culpable for everything. And while they might say, well, that's too bad, they don't really regret what's going on. They feel that it's sort of divine punishment. They're not going to do anything. We have reasons, though, to separate ourselves more from South Africa besides just, and that's one reason, but they are the most, one of the most anti-Semitic, anti-Israel countries in the world,

at least on their voting record in the UN. They're no friend of the United States. You know, they're going to play this out the way that Mugabe did in Rhodesia. They understood they had a history of kind of an apartheid too there, not kind of, but an actual one in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe. So they got rid of all of the white farmers. They were a food exporter, and then they were not self-sufficient in food. And that's the trajectory that South Africa is going to be. And so they've got a problem, and it was a very advanced, sophisticated country, but it was an apartheid country. So they don't know quite – they're a little bit confused because they have that Zimbabwe example before them.

So they're not as overt, and they're going after white farmers. But basically their attitude and the attitude of the international left is that they get a blank check to do whatever they want because of the history of apartheid. And nobody, yeah, it's just a fact. It's not. And what Rubio was basically saying, how in the world can you let in 30 million people from all over the world, the vast 99% are not white, and allow them to come in here as economic refugees, but then claim they're political refugees. And we didn't object. And you did this. And now you're saying that it's racist to let in 60-something people when you let in millions of people that were not white, deliberately not white because of the 1965 immigration laws. So you can't reason with them. And I think Rubio understands that. He doesn't want to argue with them. They're just ideologues and they're racist, too. They really

are. So here is here's one of the soundbites that we're told Trump played for the South African president. It is the listening listening audience from June of 2018. And you will hear in this soundbite the head of South Africa's EFF party being interviewed by a somewhat incredulous interviewer from a documentary. Listen here to Sat 12. There's no crime I've committed. I've never slapped a white person. Nothing. I've never called for their slaughter. I've never called for their slaughter. I've never called for their killing.

At least for now. I can't guarantee the future. Yeah, but, I mean, you'd understand somebody watching that, they freak out. It sounds like a genocidal call. Cry babies. Cry babies. I'm not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now.

I'm saying to you, not under my leadership will we call for the slaughter of white people. I don't know who's coming after me. I will not speak for them. Amazing. And by the way, that's Julius Malema. He's still the leader of this EFF party, which is still the fourth largest party in South Africa's National Assembly, holding 39 of the 400 seats. His official title is president and commander in chief of the EFF. Doesn't sound like a great place to be if you are white. And one other thing, Victor, the South African,

this is via Katie Pavlich on X, the South African minister of agriculture confirmed in the Oval today that white farmers are being killed and that it's a serious problem, that it's a serious problem. They know that. I think Trump's attitude is the right one. He's just saying, you know what, we have no animosity toward you. We just don't want to have close relations with you, given what you want to do. If you want to do that, fine. We're just not going to talk. You're going to be like Venezuela or Cuba. And I think given what the attractions of students coming here and the U.S. market and U.S. aid, I think that's the right attitude. It's not to get into argument with you because they'll just deny it. Just say you are practicing a reverse apartheid.

We know that. And you won't do anything about it. But go ahead. You're just not going to, we're not going to have close relations. You're not going to get aid. You're not going to get a trade deal. You're not going to send students here. And I think that's the proper attitude. And we should have, that's a good attitude toward China, too, with their 300,000 students that are here. Trump has a lot of leverage.

He's really shocked people in the United States because they all said China has leverage. This country has leverage. They don't. They have all these students that want to come here. They have all these green card holders that want to come here. They all get foreign aid. They get technological expertise transfers. And he has all the cards and he knows it. And that's why he showed it. He can just say, you know what? We have no animosity toward you, none at all. But what you're doing is wrong. And we don't want you to be a friend of the United States until you change. I think you'll have results. And we are going to accept these white farmers as refugees, even if you don't like it, which this guy who Ramaphosa has called them cowards.

He says they're cowards for fleeing. You should stay there and let us take your farms and you'll have to live behind electric barbed wire. And we might murder a few of you too. Like that guy, that, that golfer, supposedly a witness for the South African government saying, yeah, you know, they attacked my mother. They attacked my two brothers. They're living behind electric fences, but yeah. Okay. I'm here on whose behalf again. Let me show you this other thing, Victor. Elon Musk participated in this South Africa Qatar Economic Forum, sorry, this Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday via Zoom. And of course, he's from South Africa. And this interviewer tries to get up in his grill. Her name is Michelle Hussein. She works works for Bloomberg and Elon has been railing

about what's happening in South Africa, including how racist the laws are now, like one that affected him directly. He's got Starlink now, this internet service that has come to the rescue in war torn areas and elsewhere. And he's trying to bring it to South Africa. And he says that he couldn't because South Africa has a law, the so-called black economic empowerment laws that in many cases require any company doing business there to have at least 30% black ownership, which is like, so if you're a white owner of Starlink, like Elon, even if you're South African by birth, it's a no. You can't bring it. So he's unhappy about that. And this Bloomberg's Michelle Hussain gets an interview with Elon at the Qatar Economic Forum, again, via Zoom. And let me show you a couple of soundbites of

how that went. Hold on. Maybe we only have one. It's 11A. Bloomberg broke news today that the South African government is working around the rules on black ownership in order to allow Starlink in. And that is being done on the eve of the visit the President Ramaphosa is going to make to the White House. Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest? No, of course not. First of all, you should be questioning why are there racist laws in South Africa? That's the first problem. That's what you should be attacking. It's improper for there to be racist laws in South Africa. The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, who was a great man, proposed was that all racists should be on an equal footing in South Africa. That's the right thing to do, not to replace one set

of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper. And then here's the follow-up, 11b. Now I'm in this absurd situation where I was born in South Africa, but can't get a license to operate in Starlink because I'm not black. Well, it looks like that's about to change. I just asked you a question. Please answer. Does that seem right to you? Well, those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa. And it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you.

Ask your question. This is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you? Ask your question. This is your interview. Everyone wants to hear from you. Ask your question. Yes or no? Not for me to answer. I have got a question for you about your government work

and the amount of savings. Why do you like racist laws? This is not for me to answer. Come on. Yes, it is. Now, you wouldn't be trying to dodge a question. You have to ask a question. I don't have a question. No, you answer mine. So good, Victor.

She's not going to answer because she agrees with it. The odd thing is we have somewhat similar laws here that on public construction, a certain number, percentage of, I think we saw that with the Obama library, that there is an idea that Black-owned businesses are guaranteed a particular percentage of a particular. Oh, yeah. Look what's happening in Hollywood. You can't get your film nominated for these awards unless you have a certain quota of Black, minority, LGBTQ, whatever employees working for you. Yeah. And the question that I would have is, does this help the majority of citizens of South Africa, all of these laws and to discourage foreign investment and to go after these people who write? They've been there for nine generations, some of them, and they're very good. They're some of the best farmers in the world. And the foreign exchange they earn and the bounty they produce helps everybody in the country.

And to get rid of them and kill them or drive them off the land and put people on there that don't have that expertise, we know what happened because we saw it in Rhodesia. There has to be a trend. There has to be some type of mechanism where if you really want blacks to be better farmers, have internships or something, or have, I think over half the land in South Africa is owned by the government anyway, then have government land sold to people who qualify, you know, as adept farmers. But it's not going to happen. And South Africa is the polar opposite of Israel. The international community idolizes and overlooks all of the felonies of South Africa, and they idolize them because of Mandela and apartheid and all of that. I understand that. And then they magnify everything Israel does and hate Israel.

And you can usually see a person's political ideology on those two barometers. They hate Israel, and they idolize South Africa. And if you try to argue with them that Israel is a functional, progressive democracy and South Africa is not, they don't care. It's race, race, race, race, race. Last topic, because you're the perfect person to ask about James Comey and his little walk along the seashore where he just innocently, surprisingly stumbled upon seashells arranged in the numbers 86, 47. Now he's trying to promote a book and he's gotten himself a lot of free media coverage. Uh, the latest was on MSNBC, where he went on Monday. And here is what he said in SOT 24. You are back in the middle of a political firestorm. Yeah, for walking on the

beach with my wife. So I don't know how we ended up here. It never occurred to me that it was any kind of controversial thing, but that's the time we live in. As a kid, it always meant to leave a place, to ditch a place. I said, that's really clever. So then she said, you should take a picture of that. And I did. And I posted it on my Instagram account and thought nothing more of it. I regret the distraction and the controversy around it.

But again, it's hard to have regret about something that even in hindsight looks to me to be totally innocent. Totally innocent. We have got to show you one more. Here he is on Colbert late last night, Tuesday night. What? Look at this, Thought 22. You, is this Instagram? Instagram, yeah. You grammed this. You were walking down the beach. What happened? You were walking down the beach and you saw this on the beach? Yeah, my wife and I, Patrice, were walking on the beach

and saw those numbers in shells on the beach. You didn't do this. Somebody else did this. Yeah, somebody else did it. We were on a walk preparing for this week, the rollout of my book. She looked at it and said, why'd someone put their address in the sand?

All right. And then we stood at it, looked at it, trying to figure out what it was, and she'd long been a server in restaurants, and she said, you know what I think it is? I think it's a reference to restaurants when you would 86 something in a restaurant. Right, it's off the menu.

Yeah, I said, I remember when I was a kid, you'd say 86 to get out of a place. This place stinks, let's 86 it. I was a bartender. You would 86 a customer if they were getting drunk. Like, that's 86, give them a low-proof alcohol, something like that, yeah. And them a low-proof alcohol or something like that. Yeah. And so I said, I think it's a clever political message. And she said,

you should take a picture of it. I said, sure. And then she said, you should Instagram that. And boom. Now, that's not quite the story, is it? Because what was unique about that entire exegesis, he never mentioned the word 47, not once. He didn't say, he just said 86. No, you know that while it is a common vernacular to say you're going to kick somebody out of a bar 86, that in the last two decades, it's taken on another connotation to eliminate somebody. And it has. And he's the head of the FBI, and he knows that better than anybody. And he knows that he took that picture to put it on there to generate controversy and to reflect his visceral hatred of Donald Trump, whom he blames for ending his corrupt career. And it was going to be publicity for the book,

and it worked out pretty well for him, he thinks. But remember, Megan, this is the guy who hired Christopher Steele and basically is an FBI contractor. He used the Steele dossier. It was completely bogus to get FISA warrants. His lawyer, one of the FBI lawyers, which was confidential. He turned around, recorded it on FBI device, leaked it. He bragged that he had ambushed, his FBI agents had ambushed Michael Flynn on a bogus Logan Act and destroyed Michael Flynn's career. We also know that he said that Hillary Clinton, he took on the role not just as an FBI investigator, but for some reason as a prosecutor, a virtual attorney general in the 2016 election said Hillary Clinton was guilty of transmitting classified files, maybe destroying the subpoenaed evidence. But no jury would convict her. And therefore, as a now he as a attorney general, he was not going to prosecute her. Loretta Lynch just abdicated. So he was the iconic person of why Kash Patel is going to shut down. The building is unsafe anyway, but he's going to shut down the FBI headquarters because he looks at Robert Mueller and he says, this guy came before the House Intelligence and denied he even knew GPS or Steele dossier, the catalyst that got him appointed. Then we had Comey, which we just mentioned.

The third guy in that succession was Andrew McCabe, interim director. He lied on four occasions to federal authorities, three times under oath, was fired. Then we had Christopher Wright, who gave us, you know, monitoring traditional Catholics, going to school board meetings, monitoring people, the performance art, Mar-a-Lago raid, et cetera, et cetera. So that whole last 20 years of FBI directors, I'm not even mentioning Peter Stroke or James A. Baker, who was using, as you remember, Twitter and Facebook were involved in the 2020 election. Sensory News, they had the laptop for a year.

They knew it was authentic, and yet they let the 51 intelligence authorities lie to the American people on the verge of a debate. That whole thing was corrupt, and now they're going to shut down the office, transfer the 1,500 employees somewhere else. But James Comey basically inherited, as did Mueller, as did McCabe, as did Christopher Wright, an iconic institution. And when they got done with it, they had ruined the reputation because of their behavior. It was in tatters. Yeah, it is. They were unethical and they were weaponized. And there was something very wrong with having that one. Almost one third of all the agents were located somewhere in the Washington area. And that's you might argue that all the crime is there, but it's not the violent crime. One third of the country and they need to be dispersed. And maybe Kash Patel can take the headquarters, not put it in Virginia, but put it in Oklahoma City or Kansas in the center of the state and get it out of that toxic environment in Washington. We will have more on that tomorrow when we're joined by Michael Knowles on what Cash said and a little bit more on James Comey as well.

In the meantime, VDH, thank you. It's wonderful talking to you. Great to see you. Thank you for having me, Megan. Oh, my gosh. What a show. So much going on right now. It's like every day, right, with the Trump administration, but the media, too. There's so much. We haven't even gotten to the fact that CBS News is imploding. I mean, completely imploding. We'll get to that tomorrow. There's a lot. Hegseth yesterday announced a full-fledged investigation into the withdrawal

from Afghanistan, the disastrous withdrawal. Good for him. There's a lot. We'll tackle all the rest of it and whatever happens between now and then tomorrow with Michael Knowles and Anna Kasparian's back too. Okay, see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.