The Megyn Kelly Show - Megyn Kelly on Kamala's CNN Town Hall Disaster, and Key Issue of Trans Ideology, with Rep. Ro Khanna | Ep. 925

Episode Date: October 24, 2024

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing Vice President Kamala Harris's ongoing failure to establish herself as a real person or show voters who she really is, her failed CNN town hall, even David Axelrod saying her message isn't working, how the left and media are lying about Trump's "enemy from within" comment, the overheated rhetoric from Kamala during the CNN town hall, Kamala struggling to provide clear answers on key policy issues, her inability to answer direct questions about inflation and grocery prices, her pivot to the filibuster when asked about abortion, Kamala stylistically performing better at the CNN town hall than previously but not fixing any of the substance problems, her inability to even answer what her biggest weakness and mistakes are, and more. Then U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna joins to discuss who he thinks will win the 2024 election, why he thinks Kamala stumbles when she's in interview settings, how bipartisan cooperation is achievable and his past experience working with JD Vance, the pressing transgender issues that are impacting the 2024 election, the key policy of "gender affirming surgery" for minors, the problem of men and boys in the sports of women and girls, how contentious the debates over these issues are, and more.More from Khanna- https://x.com/RoKhannaHungryroot: Go to https://Hungryroot.com/megyn to get 40% off your first delivery and get your free veggies.Tax Network USA: https://TNUSA.com/MEGYN 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. Later today, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna from California will join me for the first time. I'm looking forward to this. He is very progressive and we are 100% opposed to each other on many issues, including the trans stuff, but he's going to come on and defend this. And you know what? He goes into a lot of more right-leaning spaces and stands up for what he believes in. So good for him. I appreciate that. And I'm looking forward to our talk and we'll touch base on electoral politics too, and see how he's viewing this race, which has got some

pressing the panic button. Hungry root is one very easy way to eat healthy. They send you fresh, high quality groceries, simple, delicious recipes, and essential supplements. It's like having someone else do all the planning and shopping. So you don't even to think about it. Hungry Root gets to know your personal health goals, dietary restrictions, favorite foods, how much time you want to spend cooking, and more. Then they build you a personalized cart for the week, including easy four-ingredient recipes to put those groceries to use. Each order, fully customizable. They've got fresh produce, high quality meat, healthy snacks, and more. Everything from Hungry Root follows a simple standard. It's got to taste good, be quick to make, and contain whole trusted ingredients.

Hungry Root is offering the Megyn Kelly Show viewers 40% off your first delivery and free veggies for life. Just go to HungryRoot.com slash Megyn, get 40% off your first delivery, and get your free veggies. HungryRoot.com slash Megyn. Don't forget to use our link so they know we sent you. I mean, it's very interesting to me because the polls still show this race is tight. I mean, just as tight as it can get. And yet you have more and more people talking about how it's Trump's to lose, right? Because he's gone up a little and the momentum seems to be with Trump. But boy, his momentum only is getting him from like down two points to up two points

in a margin of error poll that has a four point window. So it's like, has anything actually happened? Now, the early voting data coming back is promising for Trump. We are seeing more Republicans voting on an early basis, whether it's in person early or by mail than we have in the last elections. That's great. But we don't know whether those are additional votes or whether they're just cannibalizing election day vote. It's still good for the reasons we've discussed on the show. You know, it allows Republican canvassers to go out there and bother people who haven't yet turned in their vote and focus their efforts there. So it's not that it's not a benefit. It's just

the main benefit is getting more votes. As we know, that's how you win the election. So it's too soon to say whether it's a game changer in that way. Nevada each day looks better and better. And, you know, the experts out there are saying it's, it's beyond just sort of a marginal, a marginal plus. So who knows still, but I have to admit that that one you'd have to objectively say is looking very good, at least at this point for Trump, anything could happen. Um, but I try to take in as much media as I can on the polls, on big events like the CNN town hall that happened last night with Kamala Harris, which we are going to spend this hour talking about. And, um, I am sensing real alarm, real alarm in Democrat circles. Um, our friend, Dan, um, turntine, who's been on the show as part of the two-way broadcast with

Halperin and Spicer. They were here yesterday. He was saying just yesterday or this morning on their show that he is hearing the DCCC and the DSCC, you know, these are the Democrat campaign apparatus in both the House and the Senate, are telling their state candidates, like the people running for U.S. Senate out of the seven swing states, that's what I mean, don't feel the need to follow Kamala Harris's lead. I mean, that's not a good time. Like don't, you don't have to go with Hitler. It's, it's really your choice. If, if you don't want that to be your closing message in a country that is suffering, uh, with, you know, record high inflation and record high immigrant communities now, thanks to this

open border. You should do what you think is right. Now, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of her closing message. Now we know she's going to the Washington Mall next week on Tuesday, one week before Election Day for for her quote, closing argument. And in her closing argument, she's going to really, really tell us why Trump is bad. I mean, they're very much settled on this. They have settled on Trump is bad. He's really, really bad, very, very bad. And that's why you can't vote for Trump. Meanwhile, you look over at Trump and he is having a ball. He's at McDonald's with the gleaming smile. They want to make fun of him for when those people passed out at his very packed, hot event, I think it was Terry Moran, who was like, actually, it was really sweet. They want to say this is all freaky stuff. Trump's having a great time. Trump looks and is behaving like a winner. She's not.

The infighting's already starting. You know, we told you about the little morning Joe freak out on how she's dealing with the attack by Trump on her support for our taxpayer dollars, paying for trans surgeries and in prisons for illegals and felons. Like they're starting to pull out the knives for Team Harris. She's not doing it right. Why aren't they dealing with this? Now, what I just said about the campaign finance committees, basically that fund these races saying you can cut chip, you can cut bait and jump ship. Um, we'll see whether more and more people in these States are not appearing with her. If she goes by their state, what we

are seeing is we talked about with Halpern yesterday is they're embracing Trump in their ads in States like Pennsylvania and others. Why are they doing that? They're doing that because they too have information that Trump's winning. It is not won. It is not done. She could still win, but he's winning. It's obvious. You know, if you just look around at the objective signs of who is doing well and who is suffering, it's clear. And one of the most interesting things was on that CNN town hall last night to watch the reaction after the fact they've run out of spin. They, I mean, God love him. I actually feel bad for him. I feel bad for David Axelrod. I do. I think he's actually, for the most part, a straight shooter. And he knows he was with Obama, for God's sake.

He knows a talented political candidate when he sees one. This ain't it. And you could hear sort of the dejection by the panel that CNN did everything it could to set her up for success. It's not that Anderson Cooper didn't ask any challenging questions. He threw some at her. He did follow up with her on a couple of issues and she was totally flat footed. She's so not used to it. But make no mistake, the whole thing was set up by CNN and agreed to by Kamala Harris to be a Trump is Hitler extravaganza. And even they knew on that panel after the fact, it didn't work. She didn't break through. Here's Axelrod last night.

She could be clinical on some of these economic issues. She was great on the long-term care for the, uh, for, for the elderly to help people in the sandwich. The things that would concern me is when she doesn't want to answer a question, her habit is to kind of go to world word salad city. And she did that on a couple of answers. One was on Israel. Anderson asked a direct question. Would you be stronger in Israel than Trump? And there was a seven minute answer, but not none of it related to the question he was asking on immigration. I thought she missed an opportunity because she would acknowledge no concerns about any

of the administration's policies. And that's a mistake. Sometimes you have to concede things. And she didn't concede much. No one's going to be Bill Clinton. But you do want to relate to the people in front of you. She didn't do a lot of that. She didn't ask them questions. She didn't address them particularly. No, there was almost no warmth in her performance whatsoever. And another point Halpern was making was he does not think Axelrod would be speaking like that if he didn't know she's going to lose. That he just wouldn't be that frank about her failings at such an important event for her. And, you know, repeated criticisms.

And he's exactly right. I mean, honestly, that's truth telling there. She didn't connect. She can't. She doesn't have it in her. She didn't build a life that allows her that sort of emotional connection with people or the ability to have the confidence to show who she really is. You know, to just I mean, that's the thing about Trump is he shows us who he is. It's not always pretty, but it's real. It's authentic. Somehow that's more steadying. She, she makes you feel unstable. Like I have no idea what I am hiring. You know, it's like, remember I told you about my friend, my friend's friend runs this

big corporation and he hired a girl right out of college. She was totally normal on the interviews. And then when she got to the company, she said she identified as a tiger and started wearing a tail and ears. Holy shit. Whoa. Now that's the kind of feeling Kamala Harris gives you. Like, I don't know what I'm hiring. She could show up at the white house in the tiger tail and ears. This is a rhetorical device I'm using here. I don't think she'll actually do that, but I, I don't know what I'm buying. I think I'm buying a far left liberal from San Francisco, who's trying to act a little bit more moderate so she can win a presidential election. But I don't want a radical in the presidency and almost no one does.

Even the Democrat Party has realized in the context of this race how effed up their policies have been on social matters in particular. Now, it's going to be interesting when Ro Khanna comes on next hour because he's not in step with his own party anymore. I mean, his party is not running on those lunatic social issues we saw after George Floyd and the trans stuff.

They're running away from all that stuff. They're pretending, like we saw with Colin Allred, the liar in Texas running against Ted Cruz, that they haven't voted to approve boys in girls sports, that they haven't tried to make it easier for these radical doctors to trans kids who only have a problem with bullying or survived a sexual

assault and don't want to chop off body parts to become, quote, the opposite sex. They just need therapy. They need help and they need love. Anyway, that party is fracturing over those social issues. And so the Republicans are winning on it. And I think Kamala Harris is totally in line with all those controversial issues that the country's rejecting. So of course she has to dodge. Now, I think part of the problem is she can't say she's disavowed everything that she stands for. She had to pick her top few, you know, like open border. Yeah, that'd be a good one to disavow. Medicare for all, no more private insurance. Yeah, that'd be a good one. And she had to disavow her fandom for banning fracking because she would absolutely have sealed her fate in Pennsylvania

as a loser. So she did, but she can't then be like, and I'm also no longer for trans surgeries on minors. And I'm no longer for boys playing in women's sports. And I'm no longer for funding these sex change operations for illegals in prisons on the taxpayer sports. And I'm no longer for funding these sex change operations for illegals in prisons on the taxpayer dime. And you know, like she can't, and she is in favor of those things. So it's an easy one to just try to dodge on these social issues. Anyway, my point is simply she's struggling and we can see it. Now it doesn't mean she can't pull it out. I will tell you, James Carville, he's got a piece out today in which he says he knows she's that amount of dough. And it really does matter that he thinks the John Kelly stuff, the Trump is Hitler stuff is going to permeate into the ether and that people are going to sort of do the right thing when it comes to him and that he just trusts in the American people to do the right thing. Well, that that's not going to do it. Yeah, here it is. He also points out that Trump's a repeat electoral loser and goes

off about how Trump, since he won in 16, the Republicans suffered historical losses in 18 in the midterms. Trump lost the 2020 election. In 2022, there was no red wave. Post Dobbs, things have been bad for the Republicans at the ballot box. And that's a hangover and it's haunting the Republican party. But I have to say like his main thing is his gut. It's just a feeling he writes. My final reason is 100% emotional. And then he writes, I refuse to believe that the same country that has time and again overcome its mistakes to bend its future toward justice will make the same mistake twice. America overcame Mr. Trump in 2020. I know that we are better than this. I refuse to believe that Trump will be elected. Well, there's your problem right there, Mr. Carville.

You're too immersed in Democrat circles. You haven't been talking to enough people who see the world differently and see Trump differently. The stuff with Hitler is over the top. As we know, it's the closing message. I don't think people are buying it. I don't, maybe the exit polls will prove me wrong and we'll be saying, oh, I guess that worked. I don't think people are buying it. I don't. Maybe the exit polls will prove me wrong and we'll be saying, oh, I guess that worked. I don't think so. They've been hearing this for

how many years? It's not new. And by the way, Eric Erickson was pointing this out on Twitter, a conservative commentator down in Georgia. It's not new even in Republican politics. They sling this crap at any Republican, any Republican who gets the nod. They were saying demonic things like this about John McCain, not to mention what an alleged misogynist Mitt Romney, this is what they do. Look, those guys didn't win, but Republicans do win. Look what they were saying about Trump at 16. And he won. You can win notwithstanding this onslaught. It just helps rig the game in the Dems favor. You know, I mean, you, it was funny because my son, my 11 year old was looking at

the papers. We get the times, the journal and the New York post. And after the McDonald's thing, it was like the McDonald's poster with Trump, you know, and on the post and the Journal, and the New York Post. And after the McDonald's thing, it was like, the McDonald's poster with Trump on the Post. And you saw it on the Journal. And we looked at the New York Times. No, not there. And they were talking about something else. It was some terrible headline for Trump. And he was like, why?

I'm like, you know exactly why. We all know exactly why. The media is so biased, even children are starting to get it. But Republicans can win, notwithstanding. And the marginalization of this biased media has been critical to their chances. I mean, their chances are probably better than ever now because there's a new ecosphere. Fact-checking can happen in a way it never did. Look what happened to the 60 Minutes interview and so on. All right, let's go through some of what happened last night in the CNN town hall. She did not have any sort of a spike the ball moment. I don't think she reassured anyone and

I don't predict any boost in the polls. In fact, what we're seeing in these polls right now is that she's gone down steadily since she started speaking. I mean, it's really amazing. She's gone down steadily. Right now, the current RCP, Real Clear Politics National Average, has her up 0.2 in the national. It's her lowest lead since August 5th, since August 5th. The Wall Street Journal, in a new major poll, has Trump up three, up three points.

Margin of error is 2.5. In August, it was Harris up one. So we've had a four point swing in the wall street journal. They write views of Harris have turned more negative since August when equal shares of voters viewed her favorably and unfavorably. Now the unfavorable views are dominant by eight percentage points, 53 to 45. Why is that? Because she's speaking. That's what's happened. She's gotten out there. She owned August. She owned August. They did the switcheroo. They had the DNC. They did the, the brat vibes nonsense. And her numbers went way up from where Joe Biden's had been and from where Kamala Harris's had been. And then she started speaking. She couldn't get past the stall. They stalled and they decided

a great idea would be to put her out there more. And it's just been a disaster. There's nothing behind the veneer. There's nothing inside and voters know it. Okay. Start at the very beginning. Cooper says, okay, half the country is still going to vote for Trump, even though you say he's a fascist. General Kelly, General Milley, he's arguably more popular now than ever. What are you going to say to these voters to convince them? Some are in this room. Not really true, Anderson. We went back and looked at all your people. These were all Democrats or independents or never Trumpers. We're really hard pressed to find actual Republicans who are open-minded to Trump. They stacked this whole thing with a bunch of Kamala Harris supporters who wanted to be on TV.

That seemed clear to me. And just say you're undecided so you can get up there and ask your heroine a question. It was sad. It would have been much more interesting if they had had people who were really hardcore Trump. Ask her a tough question from a hardcore Trumper. She probably wouldn't have agreed to it. So she goes on, you know, takes the bait. He's unstable. He's unfit. He's unfit. He's dangerous. Mike Pence is not running with him. They all say he shouldn't run as president. Look at all the people who have left him. And then Anderson follows up. You quoted General Milley calling Donald Trump a fascist. You yourself have not used that word to describe him. But let me ask you, is he?

Like, of course. I heard a fun, I heard a fun word that I'd love you to expand on. Here's more of that. You've quoted General Milley calling Donald Trump a fascist. You yourself have not used that word to describe him. Let me ask you tonight. Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist? Yes, I do. Yes, I do.

Yeah. I mean, I think she, she may believe it. It may have been a sincere movement, but she was looking a moment, but she was looking for headlines. Kamala Harris, Colin Donald Trump is a fascist. And of course, the media complies. Here's just a montage of her on the dangers of Donald Trump is a danger to the well-being and security of America. Donald Trump said, essentially, why aren't my generals like those of Hitler's? Like Hitler, he who has openly admired dictators, said he would be a dictator on day one. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said he is a fascist to the core. The president of the United States, the commander in chief is saying to his generals, in essence, why can't you be more like Hitler's generals?

And not having a president of the United States who admires dictators and is a fascist. And certainly not comparing oneself in a clearly admiring way to Hitler. Okay, it's the same old stuff we've heard. No one believes Trump is Hitler. I don't even know if Trump made those comments about Hitler. I really don't. I don't know whether John Kelly is telling the truth or not. You've got people all over the internet today saying, as between Trump and John Kelly, why would you ever believe Donald Trump? Fair point. I get it. However, John Kelly was also peddling the lie about Trump getting ready to unleash the American military on the American people, like his detractors. That's bullshit, General. You've been watching too

much MSNBC. So General Kelly clearly hates Trump now. And General Kelly has clearly been drinking from the left wing Kool-Aid for a few years now since he was fired by Trump. No other administrative administration official is repeating those claims. Trump isn't he doesn't hide who he is. So he he made these incendiary claims to Kelly and he didn't repeat them to anyone else. Just Kelly. Kelly was somehow his BFF. I mean, Kelly doesn't seem like he's anybody's BFF. He seems like a tough old military dude. Um, so there's plenty of reason to doubt Kelly on this front, to be honest, but let's say Trump said it. I'm kind of in the field of Dave Chappelle. Remember when he did his bit about Michael Jackson after that fake documentary came out

about the Michael Jackson case and those two accusers who had all sorts of problems with their stories. And he goes, I'm just going to say it. I don't believe those two guys. I don't think he did it. And even if he did, he still listens to Michael Jackson. I mean, it was a very funny comedic moment. And I think that's how a lot of us feel about Trump. I don't give a shit if he said something about admiring Hitler's generals. By the way, it is not the same thing as saying, I want to be just like Hitler, like Trump wants to kill six million Jews. And by the way, remember when we weren't really allowed to throw around the Holocaust to make political points?

Obviously, if Trump has some admiration for the Hitler generals, it's because he believes rightly or wrongly they were compliant. Now that's a fair point to make, but it doesn't make Trump a threat like Hitler. I mean, it's just ridiculous where they've gone with it. And they lie this whole bullshit about the American military being unleashed on the American people. It's such a lie. It's all over the place. You listen to the New York Times today, the daily. They're obsessed. They did this whole podcast on it. Was it today or yesterday? I'm mixing up my days. But it was absurd. They're so excited that General Kelly finally spoke on the record. They've been reporting on his words for years. They just now have him on tape. And by the way, it doesn't even seem like a long clip.

Listen to Morning Joe in a meltdown over the, the American military is coming to get you. If Trump, my point in playing you all this is they're liars and they've gone too far to the point where we're all kind of Dave Chappelle now, like, right? I care about me. I care about my kids. I care about other people's kids. I like I don't really give a shit about Trump's incendiary rhetoric. And I also have a healthy, healthy skepticism that he said it to begin with. Here's Morning Joe. The October surprise is that Donald Trump has said he's going to arrest his Democratic opponents. The October surprise is that Donald Trump has said he's going to use the army and he's going to use the National Guard against his political opponents. He's making very clear that that's what he believes, that he the military may be used and may be deployed against people he views as enemies of the country. It's a joyful campaign, but it is reflecting off who they are running against.

A dark, dismal, fascist and increasingly obviously fascist person. He has said, if you speak out against me, you are the enemy from within. If you are against me politically, then you are the enemy within. And I can use the military and the National Guard against you. For the record, we've been through this. This is based on Trump using the term enemy within being more dangerous than some of our external enemies repeatedly, which he has. That's political rhetoric. It's not shocking. He references Adam Schiff in particular, who's made it his life mission to bring down Donald Trump. And I said,

far worse things about Trump than that. Far worse. He tried to put Trump in jail. He tried to get Trump booted out of office twice. It's OK. OK, so that's the enemies he's talking about. But for the record, the way they tie it to the military coming to get you is based on one exchange. We update it every day. I keep asking my team, go back and find if there's another one. See if he's done it. He said in any other way. And I have a great team.

No, he said one thing to Mario Bartiromo that they're using for this argument. I will play you the entire soundbite right here again. Look at it. What about that, though? Are you expecting chaos on Election Day? No, I don't think so. Not from the side that votes for Trump. But I'm just wondering if these outside agitators will start up on Election Day. Let's say you win. I mean, let's remember, you've got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years. You have people on the terrorist watch list,

350 in the last couple of years. You've got, like you said, 13,000 murderers and 15,000 rapists. What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful Election Day. Well, he doesn't have any idea what's happening in Roe v. Wade as he spends most of his day sleeping. I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroying our country.

By the way, totally destroying our country. The towns, the villages, they're being inundated. But I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they're the and it should be very easily handled by if necessary, by national guard or if really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen. That's it. She tees up to him that Joe Biden, and if you see the longer Maria answer, that Joe Biden's predicted there'd be chaos on election day from the Trump supporters. Then she talks about the foreign nationals who are here,

the illegal immigrants, what could happen. These are some bad people. And do you think there will be chaos on election day? That's what they're talking about. They're talking about election day. And Trump says there won't be not from Trump supporters, but if there is, yes, then we would have to crack down and then we're not going to let that happen. That's the context in which he said the National Guard and or the military. It's the Tom Cotton argument that was in the New York Times that led to the absolute meltdown over there. And they want to extrapolate it to Trump's going to be basically jumping out of helicopters down in your backyard if you don't vote for him. He's going to be seizing your dog and your gun and everything that's dear to you.

I guess I I don't know. Like in this scenario, won't he have won? Like if Trump's unleashing the military, won't Trump have already won? I guess. So then he just goes after Kamala Harris supporters. He just finds everyone who voted for Kamala Harris because he's bitter, even though he's won the presidency. And like what a Navy SEAL shows up on your doorstep because you didn't back this president. It's just, it makes no sense. They're just trying to scare people. That's what they do. Okay. Let's keep going. She's asked, uh, by one woman who is allegedly a registered Republican. Um, how are you going to bridge the political divide and create

more unity? And Kamala Harris goes on. So there's so much inanity. I can't even begin. I'm not going to waste your time. But it's, I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans. And I think, and I think, oh, we have it. Okay, let's watch some of this. Let's watch some. It's, it's, it's, it goes on for minutes, but let's watch some. I started my career as a prosecutor.

Oh, God. And I will tell you, I never in my career, and most of my career was outside of Washington DC, by the way, only four years when I was in the Senate were in Washington, other than being vice president. I have never in my career as a prosecutor asked a victim or a witness of a crime. Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Are you a Democrat or a Republican? The only thing I've ever asked is, are you okay? The only thing I've ever asked is, are you okay? This is the stupidest line. I'm so sick of this effing line. We've gone over this. No prosecutor would ever ask a victim of a crime that question, unless it was a crime of political violence, in which case it might be relevant.

You would be fired on your ass that day if you looked at someone who had just been robbed and said, who'd you vote for? Just wondering if you're on my team. This does not happen. No prosecutor is doing that. She doesn't get points for this. It does not prove she's apolitical and would be apolitical were she elected as president. It was preceded by minutes of inanity before we got to that stock line we're now all so sick of. Okay, then we move on. Anderson says, here's another guy. He's a libertarian registered independent. He's undecided.

This guy wants to know about grocery prices. They've gone up quite a bit. Um, you know, some people blame former president Trump, do they? Some people blame president Biden. Who would you say is correct? And what would you do to bring down prices? Okay. So, all right. I'm expecting to hear her little price gouging speech, although modified because it's been slammed by the left and the right, but she goes on prices of groceries are still too high. You know it. I know it. Americans know it right, but she goes on. Prices of groceries are still too high. You know it. I know it. Americans know it. We need to address this in a number of ways. One, uh, one of my aspects of doing what we need to do, I mean, this is just her filler, right? Her nerves. She, she doesn't know anything. She has no confidence. One of my aspects of doing

what we need to do to bring down the cost of living for working people and the middle class in America is to address the issue of grocery prices. We know that's what we're talking about. He said it repeatedly in his question. Everything you've said prior to this point has just been filler to stave off having to deliver your answer so much. Listen to how she does. I mean, just bear with me, okay? Thank you, Eric. You're absolutely right. You know it. I know it. I think most Americans know it. Prices of groceries are still too high. We need to address it in a number of ways. One of my aspects of doing what we need to do to bring down the cost of living for working people and the middle class in America, just in case you were wondering where we're talking about, is to address the issue of grocery prices. We know, we know that

it was said in his question. Okay. She goes on, part of my background and how I come to it is probably a new approach grounded in a lot of my experiences as a former attorney general, where I took on price gouging. And part of my plan is to create a new approach. That is the first time that we will have had a national ban on price gouging, which is companies taking advantage of the desperation and need of the American consumer and jacking up prices without any consequences or accountability. Right. Now, first of all, this appears to be an answer to what happened like during COVID where she's bragged that as AG, she cracked down on some people, um, or maybe prior to that for taking advantage of like

natural disasters and scarcity, that would be a normal thing that an AG would do. This is a different problem. This is high prices at the grocery store caused by inflation. That's, everybody agrees that's what's happened here. You could blame X or Y or Z for the inflation, but the inflation caused the high prices. Now she's been trying to make it a matter of price gouging.

It's not. They have a 1% margin on their grocery markups. Nobody's marking them up 20% and gouging. That would be all over her stump speech and Democrat marketing materials if it were happening. It is not a problem of evildoers who run the grocery stores jacking up prices to take advantage of people. It is a problem of inflation. So she goes on talking about her time. She's, she's cracked down on price gougers. We need this new approach. Um, and then we have to make sure there's consequence and accountability again for the price gouging. And, but also we have to invest in people's dreams of home ownership. What? Wait, what? Could you please go on about how you're going to help me in the grocery store?

Cause all you said was a bunch of stuff that it's actually not going to work because there's 1% margin. And now you're talking about home ownership, but I'm go on about how you're going to help me in the grocery store? Because all you said was a bunch of stuff that's actually not going to work because it's a 1% margin. And now you're talking about homeownership, but I'm still worried about how I'm going to pay for my eggs. We haven't done enough with the issue of housing. We got to cut through the red tape. This is all from her economic speech before the Stephanie Ruhle thing. She did no better in explaining it here than she did with Stephanie Ruhle. Anderson Cooper, to his credit, follows up. Yes, good for you.

Let me ask you about the price gouging, he says. I looked at your plan and he tries to redirect her to we are talking about the grocery stores and how you're going to help somebody like this guy, Eric. Listen here. I looked at your plan. You talk about going after price gougers, and I'm quoting from the plan, on essential goods during emergencies or times of crisis. I get that. How does that help, though, someone like Eric, with prices that for years, the grocery price has just been high? Well, first of all, Anderson, as you know, and obviously CNN has been covering extensively what has been happening in the state of Georgia, North Carolina, Florida. It's a real issue.

I was attorney general of California. I was the top law enforcement officer of the biggest state in the country. I took this issue on because it affects a lot of people. And I'm not going to apologize for the fact that we need to actually deal with accountability when these, not all, in fact, most don't, but when companies are taking advantage of the desperation and the need of the American people. She can't do it. She's still on the crisis. She goes, he says, I get that you got your little plan. You're talking about the plan on essential goods during emergencies or time of crises. I get that. But how does that help somebody like Eric here who's dealing with prices for years at

the grocery store? They're too high. And she she just pretends it wasn't asked. She specifically says Georgia, North Carolina and Florida. We know she's talking about the hurricanes. And it's a real issue. I was a G. I was a top law enforcement officer of the biggest state in the country. I took this issue on because it affects a lot of people. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that we need to actually deal with accountability. What, who's asking you to apologize? We're asking you for a real answer on what you say is a central plank of your economic plan. What are you, why are you stuck on the hurricane? We're asking about poor Eric who can't pay for milk. And it didn't get any better where we cut it. She went on. We saw it during the pandemic,

a supply chain issue. There was a reduction of supply. And then they would inflate the price of everyday necessities. Not to mention, by the way, and I'm thinking, okay, maybe here she's going to pivot to the everyday guys like Eric and what happens just on a Monday, nevermind during the pandemic or during, you know, to your question, here's the pivot, not to mention, by the way, Donald Trump should be here tonight to talk with you and answer your questions. He's not, he refused to come. Okay. Back to Donald Trump. But part of his plan is to put in a national sales tax of at least 20%. She's referring to his tariffs. Um, and that will cost you the American consumer more money each year. So she doesn't answer. Uh, then he goes to his next question. Uh, let's see,

what would be one major policy goal that you could, that, that required congressional action? In other words, like how could you work across the aisle? She doesn't say, she refers backward to their infrastructure deal. She says what we've done in terms of gun safety. I mean, there weren't, there was not a big, okay. She does, she's not pointing to anything. In other words, she's trying to look back at Biden's record. Um, then they get to, let's talk about Roe versus Wade. That would require 60 votes in the Senate. Just so people know, I think, you know, this, but it's to get legislation passed in the Senate. You need 51 votes. You need a majority over in the house as well. However, to get a vote at all in the Senate, you have to get 60 votes because they can stop a vote on any piece of legislation

with a filibuster. The party that has minority rights that that's in the minority in the Senate can stop the bill from even getting a vote. So this happens all the time when they know that the party in the majority has the votes, but it's something really important and they just aren't going to allow it. They have 51 votes, right? But they don't have 60 votes and you can stop it. You stop it with the filibuster. The Democrats have done this to the Republicans and vice versa for a long time. And that's why Anderson says in this question, we're going to play it. You to codify Roe versus Wade, which is what she says she wants to do, have national legislation

implementing Roe versus Wade in all 50 states, which it cannot pass. That is not constitutional. Trust me, they don't have the authority to do that. He's saying that would obviously require 60 votes in the Senate. You don't have it. So what's your plan? Watch. Let me ask you, you've talked about codifying Roe v. Wade. That would obviously require 60 votes in the Senate, a majority of the House. That's a big leap. We don't have that yet. If that's not possible to codify it in the house, what do you do? I think we need to take a look at the filibuster, to be honest with you. And then she goes on for two paragraphs about Liz Cheney, Trump abortion bans, the women have died, all that nonsense she's been spinning.

You know what comes next. But we need to take a look at the filibuster. This is not the first time she has said this. She wants to eliminate the filibuster. And what she's saying is she wants to eliminate minority rights in the Senate. Now, we've been through this. We've been through this. The Democrats got rid of the filibuster when they were in control of the Senate years ago for lower court, federal court judges, because they wanted to get all of Obama's judges through. And they said, we're getting rid of the filibuster. You can't stop votes on these judges anymore. And Mitch McConnell got up there and said, you will rue the day you did this because you will not always be in charge of this chamber. And sure enough, when the Republicans took over control of the Senate and Mitch McConnell became the majority leader, the Republicans got rid of the filibuster

for Supreme Court judges. And that is why, that is why we now have a Supreme Court that she loathes. They did it. He said, don't do it. The Republicans said, don't do this. You know that this is a slippery slope and where this is going to take us. They said, F off, we're doing it. And so the Republicans got into office and said, turnabout is fair play. Why wouldn't we follow your rules? And that's why. So the filibuster was eliminated on judges, federal judges, but it's still in place on all other legislation. And she's saying we need to get rid of it to force through a national abortion regime. Number one, Congress doesn't have the power to do this. They have limited enumerated powers and the power of the commerce power is their largest power. Uh, I don't think that they're, they're going to be able to do this

under the commerce power, a national abortion ban. I think it will fail. It will be struck down as unconstitutional. ILM wants a national law saying we need to lower the threshold even further to sue cops who overstep. And they say we want to eliminate the filibuster on our bill, too, because the Republicans are going to block it. Is Kamala Harris going to look at them? Is her Senate leader going to look at them and say, um, you're not as important to us as, you know, NARAL pro-choice America. You're not as important to us as Planned Parenthood. We're not eliminating the filibuster for your pet issue or like these, any of these green companies, these eco warriors, they're no, you're, you're less important to us than abortion. We're not, we're going to hold, let it hold. No. Once the filibuster is gone for one, it's gone. It's gone. If you take one specific piece of legislation and say for that one, we'll get rid of it, but not for that one,

but not for, but then back for this, forget it. The U S Senate has changed for ever. The institution itself has changed forever and you've wiped out minority rights. And by the way, in this particular case, you'd be talking about a Senate. We're looking at a Senate that's going to be divided right now. It's 51 49, but it's going to be just about that divided on the next Congress. And you're talking to the minority rights in this case will be 50 senators. I mean, you're talking about literally half the country represented by half of this body that whose rights will be wiped out entirely. This is not a small deal. She throws it out there like, yeah, she's not a smart person.

She's a hack partisan. Not with certain effects. She never asked a witness whether they were Republican or Democrat. And that's why she can just throw this out there, not realizing what danger she's spewing. And it will come back to haunt you Democrats. It will bite you in the ass just like it did the last time. Proceed with caution. Proceed with extreme caution. These things don't wind up working well for either side. Moving on. She gets a question about how we can expect you to deviate from Biden. She goes into a long story about her mother and how she took care tell more personal stories. This is why we keep hearing about the, oh, there's a woman who helped raise us. She helped raise us. She was a small business owner, so I understand small business owners. Okay. That one thing may not actually, all these

years ago, may not actually give you quite enough insight on the plight of small business owners in 2024 America, but okay. And now clearly they've said something like, would you humanize yourself? Just try something. And she's come up with this. And so I bring to my priorities and will as president, a new approach and a new idea, frankly, about what we need to do to deal with the sandwich generation. My plan and approach says, hey, you shouldn't have to wipe out all your savings to qualify for Medicaid to be able to get support to hire somebody to help you cook for your parent or help them put on a sweater. Let's invest in the small businesses of America. The woman who helped raise us was a

small business owner. I know who small business owners are. She's obsessed with the sweater. She mentions it all the time. Don't take my word for it. Look at this. I took care of my mother when she was sick. And that work is the work of trying to cook something that they feel like eating, right? Trying to figure out which clothes will not irritate their skin, help them put on a sweater. I actually, personal story, I took care of my mother when she was sick. It's about trying to cook something they feel like eating. It is trying to find clothes that don't irritate their skin or help them put on a sweater.

It's just about helping an aging parent or person, you know, prepare a meal, you know, put their sweater on. The question was, how will your policies differ from Joe Biden's? I am sorry that she lost her mother to cancer. Millions of Americans have, by the way, that's another thing Joe Biden said he'd be fixing that he didn't. But that is not responsive to how your policies will be different from Joe Biden's. She seems to be trying to say she's going to make Medicare cover the cost of home health care for our seniors? Okay, good luck with that. And how are we going to pay for that? I mean, I would love to have this. I mean, would you please offer something, anything that has a clear lane to get us from A to B so we can see instead of dreams and ambitions and aspirations that you have, what is your plan to get that approved so that we can actually pay for that?

Anything? Anderson follows up with, you've been in the White House for four years. You were vice president, not president. But why wasn't any of that done for the last four years? And here is my absolute favorite answer of the night. Watch. Some voters though might ask, you've been in the White House for four years. You were vice president, not the president. But why wasn't any of that done for the last four years? Well, there was a lot that was done, but there's more to do, Anderson. And I'm pointing out things that need to be done that haven't been done, but need to be done. Oh, my God. I mean, that is classic Kamala Harris. There was a lot that was done, but there's more to do. And I'm pointing out things that need to be done that haven't been done, but need to be done. That's super bumper sticker friendly. I'm sure her campaign staff was thrilled with that answer.

She can't handle the follow-up. Of course, that's the follow-up. Of course, the follow-up is going to be, why didn't you do any of that while you've been in office? All your wonderful plans about Medicare paying for the seniors and the sweaters. How come that didn't happen? You've been in power for four years. Well, there was a lot that was done, but there's more to do. And I'm pointing out things that need to be done that haven't been done, but need to be done. And I'm not going to shy away from saying they need to be done. Done, I tell you. It's amazing to me to watch her struggle. It's super fun. She hasn't gotten any better at it. She's like an odd human in that way. She doesn't like seem to improve

even when she's been put out there. Um, however, there's one thing that was better about her last night versus the other appearances. And I'm going to tell you what that was after this quick break. Don't go away. We'll pick it up on the opposite side and then Ro Khanna will join us after that. The October 15th deadline has come and gone with the tax man. Are you prepared for what's next? Do you owe back taxes? Are your tax returns still unfiled? Missed the deadline to file for an extension? Now that October 15th is officially behind us, the IRS may be ramping up enforcement and could be contacting you soon.

You could face wage garnishments, frozen bank accounts, or even property seizures if you have not taken action yet. But there's hope. Tax Network USA has helped taxpayers save over $1 billion in tax debt and has filed over 10,000 tax returns.

They specialize in helping people reduce their tax burdens. So visit TNUSA.com slash Megan, or call 1-800-958-1000 for a free consultation. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you could save. Give it a try now before the IRS takes more aggressive steps. Take control and visit TNUSA.com slash Megan, or call 1-800-958-1000. Back to the CNN town hall. I wanted to point out to one of the points she was trying to make against Trump when she was saying how she's just going to be a president for all people and how she's going to bridge the political divide.

You know, she said, I'm, I never asked a witness of a crime. Are you a Democrat or Republican? I've only asked if you're okay. Well, she goes on to attack Trump in that answer saying, I referenced that because as we know, it's been revealed that Donald Trump, when he was president during extreme disasters, when it disasters, when it came time to determine how those areas, those people who had been traumatized by extreme weather would get relief. He asked the question, did they vote for him? I believe the American people deserve better, blah, blah, blah. Well, just FYI, this is based on an allegation that somebody within Team Trump had made. It was a guy named Mark Harvey, who was Trump's senior director for resilience policy on the National Security Council staff. And he said that Trump initially refused to approve disaster aid for California after deadly wildfires in 2018 because of the state's Democratic leanings. changed his mind. He claims that it was because Harvey pulled voting results to show him that

places like Orange County had more Trump supporters than the entire state of Iowa. Here's the truth though. Here's the truth. Former Trump FEMA administrator Brock Long denied that the president ever slow walked aid to any democratic area. He said, this is via political. He said the evidence was there in the amount of money that went to California for wildfire recovery and to Puerto Rico after Maria reporting that the FEMA data shows Trump approved 89 disasters in states that opposed him, including 17 in California, which was more money than any state received. There we go. That's it. OK, so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyway. So that's another lie she told. I just want to make sure we were on the same page about that. Here we move on because Anderson did start to press her. I'm probably, it was the, well, there was a lot that was done, but there's

more to do. And I'm pointing out things that need to be done and they haven't been done, but they need to be done. That led Anderson to snap. Who could blame him? She, by the way, said here and at the town hall she did with Telemundo earlier this week, she's in favor of a pathway for citizenship. So FYI, in case you were wondering what she would do with all those illegals in the country right now, she wants them to become citizens. She said it twice now. She said it more than that, actually. She's getting a pass from it from every interviewer, but she wants, quote, a comprehensive pathway for citizenship for illegal immigrants. And then Anderson asks her about just in June, three weeks before the first presidential debate, Joe Biden finally issues an executive order that cracks down on the border.

Why didn't you do it back in 2022, back in 2023? And they have a good exchange on this. It's SOT8. Your administration took a number, hundreds of executive actions. It didn't stem the flow. Numbers kept going up. Finally, in 2024, just in June, three weeks before the first presidential debate with Joe Biden, you institute executive actions that had a dramatic impact, really shut down people crossing over. Why didn't your administration do that in 2022, 2023?

First of all, you're exactly right, Anderson. And as of today, we have cut the flow of immigration by over half. In fact, the numbers I saw most recently, illegal immigration. But if it was that easy with that executive action, why not do it in 2022, 2023? Because we were working with Congress and hoping that actually we could have a long-term fix to the problem instead of a short-term fix. You couldn't have done one and both at the same time? Well, here's the thing. We have to understand that ultimately this problem is going to be fixed through congressional action. Congress has the authority and the purse. I hate

to use DC terms, but literally they write the checks. Part of the issue is in order to really fix the problem at the border. I was just at the border recently talking with border agents. You know what they talk about? Sure. Yes, they are overwhelmed. They're working around the clock. And the other thing that they talked to me about, we need more judges down there to deal with asylum claims. She doesn't answer. First of all, how condescending is she? She has to explain what the purse means to us. The Congress has the power of the purse. We literally learned that in elementary school. How condescending is she? Because it's new to her, she thinks it's new to the rest of us. Don't mean to use dizzy terms. Hello, you're not George Washington. We know what that Congress has

the power of the purse, and we know what that means. It's amazing, because you see her own ignorance being projected onto us as though we share in it. It's like the way I feel when I talked to Doug about some of the figures he studies leading up to World War I. Who? What? Stop saying Prussia. Anyway, here's the comment that I wanted to make to you all. This is my number one takeaway from watching the event last night. They've worked on her style. She started it off more conversational, a little bit more like, sure, I hear you. Yeah, let's talk about that. You know, like I'm not afraid, seemed a little bit more relaxed, wasn't having like too many weird cackles, et cetera, though did come back. And all I could think was they've done work with her. She reportedly took two days

off, almost full two days to work on preparing for this thing. And so they massaged her. She reportedly took two days off, almost full two days, to work on preparing for this thing. And so they massaged her. Somebody must've said, could you get a little bit away from vocal fry adjacent? Your voice is very grating. If you could try not to go into this higher octave, it would help, you know, keep it down a little lower to where you're not so grating. We are trying to win over some men. And initially she did okay with it. But all I could think is she continued to deflect and not answer, not answer. I mean, he's asking her explicitly. You can't do both. You can't both try to get legislation through Congress on illegal immigration and issue an executive order. There's no answer. She didn't, like at one point, if you watch, she literally

turned and walked away from him. She was like, holy shit, he's asking follow-ups. I don't know the answers. I'm walking, I'm running, I'm out of here. And that's because they may have bolstered Kamala Harris's affect, at least as unleashed in an event like this, but they didn't do anything about the substance. They are unable to train or educate her on substance, on actual problems facing America and possible policy solutions. The main problem that we need a president to help solve comes to policies. It's about policies. It's not about their affect. We don't give a damn how nicely they say inflation is at 11%. It doesn't matter to us whether the voice is annoying or pleasant to listen to. We want inflation down. It doesn't matter to us whether she's come up with a new talking point

about immigration. What we want is a real answer on why they did nothing about it for three and a half years, something that we could actually swallow as real and persuasive. So they focused all on the looks and not at all on what's going on underneath, which is why I asked my team to pull this clip from Poltergeist. You son of a bitch, you moved the cemetery, but you left the bodies, didn't you? You son of a bitch, you left the bodies and you only moved the headstones. You only moved the headstones. That's it. They only moved the headstones.

Oh, fix her hair. Make sure she's in a good outfit. Move her away from the vocal fry. Tonality. It's too much. It's grating. They forgot there are bodies buried there. No one's going to want to swim in this pool. Somebody work with her. Teach her. Give her a good fucking answer on why immigration wasn't addressed for three and a half years. Somebody. I don't know whether it's the team or whether it's her. I don't. I Somebody, I don't know whether it's the team or whether it's her. I don't, I mean, what I hear is that it's a very smart team. I know David Plouffe

is very smart. I've known him for years, coming on my show for a decade plus. I don't know, but I know window dressing like that is not going to get it done. And it's why the poll numbers have done what we discussed at the beginning of the show that explaining things to us like the purse. I hate to use DC terms. Um, then Anderson follows up and asks her about the border wall because she keeps saying, I'm going to sign that bill. I'm gonna sign that bill. The one that died under president Biden for the border. Uh, I'm going to sign it. Okay. Who's who is going to work with you this time? That didn't the last, because it was a crappy bill then. And it's still a crappy bill.

But Anderson goes a different way, which was interesting. And he said, you know, your bill that you love so much, you say you're going to sign, has $650 million in funding for the border wall. You hated the border wall. You purport to hate this thing.

Listen to Sot9. You criticized the wall more than 50 times. You called it stupid, useless, and a medieval vanity project. Is a border wall stupid? Well, let's talk about Donald Trump and that border wall. So remember Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for it. Come on. They didn't because we need a president who is grounded in common sense and practical outcomes. Like, let's just fix this thing. Let's just fix it.

Why is there any ideological perspective on it? Let's just fix the problem. To fix the problem, you're doing this compromise bill. It does call for $650 million that was earmarked under Trump to actually still go to build the wall. I'm not afraid of good ideas where they occur. So you don't think it's stupid anymore? I think what he did and how he did it did not make much sense because he actually didn't do much of anything. I just talked about that wall, right? We just talked about it. He didn't actually do much of anything. But you do want to build some wall.

I want to strengthen our border. You only moved the headstones. All the bodies are still sitting there. They're going to pop up in the pool unless we do something about the actual problem here, sir. Sir, who built this community on top of a graveyard that had a pretty location. You moved headstones and you left bodies. And now we have to deal with these problems because you only fix the window dressing. That's the problem. She doesn't know what she's supporting a border wall that she said was a, a medieval vanity project. That way it was stupid and useless. Nobody prepped her on that.

She was caught flat footed. It was obvious to all of us. We need more than the headstones. They moved on to a classic question you get in every job interview and usually in every presidential interview about weaknesses, one's weaknesses. This is meant to humanize you. You're supposed to like say something self-deprecating. We've been through this before. She doesn't do it. She can never do it because she has no self-confidence. If you have confidence, you can easily say, here are numerous weaknesses I have. Think about somebody like Tucker when he comes on this show. He's the most self-deprecating guy ever. He's jumping on every grenade, taking responsibility for everything, even the stuff that's probably not even his fault.

Like, it's me, and that was bad, and I apologize. That's a sign of a confident human being who knows who he is. She's exactly the opposite. Here's the question and part of the answer. Sat 12. What weaknesses do you bring to the table and how do you plan to overcome them while you're in office? That's a great question, Joe. Well, I am certainly not perfect. So let's start there. And I think that perhaps a weakness, some would say, but I actually think it's a strength is I really do value having a team of very smart people around me who bring to my decision-making process, different perspectives. I started my career as a prosecutor. I was a courtroom prosecutor. I may not be quick to have the answer

as soon as you ask it about a specific policy issue sometimes because I'm going to want to research it. I'm going to want to study it. I'm kind of a nerd sometimes, I confess. Is there something you can point to in your life, political life or in your life in the last four years that you think is a mistake that you have learned from? I mean, I've made many mistakes.

And they range from, you know, if you've ever parented a child, you know, you make lots of mistakes too. In my role as vice president, I mean, I've probably worked very hard at making sure that I am well versed on issues. And I think that is very important. It's a mistake not to be well versed on an issue and feel compelled to answer a question. That's not a mistake. So she listed no mistake, no mistake, nothing. The very first answer was that here is something that other people say is a weakness, but I think it's a strength. My weakness is my strength, which reminded this.

That's why I asked my team to pull this movie clip from Jumanji. Strength is my weakness. Hey, can I? Quick question. How is strength my weakness? Somebody explain that to me. Good question, Kevin Hart. It's so sad. She doesn't. I don't know. You know, this is psychological and probably beyond the pale for what I am capable of doing. But like when you grow up without a strong father figure, and I don't know how present her father was in her life. It doesn't seem like they are very, very close or that he was present when she was up in Montreal. Um, I do think it can lead to like, for some, for some little girls in particular, like a,

like an emptiness, an inability to believe in oneself. It actually can often make you choose the wrong man too, which by the way, she 100% did. She did. She didn't get married till later in life and she settled on this guy. And by the way, we'll have to get to it tomorrow because we have too much today. But the accuser of Doug Emhoff has now done a first person recitation of what happened to her in the Daily Mail today. Highly recommend you go and read it. We'll get into it tomorrow. We have more time. But yeah, this is not a wife guy. This is not a woman supporter. He's denied the allegations. I believe the allegations. I believe this woman, she's a professional, she's a lawyer. Um, there is zero purpose. And by the way, if, if it isn't true, like I've been saying all along, if it's not true, why doesn't he go to her and tell her to come out and say, it's not true. Now we know because she's standing by it. She's, she's said,

she's on the record, not with her real name. They're calling her June or Jane. So it's not under her real name, but she's out there telling the whole story. So this is why he couldn't call on her to come out and say it's not true. And she's a lawyer. Trust me when I tell you, the lawyers know what the defamation standard is. And she doesn't seem to be worried at all about getting sued successfully for defamation. Because you know what? Here's a little legal lesson for you. Truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim. And I believe that is why Doug Emhoff hasn't sued her, hasn't sued the Daily Mail, did not reach out to her in the first instance, say, come out and tell them that this isn't true. And what that leads me to believe is

Doug Emhoff is a woman beater. He has a hair trigger. They weren't even fighting. And he wailed on her across the face and wasn't even apologetic about it. The next day he laughed it off because she hit him back. You got one cross court and down the middle. We're good. That's her husband. So I don't know what's wrong with Kamala Harris, but she doesn't have confidence. She doesn't have a sense of self that goes beyond these inane stories we've heard time and time again. I don't even think she's got much life experience. I think she went into a government job that probably took up much, most of her time. It's probably why she didn't get married till later in life. And now they're asking a lot of her. They're asking her to give us things she doesn't have. Uh, and it shows, okay, last but

not least, you know, you couldn't end, you couldn't end without her getting her favorite line in, which she did in SOT14. feel good about your work. Let's do it in a way that is grounded in optimism. You know, the thing that I think we all know about who we are as the American people, we are people who are ambitious. Oh boy. We have aspirations. We have dreams. We are inherently optimistic. Inherently optimistic. I hope that lowers your grocery bills. I really do. I hope, I hope her, her joy and her description of you and us as aspirational and ambitious and having dreams lowers your gas prices, gets you a job, finds you a house, closes the border, gets the illegal immigrants out of your community, saves your child from the trans insanity. I hope it does because the actual Kamala Harris, who when she's removed from those

lines, she likes to repeat over and over, is in favor of all the things that caused those problems to begin with. That's where we are. Up next, Congressman Ro Khanna. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Congressman Ro Khanna. 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 SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time.

I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply.

Just a dozen days to go. Just a dozen days to go, just a dozen, until we could know, could, who the next president of the United States will be. My next guest was firmly Team Biden until the president dropped out of the race. Since then, he's gotten behind Vice President Kamala Harris. We've got a lot to discuss with him on the election and the issues, so let's get right to it. Joining me now, Ro Khanna, Democrat and U.S. Representative for the great state of California. Congressman Khanna, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me. Really appreciate it. Okay, so set the scene as you see it right now in the presidential election, because we've heard from Democrats, we've heard from Republicans, but we've heard from more on the right than we have

from the left on how they see this race right now. And I, in my position, have been asking myself, are they, you know, am I getting straight analysis or am I getting wishful thinking? So if you if you can give me your perspective on where things stand, I'll probably wind up asking the same question, but I'd love to hear it anyway. Well, I usually text Mark Halperin, who you had on to find out exactly the state of the race. But look, I think it's a coin flip. I think it depends on who turns out. The theory of the case for the Democratic Party is that the polls are within a point of two in all the battleground states, that you're going to have a huge turnout of women, that we are obviously winning with women and women are more reliable voters, that young people are

going to turn out. I'm going to be hitting the college campuses in Michigan and Georgia this weekend. And that our voters at the end of the day are more reliable. Our turnout operation with David Plouffe and Jennifer O'Malley Dillon is phenomenal. And that's what's going to fuel us to victory. But, you know, everyone acknowledges it's a it's a very, very close race in those battlegrounds. It would go either way. What we played earlier in the show, David Axelrod reacting to Kamala Harris's town hall on CNN last night and and raising an issue I know you've seen, everyone has seen, which is her, quote, word salad answers. And he seems somewhat dejected

about that still being a problem this late in the race. A lot of theories on why she does that. Roe, what what do you think? Why does she talk like that? Well, I've known her for over 20 years. I've known her since she was a district attorney in San Francisco. And she's obviously incredibly bright, incredibly talented. I think what happens is when she gets on an interview, she's very cautious and she doesn't want to say something that may contradict something she said in the past or that may contradict the president. And my view is you just got to get out there, be yourself, let it rip, let the chips fall where they may. But when she is hesitating or when you have those long answers, it's not that she doesn't know an answer or have the facts.

It's that she's very cautious. So that's just been her temperament. Hmm. Do you think it's hurting her with the in the polls? Well, I'd say this. I think our closing argument needs to be, what are we going to do for the country? What are we going to do for people? My view is, for 40, 50 years, you've got the hollowing out of the middle class in America, the hollowing out of the working class. We've gone from 53rd in income inequality in the world to 128th. In my district, Silicon Valley, $12 trillion of wealth.

You've got Apple, Google, NVIDIA. But you look at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, look at Youngstown, Ohio, Downriver, Michigan, the manufacturing left, we made a colossal mistake, industry left. Now, President Trump, former President Trump is saying he has a vision of how to get it back. The reality is twice the manufacturing came back under Joe Biden, because you've got to invest in factories, you've got to invest in modern technology. And that should be our closing argument, that we have a better vision for the reindustrialization of this country, for creating good jobs in places left out than Donald Trump does. We have better policies.

That should be the closing argument. I mean, Donald Trump created millions of manufacturing jobs and then they were lost in one fell swoop during COVID. But still, it was a net positive for Donald Trump. It's not true. She says that he wiped out manufacturing jobs, but it's not true. Even the independent fact checkers have said that. Having said that, I agree with you on your diagnosis of the problem that we need to bring back the American middle class and manufacturing and so on. And I know this is something that you worked even with J.D. Vance on. So I feel like you and J.D. Vance probably disagree on virtually everything outside of this.

How did you do that? How were you able to work with J.D. Vance on an issue like this? Yeah. And I don't want to imply, because I try to be fair, that all the manufacturing jobs are wiped out under Donald Trump. What I'm saying is just that Joe Biden's policies with the Chips and Science Act, with funding factories, that you have to be willing to have government investment to build new factories, in my view, to be able to reindustrialize the country. don't quote me on the exact year, led actually venture capitalists from Silicon Valley to say that we've got to make more investment in Ohio across the state. And he had joined us for a bus tour through the state with these Valley entrepreneurs. And so it was part of Steve Case's rise to the rest initiative that we've got to make sure that all our venture capital isn't just in Silicon Valley, New York, or Massachusetts. I think the good news is that there is a new generation of Americans who believe that this country made a mistake when we let steel

leave, when we let aluminum leave, when we let shipbuilding leave, that if we want to lead against China, we need to build a modern industrial base, and then we can have different ideas about how we get there. And I have a very different vision than Senator Vance. But my hope is that this country could argue on the policies of what's going to build a country instead of just mudslinging in the final few weeks. That's remarkable. I mean, it gives you hope for the future that you could have across party lines, cooperation on the issues where they make sense, because not everything is totally politicized and has, you know, these deep cultural or political divides. It'd be nice to see some cooperation no matter who wins on November 5th. Okay. So now let's get to the disagreement,

because I know you and I have a deep disagreement about what's happening with the trans issue. And I really see this as the women's rights issue of our time. Many of my fellow women see it that way as well. I have a daughter and I'm very concerned about what's going to happen to her if things keep going the way they have been under the Biden-Harris administration. Let's just start with what's being done to children and how we are giving them puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones and actually chopping off healthy body parts and pretending that a child can give quote informed consent to any of that. Do you support it? Well, let me start with, uh, high principles. I think that we're a kind people.

We believe in treating other people with respect. And a lot of trans kids who are bullied in school, who are harassed, I'm sure you'd agree that that's wrong. And so maybe we can start with a principle that every person, regardless of whether they're trans or not, needs to be treated with respect and kindness and love. That's whether you come from the Hindu faith like me or the Christian faith or whether you just believe in American ideals. Those are basic principles. I do believe that those decisions should be between a person, their doctor, and their family.

Now, if they're a minor, they need to make sure that their parents are consenting and on board because those are very significant medical decisions. They're often very painful and difficult decisions. But let's look back at this ad that the Trump campaign has been running. Just the facts of that. No, we'll get there. We'll get there. Now, stay with me if you would, if you don't mind, because there's a lot to go through. Okay. Yeah, sure. Sure. Now, I agree with you, no bullying and be kind 100%, especially when it comes to children. However, those terms get used to try to force injuries

on young girls that, you know, Riley Gaines was told to be kind and that it would be bullying for her to stand up for her rights. The girls on the UPenn women's swim team were told that it was unkind to not want an intact male, Leah Thomas, on their team and that the problem was them and their own psychology if they didn't want to get naked in front of him and then go out there and race. Those terms should not be exploited to take advantage of women and girls and their natural empathy, which they bring to virtually every situation. And so let's just go back to what's happening with children though, because a child cannot consent. A child cannot consent to get a tattoo under a certain age. They cannot, a parent cannot take the child into a bar

and say, I consent with my child for you to give her a vodka martini because the law recognizes that there are inherent dangers to children and that they themselves cannot consent to the damage that could be done to them by this procedure. That's where the, that's where puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones and chopping off healthy body parts falls. Can you defend it? Well, I think that parents need to be able to, uh, to, to have a say. I don't, I think that's the law in California. You can correct me if I'm, I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the law is that if you are a minor, you need, uh, not only a doctor, but your parents, uh, uh, consent before taking on, uh, any of these medical. Yes, I agree. I agree. Although more and more states are saying now you don't, um, Minnesota,

you, you can do it without your parents, thanks to Tim Walls. But that was even too much for Gavin Newsom to say the parents shouldn't be involved. But my point to you is, how can a parent take an 11 or 12-year-old and say, I am going to make sure that you never have sexual pleasure again in your life? This is not controversial. If you go puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones, you will never achieve orgasm ever. How can a parent say, I, I consent to that for my 11 year old, they don't even know what an orgasm is. And I'm sorry to raise something so graphic, but this is what was being debated by the experts within the W path. Like there were experts who were expressing real concern saying, I don't think a kid can actually consent to a lifetime of no sexual pleasure.

And they decided to run from even disclosing any of this. They just said, let's just let's just run from this because people won't support these procedures if they know this. Like that's child abuse, Roe. Well, for the grandparents who I know and who I've had these conversations with, and there may be a handful, say that a lot of times it's not usually at 11 or 12. It's usually at 13, 14, 15. They say that these are often very, very painful discussions. These are difficult discussions. or the most extreme, that that's sort of the last resort, that there is a lot of conversation that takes place with the child, with parents, with the medical professionals, with psychologists, to decide what is the best course. And I guess that my view is I trust the American family.

I trust American doctors. I trust them to make those decisions, very difficult decisions. And I don't think politicians should be dealing with this. And I wish we could just find a way to find common ground on this so we could talk about how we bring manufacturing back, how we bring prosperity for families, how we make sure America leads over China and how we make sure we're the greatest country and remain the greatest country in the world. I think that's what most Americans want us talking about. They want us to find common ground here in a way they can respect difference. And look, the people who I would not say that people have differences opinion on this are unkind.

I think that we should not have censorship. And one of the reasons I've come on your program, I come on Fox News. I think we need to have an exchange of ideas and we need to have free expression ideas, civil exchange. But I wish there was a way to move forward on these issues with some grace, because that's what this country needs. I don't disagree with anything you said in the back half of that answer. However, it's a hard no to the ongoing abuse of children for me and millions of others. Now, this is becoming a massive issue in this campaign and nationally and with women and with moms everywhere. And I

guarantee it's soon coming to a district near you. Um, we cannot cut off healthy body parts from children who are incapable of consenting to that. And they are not medically necessary. A parent should not be in the position of saying that's okay. Parents are not allowed to consent to the torture of their children, to the sterilization of their children. Ro, puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones usually, almost in all cases, results in sterility. Sterility. Forget chopping off body parts. Everybody makes it sound like it's a nothing. It's much more than a nothing. Yes, puberty blockers start young. They can start as young as 11. When puberty starts, that's when you give it to a child so that you go right from those into the cross-sex hormones,

and then your sexual pleasure is done, and so is your ability to ever have a child. That's before they take out one scalpel. How can you support it? And by the way, just the second point, the medical community has been co-opted. They have been told by their bodies that govern them that the only acceptable standard is to affirm. And therefore, we're seeing child after child go in there and not get counseling about the parent's divorce, the bullying that may have happened because she was overweight, discomfort she's having because she's a natural girl going through girl puberty, all those things that they will get past, they will get past if only someone does not intervene. And so the medical community cannot be trusted, Roe.

Well, that's where one of the places where we may have disagreement is I do think that if you have counseling, if you have thoughtful psychologists, if you have thoughtful doctors, and if you have parents involved, that I trust the family and the doctors to make the right decision. Now, I will say, and maybe you would concede this, that there are people who genuinely need a gender transition. I mean, there always have been historically. Do you agree with that, that in certain cases- It is a very, not only do I understand this, but I have this in my own family. This is not about me disliking trans people or denying that there are some people who suffer from gender dysphoria. However, it is an infinitesimally small amount of the population. In nine times, 99% of those cases are men and they know it from the time they're two. And this is not something what's happening right now, for example, with girls on high

school campuses is a social contagion. It's a social contagion that's been documented by Lisa Lipman at Brown, others like Abigail Schreier, Wall Street Journal reporter in her book, Irreversible Damage. And what we are doing rather than entertaining that is having from the top down psychologists and psychiatrists being told by their industries they must affirmized and surgicalized in a way that they can never recover from. I want to play for you Chloe Cole, who is now what they would call a detransitioner, to whom this happened. And her parents were fooled as well

by the medical community, not by Chloe. Watch. Pretty much every doctor, every physician, and every psychologist I've had was affirming. They told my parents, like, I mean, less than 1% of people regret transitioning. And they never presented any other options. And they even told them that, I mean, were I not to go down this route, then I would be at risk of suicide. Which I wasn't even suicidal by that point. Upon which you base decisions to actually have surgeries and take dramatic steps to

change, quote, change your gender. Yes. Last year, I reached out to my surgeon to report that not only that I had regretted my mastectomy, but also that I was having complications from it. And all I could really get with him was about a five-minute call, a resume. And the whole time, it felt like he was being very dismissive.

And that was the last time I trusted anybody on the team that helped me to transition. She was 15, Roe. They gave her a double mastectomy, and she is not alone. Can't you see this needs to stop? strong regulations on making sure that doctors are being objective, that counselors are being objective, that the patient and the families are being centered in getting the responsible choices before them and the consequences of their decisions. And this is something that is a very, very difficult decision. And most people

who I know, I mean, a few trans families that I know, it's very, very painful, the conversations, they don't take these things lightly. So if there is, because we started with what could be common ground, one place there may be common ground in this issue could be, how do we make sure that the doctors and psychologists involved are really making sure that they're providing full information, transparent information, and centering patient choice? Well, what's happening now is that they're being accused of doing conversion therapy on these kids if they explore any issue other than gender dysphoria, and therefore they

don't. They just affirm. It needs to be mandated. They need to be forced to not punish doctors who want to have a full exploration of what a child's issues are. But we have to do what Sweden and most of Scandinavia and the UK has done, which is to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for the children, not to mention surgical. Why should, should Scandinavia be ahead of us? They're as left as they come row. They're ahead of us on this saying all the studies, the cast report, no good has come from it. It, there is no proven medical benefit from any of this,

from the puberty blockers across like we've fallen into a social contagion here and we are sacrificing our kids like lambs to the slaughter. I I'm sorry to ask a question and move on. You can answer it if you want. But I want to ask you about this. I want you, Megan, to cite Scandinavia to also support Medicare for All and free child care and some of the other parts of the Scandinavian investment in human families. I know. Listen, I spent June over there learning about all of this. But this is about life and death for children. So right now, this is my issue. I'm a mom. Somebody else, I'm sure, is fighting the Medicare stuff. regulation. But I appreciate that we can have a difficult conversation civilly without a fear

of engaging in this kind of conversation and without name-calling. And the reality is, again, on this and other issues in America, there are deeply divided opinions. And we have to figure out how, not just in the media, but with our neighbors, with our friends, with our communities, to have more real, honest conversations so we can try to find out where we agree, where we disagree, where there can be common ground. I agree with that, all of that. I got to ask you about boys and girls sports because that's also an issue I think we disagree on. And one that's really emerged in the closing hours of this campaign as something important. I mean, you're seeing like Colin Allred down in Texas deny that he ever was in favor of it, but his voting record belies that. He has voted to allow boys who say they're girls to play in girls' sports. How can you support that?

Because we've seen girls get injured. We've seen girls just denied the glory of winning by boys who are a lot stronger than they are, a lot taller than they are, and who really just frankly don't belong in their sport. Well, I think there have to be standards and competitive standards of fairness. I mean, the Olympics have that. You can have that at a college level where there are different ways of having standards to make sure that someone doesn't have a trans athlete doesn't have an unfair competitive advantage. Those standards are, I would say, for the the experts to come up with like they have in the Olympics, like they have in some collegiate sports. But when you're talking about the sports of young kids, you know, I get kids who play flag football or other other things that are for kids. I don't think we're talking about the seven year olds. Nobody's talking about the seven-year-olds. Nobody's talking about the seven-year-olds.

We're talking about boys who pass through boy puberty. Well, look, right now you're talking about junior high or in that age grade. I don't think that, when you're talking pre-high school, I don't think that's where the trans athletes have some competitive advantage.

Usually trans athletes, just statistically, they, as you know, because of the concerns you've highlighted, they often have psychological issues. They often feel isolated. They're not the best athletes. And so if being on some team is going to give them a sense of belonging in junior high or high school, you know, I put that in the let's not be cruel. Let's be kind. Let's be inclusive. Now, when you're talking about what's your evidence that they're not the best athletes when playing against girls? Well, my understanding from the studies I've seen is under high school that this hasn't been an issue. Now, I can see that in collegiate studies, that's not true. It's an issue. I mean, there was just there was just a number out put out by in the European news just just today talking about the number of girls medals that had been lost to boys who are from the U.N.

To boys who are playing in their sports, not to mention injuries. I mean, I'll give you another. She plays volleyball in North Carolina. She was on our episode on our show on Episode 539. Listen to her talk about what happened when a boy posing as a girl spiked the ball in her face, saw 33. What are the lasting effects from what happened to you? I have impaired vision, so I have to, I had to get my glasses redone. I have partial paralysis on my right side. So my right side lags slightly. I have really bad headaches and, but not as bad, but they're getting better. But I do have bad headaches. I have to have accommodations at school and test in separate rooms and get extra help when that's never been a problem before.

I mean, what do you say to her? How do you justify telling her she's got to let boys play? Well, that's heartbreaking what happened to her and to her family. Now, was she in school? I couldn't tell from the clip whether she was in college or what grade she was in. High school. High school. Well, what I would then say is that there have to there have to be even in high school those standards of uh of making sure that someone doesn't have uh more uh prowess uh and and isn't uh uh going to be uncompetitive i mean that that standard that they have at the Olympics in colleges, you can apply that in high schools as well. I mean, these are difficult issues.

But they're not. Like in North Carolina, that was her state. They weren't. In Connecticut, where I live, we've had on the girls. I mean, we're deep in this. We've had on the girls who are forced to race against boys who are middling athletes on the boys team, then said that they were actually girls and started racing with the girls. They weren't forced to do a single thing, not take a single hormone. They've been through male puberty. Their legs were longer. Their heart and lung capacity was larger. They were stronger. They had all the testosterone advantages that any male has, and they were allowed to race against these girls and take the medals. It became a national case. In state after state,

they're not requiring them to do anything. And frankly, even when they do require testosterone suppression, any male athlete has an inherent physical advantage over the female. If he's been through male puberty, it's not even disputable. Well, I don't know about that.

There are a lot of women athletes who are better than me in high school. So I don't know if that there are a lot of women athletes are better than me and were in in high school so I don't know if that's a uh that's always the case there's some great women athletes as I'm sure you would concede but the the point is that there have to be fairness standards there have to be standards for making sure that someone doesn't have an uncompetitive advantage you yourself said as a seven-year-old doesn't matter so there's some balance right there there's there's such a few people who are trans it's probably less than one percent of the population we want as a country make sure that they feel included that they don't feel discriminated against that

they they they feel that they belong on the same time we want to make sure that they don't uh harass or uh in terms of uh they don't put an unfair don't have an unfair advantage and someone who's on the other team doesn't feel that they are competing unfairly. And that is the standard that school districts across this country states have to have to figure out. And I think it's not. I don't I don't care about them feeling included. I have zero care about a male who says he's female feeling included in my private spaces or my daughter's private spaces and sports. That is not the highest goal. This is an area in which two ethical goals are going

to conflict, which is the need to be kind and the need to protect women and girls. And when those two goals conflict, we must side with the safety of girls. We must. And that's why I'm fine with an open category for trans athletes. That's fine. That's fair. I would support it. But the answer should not be as it is now. Girls lose. Girls are endangered. Girls have to suck it up in the name of being kind. That's it's deeply immoral. I think safety has to be prioritized. I think, of course, that the competitiveness has to. But I think we can do both. And I think we can do it at a certain age grade in terms of schools.

And we can do it in terms of those standards. And I think communities can have these conversations in states after states and school districts after school districts and do that. But what I'll say, Megan, is that this issue is one of the issues that has torn us apart as a country. I mean, it has really that there's no space for conversation. People understandably come at it with great passion. It used to be the case that whether you were pro-life or whether you believe, as I do, that a woman has the right to make those decisions, that we were able to have those conversations at places understanding and respecting where others were coming from and saying, look, we're Americans, let's figure out what we can do and go forward. And I guess my fear on this is, I'm not dismissing

your view or your concern with the safety of women. My fear is that the way that this has been politicized often to win elections, not because people are really concerned about the morality at stake. It's it's it's an electioneering tactic is further dividing our country at a time we don't need that. I see I see it very differently. This issue has been ignored. You weren't allowed to say what I am saying, what my actual worldview is. And I have the right to say it and hold it for all this time. Since this exploded as a national issue, you'd get censored on YouTube. The mainstream media won't use. They'll only use preferred pronouns, which is a gateway drug to all sorts of things. They won't tell the truth about these drugs and so on.

And only now are we finding the strength the women are in numbers like those girls out in the volleyball team in San Jose to say, no, we are not going to live like this. And that's what made it into an election issue issue. Extreme positions like Kamala Harris trying to use taxpayer funding to get trans surgeries for prisoners and illegal immigrants that finally Trump saw it as insane. The issue that you mentioned, look, in 2018, the Bureau of Prisons, this was under President Trump, came up with a policy and that policy was that anything that a prisoner needed that was deemed medically necessary was required. That was under Trump's Bureau of Prisons.

I'm not saying Donald Trump did that. That was the Federal Bureau of Prisons. And a court required that in two cases out of 1,400 prisoners, that that required a sex change. But that had nothing to do with Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. These were policies of the Bureau of Prisons and a court interpreting under the Eighth Amendment what medical necessary care is required for prisoners. And it was two cases out of 1,400 prisoners. And I guess my point, Megan, is we can debate whether that Bureau of

Prison policy should be changed or not. But I don't think that our national elections should be fought over this. What I want our elections to be fought over is who's going to bring good jobs? Who's going to make sure the working and middle class have a shot at the American dream? Who's going to make sure America is going to lead over China and China doesn't take over Taiwan? How are we going to make sure we're the greatest country in the world? That's what we should be fighting over in this election. I understand that those are important priorities, but this one matters too, because I think the while what's happening to female prisoners does matter. I mean, what's happening in prisons in general is deeply wrong. Women should not be forced to share a cell with convicted sex offenders who suddenly declare they're female, which is happening, especially in your state, California, thanks to your governor.

That's wrong. And taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for this. I mean, we just had a California prosecutor on. He worked 27 years as a DA out not far from you and was telling us about this one guy. He's one of the two cases you mentioned. He's one of the most evil serial murderers and criminals that this prosecutor had ever come across. He's the guy who tied a loving couple to their anchor of their own boat and threw them overboard because he wanted to rob them of their money and steal their boat. And this guy who he said is a pathological guy who he has, this guy has no, nothing against trans people. He does not believe this guy's even trans, that this is a manipulation. He enjoys manipulating people, the system, stealing, et cetera. I don't want to pay for his sex change operation. And I think California voters don't want to pay for his sex change operation, but they had to. Yeah, but that's been policy since 2018, since Donald Trump.

No, before that, Will. Are you denying that Barack Obama is the one who changed the prison policy to provide for these surgeries? Because that was even in the New York Times report, and I'm sure you like the New York Times. My understanding is that it was a 2018 bureau of prison that talked about what was medically necessary. Trump amended it. You're wrong, Roe. Trump amended it.

Go back and read the New York Times. It was a Barack Obama policy to pay for all this. Trump amended it to add the word. It was a limiting word. Only those that are medically necessary and fought the policy in the courts. I mean, I'm not, you know you know, you know, probably more of the details, but the point is it was, it was the Trump standard under which these, these two people

were there. If we want to have a conversation about how we change that standard further, let's have a conversation. I don't understand how they're attacking Kamala Harris was neither president during any of those times. I'm not saying it's not an effective. To change the policy. She pushed to change his policy in California. She's on the record speaking to a trans activist in 2018 saying in my state, this wasn't allowed. I'm the reason the policy changed. I push for change to get these policies covered. You're welcome. She's she bragged about it. She's proud of it. My sense is that these have been policies that even even Trump had that what is what I would say is why do we let the courts figure this out? It's a conservative Supreme Court, by the way. So let's figure out what is medically necessary, how the courts determine that, how they determine it under the Eighth Amendment and what the courts have.

I mean, I don't understand why this has to become politicized. And I understand these are very sensitive issues. They're emotional issues. They're people of deep conviction on both sides. I just wish we could talk more about the things that J.D. and I were talking about, which is hollowing out this country, de-industrializing this country, what we're going to do to rebuild American industry. And that's ultimately on the economy. We didn't get into immigration, but on what sensible immigration looks like and the secure border.

Those are the policies I think the Democratic Party should be closing on and that this election should be closing on. Fair enough. I'm glad you and I have had this discussion because I can't go forward with anybody without having this discussion, somebody who's as opposed

to me on this stuff as you are. And I hope you come back and we'll take on those other issues, especially immigration the next time you do. I appreciate you having it in a thoughtful, civil way. And I look forward to being back. All the best to you, Representative Rochana of California. So interesting, right? Like it's, it's hard to, it's hard to discuss those things because they are emotional, right? I get upset over them. I'm sure a lot of my audience gets upset over them and most people aren't paying them much mind. You know, you heard Kamala Harris refer to it as a remote issue the other day. I don't, I don't think it's remote. Um, I think it's spreading and us treating it like it was a small thing that

would go away is what led to fester and spread and hurt a lot of people, children. And not just children, but I mean, adult women count too, even adult women in prison and so on. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. You can email me, Megan, M-E-G-Y-N at megankelly.com. Tomorrow, we are back with James Woods, who I'll be seeing in person in California, off to do Bill Maher's show tomorrow night. Hope you tune in for that. We'll have a full rundown of how that went when I see you again on Monday. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.