The Megyn Kelly Show - Megyn on Trump Chat and Upcoming DeSantis Interview, and Ray Epps Questions, with Arthur Aidala, Mark Eiglarsh, and Kimberley Strassel | Ep. 588

Episode Date: July 17, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing her weekend at the Turning Point Action conference where she met privately with former President Trump and Tucker Carlson, and she announces the upcoming interview with Gov. Ron DeSantis happening next week. Then all-star lawyers Arthur Aidala and Mark Eiglarsh join for a Kelly's Court panel to discuss the breaking news about an arrest in the Gilgo Beach serial killer cold case, the bizarre recent public appearances of the suspected murderer, Rex Heuermann, what we know about the investigation and how he was caught, Ray Epps' bizarre decision to only sue Fox News for defamation, the details of what Tucker Carlson and others said about whether Epps was a "fed," whether Britney Spears has a case against NBA rookie star Victor Wembanyama's security team, Kevin Costner's high profile and very contentious divorce, and more. Then Kimberley Strassel, author of "The Biden Malaise," joins to discuss the lack of findings in the White House cocaine investigation,  parallels between Carter's administration and the Biden administration and why Biden is actually worse than Carter, the state of the GOP race in 2024, whether Biden will actually be the Democratic nominee, the potential for a third party "No Labels" spoiler, whether America should be leading more in Ukraine, how Trump says he'll end the war in 24 hours, Biden's creepy moment with a little girl overseas, and more.Aidala: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-arthur-aidala-power-hour/id1615956523Eiglarsh: https://www.eiglarshlaw.comStrassel: https://www.amazon.com/Biden-Malaise-America-Bounces-Bidens/dp/1538756218 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, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Monday. We thought we'd kick it off by telling you how I spent my weekend down in Palm Beach, Florida with Turning Point Action. This is the Charlie Kirk group that involves thousands and thousands of college students, probably more than that nationwide. But at the event, we had some four or five thousand of college students and supporters and others who were there to listen to, mainly President Trump, who appeared. Tucker was also there. It was really fun to see him. And I was there, among many, many others in politics and elsewhere, more affiliated with the right, for sure. And it was fascinating and it was wonderful. One of my favorite things that I did while there

was speak to a roundtable of college students with Charlie. And my God, what these kids are going through. My God. One of the things that really jumped out at me was the young women talking about how there are no masculine men anymore on college campuses. I mean, honestly, they were talking about how they're stuck with the man bun everywhere they turn. Oh, no. How are we going to reproduce the next generation? All these effeminized men who've been schooled by these left-leaning liberal women on their toxic masculinity who now think the answer is to burst out into tears at every turn my god it's not please don't the the future of humanity requires you to be hunters and gatherers and brave warriors

and not to turn into women. It was kind of scary. But these are more conservative leaning college students who are talking about being conservative on college campuses that are, of course, overwhelmingly liberal and how they understand very well that they're going to be downgraded on certain papers and so on if they don't tow the party line, meaning the leftist party line, and the courage it takes to push back against that. I also learned that Clemson is not that liberal. So that was good to hear. You know, Clemson, South Carolina, it's a great school. But I had thus far believed that it was pretty much Hillsdale or Liberty for those of us who

want our kids to go to non-indoctrinating leftist schools. Clemson, all right, go Tigers. In any event, then we moved on to the evening session. And just before the evening session, I got the chance to sit with my friend Tucker Carlson, who you guys know we've been friends for a long, long time, well before his primetime role at Fox. And I used to have him on my show all the time when I was in the primetime. And I knew back then he was a star who was being underutilized. And as I've told you before, was the one who recommended to Lachlan Murdoch that they elevate him to the primetime. Obviously, he's made a go of it and he's become an international star. And you spend two minutes with Tucker and you're totally reminded of why. he's just completely magnetic. He's such a happy warrior. You know, he's been through the ringer these past few months

and just all smiles and easy to be with, happy to see the bright side of virtually everything, including what's happened to him. And we had a great meeting with Tucker, his executive producer, Justin Wells and Abby and I. And I'm telling all I can tell you is, you know, to be a fly on that wall, your jaw would have dropped at some of the things that we exchanged. More on that as the days and weeks and months go by. There are just some really interesting things. Fox News has not yet sued Tucker. And all I'll tell you is they should not. It would be a mistake, as I've said before, but I believe it even more strongly now than ever.

Don't do it, Fox. You're going to be really sorry. It's not going to end well for you or anyone on your side. If you go after him, just let him go. You fired him. He wants to give back the money, just wants to make a living doing the news. Just let him. Don't be dumb. And so in any event, more on that, as I said, as time passes. Now, one of the most interesting things I did was have a private audience with former President Donald Trump. When he came into the arena, we met just one on one. And, you know, I mean, there were like, his team was standing nearby, but he and I got a one-on-one together for the first time in years.

And it was frankly great to see him, you know, all that nonsense between us is under the bridge and he could not have been more magnanimous. You know, it's just the thing about Trump is he commands the room. He walks in and it's not just because he's a former president now, because I knew him before that. There's just something about him. It's like an aura that sort of takes over the room. There's only one person you can look at.

I remember when he was doing Celebrity Apprentice and Geraldo was on it and John Rich was on it. And John Rich, I think it was, invited me to an event for Celebrity Apprentice. And you went there and same thing. Trump walks in like the whole room turns. It's Donald Trump. Well, even more so now. He could not have been nicer or more generous and had some interesting thoughts about the debates, whether he's going to attend. I wouldn't bet on it. I would not bet on him attending at least that first Fox News debate if I had to put money on it. You know, it's Trump, so he could

change his mind. But that was my feeling in having talked to him, though he didn't commit one way or the other. And we had a great exchange. I thought it was interesting, you know, as a journalist, as a woman, as a human who went through so much with Trump, you know, we've had our ups and downs. It's fair to say to me, there was a lesson in that kind moment between the two of us. And it was that even as a journalist, if you can take your own ego out of it. And I went through a lot as Trump attacked me for those nine months. I've documented that in my book and elsewhere. But if you can take your ego out of it and if you can be quick to sort of get past these confrontations and these negative experiences, you can open up such possibility for yourself.

You can open up a field of wellness, of positivity, of good relationships. So take the fact that it's Donald Trump, former president and Megyn Kelly, you know, well-known journalist out of it. This could be true for you in your life. You know, this could be true if you can just find a way to say, you know what? That was yesterday. I'm here on today. I'm looking at tomorrow. I just think it's a testament to how people can change and people can rebuild relationships and people can move forward in a positive way. And I know I'm not the only one, because when Trump took to the stage and addressed the roaring crowd, which was completely in his corner, he said the following, which caught my attention. Listen to Trump talking about yours truly at SOT 12. And Megyn Kelly, she was the one that gave me that terrible question where I said only Rosie

O'Donnell. Thank God I came up with that. I would have been because she had plenty of other names going. I didn't like that. The place went crazy. Nobody ever heard the other name. So I considered that a very good answer. But that was a hell of a question. But she has been all and she's been great. By the way, not to me. She's been great for the country. She wants our country to survive. So it's not for me. So amusing, as always. I didn't actually have a list of other women, but his point is well taken. He did do well with that question. And then Rosie O'Donnell comment brought down the house when he made it. But he's right that it's the country I care about. And whether it's Trump or some other leader on the right, I've made pretty clear, I don't see how you can vote for somebody on the other side

who can't say what a woman is, right? Who's trying to indoctrinate our children in backwards racial thinking, who wants children with body parts cut off before they hit age 18. How can you vote for that? So it could be Donald Trump, could be Ron DeSantis, could be Tim Scott, could be Aunt Nikki Hay, all these people offering a vision that is much more clear headed and positive for our country than what we're seeing right now on the left. So it was great to see him. He was extremely popular at this event, which is more in Trump's corner. He won the poll, I think I was like 97% over any other candidate. DeSantis declined to attend the event, which I think was a mistake. No, it's not his crowd,

but he would have gotten such points if he had just shown up in Palm Beach and said, hey, I'm Ron DeSantis. I know you're more with Trump, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you and try to win you over. I'm grateful. I'm grateful to Donald Trump for helping me get elected the first time. I do think we have differing visions. That's why I'm running. It wouldn't have taken that much for him to say that. Vivek was there.

There were others there. So I think DeSantis missed an opportunity. He did go to the Iowa summit, which Tucker actually was at the night before moderating. I don't know if you watch any of those debates on The Blaze. They're on YouTube now. They're very good. It's it's fun to watch Tucker sit across from these folks and sort of, you know, he's got a very clear vision of how he wants the country to be and how he wants the Republican Party to be and gave it right to these candidates in a respectful way and had a couple of them on their heels. For sure, there were some tense exchanges. DeSantis sat with Tucker,

and I think he did the best in that interview that I've seen him do. He was a little bit more relaxed. He used to see colloquialisms like, every day and twice on Sunday, you know, that they're a little dated. They make him sound a little stodgy. He's only 44. I'm older than DeSantis. Why am I like thinking he sounds stodgy? But I think it's just how he is.

He's a little nerdy, but that's OK. You know, it's OK to be a little nerdy when you're running for president of the United States. But in any event, substantively, I thought he did very well in his exchange with Tucker. And it just to me was a testament to how he needs to get back out there more. He needs to put himself out there more. He needs the practice. And he needs people to get to know him better as opposed to whatever image they have. That happened as we get news that his campaign is now shedding staff, that they are underperforming expectations, at least so far.

So he's got a bunch of money in his super PAC, tons of money in the super PAC, less in his actual campaign. And they've been spending a lot in the past several months on ads and other things. And now they're getting rid of staff. He needs a shakeup is the bottom line. And one is underway. He suggested this weekend on Fox that he is going to be putting himself out there in a more robust way over the next six months or so. I've been very transparent with all of you going back several months that I I've been asking him to sit with us for months and been getting the back of the hand. And recently we reached out again and this time he accepted. So I will be sitting with Governor Ron DeSantis. Next week, I'll be traveling back

down to Florida to interview him for the first time and to meet him for the first time. I'm very much looking forward to it. He knows it's not going to be an easy interview, but it's not going to be a jugular removal either. Like always, when you come on this show, especially if you're a politician, it's going to be fair, balanced and based in fact. So we're looking forward to doing that and bringing it to you. We're grateful that the campaign has accepted and I expect we'll be sitting with President Trump in the not too distant future as well. For now, let's get to the news of the day. Joining me now for Kelly's Court, two of our very favorite people, Mark Eglarsh and Arthur Idalla. Mark is a criminal defense attorney. Arthur is a trial attorney and managing partner at Idalla,

Fortuna and Kamens. Guys, welcome back to the show. It's great to see you. My God, there's so much to go over. There's so many great Kelly's Court cases. All right, and this, all right, hold on. Let me get my notes because I know we're supposed to start with Ray Epps, which is a hot political story, and we can get to Ray Epps, but I'm sorry, we have to start with the serial killer. They've nabbed who they say is a prolific serial killer who was roaming amongst us,

who was accused of killing as many as potentially 10, maybe more people. I think he's accused explicitly of six or seven by the authorities right now. And this guy, we've known that there was a serial killer loose in Long Island for quite some time, but we just didn't know who it was. We found the bodies in 2011 dumped near Massapequa. That's where Brian Kilmeade's from. That's where Billy Baldwin's from. It's this nice area of Long Island.

And these bodies of young sex workers who went missing, washed up or not washed up, but were found in burlap bags in 2011. But Arthur, they couldn't figure out who did it until this past weekend. Then when they announced the arrest of this guy, it's unbelievable. I want to get his name. Rex, how do you pronounce the last name? Huberman, something like that. I know. Hold on a second. Huber, Huberman.

I've only heard it a hundred times. It's Huberman, H-E-U-E-R-M-A-N-N, Rex Huberman. All right. Now, Rex Huberman worked as a consultant for architects dealing with the city and managing all the building codes and regulations. And he was, as far as I can tell, like an intermediary who had a good, legit job. Married. He was on a second wife. Married two children. Living a private life in Long Island.

And my team found this interview he gave in 2022 with the host of Bonjour. I don't know. It's some, I don't know, Bonjour Realty, some realty YouTuber on Le Interview. And the host spent half an hour with the guy. I watched this whole thing. I watched 20 minutes of this guy talking about stuff I have absolutely no interest in because it's an accused serial killer we now know. And here he is talking in a more private moment at the end or a more sort of personal moment

at the end of the interview about his favorite tool. Watch this, that's six. If you were a tool or an object to help you to bring your business to greater heights, what would it be? I have one tool that's pretty much used in almost every job. And it's actually a cabinetmaker's hammer. Oh, okay, a cabinet maker's hammer. Oh, okay. Cabinet maker's hammer. Okay. It is persuasive enough when I need to persuade something.

Not someone. Something. Oh, my God. Oh, my God, you guys. So I'll start with you, Arthur, as the New Yorker. They now say that they caught him in part thanks to DNA, in part me to send you his regards, Megan. He's a former Brooklyn ADA, who I know. And the prosecutor right before him, Tim Sini, you know, was also a well-known prosecutor.

But the word around the campfire is he really dragged his feet in terms of pursuing this. And Tiernan came in and he's a Republican and he did just the opposite. He put together this whole task force to figure this out. And it was really a task force of the not only just the regular Suffolk County detectives, but also the Suffolk County sheriffs. They brought the FBI back in and they really made this a priority. But one of the things the district attorney of Suffolk County did say was that technology has advanced so much close, his office, the defendant's office, is like five blocks away from my law office in midtown Manhattan. And that's where he was arrested from. It's also where they recovered the pizza box that had his DNA,

apparently, on the pizza that they tied all of that in to put the nail in the coffin. They actually still wanted to continue to follow him, but he keeps reaching out to sex workers, as they call them. I guess you don't call them prostitutes anymore. I know, I noticed the same thing. Sex work makes it sound like it's like, this is a legitimate job that you could choose.

You could be like a transportation worker or a sex worker. They're talking about hookers, ladies of the evening. Thank you. So they wanted to continue to follow him, but they were too afraid that if he went with one of these sex workers, he was going to kill somebody else. So they actually ended the investigation a little earlier than they wanted to. They wanted to build on their evidence, but they feel comfortable now that they will continue to build on the evidence. And obviously at this point, they feel comfortable that they're going to secure a conviction based on his wife's hair being at the location. And they found out that his wife was out of town at the time in question when one of these women were killed.

So they feel like they I mean, it's all circumstantial evidence. There's no like eyewitness that says it was him. There's one witness that says an ogre like guy was seen with one of the deceased. And if you look at this six foot six guy who's clearly overweight, ogre would be inappropriate. You know, he was kind of like Shrek. Good for good for that DA. Good for them for taking another hard look at it as the advancements in DNA and other evidential assessment tools is obvious to us all. But they're of no use if you don't actually use them on these crimes. And what better crime to investigate than serial killings, Mark? I'll give you one other. We'll talk more about this evidence, but I'll give you one other sound bite of the guy at the end of his interview with the with the French guy where they they take like a selfie together.

I get this the Bonjour Realty guy. I would love to talk to this guy who now knows he spent an hour with a serial killer accused. He does like selfies, I guess, at the end. Just look at him. Watch this. But in the meantime, it's selfie time. Selfie time. You're fast. They're putting on sunglasses. One, two, three. Can you smile?

That is. Oh my god. Megan. Very cringy, Megan. Very cringy. Megan. Very cringy. It's so creepy. Guilty. Yeah, that would be very creepy. So to answer your question, I approach this case the same way I do other high profile cases like Kohlberger or the BTK killer. You know, you take what they're alleging and you say, if everything is true, and that's a big if.

Sometimes, you know, the DNA isn't supported by the way that they gathered it. It was contaminated, but rarely does that happen. So if what they're saying is true, it paints a serious picture of somebody who did some major damage. And look, you know, anyone could do searches, right? Somebody's concerned, they live in the area. Okay. Just doing searches about the case isn't enough. So I go, okay, next. And, you know, because then they found his computer searches, which are incriminating from the sound of them. Keep going. Sure. Sure. Go ahead. But, you know, and you could probably, you know, from the defense lawyer perspective, like, well, I might be able to explain that away.

Then you keep adding in different things. And, you know, at some point, you know, you'll lose the perspective of being able to argue that this could be something else. In other words, the odor of an alcoholic beverage shouldn't convict you of DUI. But you start adding in the slurred speech and the flushed face and the bloodshot eyes and the horrible driving and you can't stand up. You know, each piece forms the basis of a complete picture. And I think that the picture here, assuming it's true because we don't know anything and there was a lot of political pressure to solve this case. But assuming all this is true, this is a really tough case. As great of a lawyer Arthur is, I don't know whether you need him or a magician to make all that stuff disappear. Those searches are horrible.

All right, so here's some of the searches that they found on his computer. Why could law enforcement not trace the calls made by the Long Island serial killer? I'm sorry, I'm just laughing because it's just gallows humor, but this is so dead on. Why hasn't the Long Island serial killer been caught? Well, hold on a second. Let me give it. Oh, yeah. Oh, I mean, of course he's into that as well.

Long Island serial killer phone call he Googled. Long Island serial killer update. Serial killer update 2022. FBI active serial killer. Serial killers by state 2023. Map of all known serial killers. Unsolved serial killer cases. America's five top notorious old cases. Hold on. Going down. Then he searched the names of some of the victims, Megan, Megan

Waterman, Melissa Bartholomew, Maureen Brainerd Barnes, and then a couple of other related searches. Cops launched Gilgo Beach Homicide Investigation Task Force mapping the Long Island murder victims inside the Long Island serial killer in Gilgo Beach. The Gilgo Beach killer. That was the name of the beach in Long Island in Long Island. Serial killer investigation. New phone technology may be key to break in case. So he's obviously very, very interested in his case. And then if you look at like the determining or the disturbing things that Arthur was referencing,

I'm not going to get into it, but child pornography involving very young girls, searches like nude slave girls, preteen girls, and so on. And all of the women killed, according to 48 Hours, which I listened to, there's a podcast out right now, which I recommend to everyone, seem to generally have the same characteristics, these young women. And they were obviously sex workers or prostitutes. That's not to in any way diminish what happened to them, but it's just to get honest about what that term means. They were young.

They tended to be brunette. They tended to be small. He liked petite women, like under five feet. Many of them had hazel eyes. And so there was a profile. Think of this guy, six foot six with a four foot 11 young woman. Are they're desperate enough to try to make money in that particular way? Who goes on some hotel call and never resurfaces and winds up strangled. That's how most of these women were killed in a burlap bag. But he wasn't careful

because you mentioned that hair. They found the wife's DNA on the burlap bags. And as you point out, the wife was nowhere near the scenes. And they found his hair at the bottom of one of those burlap bags. But they didn't have a match. He wasn't in the system. So Arthur, how did they get this guy's name? They have the hair. They don't know whose it is. So how do they zero in on this guy, Rex? Well, the word they use is triangulation, but that was one of the words I used. I watched that whole long press conference by the prosecutor. Apparently, and then if I really want to lift up the skirt here, the DA's public relations agent was at my house here on Saturday. So he was telling me they've had his name for a long time, a very long time. I think even before this prosecutor came into

office, but they just haven't had the links. A lot of it had to do with the burner phones calling the prostitution, the escort services. Off of Craigslist. Off of Craigslist. And they were able to get a judge to give them search warrants. But I think that the pizza and getting the DNA off of the pizza was what really gave them the imp going to, I think the term was eventually the

scales of justice balance in the degree of public safety over securing a conviction. And then they got enough. I'm totally okay with them making the arrest based upon what they have right now. They even got the DNA from family members and then that linked everything up. I don't think that you need to wait. And also, I don't think that he expected an arrest after all these years. So, you know, in the house, they gathered even additional evidence that they didn't expect. Right.

That further corroborate their strong case again. What about his guns? We haven't even mentioned his guns. What about his guns? He's got 92. What? I hadn't heard that? He's got 92. What? I hadn't heard that. He's got 90.

Yeah, they're all legal. They're all legal. Well, but he didn't use guns. Objection. He didn't use a gun in the crime. How is that even relevant? Okay. Megyn Kelly, do you know anyone who lives in Massapequa Park who's got 92 guns in their house.

I'm going to text kill me right now. But no, but he was strangling these women. I mean, who knows what he was expecting? I know, but 92 guns. I mean, it shows you someone's got a screw loose. Well, now you're going to get all the Second Amendment people. Dana Lash is sending you an email right now. 92?

Well, yeah, I mean, they love their guns. You know, I mean, some people are gun enthusiasts and it doesn't make them serial killers, but this guy actually appears to have been. So say the cops. Let's let's talk about the threat to other women because he's out there. He's meeting up with the prostitutes, but he's also getting creepy with the regular women in his life. I mean, think of the poor wife who's married to him and has no idea. Apparently she's from Iceland, the second wife. But she's been living in Massapequa for years and years. She apparently has no idea. They describe her as a private person who kept her herself. The neighbors did. And then he's got an adult daughter who I think is 20 something who was working at Macy's up until

recently. And then she said she was working for him at his little office. That again is like sort of a liaison between architects trying to navigate the New York City building laws and those lawmakers. And there was one woman who came forward who said she was in this professional support group with him for these architect types. Her name was Dominique Vidal. And she came forward to talk about her experience with this guy at this networking event. This is Sot9. He asked me, do I know about the Gilgo Beach murders? And of course I do. I'm pretty sure there's a multi-part episode on Crime Junkie.

And I'm like, yeah, of course I know. And he goes on to tell me, yeah, that's a serial killer that was never caught in my hometown, my neighborhood where I live. And tells me he, like, the guy killed 10 people and he might still be out there and I like make a joke and I'm like yeah you never know who you're talking to anybody could be your cigarette I could be a serial killer and he laughed at that and I just cannot stop running that conversation over and over in my head, and I'm really disturbed. Oh, my God, I am, too. I mean, she I don't can't tell how tall she is, but, you know, she kind of looks the part not of a sex worker, but, you know, that she looks petite.

She looks like she's got the darker eyes. Here is the voicemail. She says he left her in February 2023, just a few months ago to this young woman, Dominique Vidal. Listen. Hey, this is Rex from the BNI group. I actually heard you are no longer part of the group. I still want to talk to you. I had a question for you. I also wanted to touch base. So if you get an opportunity, you can always try me at the office. Or feel free to use my cell.

Hope you're doing good. Hope to talk to you soon. So she blacked out the personal number. Go ahead, Mark. Code for strangulation. I mean, but you know what's disturbing? I mean, I can't get past this. Like I've talked about this on our crime shows many times. This guy, I realized somebody described him as looking like an ogre. Yes. And some of the reports now are like he was creepy, like the neighbors saying

he was creepy. But you hear that voicemail, right? Like the chipper chipper, you know, his interview with the French guy. Like this is this is me smiling. He here's my favorite tool to hammer. Ha ha ha. You like it does make you wonder about the criminals among us. You know, like they say one in four people is a sociopath. I mean, this guy was a Massapequa.

It's like a normal American town. I know. I know. It's it. normal American town. I know it. I know it's, this doesn't make sense what I'm saying. They come in all shapes and forms. One in four people is a sociopath?

They say that. Yes. I don't know if I'm going. The sociopaths say that. I don't know if I'm going. If you don't know the one, it's you. If you can't.

Megan makes a point, Arthur. You don't know the one, it's you. If you can. Megan makes a point, Arthur. You don't you don't know anybody these days. Everybody just shows you what they want you to see. And anyone has, you know, dark thoughts. Anyone could possibly be. I choose happiness. OK, that's a strong. That's Mark's book.

I don't know, guys. I think you're right. They've got this guy. It looks like dead to rights. He was in tears, apparently, with his lawyer saying, I didn't do this. I didn't do this. The DNA apparently says something else. We're going to learn a lot more, as Mark points out, once we actually find out what they found in his house. It's going to be a dark, dark case. But thank God. Thank God for the great police work that was done ultimately on this case. All right, stand by because we are going to get into the Ray Epps defamation case against

Fox News and much, much more when we come back. All right, so Ray Epps, which is a name our audience may know well. The reason is he was one of the January 6th protesters who many believed might have been an undercover Fed because despite the fact that he was on camera and on audio tape and you could hear him over and over like calling for people to go into the Capitol. In fact, we'll play it. This is how people first came to know and see Ray Epps. Despite this, watch soundbite one. Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol, into the Capitol.

What? Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed. People are saying right then they think he's a Fed because he's saying we're going in. And the other people are saying, no, we don't need to do that. Anyway, despite all that, he was not arrested and everybody's been arrested. If they could identify you as one of the rioters on Jan 6th, you were arrested and you were charged and you may have already been tried, but not Ray Epps, despite very clear evidence that he participated in the whole thing. Well, Tucker Carlson on Fox and he's it wasn't just Tucker.

Many people speculated about whether he was some in participating that day in some sort of undercover capacity for the feds trying to instigate criminality in the same way we saw in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case in Michigan, where the feds were to instigate criminality in the same way we saw in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case in Michigan, where the feds were orchestrating that. Now the guy has sued not Tucker Carlson, very interesting, just Fox News, which just turfed Tucker Carlson, didn't technically fire Tucker yet, but pulled him from his show. And the only reason they haven't fired him is because they want to keep him on the payroll and keep him silent, which is failing. But in any event, what do you make of the fact, Mark, that he's now filed this

lawsuit and that it's just against Fox? I'm surprised. Claiming he was defamed. Yeah. Typically you include everybody and then let them fight it out amongst themselves as to how much each one owes. Obviously, he's going after Fox News because they have the deeper pockets. I don't know. I don't understand that. I don't understand why. And I think it undermines the credibility of the plaintiff's lawyer that he doesn't include the very person who he claims spewed untruths about his client. The credibility of his lawyer doesn't work hard to undermine that guy's credibility, Arthur. You don't have to try very hard because the guy he hired is named Michael Teter, T-E-T-E-R. And this lawyer is a close associate and employee, according to Revolver News of David Brock. David Brock is a disgusting political operative

who ran Media Matters, which is a dishonest, gross group whose only mission in life is to tear down conservative commentators and conservative media. He works for an organization called Facts First USA, a nakedly partisan, quoting from Revolver here, nakedly partisan organization targeting the agenda of the so-called MAGA majority in Congress. And the president of Facts First USA is David Brock. It's disgusting. The group is disgusting. And the fact that Ray Epps hired this lawyer tells me he's probably disgusting too.

Well, I wonder if Ray Epps hired this lawyer or this lawyer broke ethical rules and reached out to Ray Epps and said, let me represent you and let's go after Fox. I mean, Mark is 100% correct. If you slip and fall somewhere and you slip on some soda like you know you sue madison square garden you sue the maintenance company for madison square garden you sue the coca-cola company for having slippery soda so here i mean look they went they went after the low-hanging fruit they just saw that fox was willing to write out a check for almost 800 million dollars uh they filed the court they filed the case in the same exact venue where Fox ran, wrote out the check for, what was it, 787. Of course, Fox has now moved that or asked for that case to be moved from the state court to the federal court.

And as you said, you're correct. Everyone else has got arrested. He hasn't got arrested, but they did interview him. They did take him off the wanted list. But now supposedly they're saying they are going him they did take him off the wanted list but now supposedly they're saying they are going to press charges against him and that raises even more eyebrows because in both mark and mine experience it's very rare that the feds give you a nice little invitation for your arrest typically they just come and show up with their i mean look what they did to what mr um not stoliver um who's trump's advisor who they roger stone i mean look how they went after that guy right with helicopters and SWAT teams and all

of that yeah i mean this is a guy screaming let's go into the capitol why wouldn't they grab him that way so there are a lot of questions around here apparently he he's sold his, he and his wife sold the business. They're living in a, in a trailer, literally a trailer, um, in Utah somewhere because they've had death threats. Um, so it's interesting that what this lawsuit is going to do is, I mean, if it goes the course with depositions, et cetera, et cetera, it's going to definitely shake out some witnesses who have a lot of things to answer for, like, why wasn't he arrested? How come he's, people much less involved were arrested and he wasn't? What's that all about? Did Tucker Carlson

and other people have the right? Did they have a reasonable evidence, facts to be able to say the things that they said? You know, truth is an absolute defense to defamation. So if it turns out that the facts show that maybe he was working for someone, well, then there's nothing that he could lean on to win the defamation suit. I don't think the facts have to show that he actually worked for anyone in the government. The question is whether there was enough to just simply get. And again, I don't know what was said. I need to see exactly what Tucker said. But if Tucker is giving his opinion that there's enough there that it seems and he's raising that issue, I don't think that he has to have the absolute truth on his side that it turned out

he was some type of federal agent. Just based upon all these facts, you know, you can raise the issue with wide latitude from the, you know, the First Amendment. You could raise that issue. What I don't know, I but I did what I don't know, though, is what specifically was said, assuming he's not a agent. I'll tell you, I haven't looked at all of Tucker's coverage of Ray Epps, but they're alleging that he suggested that he might be a federal agent or a federal source. Tucker is smart enough not to say Ray Epps is a federal agent. Ray Epps is where he's smart enough to know he wouldn't know that he wouldn't be able to say that that explicitly on the

air. But I'll tell you what's not in Ray Epps's complaint. Statements like this from Tucker Carlson, who made clear repeatedly that he didn't actually know one way or the other what the real status of Ray Epps was, that the whole discussion was a was speculation. Here's Tucker in October of 2021, Satu. Now, just to be totally clear, we don't know whether this Epps guy was working with the federal government. We don't think about him, haven't talked to him. We can only show you video from that day. But we do know it doesn't seem like he's been punished for this. If you're looking for the people who organized that day, maybe you should talk to him. Has he been indicted?

Not that we know of. Maybe he has been. We don't know it, but we haven't seen any evidence that he has been. So Mark, does that does that potentially save Tucker? Because maybe in another segment he said the evidence looks very strong that he's a federal agent of some sort or federal source of some sort. But he also made clear he didn't know. I would need to see everything. But I would say in that, what he's doing there, I believe just that you know, he's there. He's right up on the line with that. He didn't step over, but he's right there. And I understand why this gentleman is upset about it. But again, that's what makes this country great. We have the First Amendment. I'd like to see everything else. I agree. But Mark, I don't even think he went right up to

the line. I mean, he made it clear. He said, we don't know if he is one. We have not spoken to him. He has, as far as we know, he has not. I think he's covered himself three ways from Sunday. I agree with that. We don't know that Arthur is a pedophile. We don't know that. I can't say it.

I'm not going to say it. But, you know, he's awfully nice to kids. I'm just saying. You can't say pedophile is the same thing as federal agent. There's a real question about whether that's defamatory at all. That's the example you go with for me. Thank you, Mark. Yes, because I knew it would get a reaction out of both you and Megan. Obviously, there's a difference. But to this guy who's significantly harmed by the suggestion that he's a law enforcement officer, again, it's not the same as pedophile, but he does suffer harm as a result.

The question is whether it's protected or not. And I don't know. I don't think he's going to be able to prove he suffered harm. This guy was at Jan six. His his story is that he was an instigator, that he was there not working on behalf of the feds, that it was a legitimately held belief that, you know, they could go in there and storm the Capitol. And he's on camera saying all of that and doing all of that. If he had backlash in his personal life, he's going to have to prove that whatever it was,

was as a result of Tucker and Fox suggesting he did all that as a federal agent or a federal source versus because he was a derelict versus backlash because he did the wrong thing. Correct. That's going to be difficult. This guy had no problems putting himself on camera. And my guess is he probably spewed that in many other places. And so, yeah, it's very hard to identify that it was Tucker's fault or Fox News's fault, as opposed to him putting himself out there and encouraging people to go storm the Capitol. But there might be a timeline, Megan. In other words, if days after or the day after Tucker said something or someone on Fox said something, they have phone records that show that's when the death threats were coming in or someone went and they had like a wedding store or wedding planning store or something

like that. And there's a direct correlation in the timing of it all that from the media coverage and then what took took place in uh at the store the loss of income at the store or the death threats you know that that may be a lot easier to prove the damages may be easier to prove than the actual libel if tucker you know the clip you just showed mark's correct it's hard for either of us to opine on this without hearing or any of us without hearing every single clip. But the clip that you just showed, Tucker, in my opinion, covered his butt 100%. I don't even think he went up to the line. I think he stayed way away from the line. But if there were other segments- Let me say this to you, because we're talking about

how normally you sue everybody, as you say. You sue the Coca-Cola person, you sue the Macy's, you sue everybody who is anywhere near the sidewalk, the slippery sidewalk. He only sued Fox News. And the theory by Revolver News, which is a great organization, which also did a lot of Ray Epps reporting on why he didn't sue Revolver, why he didn't sue Tucker, is that he and his lawyer, David Brock's friend, knew very well they would fight, that this would be a battle and it would be a bare-knuckled one. And they would get all kinds of discovery

from Ray Epps in this fight. And they would figure out one way or the other whether this guy had any ties to the feds and would not go down without a fight. But Fox News, they point out, may have an incentive here. They just turfed Tucker. They haven't yet alleged that they did so for cause. And they're about to have this big legal battle with him potentially. And so why not just pay off Ray Epps? Oh, the derelict Tucker, the irresponsible Tucker, yet again cost Fox News this money on a Ray Epps

settlement. You see, arbitrator, we had no choice but to get rid of this guy. He was a liability. And wouldn't it help their overall image and their legal fight with Tucker to just quietly pay Ray Epps, make him go away. And that's what Ray Epps and his lawyer are banking on. I think that's an accurate statement. I think that's definitely an accurate statement. And it would make sense as to why, look, I know Mark referred to Fox News as having the deep pockets, but I don't think anyone's crying poverty to Tucker Carlson either. I mean, there's some some depth in those pockets. Let's put it that way. So that scenario, Megan, that you just laid out makes a tremendous amount of sense. And one thing that is underlying that we haven't spoken about is this Martin Matic lawsuit that's coming up against Fox as well, which is very similar to the suit they settled

regarding the voting, all the defamation regarding the voting machines. So Fox may just be in a position like, let's settle all of this stuff. Let's not have all of our hosts have to be deposed. Let's not air all of our dirty laundry of what goes on. And let's just have Rupert Murdoch open up his checkbook and write out as many big checks as they have to. Because whether we like it or not, they still get the most eyeballs on television. Or they don't. Or Fox News says, you know what, we're going to fight this one. And then the plaintiffs had a disadvantage because Fox News or a jury essentially can see Fox News pointing at Tucker Carlson, let's say. Tucker Carlson is not part of the lawsuit. So a jury can say, well, it was ninety nine point nine percent Tucker's fault, assuming they even find that what he said was defamatory. And then Fox News is off

the hook. That's why they're not. Wait a minute. How is Fox News off the hook? If because if a jury defames somebody while an employee of Fox News. I'm saying that if a jury were to find that it is Tucker Carlson's fault and let's say they assign him in their minds, you know, 99 percent blame because Fox News will invariably say, hey, it's it's his fault. You know, it's not a defense for Fox News. Tucker was an employee of Fox when he made it. I'm not saying it makes sense. Jurors don't make superior. It's not a matter for the jury. The judge will not make a divide between Tucker and Fox News for the purposes of this civil suit. One is the other. Unless you can prove Tucker did something willingly and knowingly outside

the scope of his employment. Fox News can always point the finger if they want at Tucker in front of a jury, which may not make sense. I'm not saying to do that. I'm saying that's why you bring in Tucker. That's why you bring in the publics and you bring in when in Arthur's example, anyone who could possibly have liability, you bring them in because then they could just point their fingers at each other and it doesn't matter. The plaintiff wins. That's all I'm saying. I don't know. It's we'll see whether they settle this or not. I mean, there's speculation in the complaint or about the complaint that, you know, there's

no damages. There's no there's no there's no amount that they're asking for in the complaint, which is interesting as well. I mean, as you point out, he lost his ranch, forced to sell his five acre ranch. His wedding business in Arizona, moved into a mobile home, parked at a remote trailer park in the mountains of Utah. Again, pinning all of that on Tucker, I think is an uphill battle. And there's speculation now that they're trying to get ahead of a possible Jan 6th indictment against Trump. Like the DOJ would know

how bad it would look to go after Trump for that, while one of the most well-known names associated with this whole thing, Ray Epps, was never charged. His lawyers say it's because he wound up cooperating with the feds. All of it's very interesting and it kind of smells bad. And we'll continue to follow it. Mark and Arthur, stay with me. Many more good cases to get to. Don't go away. So Britney Spears gets into this weird situation with this very well-known French basketball player who's in the NBA, Victor Wembyn Yama. Wembyn Yama. He's seven foot five, my God. And she was his fan and she recognized him. I mean, he's like a giant. It's tough. He's tough to miss.

And he was walking through a Vegas hotel, I think going into a restaurant and she saw him and she kind of fangirled out and ran over there to him in the midst of a crowd. And he wasn't paying and he didn't see her. And she looks like she tapped him on the back. He now claims she grabbed his shoulder and his security guard backhanded her. And here it is. Watch. Here she is. He doesn't even turn around. Let's watch. Let's play it again. You can see her trying to get up to him. You can see her raising her hand. We're going to re-rack it. Raising her hand to like tap him.

And he never even turns around. So I believe she never made contact with him. Because it's like he didn't feel a thing from the look of this. And then there's the security guard hitting. Yeah. So there's a dispute about whether he hit her in the face, the security guard, or he hit her hand and her whether he hit her in the face, the security guard, or he hit her hand in her own hand, hit herself in the face. In any event, she's not happy. And he kept walking into the restaurant. He says, I didn't even realize it happened. And I'm also under advice to always keep walking whenever somebody comes up to approach me because, you know, I stop. I'm going to get mobbed. And she wants police charges against this guy. Arthur, the police say they're, it looks like Mark wants to take it, but it says police say they're not, they're not going to bring charges against the security officer. Is it the right

decision, Mark? Of course it is. Okay. This is bothers me. It's like, welcome to being human, like everybody else, Brittany. You don't put your hands on somebody. Apparently, I understand why she did it. Apparently, it was loud. I guess if it wasn't so loud, she could have said, excuse me. But no, she had to put her hands on him. And the guy has to defend this guy. This is the number one pick in the NBA. He's the hottest star right now. It's hard as you know, in terms of the NBA, for sure. And she just got treated like all of us would be. You don't put your hands on somebody. You can't assume that everybody knows who you are. So the bouncer simply defended his client, making sure that no unwanted touching would continue. And no, I don't think that criminal charges are appropriate.

Are there one of the eyewitnesses, Brian Grahalis, claimed that one of I think one of the points of confusion because the security guard says he did not know it was Britney Spears, which would give you some context that this wasn't some lunatic. Well, that this wasn't some rando trying to like assault your, your client. But in any event, this eyewitness says that Britney Spears was using a faux British accent throughout the alleged incident. What's that about? And could be heard yelling as she was escorted from the premises in a British accent.

This is fucking America. I don't, that's my, I'm not very good at the faux fur checks. No, you're not. No, I can't do it.

You know what's interesting though, Megan, when I read, when I read the article before I saw the video, when I read it, I was like, you know, they're charging so many people for so many petty crimes. And when they,

when you read that she got slapped in the face so when you're reading it it seems like you know the guy turned around looked at her and smacked her in the face right i was like they're not going to charge this guy for that i mean that's assault three here in new york that's open and closed kind of situation but then when you actually see it it almost looks like the bodyguard doesn't even see her he just kind of puts his hand up to block her. And there's an extreme, from a legal point of view, an extreme lack of intent. His intent there, it seems to be just to block her hand

away from the guy who he's supposed to be guarding. And from his position, she could have a knife in her hand. She could have a taser in her hand. I mean, his whole job is to make sure he doesn't get touched. But, you know, again, when you're reading it and you hear Britney Spears say no woman deserves to be hit under any circumstances, well, I'm certainly not going to disagree with that. But then when you actually see the video of what took place, there's no real intent to hit her in the face. I don't think there was intent, but it is an annoying bit of tape. I'm not saying she should have reached out to touch him, but she clearly did not have any. She didn't have any malintent

either. And she does make a decent point, Mark, when she writes, you don't think I know what it is to be mobbed? She's like, I was mobbed that night trying to get in there. I used to travel with NSYNC where girls were literally throwing themselves at these band members every day. I've never seen a security guard do this, she says. Security knows the deal. These are adoring fans. It's not like he's the president of the United States or you're representing, you're guarding Vladimir Putin, who lots of people want to kill. You know, what's with the instinct to lay hands on another?

It was overly aggressive and she is the one who filed the police report saying he ought to be held responsible. Okay, so maybe she's right. Again, you'd have to really be there to understand. And ideally, if you're a bodyguard, you want as a last resort to put your hands on someone at a minimum for civil liability reasons. But here's the thing. I would go over to her and say, well, listen, did you touch him, whether it was a tap or whether it was a grab? You touched him. You know more than anyone that that is not necessarily something you can do without somebody's permission. So if you want me, the DA or the cop investigating, you want me to bring charges

against the bodyguard. Did you also want me to ask them whether we should bring charges? Oh, stop it, Mark. Would you cut it out? Stop it. A little petite young lady touching the guy, a seven foot six guy on the shoulder is assault in the third degree the way- Does it not meet the definition? If he didn't want to be touched, does it? Yes or no? What are you charging it with? What is the touch? Battery.

What's the touch? Battery, my friend. That's not, that's, look, Miami, LA, Vegas, there's no charge in New York for battery. There's a civil charge for battery, but not a criminal charge for battery. Not for a touching. That doesn't happen. Should she sue? Maybe she should sue civilly. Now that the police have rejected her attempt to make it a criminal case. Maybe she should sue him to make a point. Okay, but then what's her damage? Yes, she sues, she wins. What's her damage? The humiliation? I mean, she got hit in the face. What's that worth? Something.

I'm not taking that case on. I'm not taking that case on. Because she got hit in the face. Come on. No, no. Let me try it again. This. No, no, Megan, don't.

That's the only crime. Don't try it again. That's the only thing that I find. This is fucking America. We're your friends, Megan. Don't try it again. No. It's hard to swear.

That's the only arrest I would justify. That's it. Don't do it, Megan. Please, no. I'm leaving. That's it. Don't do it, Meg. I'm leaving. They don't want any pressing charges against you, Meg. Let's talk about Kevin Costner in the time we have left. His divorce is all over the news. It's gotten very ugly. There's a 20 year age difference. He married this woman, Christine Baumgardner, when she was 30 and I think he was 50, thereabouts. They've been together for 20 years or so. They've had three kids and she signed

a prenup. But like in all these cases, she doesn't want to live up to the prenup. She wants the court to throw the prenup out. She's unhappy with the amount of child support she was going to get via the prenup. Now she's demanding that she gets $250,000 a month for the three children. The court just said you can have 130 single tier. How is she going to survive on that? I don't know. I feel like you sign a deal. You sign a deal. Like why doesn't the prenup just answer this whole thing and it's over and done with arthur um well it should i think that one of one of the grounds is if there was any form of duress when she signed the prenup i know once sometimes it's it's um successful if hypothetically it's the day before the wedding oh by the way honey you know we have a thousand people coming to the wedding tomorrow but i need you to sign this piece of paper otherwise the wedding. Oh, by the way, honey, you know, we have a thousand people coming to the wedding tomorrow, but I need you to sign this piece of paper. Otherwise the wedding's not going

to happen. So if those were the circumstances, then she may have a point. I doubt Kevin Costner is that stupid. And my guess is that this is an ironclad prenup and he owned several properties when they got married. She's entitled to none of them. The judge has even gone as far as saying she's got to move out of the house, the marital residence, on July 31st. But she can only take her toiletries, her clothes, and her jewelry. She can't take the pots and the pans. She can't take the furniture. She can't take anything else. He was specific.

Toiletries, clothes, and jewelry. And that's all she could take. And then in November, there's going to be a hearing on the validity of the prenup. And if it's found valid, then it articulates exactly what she does get and what she doesn't get. What do you make of it, Mark? Because the reason he's being so hard about that house is Kevin Costner owned that house. It's apparently like $149 million mansion. I mean, Kevin Costner has done well. This is before Yellowstone and all that. So, you know, no way out and all of his best field of dreams. We could go down the list, but that's what bought that

house. Bull Durham. That's what bought that house. Not anything Christine Baumgartner did. And so with all due respect to her, I realized she had three of the man's children and she will get some hefty amount of child support. But like, how do these women turn around and say, throw away the prenup that I willingly signed when I came into this marriage with a very, very rich man who had a lot more money than I did? And I've been able to enjoy that money for 20 years, but now I want half. Now I want you to pretend I didn't sign the deal I signed. Right. I don't know the answer, but I'm putting on my defense attorney hat. And of course, I'll get crap from you guys. But, you know, did the circumstances change? In other words, 20 years ago, she signs a piece of paper. Maybe the kid's lifestyle, maybe the needs of the

children far exceeded anything they can envision. Maybe one has therapy needs and, you know, needs more money than what they initially contemplated. We're not talking about money for her, although I'm sure a lot of this money will go for her boob jobs. But we're talking about money. That's what he says. To support these kids who I feel very sorry for, as an aside. I mean, every time daddy attacks mommy or mommy attacks daddy, the kids are going to wind up saying, what's wrong with me then? Because I've got their DNA. So for all families who are looking to fight, just know that you're harming the children.

I know. And to pretend, you know, she said to the court that that one hundred and thirty nine thirty thousand dollars a month is totally insufficient. He wanted to pay fifty two grand a month. She wanted two hundred and fifty a month. The court settled on basically one hundred and thirty a month thousand hundred thirty grand a month. She wanted 250 a month. The court settled on basically 130 a month, thousand, 130,000 a month. And she said Kevin Costner's proposals were completely inappropriate. She needs $250,000 a month in charge. I mean, these people get so rich, they forget how absurd

those numbers sound to regular people and how I got news for them. And I know you two guys, as successful as you are as lawyers, know this too. You can live very happily on a modest income. You do not need $150 million mansion. You don't need $3 million a year to raise your kids. You can find a nice public school. You can find a nice duplex like I used to live in while I was at Fox News. It's not like, you know, I was always living high on the hog and be perfectly happy. They get drunk on these trappings and convince themselves that they need them. Devil's advocate. I don't know how the kids are. Let's say that they're in high school already and they become accustomed to going to a private school. You're going to pull the kids from this very fancy schmancy, expensive private school. I agree. But Mark, you're right. And you made a good argument of the special needs and all that.

But one hundred and thirty two thousand dollars a month. I mean, you could put your kids anywhere and as much therapy as they need, as much clothes as they need. A special wheelchair. One hundred and thirty two thousand a month. The judge found that to be appropriate. So there's something going on. She wanted $120,000 more on top of that, Mark. The fact that she's crying about that. And Megan, to your point, studies have shown the happiest people are the ones who make about $100,000, $130,000 a year. A year. And so, I mean, yes, it's way out of control. And Mark, I could not agree with you more

about the children are the ultimate people who suffer in these situations. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that. It'd be so nice to just like lead by example. You know what? If she had said the marriage didn't work out, we had 20 great years together. We've made three beautiful children.

I'm going to get a job at the public library. I'm going to go take a job in retail and I'm going to work and I'm going to help support my children. And he'll he'll live up to the prenup and I'll live up to the prenup. And this isn't about money. I'm telling it's just disgusting. I know a lot of these people get sucked into the Hollywood culture. You really start to think you need to have the place on Malibu or you don't count. And it's BS. It's a lack of values that that place, that entire town can infect inside of you. And if you allow yourself, if you don't inoculate yourself, this is why it's smart to get out like Clint Eastwood did of that town.

Maggie Kelly has not lost her Albany roots. Her Albany values. Jersey, baby. We spent our summers in Jersey. Ha. Okay. Great to see you both. Another great debate.

You guys are the best. Thank you. Have a great one. Bye, Arthur. All right, see you soon. She's happiest. That's right. She's happy.

We will be right back with The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel. Really looking forward to talking to her. They don't let her out to do a lot of interviews because she's a Fox News contributor. But she's got a new book out, so we're able to talk to her. And I've been wanting to for a long, long time. Don't miss that. I am joined now by the author of a brand new book that's out tomorrow.

It's called The Biden Malaise. How America Bounces Back from Joe Biden's Dismal Repeat of the Jimmy Carter Years. Great title. Kimberly Strassel is a columnist at The Wall Street Journal. She is here with us today. Kimberly, thanks so much for being on. How are you? I am good. It is so good to see you again. Oh, it's wonderful to see you. When I was at Fox and you were a Fox News contributor, I could talk to you all the time. And now I can't because they lock up the contributors. But you're brilliant. I love reading you. Everybody should just have Kimberly on their automatic email inbox because everything

you write is brilliant and you're so insightful on so many issues. I also like Potomac Watch, which is your Wall Street Journal podcast, which I listen to as well. OK, there's a lot to go over before we get to the book. Let me just start with a couple of news items So we can cover the biggest items in the news What's with the Joe Biden creepiness with the little girl The little baby girl It was a toddler, this is overseas We'll show the audience the video Hold on, we've got it

Where it was in Helsinki And he nuzzles up to this toddler girl He does like the fake biting Of this girl's upper shoulder back area. And the girl is clearly recoiling. Oh, no, it's no. I would look. This is a longtime problem, Megan. And the thing that was amazing to me was that the entire Democratic Party decided to close their eyes to it back when he was running for the nomination. This came out and it's not just to me, was that the entire Democratic Party decided to close their eyes to it back when he was running for the nomination. This came out, and it's not just to me, I mean, it's not just

his sort of behavior with little girls, but obviously big girls too, grown-up women, and, you know, an obvious lack of personal space and his inability to understand that this is just, you know, not really appropriate these days to to think that just because you're the president of the United States or a powerful person that you can love or hug or touch anyone in any way. That's a weird I mean, that is just a weird thing to do. I mean, you and I as women are probably just generally affectionate people when it comes to babies. That's just tends to be how women are built. Never in a million years would I do that to somebody else's child. It's just bizarre. And honestly, like I will say this, we reported responsibly and carefully on the contents of

Ashley Biden's diary, which was stolen and has turned into a whole FBI case. But in that diary, she writes his own daughter about inappropriate showers that he took with her when she was young. And I cannot look at that video without thinking of that. Like the media has no interest in this story and his inappropriateness toward women, old and young. As you point out, they just want to stick with Uncle Joe, no matter how many reports of him being an asshole or inappropriate with kids or women or girls. It doesn't matter, Kimberly. Well, right. And exactly. And by the way, the idea that he doesn't get any pass either by being grandpa. And we've also recently had these stories that have come out that have finally

been more honest about how Joe Biden behaves in the private of his office, screeching and yelling at people, a lot of expletives. And if you really know anything about Joe Biden's history, that's really much more in keeping with what we know about him. He's pretty arrogant. He thinks he's one of the smartest people in the room. And he doesn't always treat others around him, working for him or those, with a lot of respect. So but the media, they just will not report on that story. If it was anybody else, they would. But not Joe Biden. Yeah. Can you imagine if Donald Trump did that to a little girl? The amount of press that would be spent on that? OK. Yeah. No, any Republican can, of course, like, you know,

Ron DeSantis would get the same treatment as Trump. So the Maureen Callahan over in the Daily Mail has a great piece basically saying that the Biden administration is laughing at us. They're laughing at us over the cocaine gate, cocaine White House. And in particular, you need look no further than this John Kirby soundbite where he was on Fox News Sunday with Shannon bream talking about how it's just it's just one of those things cam you just can't just can't figure out who brought the cocaine cocaine in can't do it listen to sound by 18 you know nothing about who brought this in inability to track people no surveillance cameras what if it was something much more dangerous well again i can't really speak to the investigation that was done by the secret service uh they did the best they could to to track down how it got there and who it

might have belonged to. And they just were not able to come up with any forensic evidence that that proves it. Did they? I don't think that they did. And by the way, look, they should have to explain to us exactly why they can't find this person. Okay, why are there not security cameras everywhere? Why do you not have a list of who is using those cubbies? Why are you not taking further steps to identify anyone who might be coming into the White House who might be a potential cocaine user? They don't want to find the answers to this question. And again, we were just talking about double standards. I can promise you that if this were the Trump White House or Republican White House, this would be a beating frenzy among the press. We'd be having daily headlines about it. But this one, everyone's determined to make it go away. What if it were anthrax? You know, they evacuated the White House when they first found it because that's what they were worried about. Don't you think we'd be getting a different result?

Oh, of course. But again, this is my point. If the Secret Service is saying that it can't find the answer to this, they need to give us a full accounting to Congress about why not. How lax is the security at the White House? I mean, what what what what do we need to do to fix that? Because clearly this is not a good situation. What's going to change? All right. Let's talk politics for a minute. We had a couple of events this weekend, as I mentioned at the top of the show. We had many of the candidates, not Trump, in Iowa being interviewed by Tucker Carlson aired on The Blaze and is available on YouTube. If you want to check it out. Then we had Trump and a couple of others show up at the Turning Point Action Conference down in Palm Beach. And I watched all of the Tucker interviews in Iowa I realize we're overall early in the process, but there's speculation about whether he just launched late. He should he missed the opportunity to run that momentum out of his big win in Florida. And he's never been able to get close to Trump again in the polls.

So I think there's a couple of things going on when I look at DeSantis. I think I think you're right. I think he might have launched at the wrong time. I also think that he's made the mistake, and they've admitted this recently, that they bulked up a little bit too much on the staff. They're bleeding't make it there, he cannot make it anywhere. So they seem to have acknowledged that. Look, my other thing that I think I'm seeing with DeSantis is I think he's chasing Trump voters a little bit too much. I'd love to see Ron DeSantis be Ron DeSantis. That's what got him so far in Florida. We're hearing a lot about him on like cultural issues and the swamp, etc. I want to hear him talk more about economics. I want to hear him talk more with an actual vision on foreign policy. And I just don't feel we've had that yet because I think he's been a little

bit too micromanaged. He did start taking shots at Fox. I mean, at Trump on Fox over the weekend, he started to say about, you know, the debt that Trump ran up, that he didn't build a wall, only 50 miles of wall. And that is definitely a strategy shift. I do wonder, Kim, like, why did it take him so long to realize that, that he the entire campaign thus far has been on conservative media that's devout to Trump? And he he hasn't moved the needle at all. And it seems to me because he's also going to sit down with Jake Tapper of CNN. He's sitting down with me as well. Finally, he's finally realizing he's got to get out. He can't move

voters inside the Trump tent. They're Trump's. And he's got to do something to reach out to a broader group. That's right. You could not have said it more perfectly. You know, I've always believed that as we go into this primary, that you start, Donald Trump starts with about the base he had in 2016. If you saw him in all of the primary polls, he usually came up 32, 35, 40 percent. It could be even a little bit higher just because he was president. I still think he has that very united support. Nothing Ron DeSantis says is likely to peel those people off. But that means there's a whole bunch of rest of the folks in the party who are open to a message. And, you know, I think that DeSantis has the record to certainly move those

people and get a look. But he's got to start talking about that a little bit more instead of, again, just chasing after Trump voters. Here's a bit of Ron DeSantis at the Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines late last week and his messaging on the possibility of a Gavin Newsom getting into this race. I'm fully prepared to have a Florida, California showdown and let the people choose what's the better vision for the United States of America, because I'm very confident that the freedom in Florida is what more people would choose rather than the public defecation on the streets of San Francisco. He claims he actually witnessed that happen when he went out there, Kim. I mean, it's not hard to see in in that city or in New York City where I personally

have witnessed the same CNN. This comment comes to CNN reports. Slow pace of Biden's reelection campaign feeds Democrats 2024 anxiety and reports as follows. Top Democrats and donors reaching out to those seen as possible replacement presidential candidates for Biden. Get ready, they urge. Biden will not actually be running for reelection despite what he says. It does add that the very few aides who have been hired for his reelection campaign dismiss that as absurd. So could we could we notwithstanding Trump's dominance in the polls and Biden's dominance on the Democratic side, actually be looking at a race between a DeSantis Newsom or two candidates who we're not spending all our time talking about? It is absolutely stunning to me, Megan, that there has not been a challenger to Joe Biden.

He is so weak in the polls. Nobody wants him to run for the presidency again. And a lot of these guys have name and star power, like a guy like Gavin Newsom. It's just perplexing to me. Also, Biden seems to be broadcasting that he's not that interested, right? He's not out there doing events. He's hardly got any staff. Yes, they pulled in a decent amount of money.

It's certainly a good number. But what are they using it for? And I don't know if the question is that they actually have some strategy to pull out at some point. I don't know if it's simply that the president can't be bothered because we've got an old guy in the office. Maybe it's too much to actually go out and campaign. But either way, it's remarkable to me that nobody on the Democratic side has taken advantage of this situation. I know. I mean, you've got RFK Jr. out there. You should have heard how NPR, I listened to NPR's Up First in the mornings, how dismissive they were of him today.

It was like, well, you know, there's this other guy who's a conspiracy theorist who's in the middle of an anti-Semitism controversy. It's like he made this remark over the weekend that got blown up. In any event, they have no time for RFK Jr., notwithstanding the fact that his poll numbers are remarkable, given somebody who wasn't even able to get on social media about six months ago, right? They've got to be a little fearful of him. And there's a report out today that Joe Manchin may indeed be running as a third party candidate with this other group that's threatening. If it's Biden, Trump, they're going to push a candidate and maybe Joe Manchin. So should we be looking at that? Do you think that's real?

I think people should be looking at no labels very closely. Look, my view is that, you know, we have a system in the United States that really only kind of caters to two parties. It's very difficult for third parties to make it run. But we are in an unusual situation where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats are not enthusiastic about the lead people for their nomination running again. Meanwhile, if I'm Joe Manchin, okay, given how the Democratic Party has treated me over the last two years, what loyalty do I have to them at the moment? He has shown a lot, I have to be honest, given the pummeling and the protesting they did outside of his houseboat and the attacks he's received in the press. But no labels, this third party outfit, it's got a ton of money. It's getting a lot more. It's vowed to try to get a placeholder on every single state in the country and watch his space

because they're going to get closer to the moments of the primaries and make a decision. And, you know, if Joe Manchin looks and he doesn't think that he has any viable path for reelection in West Virginia to the Senate. And it's not looking good. Why not go out with a bang? Right. Oh, my. I mean, you're right. I'm sick of the two party system. It would be great if we had another meaningful lane where somebody could get on the ticket and just give us another choice. I don't care if it's a spoiler or not. You know, it's about who people want having choices. Try to explain to your kids why you only have two parties in the United States. You know, it's like they don't get it, especially because we're

registered independents. They're like, what do you mean? Do we get to vote in primaries? I'm like, it depends on the state in any event. The book is fascinating and it's so timely and it takes a look back at Carter, Reagan, the different messaging and draws the parallels between Carter and Joe Biden right now in a very devastating way. It also talks about how Reagan came in because there are lessons in here for Republicans, too, in the midst of this Carter presidency, which was such a disaster. And instead of, you know, just spending all his time being negative about Carter and about the state of the country, which would have been very easy, you know, look at what a hot mess we are. He he was that ever sunny optimist. And he did offer a new kind of message for the country, which is why he won in a landslide. And it does sound very different from what

we're hearing from any one of the Republicans running right now. So let's start with Reagan and Republicans. Then we'll do Carter and Biden. Let we pulled a bit, which you highlight in the book from Reagan's election eve address to the nation in 1980 before he would win in a record landslide. Listen to his messaging. For the first time in our memory, many Americans are asking, does history still have a place for America, for her people, for her great ideals? There are some who answer no, that our energy is spent, our days of greatness at an end, that a great national malaise is upon us. They say we must cut our expectations, conserve and withdraw, that we must tell our children not to dream as we once dreamed.

During this last year, I've had a chance to meet and talk on the campaign trail with Americans in every corner of the United States. I find no national malaise. I find nothing wrong with the American people. Oh, they're frustrated, even angry at what has been done to this blessed land. But more than anything, they're sturdy and robust as they've always been. My God, is it any wonder he won the way he did? Don't you wish we had that today? And that's actually one of the big points of the book is, yes, there are all these parallels between Biden and Carter. We can talk about some of them. But what I wanted conservative readers to take away was what came

after Jimmy Carter and that that was he so mismanaged the country. And there was such an enormous backlash that there was this great opening for any conservative who came along. But we, in particular, happened to have one who was the great communicator. And I make the argument in the book that we're seeing a similar demographic changes on the ground in terms of how different minority voters, for instance, who they're aligning with, what the kind of policies are that they reject in Biden. And if the Republican Party were able to come up with someone that was another Reagan-like character, somebody who not just had plans and policies and said what they were going to do that was different, but who expressed some optimism. I think that you could win in a landslide. And that is my one concern, a little bit about the field. We've got some guys like Tim Scott, they're very sunny, but our leaders are still much more interested in just the fight. And we have to show the fight.

We have to show the fight, but we have to have an optimistic vision for the country, too. You know, Vivek Ramaswamy got a standing ovation at the Iowa Forum, and he sounds the way you're saying it would be nice to have somebody sound. But I'll be honest, even though I'm a huge Vivek fan and I think he's a good man and I have personal stories of people I know who he's really helped. So I really believe it's I think he's a good man. And I have personal stories of people I know who he's really helped. So I really believe it's true. He's a good person. I have to be honest, in my political analysis, it felt like he's not inspiring people in the way anything close to the way that Ronald Reagan did. So it takes more than just the right message. You know, there has to like Reagan. Maybe it was his acting history.

I don't know what it was, but he had a way of turning the phrase and delivering the message that just resonated. I mean, I got chills listening to that. What what presidential candidate left or right has given you the chills in the past 10 years? No, I mean, and partly because, you know, he had that little thing, Megan, called humor, you know, and he knew how to smile. When was the last time you actually saw a politician actually look joyful about their job and what they're doing and who actually said, this is an amazing place and this is why we should be so proud and here's how we're going to do it?

There's anger out there in the country. And I get it. And I understand that politicians feel that they need to channel that and tap into it. But when we talk about leaders, it's because we actually want people who are going to go a little bit their own way and lead. And we'd love to have them lead us to a better feeling of optimism and to a vision that they have. And I think that that's what's missing in so many of our leaders is a smile, the ability to have some humor and the ability to remind people about what really matters. You write in the book about being a little girl. We're about the same age in the 70s and hearing your mom rip on Carter.

It's funny because I also remember going for the first time ever with my mom to the voting booth on election day. And this is back in the day when you'd let your kids sit in the car and you'd go away as the parent. Exactly. And I sat in there waiting and she came back

and I said, who'd you vote for? And she goes, that's private. I'm five, what are you? And she goes, that's private. I'm five. What do you? And she goes, I voted for Ford. And to this day, my mother denies that she voted for Ford. But I'm telling you, Kimberly, she voted for Ford. You remember it? No, you know, my mom, that she was actually yelling curses out the window at Jimmy Carter. But I remember it. So our moms, they they tend to blank some of this stuff. But we remember. But it was a very dark time in our country's history. And when the way you draw the parallels between the mistakes Carter made and how we got sucked into that awfulness and the mistakes Biden has made and how we're getting sucked into it again is very

compelling. Can you talk about some of the parallels? Yeah, thanks. And, you know, here's the thing is, if you look at it on its face, there does seem to be these incredibly eerie comparisons. It's almost creepy, you know, whether it's inflation, whether it's energy prices, whether it's disastrous foreign policy. You know, a lot of people don't know this, but actually we've had two presidents of modern history that had an immigration flood. Guess who they were? You know, obviously Joe Biden right now. Jimmy Carter had the Mariel boat lift, which absolutely overwhelmed Florida at the time. And it was done because of very poor policies. But the book is also making the case, and I think this is really important, that this comparison nonetheless is totally unfair to Jimmy Carter for a couple of reasons.

I mean, one is because, you know, Jimmy Carter inherited a lot of the problems. Now, he made them much better, okay? But, you know, the 1970s, we were already in the great inflation. Inflation was about what it is today when he took office. We'd already had an oil shock. So he was dealing with energy things. We didn't have a country that had had a fracking revolution. My argument is Joe Biden had none of those problems when he came in. In fact, he had an economy that was preparing to round the corner from COVID and roar back into full bloom. We had an energy sector that was hugely independent

and a world leader, and he managed to proactively wreck those situations. So that needs to be one difference. But the other difference is he had all of Jimmy Carter's lessons to learn from. He was in the Senate when Jimmy Carter was already president. And he also had Reagan to know he knew better than to take these progressive steps that he did. And so he really does deserve a lot more blame than even Jimmy Carter. You know, Reagan's famous for, among other great lines, government is not the solution to your problem. Government is your problem or the problem. And as you take us back to the Carter years and again, comparing him to Biden, it is very clear why he said that, believe that and why that was part of his message. Carter and Biden both believe exactly the opposite. They both expanded government. They both

handicapped private industry and see it as a hindrance to a booming economy, not the lifeblood of it. Yep. It was an absolute staple. It has been a staple of Biden's time and also Jimmy Carter. Look, Jimmy Carter gave us two new cabinet departments, Department of Energy and the Department of Education. And for those who, by the way, who think that and they're right to talk about the moral differences, Jimmy Carter was a moral man. And I certainly think you give him that due, but he played politics with the best of them. We have the Department of Education because he bought himself the endorsement from the National Education Association. And that's how he got it is that I'll make you a Department of Education. He was a total technocrat. He believed that government could fix everything. You know,

we had 15 major pieces of environmental legislations under him. And Joe Biden's been a repeat, although I would again argue worse. Give Jimmy Carter this, he at least believed the corporations could be a force for good in the country. And he even deregulated a few areas. Joe Biden has got a gang of regulators that operate from the premise that corporations are evil and that they need to be stopped from doing what they are doing. Add in there all of the spending and government programs,

and we have arguably not had anything even close to repeating what Jimmy Carter did until now. On foreign policy, it's striking too. Yep. You can argue that Jimmy Carter's term effectively ended in the beginning of 1980 with his failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt. You can make the argument that Joe Biden has never recovered from the beginning of 1980 with his failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt, you can make the argument that Joe Biden has never recovered from the beginning of his administration from his disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. And, you know, the funny thing about Joe Biden, though, is he fancies himself a foreign policy expert. I mean, he's always believed that this is where he really has

chops, even though he wanted to divide Iraq into four separate states. And he said such cockamamie ideas that would have gone absolutely nowhere, actually would have really been disastrous. And then he was put into office and implemented one of them. And it was a disaster. And now we're in Ukraine. And he doesn't want to take any responsibility for that. He wants to blame all of it on Trump.

But, you know, I don't know if it's a Democrat thing or if it's just a those two guys thing. But foreign policy has been a disaster. I just did the American people care. Yeah, it's because they don't want to lead. OK, and don't let Joe Biden's approach on Ukraine make you think otherwise. OK, he has seen here a chance to, quote, lead a coalition across the country. This is exactly how Obama operated. It's exactly how Biden operated. Lead from behind. Everything is done within the auspices of multilateralism and, you know, letting your partners, if at all possible, take the lead in certain scenarios so that you don't own it and you don't have to devote time to it. Joe Biden's only interest, and I will say this, is he's different from Obama this

way. Joe Biden has no interest really in foreign policy. He wants to care entirely about his domestic agenda. And to the extent that he's been stuck with the Ukrainian problem, he's had to do, but there's no difference really between him and Obama in terms of the approach that they had, which is not Reagan's approach, peace, their strength and being a leader in the world. It's just America as one among many and America with other priorities. And China's watching that. Russia's watching that. Iran's watching that.

And that's a dangerous place to be. This was one of the interesting things that Iowa summit, because as you know, on the subject of Ukraine, Trump, he wasn't there, but we know from his previous statements and Tucker are very much more of the what are we doing in Ukraine? You know, we have other priorities that we need to worry about. And some of these candidates got into it with Tucker, like Mike Pence on. No, it's not an either or. Right. Because Tucker gave Pence a good, tough question on. Have you seen the state of American cities today? You know, they've all gone precipitously down over the past four years and drugs and homeless

homelessness and crime. Why wouldn't we be focused on that as opposed to Ukraine and sending more tanks there? And Pence in the longer answer, he answer, he's getting hit for having said that that's not my concern. But if you look at the full context, he was saying, my concern is not getting Ukraine more tanks. My concern is trying to make it sound like we can't do both. We can do both. America can do both. And the Republican Party doesn't really sound like that, Kim, today. The Republican Party, if you look at the polls, they don't support Ukraine anymore. They don't really want us to lead from the front on that particular war. They don't sound anything like Reagan, the party itself right now, never mind the couple of leaders do. But what do you

make of it? Yeah, it's so concerning to me. And by the way, I actually partly blame Biden for this because he has so magnificently failed to explain why Ukraine is in America's interest. He talks a lot about democracy and global values. You know, do you realize that via our contributions to Ukraine that we have done more to degrade Russia's military, conventional military capacity than we've managed to do in decades and at 5% of the cost, majorly undercutting one of our major adversaries in the world. That is in America's interest, okay? It's in our interest to send a statement that we are not going to stand by so that China doesn't get any ideas and Iran doesn't get any ideas. This is all in keeping with us. And we need more Republican leaders who are making this.

Why? It's very concerning to me. Donald Trump says, oh, I'll go in and I'll fix this in 24 hours. How are you going to do that exactly? And the idea that we can't both walk and chew gum at the same time. What Reagan showed us is that if we're not strong on the world, we are inviting more and more global troubles that we will have to spend money on because we'll have to care about these crises around the globe, which is less than that we then have to dedicate to our people back home. about America's crumbling cities. But there there should be no conflict between being a strong America in the world, sending the message that we want a peaceful world, which then better allows us to focus on the problems we have at home. It's a good point because Biden's sort of

a little bit pregnant on the Ukraine war. You know, it's like he's not leaving from the front. He's like scared. He won't actually make the big bold moves over there because he's like he's not leading from the front. He's like scared. He won't actually make the big, bold moves over there because he's worried he's going to get hit politically. But he's in a lot more than he ran the first time promises. And now he made promises about ending the Ukraine war. But for the first time, he really actually expanded on what he plans on doing to end Ukraine in a day. The war with Maria Bartiromo yesterday. Here's what he said. It's not 16. You said you could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Yes. How would you do that? I know Zelensky very well. I felt he was very honorable because when they asked him about the perfect phone call that I made,

he said it was indeed perfect. He said he didn't even know what they were talking about. He could have grandstanded, oh, I felt threatened. Well, that's not going to be enough for Putin to stop bombing Ukraine. No, no, no, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that I know Zelensky very well and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them.

I would tell Zelensky, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give them a lot. We're going to give more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day. I know it sounds simplistic, Kim, but you got to admit, you listen to him, there's like there's some of you wondered like he might be able to. I don't know. He is a deal

maker. He's been always been just part of you're like, maybe he really could do it. I don't know. Well, it's possible, although here's the thing that I think is kind of interesting to me about them, again, is basically he's saying I'd call Putin and if Putin didn't do what I wanted him to do, I will majorly escalate our support for Ukraine, which is something that he otherwise has suggested he didn't want to do. And I can see that as a threat and that as a possibility. And I do agree that I don't think that Joe Biden has exerted the sort of pressure on Putin that he should have over the years. I think that there's a lot more way we can be pressing them and messages we should be sending them about our limits of our tolerance on his behavior. So maybe there could be a more diplomatic way that we could have exerted more pressure here. But the reality is, too, maybe, I guess, I don't know. All I do know, though, is that the cry from Zelensky and Ukrainians is that they are not comfortable stopping this until they have at least clawed back the land that Putin has taken in this most recent round.

And that's before you put the question of what he stole back in 2014 in the crimea one other other question about ukraine vivek ramaswamy keeps saying well um we're going to end we need to end this because one of the bad things that's happening to the united states is china and russia are cozying up and so if we end this, then that's going to stop. I don't know about that, Kim. I understand the Reagan philosophy of no, we'll be the United States of America. We'll lead from the front. We'll put an end to this. And then China will have to deal with us because we're us, because we're powerful, because we're a much bigger threat than Russia ever could be. And they'll respect us. You know,

they won't be like just cutting and running, basically, is what Reagan would say, is not going to make China end its partnership with Russia. It's going to embolden them. You know, Megan, I talk about this in my book. If you look at the specific dates, you can see Russia beginning to mass its troops along the Ukrainian border as Joe Biden is withdrawing from Afghanistan. OK, then there is a straight line between that and Putin's invasion. We sent a message when we withdrew from that country, which was we didn't want to be engaged in any foreign entanglements. Joe Biden didn't have the stomach for it. Joe Biden wanted to get out. And basically, Putin saw that as a reason to do this. The same thing will happen

if we now abandon Ukraine. China will do that as a message. It's a it's a sticky wicket over there. But look, I what I love about this book is it talks about the comparisons and it does talk about what the GOP message needs to be if they want similar results to the ones that Reagan achieved in 1980. It's not just a gimme. It's not just going to happen. She goes into the activist judges and the social policies and all of it. I think you'll find it absolutely fascinating. It's called The Biden Malaise by Kimberly Strassel of The Wall Street Journal. How America Bounces Back from Joe Biden's dismal repeat of the Jimmy Carter years.

It's out tomorrow. Order today to help him out. Kim, great to see you. Please come on whenever you can. Yes, absolutely. Thanks so much. All right. We look forward to it. Tomorrow, we've got Chris Ruffo back on the show. A lot to get to with him. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.