The Megyn Kelly Show - No Cocaine Culprit, CNN's Dylan Mulvaney Apology, and Hunter Investigation Questions, with Michael Knowles and Margot Cleveland | Ep. 587

Episode Date: July 13, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Michael Knowles, host of The Daily Wire's "The Michael Knowles Show," to talk about the Secret Service telling Congress they don't know - and will never know - who left the cocaine at the White House, how this is just another case of why it's good to be a Biden and a Democrat, new reporting about Biden's aggressive swearing at his staff, the media praising Biden for this portrayal, the attempt to shift the narrative about Biden ahead of 2024, Hunter Biden's ridiculous paintings, whether Donald Trump should participate in next month's first GOP debate, his continually increasing poll numbers, his capability to take down opponents if he does attend, Tim Scott getting more interest from donors, Kamala Harris's latest bizarre comments about AI and "machine learning," Bud Light's declining sales hurting all their other brands, GOP's focus shift from "freedom" to "truth," a CNN reporter accidentally calling trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney "he" and "him" on-air and CNN immediately apologizing, Dylan Mulvaney's ongoing offensive version of "girlhood," and more. Then Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, joins to discuss what we're learning about Dr. Gal Luft's Biden corruption allegations and the allegations against Luft, the media's total lack of interest in covering the allegations from Dr. Gal Luft against the Biden family but focused on the allegations against Luft himself, White House pretending not to know anything, the questions that still remain about the IRS investigation into Hunter Biden, what the IRS whistleblowers may say next week, and more.Knowles: https://www.michaeljknowles.comCleveland: https://thefederalist.com/author/margotcleveland/ 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 Thursday. Later, we're going to take a deep dive on the latest in the world of Hunter Biden. Oh, it's a dark world. With a reporter for The Federalist and top attorney who has been covering this story extensively. But we begin today with cocaine White House. There is news. This morning, the Secret Service held a briefing for Congress and declared they didn't find anyone and they won't be finding anyone because they're giving up. They're giving up. There's no suspects,

nor do they care to continue investigating. The Secret Service narrowed the list of possible suspects to 500 people, they said, and then declared that no DNA nor any fingerprints could be found on the bag containing the cocaine. So, case closed? So convenient. Here with me now, cocaine expert Michael Knowles. No, he's not. He's not. But he is host of The Michael Knowles Show on The Daily Wire. Michael, great to see you. Look, I don't. It's probably not Hunter Biden's. But the whole thing has me thinking it's good to be a Biden. It's really good to be a Hunter Biden, a Joe Biden. You have everyone running interference

for you or just a Democrat. You know, it's great to be a Supreme Court leaker and have the Supreme Court marshal cover up for you and probably chief justice because they didn't look at that one either. I just, oh, did this just in Gail from the U.S. Supreme Court marshal's office is taking over the cocaine White House investigation. We'll get exactly the same result. You know, they don. They don't go after Hunter on his most severe tax evasion for all his Burisma payments he got when Joe was VP. They don't go after Hunter on his drug crimes, even though his dad was the biggest proponent

of going after everyone on drug crimes during his years as a legislator. And if cocaine shows up in the Biden White House as opposed to a Trump White House, they don't really have a lot of interest in it. Who are they trying to kid? I firmly believe if they really wanted to get to the bottom of this, they would have. What do you make of it? Well, they could just think of the flawed methodology that they're pursuing in the investigation. If you wanna find out whose coke it is, you don't look at the fingerprints, you look at the nostril prints. And something tells me if they took the nostril prints of the first son, who knows, maybe they would find something interesting. This is why I think the evacuation

of the White House was so brief. When they found the white powder, they had to tell everyone in the West Wing to get out very quickly. But then soon enough, they allowed people to get back in when they remembered that Hunter Biden does not snort anthrax. So it's an episode that will simply fall away to history. No one will do anything about it. And as funny as it is that this narcotic that the first son has a predilection for is turning up in the White House, the far more serious crimes, of course, are peddling his father's influence, cheating on his taxes. Forget about even the other sex and drug crimes, just the major aspects of public corruption that Hunter Biden is getting off without even the slightest consequences for. Yeah, it's just, again, I don't know whose cocaine it is any more

than anybody else does. But this is the first time in recent history that I can think of where we had a known coke addict in the White House on a regular basis, and suddenly coke shows up in the White House. And then there's an inability to find out who did it and an unwillingness to continue the investigation. So all those things are very convenient facts. Congressman Tim Burchett, Republican from Tennessee,

was at the classified briefing today or they had it in the skiff. And this is his reaction having walked out of it. Just left the most ridiculous meeting of all time with the Secret Service over the cocaine that was found in the in the White House. So it turns out they don't know who did it. The investigation's going to be over at the end of the week, and they're not going to find out who did it. And that's basically it. Another cover-up.

You know, it's the most secure building in the entire world. You can't go in there. They have facial identification. You've got to give your social security number. Nobody, even the press, nobody goes in there without them knowing. This is a bad look on the secret service and a horrible look on this White House. Is he right? What's the secret service going to do? Ultimately, they're all answering to the big guy, the big guy who gets 10%. And it's quite clear that if the Biden DOJ is going to attack Biden's political enemies, and if the Biden DOJ is going to attack Biden's political enemies,

and if the Biden DOJ is going to let the president and his family off the hook for not only suspected crimes of very high public corruption, but crimes we've caught in some cases in text messages, in emails, on video, on terabytes worth of images, then of course they're gonna let the guy get away with a dime bag of Coke. I have to say, if there actually were a desire to get to the bottom of this, I mean, let's say it's an alternate scenario in which it's a piece of a bomb that they found in the cubby. You don't think the Secret Service would be able to find the guy? You don't think the Secret Service would be interviewing those 500 witnesses? because they know who all of them are. As the congressman was pointing out, you know exactly who goes into the White House and when over that limited period of

time. And there's just not a desire. I realized it was not a huge amount of coke. But the point is, is there a coke head in the White House? It was right outside of the Situation Room, or at least not far from the Situation Room, which is under construction. But my point is they have access. They were pointing out earlier, it's not far from where the Vice President parks her limousine. Let's find out. Trump is out there saying we can't have a coke head in the White House. Not a bad point. They would be able to find out if only they would investigate. And why did they have to wrap it up within a week of the news breaking? This is a matter of real public concern, the aspect of, let's say it's not Hunter Biden. Let's say that it's just somebody else in the White House.

I've been to the West Wing on precisely one occasion, but you learn a lot when you walk in there, which is the first thing you notice is it's pretty small. It's a lot smaller than you think it's going to be. Second thing you notice is the security is very tight. There are cameras everywhere. There are always people watching your every move. And as you say, Megan, there is a record of every single person who is every single place in that area. So these are, with the exception of a handful of very specific guests, there are influential, very powerful people who are walking around here. And so if a cabinet secretary, if a member of the senior staff, if a member of the NSC is a cokehead, that actually does have implications for public policy beyond some tabloid journalism about people doing drugs in places they shouldn't

be doing them. It's worse than Hunter Biden. It's way worse if somebody who's actually making policy and advising the president on policy is on serious drugs. So they don't care. Just like they didn't care the fix was in from the beginning on that Supreme Court leaker. And these two things have direct parallels because in that case, too, they said, we didn't find her or him and we're done and we're not going to investigate any further. We're not going to kick it to the FBI in the Supreme Court case here.

I suppose we're supposed to just say the Secret Service couldn't get to it. And so therefore, no one could. And we're just ready to put a bow on it and move on, which is one of the things that makes it so suspicious. Why wouldn't, why does it need to be over? There's not some deadline for you to end the investigation by tomorrow. This just happened. I think July 2nd was the day it was found. So what, wait, we're at, we're at July 13th. Let's go. What's the problem? I don't get it. This is what unites. I think those two examples is the political circumstance that would force the powers that be to be forthright. When it comes to the Supreme Court, nobody's really got control over the Supreme Court. So if the chief justice doesn't want to release the results of the investigation,

if he doesn't want to hold the leaker to account, that's his prerogative and none of us are going to bring to bear any political pressure to stop it. Well, the same thing goes here. The Biden White House knows that we're not going to press hard enough when it comes to the cocaine found in the White House. We're mostly just gonna sort of snicker at it and make Hunter Biden jokes. And with all of the other scandals before the Biden administration, they know that Republican firepower is going to be elsewhere. And so they're gonna take this one as a freebie and Republicans are gonna try to focus more of our attention on, I don't know, the border crisis or the, the impending world war three or the apparent selling of state influence by the Biden family.

And we're, we're gonna try to, to focus there. And so this issue is just a matter of political circumstance. It's not gonna have enough pressure to make them do anything. You've got Hunter Biden getting a complete pass on his most severe crimes. They intentionally, I believe, let the statute of limitations run on the most severe crimes before charging him with these minor violations and cutting a sweetheart plea deal for him. And then you've got a totally unwillingness to investigate the most severe allegations of potential bribery when Joe Biden was the sitting vice president, suggesting that he took millions from Burisma, this energy company that his son did as well, in exchange for him getting, among other things, this chief prosecutor fired in Ukraine who was looking into Burisma. They don't want to investigate this, Michael.

They're not interested in that. It's another area in which those in charge just sort of shrug their shoulders and say, you know, I'm sure it's just these mean Republicans. And meantime, then flash forward to today and you've got an FBI trusted confidential informant in this form, 1023 form that suggested this this current occupant of the White House has been on the take for a while, has subjected himself to bribes. And the FBI initially told Congress when they asked for the document, it didn't exist. And then stonewalled them for weeks when they said, we know it exists, handed over. Then when they had to admit finally that it existed, wouldn't let them take a look at it. Then only when threatened with contempt did Christopher Wray finally buckle and provide the document. And that's when you had

middle road Congresswomen like Nancy Mace coming out and saying, I just saw a document that suggests Joe Biden committed bribery, was on the receiving end of a bribe. I mean, that's why I say it's good to be a Biden. It's not a one-off. It's not even just about power or money. It's about being at the top, top, top of this political echelon where everyone runs cover for you, even the press. Joe Biden is a pretty wealthy guy for someone who's been in public service since 1972. The man has been in the government, in supposed public service, for half a century now, and he's got a pretty nice Rolex watch collection. And more to the point, his close family members

all seem to wear really nice suits and seem to have a really nice standard of life. So how did they make that money? Obviously, it was plain old regular corruption, maybe more pronounced by the Biden family than you see in other political dynasties, especially on the left. But this is the ordinary story of states. This is ordinary, run-of-the-mill political corruption that happens to be taking place at the highest level in the most powerful country in the history of the world. And the saddest part about all of it is not how shocking this sort of thing is. It's that it's not shocking. It's that we're all shrugging our

shoulders about it. It's that we all know exactly what happened. It's that we read those text messages from Hunter Biden to the Communist Party apparatchik in China saying, I'm sitting next to my father. Send me the money right now. We hold a crutch like no other. And we know that that sort of thing happens. We know that Hunter Biden has no expertise in Ukrainian energy, in energy of any kind, in anything of any kind for that matter. And we know that he was getting payouts hand over fist from Burisma. And we saw his father on video say he was firing the prosecutor who was looking into Burisma and withholding potentially a billion dollars of American aid. And we just see it all and we say, well, I guess that's the way that our government works now. And our lack of indignation, frankly, is the most damning aspect. None of these people running cover, at least in the press for Joe Biden

is pausing to ask themselves whether they have it wrong on him, whether this actually is not some sweet, avuncular guy, Uncle Joe, but really somebody who's been out for years to lie to the public, whether it's his plagiarism or his boldface lies about his own policy and his history, or just to manipulate the public such that he can line his own pockets or those of his son or those of his brother. I mean, why is Jim Biden getting a pass? Why is the brother involved in everything? So absurd. Like what? Why weren't people jumping up and down when they learned that Hunter Biden and Jim Biden got completely rich every year of the vice presidency for Joe Biden and thereafter and continue to enrich themselves? When I saw Hunter Biden was balking at paying 20 grand a

month for his love child with the former stripper down in Arkansas, my first question was, how's he still making the kind of money where he could pay anybody 20 grand a month? Of course, he went in there to say he couldn't afford it. But where was all this? What does Hunter Biden do? Right. Beau Biden. I think he was the attorney general for the state of Delaware.

OK, I get that. What does Hunter Biden do that's allowed him to afford that kind of dough for this long? And what does Biden do? I allowed him to afford that kind of dough for this long? And what does Jim Biden do? I've always had such respect for you. I can't believe you're such a Philistine. You're so deeply uncultured that you're not familiar with Hunter Biden's beautiful dot art doodle doodle paintings that are netting him half a million dollars each. I listen, I'll come over sometime. We can sip red wine and listen to classical music and enjoy the beautiful artwork of Hunter Biden, which is the nearest

thing to a hard skill the man has. And it's the sort of thing that my two and a half year old son could do right now. So obviously, to your point, it's a total grift and it's a grift from the whole family. And I think you're right also that beneath the old happy Uncle Joe exterior, there's a really nasty person down there. And those of us who've been paying attention to Joe Biden and to politics for a while have seen this come out. The willingness to lie as though he couldn't even discern the difference between lies and truth. The willingness to say really nasty lies about his political opponents. Mitt Romney wants to put black people in chains. He even told on a more personal level, nasty lies about the man who was involved in that tragic car accident with Joe Biden's wife. And very pointed and decided lies after that man had died, lying about him being inebriated,

lying about all sorts of things in the man's life that were clearly intentional. And now on that personal aspect, you see this most clearly in Joe Biden's refusal to acknowledge one of his grandchildren. And I'm pointing this and because I think it's my least favorite thing about the guy. He, he's an ordinary run of the mill blow in the wind, empty suit politician. They're a dime a dozen. The thing that's particularly nasty about him is this guy is a four year old granddaughter out there somewhere. Her grandfather is the president of the United States and he constantly refuses to acknowledge her. He puts up six stockings at the white house, intentionally leaves her out of it. Reportedly the Biden campaign is telling senior staff, don't you ever acknowledge

this granddaughter? And you think just at a personal level, what a horrible way to grow up. Talk about the complex that a kid is going to get when her grandfather is in the White House. And yeah, maybe her dad, Hunter, is a complete unrepentant degenerate. Okay, fine. But what about her grandpa, who's supposed to be this virtuous guy that everyone's supposed to like, who has this position of prestige and authority, to be so cruel to a four-year-old girl? You've got to be a monster on the inside to do it. I know. I've been saying, it's one thing. Look, if this happens in your own private life and you've got a son who has a child out of wedlock and the son chooses not

to be involved in that child's life, and it's all a matter of private citizens making private decisions that, you know, relationships are not going to be anything other than toxic. That's one thing. This is something very different where this girl knows she knows Joe Biden is her grandfather. She knows that she's the granddaughter of the sitting president of the United States. And while she's only four, that's probably not as meaningful to her yet. She's about to get a little older to where it's going to get more meaningful and is going to get more meaningful to her classmates. And she's in for a world of teasing and pain, as Maureen Dowd and her sister pointed out in that New York Times column. So it is cruel. And Joe Biden has no excuse for this.

His whole persona is about being, as I said, the avuncular guy and the family man and family's most important. Well, let's see it. And instead of instead of him owning up to any piece of this or Hunter Biden and then the press really holding him to account. Credit to The New York Times for those pieces notwithstanding. Here's the messaging you get from, let's say, The View. All right. The View took up. They've been kicking around the issue of him being a grandfather for the seventh time. But but here's they were talking about this piece that ran in Axios about

Joe Biden's temper, which you just mentioned, and how nasty he is after promising that if you were disrespectful to staff on in his White House, you'd be fired immediately. Turns out he's running around. I mean, I'm a swearer, Michael, as you know, so that's one thing. But there's a big difference between saying like, where the F is it? And saying, you're a fucking loser. You know, you're a fucking idiot. I'm sorry. But like, there's a big difference between that. Just ask anybody who's been on the receiving end.

And he's doing the latter repeatedly to staff to the point where they don't want to go talk to the guy one on one. And here is the view. I guess I need to set it up. I'm not sure how we cut it. But they were picking up on a comment made by Kennedy over on Fox News. Kennedy is a jokester. You know, she she's like a comedian and she was joking that Joe Biden's angry temper and swears made her feel attracted to him. Trust me, that's not how Kennedy feels. And what do you say? It's in there. OK, so there here's a little

bit of that and the view then reacting to it. And then listen to where Joe Joy Behar takes it. Kind of turned me on when I heard that the president gets angry and volatile. I'm not going to lie. I think it was just someone being angry, make you turned on. She's turned on by Biden's anger. I am, too. I like it. You like it? I do. Well, you have said that before. I like that. I mean, he's such a mild-mannered, sweet guy.

But you know he's not. We've heard, listen, he has dropped more F-bombs than I have. Uncle Joe over the years. Uncle Joe has done that. I mean, over the years, we've heard him off mic say stuff. I mean, he's a regular guy. I don't want two white men shouting at each other for the next year and a half until the- He doesn't shout when he doesn't pray.

He has not shouted. It's all in there. Sweet. You know, Uncle Joe does do that. He's just a regular guy. So taking it away from the abusive staff and just putting it on the swearing, which as I pointed out at the top, these are two different things. But just running excuses for him from start to finish and then

finishing with the piece de resistance. He's a white guy. I don't wanna look at, that's the Republican on the panel. She doesn't wanna look at the white guy running. And if you go on, they talk about how Joy Behar's belief that Joe Biden gets away with talking like this because of the white male patriarchy. I mean, it was all there, Michael. That's the most conservative opinion you're going mean, it was all there, Michael. That's the most conservative opinion you're going to get on The View, no doubt. And they're going to run the story on Biden yelling, just like all of the networks are running it, because Axios reported on it. And my take is a little different than other people's here, in that I don't think this was just a damaging leak for the Biden campaign to Axios that now we're all

seriously debating. I think this was a strategic leak by the Biden campaign, because while in a way it doesn't make him look great, it makes him look a little nastier than we might have thought, at a deeper level, it makes people kind of like him. When Joy Behar and Kennedy jokingly say, oh, it kind of turns me on. I'm more attracted to him now. I think that was the point of the leak. Because while this is somewhat damaging, the point of this kind of a leak is to counteract the more damaging narrative, which is that Joe Biden's a vegetable. So how do you counter the narrative that we all see with our own eyes, which is that Joe Biden doesn't know one end is up.

He mumbles his words. He kind of walks around like a zombie. Well, the way you counter that is you say, no, this guy, he's really vigorous. He's yelling all the time. And he's saying, you know, G, D it. I want to know the answers to this. And how do you not know this effing answer to this question? And so beneath even that, those examples that you see in Axios is the premise that Joe Biden, he knows the real answers to these questions. He knows the details better than his staff members, and he expects higher standards so that they can keep up with him. I think it's BS. I think it was out there so that people don't realize that the man's being held up by marionette strings.

Interesting theory. I mean, it is curious that these pieces are starting to appear for the first time now. You know, there's a belief by some that it's an effort by some in the press to get rid of him, pressured by Democrats, realizing he can't do it. You know, he's not going to be able to win or sustain his potential second term. We're going to be stuck with her. I don't know what the reason is, but I will tell you this. My crack team, get it? Crack team, Hunter Biden. It's about Hunter Biden. They pulled this description by the gallery offering Hunter Biden's art. Look at this. Even I could paint this. This is like paint by numbers. I think I did this when I was in the third grade. This is the description. A lawyer by profession, Hunter Biden now devotes his energies to the creative arts, bringing innumerable experiences to bear. The results are powerful and impactful paintings ranging from photogenic to mixed media to the abstract. wood, and metal on which he affixes oil, acrylic, ink, along with the written word, all of which creates a unique experience that has become his signature. Has it? Wow. I assumed his chosen medium were Etch-A-Sketch or the back of a bar napkin or

something like that, but I guess he's moved up to canvas. The most offensive part of that entire line beyond the silly jargon and that awful word impactful. It's one of the worst words in the English language. How can something be full of impact? It's a topic for another time. But the most offensive part of the description was a lawyer by profession. Hunter Biden is not a lawyer by profession. He's a rich kid from a famous family who went to Yale Law School and to my knowledge has never actually practiced law in his entire life. He's broken the law for his entire life and his actual profession is being a career criminal. But I guess they didn't want that on the museum poster.

You or I or any of our listeners and viewers right now did half of the things that Hunter Biden has been accused of, we would be sitting in a jail cell. That's the truth. We'd be sitting in a jail cell. The fact that this guy over and over and over again flouts the law and gets away with it is on us. You know, it's on us because we're supporting the system that allows it. You know, this is one of the things they were trying to get to at yesterday with Christopher Wray, which was basically a waste of time when he testified before Congress. He's too slippery. He's too smart.

And the GOP did not coordinate well enough on like this is going to be the line of question and we're going to be on it like a dog with a bone, you know, trying to get answers on like, go ahead, define disinformation. Why did you censor the people? Or what did you do to push back against Merrick Garland when he said target the parents at the school board meetings? What did you do? Did you have an objectionable?

It was all just left there. But in any event, any of these guys would have come after us. And we continue to support these systems. We continue to reelect people like Joe Biden. He's been, Hunter Biden's been at this for a long time. And look, he could still win again. We could put Hunter and Joe back in the White House a second time without any of this going anywhere.

So let me ask you, let me shift gears on that, on the FBI hearing yesterday. Did you watch any of the attempted cross-examination or attempted defense by the Dems of the FBI director? I watched as little of it as I possibly could have. I did catch this one great moment where a member of Congress got Ray unwittingly to kind of admit that Joe Biden might be under investigation in Delaware. But then Ray very quickly walked it back and then Stonewold as he and the DOJ have so long done. They say we can't comment on any of the active investigations. It's the policy never to talk about who's a Fed or what our tactics are or what we're going after

or who we're going to hold accountable. So I thought, you know, I've got better things that I can do with my day. I can go for a walk outside. I don't know. I can drink a seltzer. I can do literally anything will be more edifying than hearing this man stonewall the Congress. This soundbite is the one I was kind of referring to about the parents and the school board meetings, which was just so annoying to me because of all the overreaches by the DOJ. And look, the prosecution of Donald Trump is number one, obviously. This is the one that resonated on a personal level for so many parents across the country who had never been to a school board meeting in their lives that most of them couldn't tell you when they are held or

who's on the board. But the overreaches during covid made them show up and the weird sexualization of the classrooms made them show up and the indoctrination and the weird gender ideology made them show up. And then they got threatened as domestic terrorists. So take a look at that coming up yesterday in SOT1. Do you believe that the attorney general should apologize to parents who are the subject of that memo? I'm not going to speak to that. Will you apologize for the FBI's own role?

I think the FBI conducted itself the way it should here, which is that we've considered to continue to follow our longstanding rules and have not changed anything in response to that memo. I mean, why? It's the wrong question, first of all, right? Like, it's the wrong question. We ask him, was this sent to you? Were you given a directive? Did you push back? Would you have followed this? Is this an appropriate law enforcement matter? Are you aware that this recommendation that parents be investigated as domestic terrorists was based on news articles called from left leaning sites that misrepresented facts and even the facts that they did offer were about parents speaking beyond the allotted time?

Would you allow the FBI to be used for such a purpose? Can you assure the American public you would never have executed these directives and so on, right? Like there was a way of getting some meat on the bones of this cross-examination, but these lawmakers didn't do it. Yeah, I think there's a little bit of throwing up hands in the air going on here. I don't want to make excuses for members of Congress who maybe should have done more preparation because that's true of a lot of politicians. But I think part of it is they're just looking at this and they're thinking, okay, this is not going to be the most politically advantageous for me to pursue of all the things that we can dig into and look at. I agree. The

issue of the government going after parents, it's egregious. It motivated voters in Virginia, motivated voters in Florida. It's motivated voters all around the country. But I just think a lot of people are really sick looking at Congress. And even when the members of Congress get some really good zingers in there, nothing happens. People are just so frustrated that, okay, we got our soundbite. We made so and so look foolish, whether it's Christopher Wray or Dr. Fauci or any of these cartoonish villains in our government. But then there are never any actual consequences for it. So, okay, I'm going to look away from Washington, D.C. I think that's a lot of why you've seen people start to show up to those school board meetings and start to look more at state level

and local level politics is because they think, okay, nothing's going to happen at the federal level. So might as well try to do something myself. If you want Christopher Wray fired, if you want Dr. Fauci fired, I realize Fauci's now moved on. You do need a change at the top. However, I mean, you do need a different president. A different president could make a difference. We talked with Nikki Haley about her plan for the FBI yesterday. And that brings us to 2024. There's a lot to discuss as number one, people are calling for a complete reset of the DeSantis campaign. And number two, there are growing reports that the Murdoch empire has turned on DeSantis

and may be looking at someone else, someone pretty interesting, someone who's not in this race. That's what we will begin right after this quick break when Michael Knowles rejoins us. Michael, there's more and more buzz about how DeSantis needs a reset. And right now, there's a piece out today in Rolling Stone. Actually, it hit two days ago, but the headline is Murdoch's start to sour on DeSantis. Quote, they can smell a Stone. Actually, it hit two days ago. But the headline is Murdoch's start to sour on DeSantis. Quote, they can smell a loser. Now, that sounds like somebody's got an axe to grind, but there's enough in here that sounds true that I'm sure a piece of it is. They say they've spoken with a bunch of different sources and that Rupert is understandably worried

that we may end up being stuck with Trump, quoting here, and that he's increasingly displeased with DeSantis and his campaigns perceived stumbles, lackluster polling and inability to swiftly dethrone Trump. That Murdoch has privately winced at DeSantis' nonstop cultural grievance strategy. And that, hold on, reading, that the Murdoch, says one source, a Fox insider, are transactional and, quote, can smell a loser a mile away, that they feel he, DeSantis, seems too awkward in his public presentation and his attempts to connect with the American voter, that they're noting his failures to chip away at Trump's stubborn dominance. And then they cite examples in News Corp's many media properties, whether it's the Wall

Street Journal, the New York Post or Fox News, which are giving DeSantis a harder time. Rolling Stone reporting these are not by accident. These are not a coincidence for whatever it's worth. I used to see pieces like this all the time about the Murdoch's and Fox News when I worked at Fox News, when I was when I worked at Fox News. When I was at the top of Fox News, I was, you know, in the 9 p.m. time slot and never once had anybody said anything to me along the lines of what was being reported as the Murdoch's manipulation or their change in mind or their chosen. Never. So I tend to think this kind of thing is bullshit. But the thought that DeSantis needs a reset to do something about

these poll numbers, it goes well beyond this Rolling Stone piece. And the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. It doesn't need to be that Rupert is sitting up there, you know, and he gives the declaration and then everybody follows suit. You can just see that the coverage of DeSantis has become more negative. And the reason for that is his campaign certainly does need a hard reset. I say this entirely out of love. I really, really like the guy. I am friends with a lot of people around his campaign. I think he's a terrific governor. But this campaign right now is on the track to lose. And it won't even be close if things keep up the way that they are. And the reason for that is the DeSantis campaign to date has been that he is Donald Trump, but better.

He's Donald Trump, but more disciplined. He's Donald Trump without the baggage. He's Donald Trump and he can wield the levers of power a little bit better. He's Donald Trump, but he's a little bit more polished. Okay, fine. There are a lot of people who make a cold calculation and say, well, that sounds great because I kind of like Trump, but I don't want the negative. So I'm going to go for DeSantis. The problem is that that's not how politics works. And a good analogy for this, I think, is New Coke. When New Coke came out, we all mock it now and we say the Coca-Cola corporation made a huge mistake. Why would they ever try to upend their classic happy recipe on Coca-Cola? Well, the reason is because they focus group tested New Coke relentlessly. And when people had blindfolds on, they preferred New Coke.

New Coke was a little bit, I don't know, a little sweeter, a little better, a little lighter. They liked it. But then you take the blindfold off and they wanted the original. Even if on paper and some cold calculation, you can make the case that the new imitation is better than the original. People are going to still stick with the OG. Part of this also is because of now old fashioned notions such as fealty, such as loyalty, such as comfort, such as tradition, which political consultants don't really take into account, but ordinary people do. And so this is not to say that DeSantis is totally doomed, but he's got to run in a different way than he is right now, which is, I'm just going to be a better version of Donald Trump. If that's all he's offering, then people are going to go

with Trump. When Republicans run as being the better version of Democrats, to use another example, people just vote for the Democrats. You need to give people a choice rather than an echo. This was the insight of Phyllis Schlafly, who was one of the greatest conservative activists in the history of the United States. So what's going to happen now? Well, if trends continue, Trump is going to move from what was a 25-point lead to a 30-point lead to now he's over a 30-point lead. And the other candidates in the race, many of whom say they're in the race to take on Donald Trump. Chris Christie entered the race. He said, I'm in the race to beat up Donald Trump. Well, practically, that's not what they're doing. All of the other candidates in the race are ultimately going to train their serious fire on Ron DeSantis.

And they're going to do that because they've got to take out the number two guy if they want to have a shot at the king, because they know if you take a shot at the king, you best not miss. And so the circumstances of politics right now are such that if something fundamental doesn't shift in the DeSantis campaign, it's Trump's. The latest poll, this is from YouGov, from July 8th through 11th, shows Trump at 48, DeSantis at 22, a 26 point lead. They've all been around there between 26 and 40 point leads for Donald Trump. But this same poll, just by way of comparison, five months ago in February, February 4th through February 7th, had Trump up over DeSantis only by 10 points, only by 10. So it's not going in the right direction. And that's with Donald Trump having

been indicted twice. So it's like, you know, on paper, some might have thought that could hurt him. I am on record as having said he should be praying that they do indict him, not for legal reasons, but for political reasons. And he's shown absolutely no signs of weakness since Donald Trump. But the reports out now are not that these questioning DeSantis donors are resigning to the fact that it's Trump's. Instead, they're trying to kick the tires on some other candidates. And there's a report of Politico today that says top donors are now souring on DeSantis and looking at Tim Scott. They cite by name, they have, they suggest it's well beyond this guy, but they cite by name Ronald Lauder of Estee Lauder saying that he recently went down to South Carolina and met with Tim Scott and that his that they write donors faith

in DeSantis has been shaken by early campaign misstops. And now I would love to know what you think of this. Again, this is Politico shaken by early campaign missteps and hardline positions on abortion, transgender rights and other culture war issues. And when I see that, to me, it suggests that this is the leftist writer trying to throw in his objections to DeSantis onto the Republican donors objection to the guy. Maybe they think he focuses on it too much or to the exclusion of, you know, kitchen table issues that that could be. But is there really a bunch of top Republican donors who want to see DeSantis? They loved him before, but now they're upset with his culture warrior status? That's complete nonsense, of course. Everybody opposes transgenderism. This is how

Glenn Youngkin got elected in Virginia. This is what propelled Ron DeSantis to major victories in Florida. This is what destroyed the most popular beer in America, Bud Light. This is what propelled Ron DeSantis to major victories in Florida. This is what destroyed the most popular beer in America, Bud Light. This is what seriously hurt Target. I mean, every single piece of evidence that we could possibly have shows that running against transgender ideology, especially when it comes to children, is a major winning issue for Republicans. So maybe the leftist writer has an ax to grind. Who knows, though? Maybe the GOP establishment really does want to veer away, at least from some of the other social issues, so-called, such as abortion or education or any of the rest of them. This has always been the biggest challenge for Ron DeSantis. And it was, I should imagine,

the most difficult calculation to make when he was entering the race, which is that DeSantis is in a unique position in that he is a Trump-like candidate, but Trump is in the race, so he is necessarily filling the anti-Trump lane. And that means the people who are attracted to Ron DeSantis are attracted from opposite positions. You've got some people, not enough apparently, who really like Trump who might move over to DeSantis. And you've got a lot of people who have hated Trump since day one and they find the guy completely noxious. And they've moved over to DeSantis because DeSantis is their last hope. But DeSantis, in order to have a political identity at all and

to keep doing what's been so successful, has to be kind of like Trump. And so he's being pulled in totally opposite directions. And now the liberal media and perhaps the donor class are looking at some of the other candidates who are polling at two and 3%. That ain't going to play. I like a lot of those other candidates personally, but I think people need to buy a wristwatch in the GOP donor class and in the pundit class, because a lot of these people have no idea what time it is. And the time for aw shucks, conciliatory kind of 2008 style rhetoric that is gone, man. We are in a different era. We're finding coke at the white house, bribes potentially to the president. We're on the brink of world war three. Yeah. We're, you know, we've got three and a half million

illegal aliens coming across the border. We've got the feds investigating Catholic churches and calling parents and schools domestic terrorists. We are not in the kumbaya, let's all get along and cut taxes moment. That is not going to happen. And so that's why you're not only seeing the big chasm between Trump's poll numbers and the rest of the field, but it's why you're seeing it begin to move apart as the the biggest opponent to Trump. The most serious rival is now being pulled in opposite directions. You're seeing them that field pull apart and it's Trump and all the rest of them. And this is why, because the momentum is on his side. This is why the Trump campaign is signaled. It's not even really that interested in engaging in the primary debates. Yeah, exactly.

Well, and and you've been asking questions about why would he why would Trump go to this first debate? I mean, let's look at the first debate. It's August, I think, 23rd hosted by Fox. I think you're exactly right. That's the question. Why would he? I know he loves attention, but Trump is not dumb and he recognizes he doesn't. He's

already getting plenty of attention. He doesn't need the debate for that. So do you think he will show up? Do you think his desire to see himself in the news, which has been lifelong for him, will trump his political calculations that he has much to lose from showing up there and absolutely nothing to gain. If the debate were being held tomorrow, Trump would not show up. And I know this for a fact because there is a candidate for him in Des Moines tomorrow. And Trump is the only candidate who's not showing up and he shouldn't show up. I feel in some ways some of the fans of the other candidates are shooting the messenger here when they are criticizing me for pointing out that Trump has no incentive to debate.

But while I love most, if not all of the candidates who are running, I think I might be the last conservative pundit in America who is not actively working for one of the presidential campaigns. And so I'm just trying to call it like I see it and look at the political circumstances here. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by showing up to this debate if you're Donald Trump. And there is a potential risk. Don't forget about that disastrous first debate with Joe Biden in the 2020 election. That debate hurt the Trump campaign. Trump did very well in many of the 2016 primary debates for the GOP,

but that's because he was the insurgent challenger candidate. So he had basically all upside and no downside to those debates. Here it's flipped. And so one answer that people will give as to why Trump should debate is they'll say, well, he's not the incumbent. Sure, Joe Biden's not going to debate even though he has challengers, but that's because he's the incumbent and the incumbent. Sure, Joe Biden's not going to debate, even though he has challengers, but that's because he's the incumbent and the incumbent traditionally doesn't debate. Sure, all well enough, except what people are missing is that Donald Trump is the first one-term president to run for a rematch since 1892, since Grover Cleveland. And so while he's not the incumbent, for most intents and purposes, Donald Trump is the incumbent, especially when you see those poll numbers, 32.4 points up in

the real clear politics average, 45 points up on the Harvard Harris poll. For all intents and purposes, the voters have signaled that they are going to treat Trump as an incumbent. And so if the other candidates want him to debate, they've got to create the political circumstances according to which he will feel impelled to debate. And right now, the numbers and the numbers as reflective of the people, the constituents and the bizarre historical circumstance that this guy's an American original or just about, and the only precedent we can see for this is Grover Cleveland. All of that is coming together to give this guy the nomination without without an ordinary fight. It's not going to be an ordinary primary because Trump is not in an ordinary position. You know, I can see the other side, too, though, because it's

almost like give the people what they want. They they love him. They adore him, his fans. He's great on the debate stage. I mean, I've sat out there on the opposite end of the guy, you know, 12 feet away watching him do his thing and wondered, oh, how will this play? How will this play? We were on the stage in Michigan together and he was making reference to the size of his manhood.

I was like, well, that's a first. I've done a bunch of these debates. I've never seen that happen. They ate it up. He's entertaining. He's clever. Remember the Jeb Bush? Oh, more energy. I like that. That was the end of Jeb Bush. He ended Jeb Bush in one sentence. So he's got, you know, if he shows there's some danger to the other candidates, because while he doesn't necessarily need it to boost his own numbers, everybody talks about how Chris Christie is going to down Trump. That's not gonna happen, but he could take down Chris Christie. I mean, Trump has the ability to absolutely stab you in the heart rhetorically on the debate stage

and you never fight again. So I could see some reasons for him to do it as well. Plus- That's true though, Megan. I think I'm the biggest promoter of the thesis that there could be a mild Chris Christie renaissance. I call it the Chris-a-sance or croissants for short. And I'm increasingly dim on that view, but people forget he was a popular two-term governor. He's not very popular anymore. And he's a pretty good debater. He really went hard after Rubio and at least in the public imagination, completely destroyed his campaign back in 2016.

And for this reason, Donald Trump picked Chris Christie to be his debate sparring partner before the 2020 debates with Joe Biden. So there's risk for Trump, even if it's a small risk, even for a low polling candidate like Chris Christie. Now, you're right about the spectacle, give the people what they want. But the flip side to that is if Trump doesn't show up, I suspect viewership is going to be relatively low. We'll be able to test this theory tomorrow in, in Des Moines when the candidates show up for this forum, which is not exactly a debate, but,

but it'll be similar enough that we can get some sense of this. So then what's going to happen on a debate stage if Trump doesn't show up? Well, what's going to happen is they're all going to make their comments about how terrible Trump is, but it's not really going to hit because the guy's not in the room. And then most likely what will happen is they'll turn their fire on the leader of the non-Trump part of the field, and that's DeSantis. And if the rest of the field turns their fire on DeSantis, that's only going gonna benefit Trump. So I just think if you're on the Trump campaign now doing this calculation, I think you see potentially something to lose by showing up. But you potentially also have something to gain because if that whole field turns on

DeSantis, they could knock his numbers down even further. One thought with two actually, number one, yes, Chris Christie took out Marco Rubio, though I think you could make the case too that Marco Rubio took out himself. Remember, he was like stuck on autopilot. He kind of kept repeating the same thing. And then Chris Christie's like, look, he's doing it right now. This is all he does with these rehearsed lines. And then Marco Rubio repeated another rehearsed line. We need to do away with this fiction that Chris Christie doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Is that was that the line? It was almost verbatim. Is that it? So that was number one. And number two is the other candidate that the Murdoch's

are reportedly hoping jumps in is Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, who I know was the great hope of people very high up in Republican politics. But I think from what I hear, the guy has decided not this time, maybe next, but he does not want to jump in. And so, you know, I don't know that the fleece is going to make an appearance in 2024, though I understand why he's appealing. But to your point, he can get those Republican women in the suburbs. I don't know if they'll see him as the fighter who's got to stand up to the people who want to chop off children's body parts and, you know, arrest parents as domestic terrorists. Stand by. Michael Knowles stays with us. We will be right back. And don't forget, folks, you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph

Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. The full video show by subscribing to YouTube dot com slash Megyn Kelly. There you have all the fun clips from our show. The shorties, as my mom calls them. And if you like your news in the form of an audio podcast, go ahead and follow and download us wherever you get your podcasts for free. There was just a big write-up about us calling us the pod gods, talking about our astonishing 41% growth in just one quarter. We were already one of the top shows in podcasting. So thank you to all of you for making that possible. So, Michael, in case you're feeling sad about your options out there, in case you're worried about the fact that Joe Biden on the very first engagement of his overseas trip didn't show at the big dinner with all of the diplomats because he was tired, Matlock was on. The pudding was being served.

Fear not, because he has a much younger, vibrant woman of color. That's what he wanted for his vice president. And not only is she all of those things, but she's really good at explaining things. I mean, super good. You went to Yale. You should only wish you could be this good at explaining things. I give you as an example, the lady's attempt to bring AI into our world in a meaningful way. I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing. It's first of all, it's two letters. It means artificial intelligence.

But ultimately what it is, is it's about machine learning. And so the machine is taught and part of the issue here is what information is going into the machine that will then determine and we can predict then if we think about what information is going in, what then will be produced in terms of decisions and opinions that may be made through that process. OK, my dog Stradwick knows all of that, that we needed the vice president of the United States to explain that. And the way she does it, like she's really offering a particularly helpful insight to us,

Michael. I mean, the absolute absurdity. She also endeavored to explain AI and instead explained machines. She didn't say anything about what artificial intelligence actually does. She just said, and we have in machines where we put in, you put in something and then it comes out. And then there's a different end. I can't do a comma to laugh. I'm not nearly manic enough. This is not the first.

I mean, she's done it many times. She fancies herself the explainer in chief. I mean, we could go, we could be here all day if we played them all. But here's just a little sampling, just in case you forgot some of them. So Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong. This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go. Space is exciting. It spurs our imaginations and it forces us to ask big questions space it affects us all and it connects us all it gives us a sense of

the magnitude of it all earth is kind of small right the earth is like a speck. Did you ever see, Megan, the scene in The Simpsons where Bart is giving a report on Libya and he sort of just rambles from unrelated topic to unrelated topic and then he says, in conclusion, Libya is a land of contradictions. That was more intelligent and educational than whatever Kamala Harris just said. And I don't want to be unfair here. Politicians, taken out of context especially, often will make really dumb sounding remarks. They did this to George Bush for eight years. George Bush, however, is a smart man who has read lots of books and is curious and is actually not a half bad painter, certainly a lot better than Hunter Biden. So there's obviously something going on in his mind that he sometimes fails to communicate with

his words. In the case of Kamala Harris, I don't, I have not seen any evidence that a similar situation would be taking place here. I would not, I have not seen any evidence that a similar situation would be taking place here. I have not seen any similar evidence that there is a real chasm between how she sounds and what's really going on in her mind. And this is a big problem because Kamala Harris is exemplary of a political apparatus that no longer really functions of an executive branch with an elected component that doesn't really matter that much to the functioning of government, of a leadership class that doesn't really seem to know anything, of an educational apparatus that has had standards crumble where people graduate sometimes with master's degrees and they probably shouldn't

have been let out of the seventh grade. And we think that we can just get away with that forever, that we can continue to lower standards and we can continue to elect people who don't know anything about anything. And you can't at a certain point, a country will cease to flourish if the people who are running that country don't have any practical skills or knowledge or about anything at all. Forget about even learning the liberal arts and understanding what a flourishing life is and how to make sense of our freedom. These are people who probably don't know how to make the toaster work. And so there is a basic level of competence that we require in our government in order to function. And when you

don't have that competence, things break down as we're seeing all around us. I'm embarrassed by her. There are very smart women out there, including on the Democratic side. Eleni Kagan is brilliant, a sitting Supreme Court justice. I don't share her politics, but she's brilliant. He wanted a person of color who was a woman. He should have gone with Chief Lies a lot, Elizabeth Warren. She's smart. She's a woman of color, just ask her. I'm just saying you could have found it's not like they're not out there. This particular one is not a smart person. She's she has absolutely nothing to offer in terms of profundities, though she tries every other day. And she clearly thinks the rest of us are as dumb as she is because of the way she speaks to us. Right. Like why is she speaking

to us as though we were are in the first grade. I suppose what bothers me even more is, let's say that her IQ is not as high as perhaps it ought to be in that position. Well, look, there are plenty of people who are a lot smarter than I am. I'm sure there are a lot of people with a much higher IQ than I have. But if I were the vice president of the United States, if I were giving a speech, I at the very least would make sure that my speech writer wrote me a good speech. I would at least make sure that, you know, it's not like this woman is on her own. She's got the executive branch of the United States behind her.

Why is she not preparing at all? Especially if she's at a little bit of a, let's say an educational disadvantage here. Why doesn't she work? Why doesn't she like read a book? Why doesn't she at least pay somebody to do the work for her so that she doesn't in her role as a representative of our country and our people continue to embarrass the people of the United States? I know it says something about her and none of it is good. And yet they want us to believe that Ron DeSantis is focused on culture war issues is a nonstarter for him in terms of getting in the White House.

But this woman is our sitting vice president. So no problem. You get the ladies of the view saying they don't want another race between two white men out there pushing the patriarchy. Well, if this is the alternative, I think most of us would choose the patriarchy. Speaking of woke cultural issues, there's a lot to go over. I promised this to the audience yesterday. So I will begin this part of our discussion with what happened on CNN. So CNN was doing a story on Dylan Mulvaney.

And there's a correspondent by the name of Ryan Young, who you can tell from the clip, did not even realize he was barreling face first into one of the hot button issues of the culture war. But he did. Here is his original sin. Watch. One bar was telling us basically they're not going to serve it because they don't like the way Delvin Mulvaney was treated after this whole controversy started. He, of course, is the transgender person they were going to sponsor and go along with Bud Light. They didn't like how Bud Light

didn't stand by him after all this. Don't! He used him. He used Dylan's actual pronouns instead of the preferred pronouns. And you can see the guy, you can see he has no idea he's doing anything wrong.

You know, he's probably not immersed in the culture wars. I don't know what his normal beat is, but it took 24 hours, not even, for CNN to then do this, SOP 15. Yesterday in a segment about transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who was featured in Bud Light's recent campaign, she was mistakenly referred to by the wrong pronoun. And CNN aims to honor individuals' ways of identifying themselves. And we apologize for that error. Really? What are they going to do when the Z pronoun takes over? Because that's getting bigger. Zay, Zay, Zay is upset about the backlash over Bud Light. CNN is not going to do that. Like there's only so far you can take it. And I'll say this to you, Michael,

as you know, I only recently came to switching on the pronouns to rejecting the preferred pronouns. And once you switch back to actual biological pronouns, it's jarring to hear it said the other way, right? It's like, yeah, when I hear her say she I'm like, what? Who is she, right? It's like, when I hear her say she, I'm like, who is she referring to? It's amazing what you allow yourself to just slip back into reality, how jarring the pretend world sounds to you. Well, this is why the left focuses so much on language. I wrote a whole book on this called Speechless Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. I sometimes fall into these errors too, because if you in any way use the language of people who are trying to deceive you, you will deceive yourself. Language is what

constitutes so much of our consciousness. What was so wonderful about this though, is that it happened on CNN rather than on a right-wing network. Because when you and I refer to men as men, not as women, if they pretend to be women, we're doing so intentionally. We're disciplining our intellect and we're making a point about reality and speaking the truth as far as we see it. That's not what this guy was doing. This guy is just a normal guy. He's a news presenter who just reports on the news. And so you can tell he's on a liberal network. He seems like a kind of a liberal guy in the way that he's talking about transgenderism. And so I don't think

he meant to give any offense or transgress any of these ever-changing rules. He just, being normal, knows that Dylan Mulvaney is a man. And so he perceived reality as it is and spoke in accordance with reality. And that's the biggest sin you can commit these days. And then the reaction from CNN, it was out of a movie. It wasn't out of a horror movie. It was out of a parody. It was out of a comedy movie.

We are very, very sorry. We've committed an egregious sin. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. You know, flogging themselves on air. But the reason that CNN fell into this error in the first place is because everybody, Megan, everybody, statistically, at least 87%, maybe 100% of people know that the transgender stuff is totally bogus and that they know that the men are men. If it's creeping out into CNN, I promise you it's everywhere.

Yeah, it's really true. But another interesting thing happening in that clip, the pair of them, was the hierarchy of identities. Because in a normal world, if you had a white woman coming on to apologize

for a black male anchor and his misuse of the proper terms, she'd get killed for whitesplaining, right? She'd be called a Karen. Either he'll apologize or he won't, but don't you try to fix it, white lady, part of the problem. But because it was an offense to the trans community, all the rules are out the window. They're at the top of the hierarchy right now. That is so true. What an insightful point. The only way that she could really dot her T's and cross her eyes here is if we were to find out if she released a

genealogy report that it turned out she was one 2048th, you know, Nigerian or something like that. And then she could also claim to be a member of that aggrieved minority. But as it stands right now, you're right, Megan, this is, to debate. Yeah, otherwise, she goes from Kate Bolden to Karen, Karen Bolden, whatever her name is. Let's stay on this because the latest reports on Bud Light, my God, every day it gets worse. And here's the latest. So we continue to get the updates on their sales. Bud Light sales is from the York Post plunged twenty eight point five percent for the week ended July one worse than the twenty seven point nine decline they suffered the previous week, which is already at record lows. out to have infected Bud Light's sister brands within, as you call them, Transheiser Bush. This is my favorite thing I've heard in the past two months, according to Bump Williams, whose consulting firm crunched the latest numbers from Nielsen. Sales of Michelob Ultra are down by

4.3 percent. Sales of Bush Light are down by 8.5 percent. Meanwhile, Modelo Especial, the number two beer brand in the US, saw its sales jump 11.4% during the same week. So it's not about people just aren't drinking the beer. People are still mad at Anheuser and Bud Light in particular. And adding to that, you got the ex-Anheuser-Busch executive who by name goes on the record

and speaks out about this, saying he is shocked by how much money the company has lost in the wake of this partnership. His name is Anson Fredericks. He worked for the beer maker for nearly 11 years, was its president of operations till last April, and told Fox Business he's even more shocked, though, about the lack of clear response by CEO Brendan Whitworth, who's had three chances now to speak out and try to fix it and has failed. He said he should have come out and said, of course, this is a mistake. We would not do this again because we've lost billions of dollars in market cap. Our brands are down almost 30% and all of a sudden we're putting a lot of our suppliers

at risk. But that CEO cannot get it right. Michael, so what do you make of the latest terrible news for Bud Light and Anheuser- Well, the reason that Transheiser Bush's CEO can't do the simple thing and apologize is because he's being pulled by his investors who have signed on to things like the ESG movement and GARM, which is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is just another one of these multinational liberal blobs that says that corporations are going to tow the leftist line or they don't get to advertise on the big

tech platforms. They've signed on to all of this. And so even when the consumers are saying, we hate your product, we're not going to buy it anymore, this boycott's here to stay. Even if the CEO were inclined to apologize, he just thinks the greater risk to him is from irritating the investors and the political risk to him is from irritating the investors and the political establishment than it is from irritating the customers. We are no longer operating in the kind of free market system in which the customer is always right. That's gone. Obviously, the only thing that the CEO of Transheiser Bush can do is to apologize. That's the only thing that would get the consumers to come back. There's no conciliatory middle ground on this particular issue.

Either women get their own bathrooms or they don't. Either women get their own sports leagues or they don't. Either a man can become a woman or a man can't become a woman. And there's really no middle ground. And it's an issue that is increasingly encroaching on parents' ability to raise their children. So it's one that's going to get everybody fired up. You got to pick a side. You stand in the middle of the road. You're going to get hit by a truck. And what this speaks to, by the way, is a much deeper and broader change in politics. For most of my lifetime, and certainly since the end of the Cold War, I would say, until about six, seven years ago, the defining term for the right in America would be liberty or choice or freedom, something like that. That's what motivated all of the conservative movement, the intellectual aspect of the

conservative movement and the Republican Party. That has shifted with the rise of populism. And I think with the advance toward absurdity of leftism to the point that now the key term is no longer choice or freedom or something like that point that now the key term is no longer choice or freedom or something like that. I think the key term is truth. You're seeing this reflected in Trump's campaign. Trump's social media network is called Truth Social. It's not called Choice Social. It's not called Do Whatever You Want Social. It's Truth Social. Vivek Ramaswamy, who's now jumped, I think, to third place in the GOP race out of nowhere. He's an anti-woke businessman. He's pretty different, actually, from the traditional GOP establishment. What's that hat that he's

always wearing in his campaigns? It says truth on it. In a culture that has become so absurd in which we can't agree on the basic facts of life, where we can't communicate with one another, as a result, we don't even know the right pronouns to use even on CNN. That kind of culture needs to be ballasted with something it can hold onto, objective truth that we can all agree upon without which self-government is not possible. So you see this reflected at the constituent level. That's why they elected Trump. You see this reflected in the media. That's why more populist right-wing voices, guys like Tucker Carlson and others who take a firm line on these kinds of

issues are so popular. You see it on the intellectual side with the rise of something like the post-liberal movement, people like Patrick Deneen, people like Sohrab Amari, a less libertarian kind of right-wing. The whole political establishment is moving into that direction. And the corporations had better keep up if they don't want to irritate all of their customers. Because you can have all the ESG asset manager money in the world, but if you don't have people to buy your product, your company is not going to last very long. 30% is 30%. Billions lost in market cap is, is just unavoidable. Like that, this is your future. If you go this route, but you're right. So the pressures on the other side are mostly from these ESG types,

but you've also got the actual individuals like Dylan Mulvaney, who first released a video a week ago saying for a company to not stand by a trans influencer once they partnered with them is even worse than to have not partnered to begin with. It was interesting because for the first time we learned that it was an official relationship. It was not just a random can of beer that that appeared in her in Dylan's mail and that was news and no one's really gotten to the bottom of exactly what was the nature of it. Let's get into it. Were you did you comply with all laws when it comes to marketing alcohol? Let's find out. So now Dylan continues it. Maybe they didn't get he didn't get enough clicks on the original submission.

Now he continues to play the victim over in Peru, where he claims he's had to flee because of all the death threats. Watch. We played a little bit of this yesterday. Here's the full clip. Surprise, I'm in Peru and I'm at Machu Picchu. Isn't this just so beautiful? I'm here by myself. I came here to feel something. You know what I mean? And I definitely have. I feel very safe here. It's a little sad that I had to leave my country to feel safe, but that will get better eventually. Still haven't been kissed yet, but I'm holding out hope. It has me feeling like I'm my own best friend again. And that is the best feeling in the world. Can I tell you, this is like, this is one of the

things about this guy. He has this sort of love ya persona that people are lured in by, you know, like, oh, he's, he's only full of kindness. He's only trying to spread love and ask for acceptance. And yet so many of us have such a strong visceral reaction to this guy because we recognize what he's actually spreading and selling is very dangerous and it's deeply offensive. His idea of girlhood and womanhood offends me to the core. It's not that I'm not rooting for this human being to find wellness in his life. It's that I completely object to what he's done to my sex, to his imagery of my sex, of what it means to be a woman, which is a fundamental, beautiful thing that half the population shares and the other half doesn't and

won't no matter how hard they try. This is the key, the danger of it all. And it's why we can mock some of these insane behaviors and campaigns, but we also feel a great deal of pity for it. The fact remains that if you embrace a transgender identity, you've got a 41% chance of trying to kill yourself. And a large number of those people will succeed in killing themselves. And that's exceedingly dangerous. And so that would be one reason why you would want to discourage anyone from falling down that rabbit hole. And there are lots of cultural conditions that lead people down that rabbit hole. One of them is pornography. One of them is acculturation in schools. One of them is obviously just the normalization by the biggest authorities in the country. This is why transgender identity has grown by leaps and bounds, many multiples in recent years. Unless there happens to be something in the water turning the freaking frogs gay, there's obviously a cultural contagion

taking over here. And it's leading people into, it's all, you know, look, there is, you're right. So I don't want to totally discount the chemicals in the water, but there's obviously something going on here. And what the advocates of this transgender movement are saying is, well, the reason that anxiety and depression and suicidality are so associated with transgenderism is because it's not culturally accepted. So if we normalize it and encourage more people to engage in it, then those rates are going to go down. But the thing is they haven't. They've remained exactly the same. None of the transgender procedures are associated with any decrease in any of those areas. In fact, they're associated perhaps with an increase in at least one of those areas, which is anxiety. So it's really harmful to a lot of people. And you see

it being expressed by this guy in Peru. So he's describing this as his fleeing America. And he doesn't feel safe in America. So he goes to Peru, which is much stricter, both by law and by culture on sexual eccentricity. But put that aside for a moment. What he's doing is something that a great many people do, which is he's going on vacation in July. But even that, he can't just go on vacation to a popular tourist site called Machu Picchu. He's got to go flee persecution. And then what he says is so sad. He says, I'm my own best friend. I travel alone often. Some people travel alone, but it's more fun to travel with other people. I'm my own best friend. I'm not my own best friend. My best friend is my best friend. It's very sad. A man wrapped up in himself makes a small package

indeed. Later in that video, he says, I've been talking to shamans. It did for me more than 10 years of therapy has done. I bet it did because your 10 years of therapy has been harmful to you. It hasn't helped you at all. And it seems to have encouraged you in these delusions that are going to harm you down the road and already are. And so you just see these behaviors, people being, becoming isolated, becoming alienated, becoming lonely, going to these far flung places, engaging in weird occult rituals with drugs and shamans and all sorts of things, doing anything they can desperately to flee the reality that is right before them in the mirror. Why do people go to shamans instead of priests

and church? They go to shamans because shamans will tell them whatever they want to hear and shamans will give them whatever drugs they want. And when you go to a priest and when you go to a church and when you engage in real, true, traditional religion, you're not going to hear whatever you want to hear. You're going to hear what is true. It comes right back to Moses in speaking to God. And he says, hey, God, what is your name? And God says, I am that I am. And if you ground your identity in I am that I am, then you'll know who you are.

And if you don't, you're going to be left with this pathetic question. Who am I? Which is going to spin off into all sorts of identities that become ever more absurd and take you to shamans in Machu Picchu. Well, you didn't say anything offensive about God there, but you might have in the past, like when you said the Lord's Prayer at Sunday Mass. As you may or may not know, it's now offensive to say our father. That is getting targeted by the woke Church of England. The Church of England is now saying the opening of the Lord's Prayer is problematic.

And here's the full statement, okay? It's because of the words, Our Father. Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, told the General Synod, the legislating and ruling body of the Church of England, that referring to God as Father might be offensive to some people because of the negative connotations of, wait for it, patriarchy. Quote, I know the word father is problematic for those whose experience of

earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have labored rather too much from an oppressively patriarchal grip on life. This is according to the Guardian. Then he went on to say, oh, no, then they went on to report in this piece. Currently, Michael, the Church of England is looking at using gender neutral pronouns for God. We can no longer say he or father instead of the masculine pronouns used in the Bible. The Bible had it wrong and it's offensive because patriarchy. What do you make of it? We have to respect everybody's preferred pronouns, except for God's apparently. He's the one person,

three persons in one divine unity whose pronouns we don't have to respect according to the Church of England, which has a sort of logic to it in that the Church of England is a woke social club that identifies as a church. So no surprise here that they see a chasm between reality and identity. The other irony on top of this is that we have many wonderful prayers that have come down to us from antiquity, from the earliest days of the church. Hail Mary, glory be. There's so many wonderful prayers. And there's one prayer. There is one prayer that Jesus Christ gives us directly and explicitly in the Bible. And it is the Lord's Prayer. That's the one they want to change. If that doesn't tell you everything about some modern eccentric religious sects,

I don't know what will. There's a great line, comes from the 20th century, and it's variously associated to lots of figures, all associated with Fulton Sheen. And it's that if you marry yourself to the spirit of the age, you will find yourself a widow in the next. Michael Knowles, this is why we love talking to you. It's like you're funny and you're witty and you leave us with a little bit of cultural references we hadn't heard before. Always a pleasure, my friend. Thanks for coming on. Wonderful to be with you, Megan. Thanks for having me. So fun. OK, one one MK to another.

We're going to be right back with the very latest on the investigations into Hunter Biden. I know it's confusing, but here on the show, we've made a commitment to you to try to keep it very simple. Not Kamala Harris level simple, but at your education level simple. And we're going to do just that in two minutes. The media playing a bit of catch up on allegations about the Biden family's business dealings. We brought these to you last Thursday, followed up again on Friday. Now, finally, we're seeing some coverage of this issue in the mainstream press. It would appear many of these so-called journalists, however, are much more concerned about the alleged wrongdoing by the man making the accusations against the Bidens than they are with any of the substance of what he is alleging. Remember this guy, Gal Luft? The New York Post broke the reporting. They broke the videotape of this guy who is a dual citizen, American and Israeli, making allegations. And he has been for years about the Biden family. Well, now he's been

charged, which he admitted he'd been charged in his whistleblower or whatever you want to call it, video. And only once the indictment was unsealed at Gal Luft's request did the media decide this was an okay story to cover because they could use the allegations to discredit him without taking any sort of an honest look at whether what he is saying could potentially be true? Doesn't mean it is true, but why wouldn't we at least be looking into it at this stage of the game? Margot Cleveland is senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, who has been covering all these stories about the Biden family allegations very closely.

And she joins me now. Margo, great to have you. How are you? I'm doing well. Thanks so much, Megan. My pleasure. And the audience should know you're a legit lawyer. I mean, you've been you've been practicing law for many, many years. We're with a federal clerk as a federal clerk for a law judge for many, many years, a judge. So you know what you're talking about. You're not just a pundit when it comes to legal issues. Let's start with this gal Luft.

And then we'll talk about just to keep it simple for the audience. There's many aspects to the Hunter Joe Jim Biden alleged corruption. But the ones we're going to talk about today involve this guy, Gal Luft, who I mentioned a moment ago. And then we'll talk about the U.S. attorney in Delaware who gave Hunter the sweetheart deal. And many of us are asking what happened to all the serious charges because that conflict about whether this U.S. attorney in Delaware has told us the full truth or is doing some sort of a cover up for Merrick Garland, et cetera, remains at issue. All right. Gal Luft comes out and says, I know Hunter Biden. I've known the Bidens for a long time. And I had some I had a think tank that was very well respected by many people in Washington. I had the CIA director, former guy

James Woolsey, in partnership with me on this think tank. I was cited in MSNBC and NBC and all these other mainstream news outlets for years, thanks to my knowledge of China policy and so on, my think tank. Well, he says in March of 2019, under President Trump, I called the FBI and said, I need to meet with you about the Bidens. I'm very tight with this Chinese energy company, which is very tight with the Communist Party over in China. And I happen to know, thanks to my ties to this CEFC, that the Bidens are up to no good. The Bidens are taking money from these guys and including while Joe Biden was the sitting vice president, this was happening. So I've got things I want to tell you. So the FBI goes over, they meet with him along with two U S attorneys. And he, according to him, tells them the whole thing. He does not believe there's

any follow up. And then a year later, October of 2020, he dispatches his lawyer stateside to have another meeting with a U.S. attorney who basically tells him, look, we're a month away from the election and pursuant to DOJ policy. We don't investigate the family or the candidate who's about to be on the ballot. And the next thing Gallup knows, it's February of 21, I guess, or no, it was actually a year later, February of 22, and he gets arrested and they accuse him of weapons sales, of not registering as a foreign agent and of lying to the FBI. Then he comes out with his whistleblower video just last week and says, this is all part of trying to smear me. I'm the one who reached out to them. They're trying to discredit me.

Could be that. Could be Gal Luft realized he was in a whole host of trouble and decided to play a card he had to make it look like the whole thing was a setup of Gal Luft. We don't know. But what's interesting to me, Margo, is the absolute disinterest in the story until at Gallup's request, the indictment against him, which happened months ago, was unsealed. And now finally, the media has a way of hitting him severely to talk about these allegations. Now they have some interest in it. So what do you make of it all? Well, this again is part and parcel of what has been going on with both the media and the FBI and DOJ. So as you mentioned, this goes back

to March of 2019. And the assistant U.S. attorneys who talked with him were the ones who were prosecuting the other folks involved in the Chinese business maneuvering. And you might remember that they are the ones who said, we don't want the Biden name mentioned in the indictment. So that was a connection already. What happened to that 2019 interview? I think that goes back to how much has been buried here. And just yesterday, Congressman Comer requested the FBI turn that information over. And as you said, we don't know, is he playing a card or was he really being set up by the government? The thing to keep in mind here is anytime you have someone who knows the inside details, they're usually not good guys.

That's how you get the criminals. Usually you either be them, you bug them or you flip them. Those are the three main ways. So the fact that he might've been in bed with the Chinese communist party, that doesn't say anything other than, Hey, if he knows the Chinese Communist Party and was in bed with him, so was Hunter Biden. That was the same exact company. That's what he's saying. Now, I don't if this guy was facilitating weapons sales to places like Libya, it's a problem or dealings with Iran against whom we have sanctions. It's a problem. But they also have charged him with violating FARA, F-A-R-A, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires if you're working in the United States

on behalf of a foreign government that you disclose it. So we know exactly who we're dealing with and they're saying he didn't. But he raised in his video, Gallup did. If if I did that, then Hunter Biden did that in spades and potentially other members of the Biden family. So how am I indicted for this? I want to correct myself, but the indictment came down in February of twenty three, just unsealed this week at his request. If I am guilty of that and being prosecuted for that, how is Hunter Biden not getting prosecuted for that? Exactly. But then again, how is Hunter Biden not getting prosecuted for gun,

the default statement to get the gun when everyone else is? So we're again, this is part and parcel of the collaboration between the media, the DOJ and the FBI to protect the Biden family. And whether Gail Loft is a arms dealer and a bad guy or not, you still need to follow up on this information. And that's where March of 2019, they should have been following up. You've got to tie this all into also what Senator Grassley has said, that the FBI purposefully buried information. We had FBI headquarters, Brian Otten, who the whistleblower claimed opened up an assessment so that the FBI could falsely label things disinformation. We also just to just to just to just to add to that, just so the audience can follow this guy, Brian Otten is-Trump guy inside the FBI who's been maneuvering things inside the FBI against Trump and to protect Biden for a long, long time.

And there are real questions being asked now, including of Christopher Wray. Why is this guy still employed? Why is he still in the FBI? Absolutely. And Megan, I'm so glad that you mentioned that because yesterday when those questions were posed to Wray, there was a really good point that I hadn't thought of. After Otten was already in internal investigation for what he did in Crossfire Hurricane, he was somehow still involved in and started doing this assessment that came to the information. I'm sorry, how can you possibly do that, that you have the person that's under investigation for politicizing and crossfire hurricane now involved in this situation? So again, this has so many webs and so many legs to it, but the bottom line is very simple. We have a well-respected, confidential human source who told the FBI

that the owner of Burisma had said... Now we switched, just to reset the scale, the scene. So now we're moving from Gal Luft in China over to Ukraine and Hunter's many dealings there. Go ahead. Right. So we're now back to Ukraine. But we have the biggest bombshell here, which is Burisma's owner told a confidential human source with years of credible experience working with our government under the Obama administration that Burisma paid $5 million to Joe and $5 million to Hunter. He actually called him the big guy. So the Ukraine owner called him the big guy before the laptop story broke. That 1023 was sent to Delaware to be investigated. And it doesn't look like any investigation happened. Our whistleblowers didn't know anything about that document. So the GAL loft might be a different

country, but it's the same story of pay to play. It's the same story of being buried by the FBI, the DOJ and the media. So deeply troubling. I do want to get to that piece of it in one second, but before we leave Gal Luft, I'm going to take a trip back to China for one more second. Jake Sullivan was asked, of the NSA, was asked about Gal Luft

and his extraordinary allegations just this week. And listen to how he handled it. Listen to this. The president's son and brother work for the same firm without registration. What's the White House's take on the potential FARA liability for the first family of the president here? I've not seen that and can't comment on it. Yeah. So he has no idea. Just to clarify, because it was hard to hear. The question was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York indicted Gal Luft for violating FARA.

The president's son and brother worked for the same firm without registration. So what's the White House's take on the potential FARA or bar of liability for the first family? Haven't seen that

and can't comment. That's a lie. He 100% has seen that. He knows full well, but he knows that the rest of the media will run cover on it so he doesn't have to answer.

Absolutely. And you know who else knows all about this? Joe Biden, the person who says I had nothing to do with my son's business dealings. So again, it's just it's part and parcel of everything that's been going on with the Bidens and the Biden investigation. OK, so now let's stay over in the the lane of the IRS whistleblowers who came forward. Gary Shapley is the one, then the others unnamed. And now we're going to have a new hearing with them, thanks to James Comer, which will be good. And they've alleged that there's a reason David Weiss, the US attorney for Delaware, did not bring really meaty charges against Hunter and let

the statute of limitations expire on some of the worst claims that could have been brought against Hunter. And that is DOJ interference. That is Merrick Garland and another deputy working on the case at every turn, tipped off Hunter Biden about investigations or interviews that were going to happen, shut down any mention of Joe Biden or an actual look into whether Joe Biden had a connection to this, the big guy, all that. No, it's a no. You can't go there. And basically protected the president and his son from start to finish. And that whistleblower says David Weiss, the U.S. attorney, admitted to the IRS whistleblowers and other FBI agents at a meeting that he didn't have full authority and that he had been turned down by U.S. attorneys in California and D.C. on bringing charges.

Now, Weiss is coming out kind of siding with Merrick Garland, saying that's not true. The whistleblower doesn't know what he's talking about. They don't know what they're talking about. But there is a memo that the whistleblower Shapley wrote that we've seen now, dated, dated October 7th, 2022, that he sent to his boss and the boss signs off on it saying, thanks, you covered it all. Doesn't say you, you misstated everything, Gary Shapley. And in that memo, he says the whistleblower now Shapley among other things, quote Weiss, David Weiss, the U S attorney for Delaware stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. And it goes on to say, he told us DOJ denied his request

for special counsel authority and told him to instead, quote, follow the process. Now Weiss is trying to weasel out of all of this by saying, I never asked to be special counsel. I was told I would be labeled special attorney, which is a slightly different thing. If I needed that authority, it'd be granted to me and suggest it may still be granted to me. Like it's all wide open. Well,

you've let the statute of limitations run. You, the New York times confirmed you were turned down by the California U S attorney and or the D the U S attorney in Delaware. You've already been in DC. You've already been turned down. You already let the statute run. Don't pretend it's all still out there and you still might do all this. So what's happening here, Margo? So the big question I have is, did Weiss lie to his agents when he said that he is not in control of it? Or did he lie then to Congress when he said, I've always been told I have this kind of authority to do it. And with Weiss, who again is the Delaware U.S. attorney, he's the holdover from Trump, which the left is trying to portray as, oh, see, he's in control of this. He's trying to change the story every chance he gets. He has never come out, though, and contradicted

what the whistleblowers have said, which was during this meeting, not only did he say he's not in charge, but he said that he tried to get the authority to bring the charges and he was denied it. And as you noted, the next day, or actually it was that evening, he sent a confirmation email summarizing it, which another individual in the meeting confirmed happened. But for the attorney general, he has a bigger problem because he said under oath to Chuck Grassley, who was very specific in the questioning, attorney general Garland said he has the authority. Not I will give him the authority, but he has the authority. So we have Weiss trying to give cover to Garland. Yes. And I don't I don't know why it doesn't make

it doesn't make sense at all, because now you've got OK, there's a piece at MSNBC where a former Michigan U.S. attorney is trying to explain this all like it all comes down to the whistleblowers misunderstanding of special counsel versus special attorney. And the two men were just talking past each other. Well, that doesn't make sense because a whistleblower did not put it in those terms. The whistleblower Shapley's memo says Weiss stated he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. He wasn't hung up on the terms exactly. He said he's not the deciding person. And Weiss is saying he is the he was the deciding person on whether charges are filed. He wasn't hung up on the terms exactly. He said he's not the deciding person. And Weiss is saying he is the he was the deciding person. So which is it? That doesn't work. And then her piece on MSNBC, why Hunter Biden IRS whistleblower controversy is fizzling. She says the following. Look, Weiss says that he discussed with justice

the possibility of being appointed a special attorney, which is in a special counsel. Special counsel does ultimately have to answer to Merrick Garland. She says special attorney would not. So a special attorney would actually have had more power. And she says Weiss says he was assured he would be granted this authority if it proved necessary. Here's my problem. Weiss is he is hiding the story that if he got in front of me, I would say, did you ask why or why not? Were you turned down by the U.S. attorneys in D.C. and or in California? What did you then do? What how did you satisfy

yourself before the statute of limitations ran that these crimes would be prosecuted that you clearly believe should be prosecuted if you went to California and D.C. and asked for that? Why did you not then proceed on your own if you had the authority? And if you didn't have the authority, did you or did you not ask to be appointed as either special counsel or special attorney, however you want to put it? And why not? Those are very simple questions. They are as well as what did you tell your staff? But this whole distinction between special counsel and special attorney is not just ridiculous. It actually makes Weiss look worse because if he could have been appointed a special attorney, which, as you noted, has bigger authority, he didn't have to go to Garland.

Why did he not have that authority immediately to make sure that there was no political playing going on? And as you noted, what he says, what Weiss said in that meeting makes no sense for the distinction between the two. He didn't say, well, I didn't ask for special counsel. He said, I didn't have the authority and they would not charge it. That is consistent with whether it is special counsel or special attorney. Yes.

So what happens now? We're going to get the whistleblowers back before Congress. Are we going to get Weiss and or Garland back? It's like you need all these people at once before Congress. Are we going to get Weiss and or Garland back? It's like you need all these people at once before Congress talking at once. You do. You definitely need to get both Weiss and Garland testifying. But honestly, Grassley has been dropping breadcrumbs for some time. He has something more out there. I'm convinced of it. And I think it comes down to Brian Otten. So I think that's what we're going to have to watch, but there's still a lot to come.

My gosh, I know it's confusing, but just, you know, follow the stories you've got. You got Gal Luft, you got China and you got Ukraine. And then you've got these IRS guys who are supposed to investigate financial misdeeds by Hunter Biden that may relate to all of this, you know, falsities in his tax reporting on all of these incomes and this guy inside the FBI who may have been running cover from start to finish. Margo Cleveland, thank you. I appreciate it. Want to tell you all we're off tomorrow, but I would love for you to check out megankelly.com for all of your Megan Kelly show info, your needs. The full archives are there. I know a lot of people want to see our full shows. How can I see them?

Go to megynkelly.com. Not to mention clips and articles featuring any content you may have missed. And this section just on my sweet boy, Strudwick. He's very sweet, even though he's very, very naughty. Continues to be naughty. Check it out. Let me know what you think. You can email me at megyn, M-E-G-Y-N at megankelly.com.

In the meantime, I hope to see you this Saturday in Florida. Be there with Trump and Tucker and Bongino and Charlie Kirk at the Turning Point Action Conference. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.