The Megyn Kelly Show - Petty Trump Prosecution, Presidential Immunity Question, and Biden's Pause Gaffe, with Piers Morgan, Harmeet Dhillon, Sara Gonzales and Josh Hammer | Ep. 776

Episode Date: April 25, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Piers Morgan, host of "Piers Morgan Uncensored," to discuss his viral confrontation with “Crackhead Barney,” her harassment of Alec Baldwin, whether it's all just a performance and what it says about Palestinian support, why we've seen a rise of antisemitism after October 7, the challenges of both legal and illegal immigration in American and the U.K., how petty the prosecution of former president Donald Trump in New York City is, why Bill Clinton’s affair was more egregious, Meghan Markle's continued victimhood, and more. Then Harmeet Dhillon, founder of Dhillon Law Group, joins to discuss the arguments about "presidential immunity" before the Supreme Court today, the major implications for Trump's pending legal cases, how it could impact other past presidents, why Harvey Weinstein's conviction being overturned could help Trump in his New York trial, and more. Then Sara Gonzales, host of "Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” and Josh Hammer, host of "America on Trial with Josh Hammer,” join to discuss President Biden's embarrassing "pause" gaffe and how it could affect the election, the staged “four more years” chant, how our enemies must be laughing at us, what to do with antisemitic students on campuses, and more. Morgan- https://www.youtube.com/@PiersMorganUncensoredDhillon- https://www.dhillonlaw.com/Gonzales- https://www.youtube.com/@SaraGonzalesUnfilteredHammer-https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/america-on-trial-with-josh-hammer/id1727785259 Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We have a packed show for you today as several cases related to former President Donald Trump's political and legal future are unfolding right now simultaneously. In New York City, the so-called hush money trial is back underway after the weekly Wednesday break and Peckers back up being questioned by the prosecution. The New York Times is Maggie Haberman tweeting out, you know, moment by moment updates. She thinks he's done. She thinks they've really proven the case. I'll tell you why I completely disagree. It's not that this jury is

not going to convict him, but they have not proven what they must prove in order to state a claim. And so while this whole thing may just be, let's run to get a criminal conviction before November, it's looking more and more to me like there is zero chance this case will be upheld on appeal. No one in this courtroom seems to understand campaign finance law. And that's a dereliction. We'll get into it when Harmeet Dhillon joins us in just a bit. Meantime, down in D.C., we'll also speak to her about this. The question of whether the president is immune from cases like these just has criminal immunity from potentially the New York case. But certainly they're arguing in the federal cases is being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the case that Mike and Dave have been arguing over. And Dave did not

think the high court would take it. He thought the U.S. Court of Appeals at the lower level had done such a thorough job that the Supreme Court would say, you know, we don't want any part of this. That court ruled that somebody like Trump would not have immunity for these claims or these behaviors. And then the U.S. Supreme Court said, we'll take it. Actually, we want to weigh in ourselves. So that's happening right now. I've been listening to the arguments all morning. They're pretty dense. It's an uphill battle for sure for team Trump, but I gotta say my, my quick take on it is he's kind of winning there too. And I'll tell you why he, his lawyer did a switch this morning. His lawyer went from arguing he's immune period from all crimes for anything he did while in office to, well, he's immune for some things and he wouldn't be immune for other things like acts outside of his official capacity.

And while you may think, aha, see, now they can, he's admitting they can sue him. They can, they can get him for crimes done, even though he was president that were done, not in official capacity. Don't forget the whole game for Team Trump is delay. It's much better for Team Trump to get a ruling saying this has to go back to the district court for a long hearing on which acts were official and which acts weren't than it is for them to just issue a blanket ruling saying we disagree that the president has blanket immunity for all crimes while in office. So it's actually kind of clever. And it works beautifully if Trump wins the presidential election.

If he doesn't, it's not good for Trump. He's going to get tried on those two federal cases. And the concession will come back to haunt him. If that's not clear, stand by, because I'll get into that with Harmeet as well. Okay. But we begin today with our friend Piers Morgan, host of Piers Morgan Uncensored, fresh off his showdown with Crackhead Barney, the person who confronted Alec Baldwin in that restaurant. Piers, welcome back to the show. Lovely to see you, Megangan i can i say that nothing

i ever thought would make you feel sorry for ali baldwin but crackhead did same same and once i actually got a look at crackhead even more so it's this one i love about you peers you saw it you were like let's book that person to come on the show. I was like, oh my God. But it was actually kind of spicy. Yeah, it was completely, obviously insane. Although she's not actually insane. It's all very performative. And I've seen clips of her where she's completely normal. But she decided to do this huge performance thing with me. And I had my producers in my ear going, I think we should just cut this off, cut this off. And I was like, you know what? Actually, no, because in a way, it was quite illuminating. Because this is somebody who claims to be representing the pro-Palestinian side of the argument on this war. She's somebody who thinks it's perfectly okay to go and harass people like

Alan Baldwin in cafes, which I think is outrageous. And yet when she came on, she wasn't able to take any of this seriously or try and articulate any arguments. She just wanted to be an attention seeker and a bit ridiculous and make herself a laughingstock, which is fine, but actually quite illuminating about what these people, a lot of them, not all by any means, but a lot of them are like this. They're just in it to get attention and to be performative and to make people look and listen to them. OK, so just in case I wasn't necessarily going to lead with crackhead, but why not?

For those of you who missed it, let's show a little bit of crackheads. This is what she calls herself. Her confrontation of Alec Baldwin in the restaurant that weirdly united the world behind Alec Baldwin. Here it is. Alec, can you please stay free Palestine one time? Why did you kill that lady? You killed that lady and got no jail time? No jail time, Alec? No jail time, Alec.

You're putting innocent people in jail, Alec Baldwin. Free Palestine, Alec, just one time. And I'll leave you alone. I'll leave you alone. I swear. Just say free Palestine one time. One time. One time.

One time, Alec. You know he's a criminal. You know he's a fucking criminal. Come on, Alec. Just say free Palestine one time. One time. Just one time, please. And I'll leave you alone. Free Palestine. Fuck Israel. Fuck Zionism. Please say it. One time. He smacks the camera out of her hand. So she came on. Stand by, Pierce.

I just want to show the audience a little bit of what happened when she sat down with you. Now, she was covered from what I've seen in like white body paint. She's a black woman, but she covers herself in white body paint and white face paint. Yeah. Okay. Just set it up for the audience so the listening audience knows what we're looking at here. Look, she was wearing outrageous garb. I wasn't entirely sure exactly what she was wearing, other than not very much.

She painted herself white. She was, as you'll see, I mean, if you watch the whole thing, you'll see she was blatantly racist, by the way, in all this. But this is a little taster, I think, you've got of what went down. Yeah, as I understand, and I saw the clip, but she's got rather large breasts and they're painted white and I think they have like little band-aids on the end.

Okay, anyway, here's a clip. Well, welcome to Uncensored. Hey, Pierce! I've been waiting for you, Pierce fucking Morgan! I wore my diaper today for you, Pierce. Do you like it? Not particularly, no. Can I take you back, if I may, to what you did to Alec Baldwin?

Can you explain why you did it? What did I do to Alec Baldwin? Pierce, do you see the damage that Alec did to me? Do you see the damage? Look at my arm! Look at my arm, Look at my arm! You fucking Morgan! You're asking too many questions!

Just for the record, my name is actually just Piers Morgan. What's wrong with saying Free Palestine? Piers, can you say Free Palestine for me? Can you say Free Palestine for me? If you stop shouting, yeah. I want you to say it. Yes, I'm happy to say it.

Okay, I'm not going to shout. Mr. Piers Morgan, please say Free Palestine. If say it. Yes, I'm happy to say it. Okay, I'm not going to shout. Mr. Pierce Morgan, please say three pounds back. If you just keep quiet, I can answer your question. And so it went on. So she's normal, you're telling me, when she's not dressed like this? Yeah, I think it's almost 90% performative. I mean, she's not completely normal. Obviously, normal people don't do that kind of thing. But I did think it was quite enlightening about the kind of mentality of

people like this who think it's fine to harass public figures. We saw somebody do it to the mayor of New York on a plane. And I think that the point of keeping her on air for a little bit was just to say, look, I'm prepared to have a serious conversation with you. You are referencing Palestine throughout your encounter with Ali Baldwin. Okay, let's talk about Palestine. Let's talk about whether you think what you're doing is actually remotely helpful to the pro-Palestinian cause, because of course it isn't. It makes the whole thing look like a charade. It's not a charade. Real people are dying in large numbers. So, you know, I just thought it was worth keeping her on long enough for her to basically hang herself in terms of the way she was coming over.

Well, she's the most extreme version we've seen, but she's not the only dum-dum who's shooting off about Palestine, knowing absolutely nothing about it. You know, we've seen that just yesterday, we ran a soundbite of somebody who was like, why are we here again? I wish I were better educated, right? So why are you doing an encampment then on the campus of NYU? Just one quick note. My team tells me that Crackhead Barney, that's her name, Crackhead Barney tweeted out, I think Megyn Kelly has a crush on me, but you're not my type. I like my white girls dirty and trashy like some other two people. I had to tell you, crackhead, I like my Barneys purple and prehistoric, so it's fine.

It's not going to work out between the two of us. You have fun. That's the important thing on the show. Yeah, listen, I think Michael, my show, I'm censored for a reason. We don't censor people. And she was clearly in the news. Everyone was looking at that clip

that went viral of her and Alec Baldwin. And I wanted to give her a chance to see if she wanted to explain herself or explain the wider issues and concerns she had about Palestine. But it was nothing to do with any of that. She just basically wanted to show off and be outrageous and try and give me a new name, which I was very keen to resist having. I kind of like it, I have to say. I think you should think about going with it. It depends on how you say that middle word. It does. Okay, so let's talk about the protests, because you guys are having them over there, I think even worse than we're having them over here on this Israel thing. It's amazing to watch what's happening in the UK,

and often the UK's a little harbinger of things to come here in America. Here's a little montage that we put together for the audience. They've seen what's happening here. But this is some of the anti-Israel protests happening in London. Sot 3. This is the Muslim population of the UK is growing and the support within that population for Hamas is strong. Nearly 50 percent, according to the latest poll of UK Muslims support Hamas. And the majority of those do not believe in the rape or murder allegations against Hamas.

Notwithstanding Hamas taking the time to videotape them and put them all over the internet. These Muslims say, no, it didn't happen. So what do you make of it? Well, look, we have an interesting situation in the UK where I think most people here support the right to protest peacefully. No one's got any problem with that. And it must be said that the majority of people

doing these protest marches, and they're very big marches every week, are doing so peacefully. No one's got any problem with that. And it must be said that the majority of people doing these protest marches, and they're very big marches every week, are doing so peacefully. But there is a significant number of them who are using pro-Hamas banners or chanting about Hamas or chanting about Intifada or chanting from the river to the sea. Now, that is open support of a terrorist organization. Hamas is a terror group prescribed by the UK government. So when you do that, you're actually breaking the law. One of the big arguments that's been going on in this country is about the police not doing more to root out the people who are openly supporting a terror group. I mean, I had an extraordinary interview, Megan, on my show, where there was a man who'd been an NHS, National Health Service doctor, for 20 years running a surgery. And on the quiet, he was also running an organization

that has also just been prescribed in this country as a terror group. And so he was this extremist, spewing all sorts of extremist stuff in his private life under a different name, and then calmly going into a national health surgery every day and treating patients, some of whom would have been Jewish. Now, the interesting part of this, I think, is that we have an unusually high Muslim population here compared to percentage-wise America. We have almost as many Muslims in the UK as you do in America,

nearly 5 million. But we only have about 200,000 Jewish people here. So it's been very intimidating for Jewish people, particularly in London where these marches are going on. We had a guy at the weekend who released footage of himself being stopped by the police and told he was looking openly Jewish, which was an extraordinary thing for a policeman to say, and the police apologized for it. But that gives you some indication. If you even look Jewish, then the Metropolitan Police, the big London police, they are telling you not to go out anywhere near these marches in a capital city of a supposedly free and open

democracy. So I think that's what's causing a lot of tension. And you're seeing a lot of similar stuff now on the campuses at colleges in America, which is, if you're Jewish, you know, I'm an Irish Catholic. So I can only equate some of this to what I was like being an Irish Catholic actually in London, when the IOA were bombing the British mainland. And that was an uncomfortable time for Irish Catholics, but nothing quite on this scale. And I think that what is going on for Jewish people in New York and Chicago and the other cities where this is happening is very intimidating. And if you're now being told to stay at home and not go into your college where you paid

huge sums of money to be educated because of your ethnicity, because you're Jewish. And that is completely outrageous. Yeah, that can't happen. I mean, here we're, you know, we love protests. We love free speech, as you know. And we're trying to figure out where to draw the line because we've never seen anything quite like this in recent history where people are openly screaming death to the Jews on college campuses in America. And that's a bridge too far, right? But some of the other slogans would be permitted. But we do have, let's say today, Governor Greg Abbott down in Texas saying, arrest them all. Everybody's getting arrested. That's not okay, really. That's not okay. They're allowed to say, we're allowed to say hateful things here. You know, our constitution does

protect hate speech. So it's, I think everybody's trying to figure out where the line is because it's gotten so extreme. And when I wonder about the multicultural aspect of this, Piers. Is it working? Can you have an open and free society when you have all of these immigrants come in and change the fabric of the country who have no inclination and no aspiration of assimilating into British culture? Well, look, I think the honest answer to that is rather like America. We have welcomed millions of people to this country, millions of migrants, many of whom have enriched our society. That has to be said off the top. America was built on migrants coming in.

The UK has millions of people who've made their homes and who've contributed. So let me just say that at the start. But I do think that we're entering into a very strange period where the language around this is being deliberately censored or depicted as something else. And I'll tell you why I say that. You may have seen that we have a problem with the boats. The British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is determined to stop the boats. What are the boats? Well, these are dinghies which criminal gangs are using to bring dozens of people at a time on small little dinghy boats

across the Channel from France and dropping them on the southern coast of England. And the total numbers involved are about 40,000 people a year. Very sadly, only this week, five more people died. These are women children they're desperate for a new life and i completely understand their desire to do that but they're trying to come in illegally and many of them are dying across the channel it's an awful tragedy but it's 40 000 people a year are coming in the much bigger issue in the uk which people don't

want to talk about because they instantly get branded racist, which I think is ridiculous, is that last year we had a net legal migration of nearly 700,000 people come into the UK. Now, we're a country of just over 60 million. This is nearly one-sixtieth of our entire population coming in in one year from all over the world. The UK is a very desirable place to live, as is the United States. Well, we simply cannot support that kind of level of legal migration, never mind what's happening on the channel.

It's just unsustainable to say that nearly a million people are coming year after year after year into the UK when we already have all our services, education, health, infrastructure, and so on are already creaking at the seams. This is going to put more and more pressure. And in reference to your point about the cultural issues, it creates a lot of tension, obviously, between people who are here and have made their lives here and born here and so on,

who suddenly see the whole fabric of their town or their village or whatever it may be completely changing, and they know that the government hasn't provided enough infrastructure to sustain this level of migration. So the far bigger problem for me here is not actually illegal migration, it's the level of legal migration. And anyone who tries to comment about this gets branded racist or bigoted and so on. I'm neither of those things. I'm just

somebody who recognizes this is going to be a massive problem. I mean, for me, it is definitely cultural as well. I do not want this culture from the places that a lot of these migrants are coming, coming to America. I don't want it coming and taking over American culture. I don't want to have to worry about me or my daughter walking down the street in a tank top and getting harassed by somebody who's really much more in pro in favor of the Sharia and wants to, you know, women only to be escorted as they walk. I don't want any of their views on women, frankly, to be coming to the UK, which I love, or to America. But it is. There was a poll about the UK Muslims on their support for Sharia, and it was disturbing. A new poll found almost a third of British Muslims think it would be desirable to implement Sharia law within the next two decades, that means, you know, your kids and mine who will be facing

this. Like, I don't, this is where I always revert to, then stay, stay where you are, stay in your own country if that's what you want, where it's like, there's no way of stopping it without enforcing immigration laws. And then without British people having these frank discussions and not caring whether someone calls them a bigot. Yeah, and I think, you know, in reference again to the doctor that was leading this double life running a now terror group, you know, he was somebody

that clearly did want Sharia law to come into the UK. And I have to point out to him, that's not our law here. Sorry, but we're not going to have Sharia law in this country. But, you know, again, it comes back to if you allow millions and millions of

people from other cultures to come in, and enough of them who come in want to have Sharia law, eventually, you could see a potential danger that this begins to force itself onto a national agenda and could potentially get embraced. So I think that's what's concerning people. We don't want Sharia law in this country. You don't want it in America. And the sad thing for me is America has, I think it's about 5 million Muslims, like I said, most of whom have been assimilated very well into American society. You know, the vast majority of them. She's not anything like this. She's raising four beautiful Muslim children. Like they're, they're completely peace loving in every single way, of course, but that's different from what we're seeing with these pro-sharia, Hamas did not commit

any murderous crimes. Yeah, we're talking about extremists and people who will happily, publicly embrace a terrorist organization who have recently committed one of the most heinous terror acts in modern history. That's what we're talking about. And the people who I think are very stupid people on these pro-Palestinian marches in the campuses, for example, when you see young students, they clearly don't know a lot of them what they're doing or why they're doing it. They don't know their history of the conflict in the Middle East between Palestine and between Israel. They don't know enough about the history to make a considered view about this. They've just been probably told by TikTok that they should be supporting

one side over the other. And that's what's going on. So a lot of it just, you know, I would love to just give them a basic history quiz about the 75-year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and see if actually what they knew and see whether they can make a considered view about what side they felt they should be supporting them. Because I've got great sympathy on both sides in this war. You know, I've always had historic sympathy for

the Palestinians and the plight of so many people living there. It's an awful way that many of them have had to leave their lives. And of course, half the people in Gaza were under 18. You know, this is a very, very young population who have, it's not their fault about what's going on with Hamas. But Hamas has proven itself to be a despicable terror group. And it is unsustainable that you allow a terror group like Hamas to continue having any kind of leadership or authority in Gaza. So, you know, these things have to be confronted.

The question then becomes, well, what's the best way to confront it? There are legitimate concerns about the way Israel is going about this. But I do always say to people on the Palestinian side, how else should Israel have responded? You know, when you have an existential threat to your very existence. I mean, I don't know. Believe me, I know. I mean, look at what happened in America after 9-11. We responded with massive force and the civilian to military kill rate was a lot higher and less favorable to us than what Israel is doing right now. I want to move on because I don't have you for too long today. I've got to ask you about Trump. He's facing four criminal trials. He's got a case being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court right

now. He's got the head of the National Enquirer, former David Pecker, on the witness stand right now talking about this deal they struck to cover up for Trump and try to bury bad stories and promote good stories and hit his adversaries with negative stories. First, let me just ask you, because you've spent your life in news. I mean, you've been writing for newspapers long before most people even knew you on cam. So what do you make of this deal? And would it ever have struck you that this was illegal? This kind of thing is illegal to accept money from somebody or give money to somebody in order to quash their story or kill it as the saying goes. I ran two of the biggest tabloid newspapers in Britain for 10 years. And this kind of deal in different ways goes on everywhere,

with all newspapers around the world. If you have a massive star and there's a damaging story about them and they want to suppress that story, then sometimes they'll give you a better one about themselves to kill off the other one. There's always some kind of deal that could be done. When I just realised this would be the first case, Megan, that was going to come up with the fall,

because some of them are clearly, I think, more serious and more legitimate and better cases to answer for Trump than others. But this one seems so petty. It seems so trivial. Ultimately, it's about whether or not Donald Trump had a one-night stand with a porn star 18 years ago in a Beverly Hills hotel. A, I don't care. I've interviewed Stormy Daniels. or not Donald Trump had a one-night stand with a porn star 18 years ago in a Beverly Hills hotel. A, I don't care.

I've interviewed Stormy Daniels. You know, she's very plausible when you interview her. But I wasn't in the room. I don't know what really happened. Donald Trump denies it. Yeah, exactly. But either way, either way, I don't care. And I don't think most people care very much.

And I think that what's happened here, you've got a clearly politically motivated prosecutor, who's a paid up Democrat. You've got a judge who's obviously a Democrat as well. And they decided to throw the kitchen sink at Trump by jacking up what should be just a state misdemeanor at worst into some sort of huge seismic federal crime. Well, all the polling I've seen on this shows that most Americans aren't buying this. They don't think that Trump committed a crime here, and they think it's a massive overreach by the prosecution. So I think I heard you at the start, and I totally agree with you. Whatever happens here, you know, A, Trump may get acquitted,

because there might be one member of that jury that just goes, you know what, this is ridiculous. And demeaning, frankly, for America to drag a former president of the United States, one of the 45 people who held this incredibly high office, to drag them through such an unedifying and petty courtroom fiasco for weeks on end, when he should be legitimately allowed to campaign as the nominee for the Republican Party for the next elections.

I think there's, for all sorts of reasons, it seems to me a ridiculous start to this legal battle against Trump. But whether he wins or loses, you see, I think he either wins because one juror has common sense, or he loses but actually gets martyred in the process. It's so spectacular. I watched the scenes this morning going into court with people chanting Trump, Trump, Trump for four more years, four more years.

I don't think this is hurting him. I think it actually over time will help him. I think it's martyring Trump. And I think the most right-minded Americans who are not partisan on the left but are sort of independent or moderates will look at this and go, is this really fair? And I always say, I mean, I remember when Bill Clinton was president. And I remember paying Paula Jones $850,000, whatever it was, to pay her off to settle a harassment case. And I remember him having sex with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, in the Oval

Office. Both of those things are a lot worse, in my estimation, given he was a serving president when the Monica Lewinsky thing happened, and given he did the payment when he was a serving president to Paula Jones, than anything Trump did in the run-up to an election to basically get rid of a bit of a messy story that probably his biggest concern was not the damage it might do to the election, because I think people factored in Trump and womanizing. It was probably he didn't want Melania to know all about this. But you know what, Piers, we've been covering this on the show.

This is not well enough understood, including even by us. You know, I have legal panels on all the time. We're all lawyers. We talk about this. The relevant standard is not what was in Trump's head or what his subjective reasons for the payment were. It's the objective, objectively looking at the money could said money in this case, a hush money payment have ever been used for anything other than to advance a campaign. Is this kind of payment? You look at the nature of the payment. So if it is payment for,

I don't know, a podium at a debate, a lectern at a debate stage. Okay. Yes. That is something you might only ever buy for a debate, right? Like for a presidential run, but a hush money, everybody pays that, you know, as somebody who was in the tabloids for years, tons of people pay hush money payments. So that's the standard. It's not even what was in Trump's head or whether they get an admission that this was to help his electoral chances. It's irrelevant. OK, I've got to ask you about this. Speaking of martyrs and people who have been really unfairly put upon, let me ask you about Meghan Markle. One of the great martyres of our time. Her castle was so small. She is apparently getting back into the podcast lane thanks to this far left pro women,

Lemonada company, Richard Eden over in the daily mail. Your old hot has a piece today saying they're struggling to get this thing out of the starting blocks. No podcasts are even expected anytime this year and not until 2025. And the podcast, by the way, is going to celebrate the joys of cooking, or at least something she's doing. Her Netflix show, I guess, is going to celebrate the joys of cooking, gardening, entertaining, and friendship, Pierce. She's going to be teaching us how to be a good friend. I can't wait to find out from Meghan Markle what that's like. Well, as one of the many friends that she cut off spectacularly the moment she got a bit of royal action,

along with her entire family, of course, on both sides, apart from her mother, I don't think Meghan Markle's in any position to be lecturing anybody about friendship. I mean, it always made me laugh that the Archewell website, their charitable foundation, says it's dedicated to compassion. I mean, it's hard to imagine two people who've been less compassionate in the last few years to the ones around, their loved ones, than these two right this is

two people who trashed all their family you know whether it was her father or whether it's harry's entire family at a time when prince philip and the queen were both dying um there they were on national television from oprah winfrey to netflix to whatever, you know, as the Spotify guy put it, whatever grifter they could get paid for, up they were trashing their families. So the idea now that they're reduced, or that certainly Meghan Markle is now reduced from somebody who, you know, remember Meghan, she had a fairytale royal wedding that was seen around the world.

You know, the carriages drawn down to Windsor Castle and so on. It was an amazing event. Everyone in this country, I'm in the UK at the moment, everyone loved that marriage when it happened. There was universal support for it, euphoria. It was only their behaviour in the first year of their marriage when they began to behave rankly hypocritically, lecturing about poverty whilst having half a million dollar baby showers,

you know, to lecturing us about the need to watch our carbon footprint and using Elton John and George Clooney's private jets like taxi cabs. And it was the constant hypocrisy that they got picked up on by the media. And then they couldn't handle the criticism from the media. And then it all turned hostile. Then they started suing everybody, and the whole thing got so toxic. Eventually, they just say, we've had enough of this. We're not going to do any more dreary duties on a wet Wednesday, which is what you have to do to earn your royal titles in the estimation of the public.

And they decamped off to Montecito, bought themselves a massive mansion. And they were supposed to be doing it, Megan, if you remember, this was going to be their liberation, their freedom, and it was supposed to be doing it Megan if you remember this was going to be their liberation their freedom and it was supposed to make them happy I've never seen two more miserable people who never stopped whining and suing absolutely everybody in the pretense that this is because they found their liberation and freedom if you're so damn happy and free and liberated shut up stop whining complaining about. But they're obviously not happy. And it's obviously been diminishing returns where when you trash your family again and again and again, eventually there's not much left to say.

And people don't really want to hear it. It's like the Spotify guy said, they're just a pair of grifters who just want to trash their family for loads of money and not put a shift in to do proper work. You and I know how hard it is to do this kind of thing properly. You know, it's a lot of work with a dedicated team and you put the hours in and you've got to be creative and

high energy and really put graft in. These two wanted to do massive deals with companies and then not do any work. Nobody wants to see her next podcast. Nobody listened to the first one. And that's for this thing she's now doing with the ridiculously long name that no one can remember, which is going to try and be the new Marvel.

Whatever. I have to write American Riviera Orchard Seafoot Note 47 for the remainder of the name. Right. And she's now got all her celebrity, you know, sort of B-list, C-list mates putting out Instagram posts about her jam. And it's like, how the mighty fool. This was a woman who had it all in this country, who literally had it all. And is now flogging jam from her kitchen in Montecito while her husband runs around fuming about absolutely everything and everyone because he knows in his gut, he knows what he lost. And eventually those chickens will come home to roost.

And then she will be touting their eggs on her stupid website where she's wearing evening gowns while walking around her mansion that we're supposed to feel sorry for because she's in. I love it. But on the grifter subject, one of the funniest things that was Bill Simmons, who said that at Spotify, I've never, never seen such a pair of grifters. They wouldn't do any work. She got paid all this money. She barely did anything him too. And now she signs this pod deal with his Lemonada. We're not getting a podcast for years. And then she decides to sign this deal with Netflix. She's done nothing other than now this show she's going to do on cooking and friendship finally. Okay. We'll believe it when we see it.

And then finally she's got her little riviera thing going we're so far we've had one jar of strawberry jam i know it's been the whole thing it was it's sort of lazy and a bit pathetic you know this is somebody who demands that we use the title duchess of sussex i come fromsex, which is a county in the south of England. I've spent more time in Sussex in the last month than Meghan Markle has spent in her entire life. She has no actual right. She's your ruler, Piers. I didn't know that she's your... She ain't my ruler, Meghan Kelly. She is somebody who... Listen, as I've said to you, I think, many times before, if they actually want to do this kind of thing

and trade themselves around as sort of, you know, celebrities and do that sort of circus, then they can do it. But they can't do it with the royal titles. They shouldn't be using the royal titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They're slowed on by the monarchy, an institution they constantly complain about and trash whenever they get the chance. Fine, if you want to go off and be celebrities in California, do it. But don't trade on the titles.

Every time I see her demanding to be called Duchess of Sussex, I laugh. Nobody in Britain calls her that. You're Meghan Markle. You know, she got lucky, met her prince, dragged him out of the bosom of his family, dragged him away from the monarchy, which bestowed those titles on them, and has now ruthlessly with him exploited those titles for massive personal gain. And I think it's disgusting and hypocritical. They shouldn't be allowed to do it. I hope that King Charles, who obviously is massively distracted by his illness, but I hope that King Charles at some stage just has that conversation and says, you can't keep the titles, I'm sorry, but you can't keep demeaning the status

of being a member of the royal family and attacking the family and the monarchy and retain your titles. You can just be Harry and Meghan and see how you get on, by the way, when you're no longer royals, because the answer is not very far. That's right.

Who wants your jam then? Piers Morgan, thank you so much. Such a pleasure. Check out Piers is on YouTube now. This is his main venue and he's crushing it. So check him out, Piers Morgan. It's probably youtube.com slash Piers Morgan, right? I'm subscribed.

I just don't remember the exact, but that's what it is. Just Google Piers Morgan on Sense of Youth here. They'll find it. Okay. Thank you, sir. See you soon, I hope. Glad to see you, Megan. Take care.

Okay. Up next, Harmeet Dhillon on all things Trump legal. Big developments today. Stay tuned for that. The issue of presidential immunity front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court today. And this is an important one, not just for Donald Trump, but for the country. Joining me now, Harmeet Dhillon, managing partner of the Dhillon Law Group. Harmeet, welcome back to the show. So you've represented Trump in connection with the efforts to keep him off of the ballots in various states successfully. And now this argument goes to something much bigger and wider about whether a president can be prosecuted for crimes at all for anything during his time in office. It's not about whether once he leaves the office, he can be prosecuted. Everybody knows. Yes. The answer

to that is yes. But while a sitting president, can he be prosecuted for crimes? So how do you think it's going? It's still going. It started at 10. Usually it would be over after an hour or two hours and 40 minutes into it. How do you think it's going? Yeah. So you're right, Megan. I was looking at my watch because how long this has been going on. It's been almost three hours and the government is still arguing and answering a series of hypotheticals from the justices. So what I heard from the president's very able lawyer, John Sauer, is a kind of a clear test that would make it very easy for the court to determine whether presidential immunity should apply in this case. And that is, you look to whether these are official acts of president as opposed to private acts in his

private life while he was the president. And that's the bright line rule. And then there are a number of both legal and policy arguments that they went through to underlie that. And what the government lawyer, Drieben, came out of the box arguing was very different. And the longer he argues, the more he's positing different considerations and levels and layers of tests that would, in effect, make it impossible for there to be a bright line rule. And that's the real problem, because the whole concept of presidential immunity, Megan, is that presidents, while they're in office, are dealing with literally the most important decisions in the world. And they have to be able to make quick decisions in the public interest without fear that their decision

may ultimately subject them to prosecution, perhaps like in this case, many years down the road. And so bright line tests are really what's indicated, whatever the rule is, not what I've heard this morning from the government. He wouldn't be prosecuted unless he's a bad guy. We can rely on the grand jury to protect us. And grand juries don't indict people without substantial evidence, which is actually nonsense. I laughed out loud when I heard that. And oh, wait, can I play that? Can I play that? That was saying I was like, what? So there was a bit where that where he was arguing openly, you know, you know that the prosecution, the prosecutors in this country, they would never go after somebody for political purposes.

Right. I think Kelly McGuire, who cut these thoughts for me, I think that's not 17. Let's play it. Now, you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough. Why shouldn't we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's not the law? Well, I am defending the Court of Appeals judgment. And I do think that there are safeguards that the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct. That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence.

A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution under weight versus United States. It's not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do. Oh, my God, Harmeet, it's not. So if if I in the two hours almost that we've been listening to the government's case and it's still ongoing, the only clear rule I heard out of Michael Dreeben's mouth effectively was trust the government. Trust the DOJ specifically. That's it. Trust the DOJ. The DOJ officials will never give bad advice to the president. They will never do anything that's not protective of the best interests of the country. Of course, not trust the president, who was actually elected by the people and by the states and the electoral college, but trust the DOJ and its thousands give the government the benefit of the doubt, not trust them. But today I say that I cannot give credence to what DOJ officials are doing, saying, or

recommending. It is not in the public interest in many cases. I've seen that time and time again, what from the First Amendment cases representing Project Veritas, in the cases involving COVID, which I went to the court many times over these issues. Time and time again, the government has made the wrong calls in my lifetime. And in this case, this particular prosecution is rife with official acts. And so the bright line rule, I think, is the correct way to go for the court. And I think many of the justices are struggling with how do we fashion a rule that then incentivizes people and gives them clear guidelines so that we aren't here over every

single act of a president and there isn't a chilling effect on the presidency. And right out of the box, John Sauer made the very good point that if we don't have a bright line rule, that is the rule we're advocating here for President Trump, effectively, all living presidents could be prosecuted for their acts while in office. For example, the weapons of mass destruction argument under President Bush, the droning of American citizens by President Obama, the open border that President Biden has been allowing today. Do we want presidents to be able to be prosecuted for that? And the rule that we're articulating for says, no, that they should not be prosecuted for official acts. But when you listen to the argument, and Justice Katonji Brown Jackson was really digging into, even, you know,

there was an argument I hear advocated for some of the justices that even all of the official acts, a president shouldn't be immunized from prosecution, that we should then look at whether certain things are core acts of the presidency, or whether they're acts that a president did, but they're straying beyond the core acts of the presidency into acts that overlap with other branches of government. So the longer I listen, the less clear it became from what the government is articulating here. Yes, pretty convoluted. And Justice Gorsuch. And it is kind of interesting, right? Of course, this is a Trump case about presidential immunity. And three of the justices sitting up there were appointed by Trump or nominated by Trump. So, I mean, it is they're kind of I mean, I trust they'll reach an objective opinion.

They've ruled against him before, but it's just a fun kind of dynamic to watch. Anyway, Gorsuch is one of those justices. And he was giving the Dreeben, the lawyer representing in this case, the government, the following question, like if we if we go with your rule where they're just totally kind of exposed while they're in office, all these presidents, why aren't we setting them up for the following weirdness? Watch this. It's soundbite 18. Let's say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that's going through. And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress. Now, under 1512 C2, that might be corruptly impeding an official proceeding.

Is that core and therefore immunized, or whatever word, euphemism you want to use for that? Or is that not core and therefore prosecutable without a clear statement that applies to the president? It's not core. The core kinds of activities that the court has acknowledged are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis. And it's a pretty small set, but things like the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation. So a president then could be prosecuted for the conduct I described

after he leaves office? Probably not. OK, that was more to your point of we're getting very confusing now. This is this is out. Here's here's a different exchange Gorsuch had on whether a president where we're going to have or said he's setting us up now for a situation where the president has to pardon himself every presidential term before he leaves office. What would happen if presidents were under fear, fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office, whether it's whether they're engaged in drone strike, all the hypotheticals. I'm not going to go through them. It seems to me like one of the incentives that might be created is for presidents to try to pardon themselves. Do you have any thoughts about that? As Fitzgerald, I think very powerfully emphasize the real concern here is, is there going to be bold and fearless action? Is the president going to have to make a controversial decision, whereas political opponents are going to come after him the minute he leaves office. Is that going to unduly deter? Is that going to dampen the ardor of that president to do what our constitutional structure demands of him or her, which is bold and fearless action in the face of controversy?

And perhaps if he feels he has to, he'll pardon himself every every four years from now on. But that, as the court pointed out, wouldn't provide the security because the legality of that is something that's never been addressed. Sticky wick in her meat. I mean, we are in uncharted territory here. We are. And this is probably the most important case of this term because it has far and wide reaching implications for whether some of our past presidents might be exposed to future prosecution if Republicans are ever allowed back into the White House, which is a whole separate question. And what I found very interesting is typically when you listen to Supreme Court arguments, it's usually very dry and very respectful and non-inflammatory. And I think, you know, that's what I heard from the president's lawyer. What I heard from the government's lawyer was literally the same kind of political rhetoric that is being used on the talk show airwaves on a daily basis to demonize and demagogue the former president. So the assumption out of the mouth of the prosecution side, the government side, Michael Drieben was constantly using the inflammatory

labels, fake electors. And, you know, you know, just which I think is pursuing the outcome of the case and not sort of, you know, really looking at this from an objective perspective for purposes of fashioning an objective rule that courts can apply, that presidents can can be guided by, because that's really the ultimate question in the case, right? Yeah, that's why they took it. They had a ruling from a lower court. They took it to provide clarity from the highest level.

We're not done. There's a lot more interesting aspects of this to get to. We're going to take a quick break. Harmeet stays with us. Don't go away. Help me understand, because I heard Sauer, counsel for Trump, concede in an exchange with Justice Coney Barrett that some of the acts brought up in the indictment and the indictments against Trump would not be considered in Trump's official capacity. And she went through a couple of them with him and he was like, yeah, not in his official role.

So it seemed to me that that concession was an acknowledgement by him that this case will likely get kicked back down to a lower court for some adjudication on at least those pieces of Jack Smith's claims, which I can see works for Trump in terms of delay, delay, delay, you know, but Trump would rather have just everything swept as immune, you know, and not have to. So I'm going to play the exchange and then you explain to me what's happening here, because I don't know that I fully understand what Sauer was doing. Here's Amy Coney Barrett questioning Trump's lawyer, Sat 15. You concede that private acts don't get immunity.

We do. Okay. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. Petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private? As alleged. I mean, we dispute the allegation, but that sounds private to me. Sounds private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. That also sounds private. Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. And petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney

directed that effort. You read it quickly. I believe that's private. I don't want to. So those acts you would not dispute. Those were private and you wouldn't raise a claim that they were official. As characterized. Okay, Harmeet, explain that. What's happening? Yeah, so this is a tactic taken by the president's lawyers in the Supreme Court, which is if you took the position, and this is a smart move by lawyers, if you take your position as an advocate too far, you risk losing some of the justices, particularly those, I mean, you have to look at the fact that some of them were appointed by President Trump. We've been discussing it here. They're extremely sensitive to any claim that they might be biased because of that. And so,

you know, they have to be objective and apply the law objectively. So if you take too extreme a position, you're going to turn off those reasonable justices who might otherwise vote for you. And so this is where they've chosen to draw the line that, and this is following a civil case that's currently pending. It's part of a series of cases called Blassing Game. So you heard that word Blassing Game versus Trump a lot in the first part of this argument. And this refers to a D.C. Circuit ruling about civil liability of President Trump. And this arises in cases of these Capitol Police officers and some others

who are suing him. My law firm represents him in those cases as well, in some of those cases as well. And in that case, the D.C. Circuit's ruling was that he cannot have civil immunity for candidate Trump actions. He can't have civil immunity for President Trump actions. And so that's the bright line, supposedly bright line in that case. And so this is what John Sauer is referring back to, is that there are certain acts that could be construed to be candidate Trump. And some of them were run through in that example. He didn't necessarily concede all of them.

And then there are others that are clearly President Trump. President Trump and presidents in general do a lot of things that are beyond the core limited president only functions. They advocate for legislation. They make decisions. They make up executive orders. That's not in the core functions of the Constitution. These are all things that have happened since then. And so what the D.C. Circuit did in this case below was very extreme. They did not adopt that blasting game analysis at all. They did not attempt to make that determination of which of the acts alleged in the indictment might plausibly be President Trump acts versus candidate Trump acts. They basically swept them all with the broad brush, refused to conduct that analysis. So at a minimum, what we are asking for the President Trump side is to send this case back down and conduct the proper analysis to sort the wheat from the chaff here, because clearly a lot of what is alleged in this indictment is simply as a matter of 250 years of precedent, presidential acts that are not subject to

prosecution, period. And then the others, they have factual defenses to them, but the government, sorry, John Sauer did not want to concede that everything President Trump is alleged to have done is necessarily President Trump versus candidate Trump. So I'm thinking about the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and its ruling. As of now, because that's right now with a governing ruling until this Supreme Court reverses or affirms. Is the president naked at the moment? Does the president have no immunity for acts while in office thanks to that ruling?

Well, I think the ruling only goes to the acts alleged in this particular indictment. We all know as lawyers and as one of the justices made a joke to the sort of idiom that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. The supposed protections of a president or anybody, any of us really, from being indicted for our activities because, oh, there's an objective system and there's due process and there's the Fourth Amendment and there's a grand jury system. And of course, someone innocent would never be indicted, which is the DOJ's default position. That's ludicrous. It happens all the time. And even some of the liberal justices conceded that occasionally. I think it was Justice Sotomayor who said innocent people have been put to death in this country. So what kind of protection is that? So, you know, at this point, I would say not just President Trump. And this is a critical point.

Not just President Trump, but every living president is exposed by the ruling of the D.C. Circuit to prosecution for acts that are within the statute of limitations. I mean, murder has no such president. President Trump right now is kind of standing there. Forgive me, but like, you know, exposed. Well, let's go with that. It's nicer than naked. He's standing there exposed. And his lawyers are trying to build a fortress around him that would benefit not just Trump, but any president, a fortress around him to allow him to do his job as president and future presidents to do their jobs as president better.

And without having to worry about getting hopped up on criminal charges all the time. And and instead of kind of saying we want the full fortress around him on everything, Sauer admitted, OK, it may be a partial fortress. There's some things over here pursued in his role as candidate that may not have been presidential acts. And I'm not going to fight you on those. We may have to go back down to the district court and argue about those. But I want the fortress reestablished for a whole bunch of stuff. And it'll benefit not just President Trump, but all presidents. And this Supreme Court's trying to fashion a rule. Seems like they're accepting that as a

practical reality. At least that was my feeling like that. That was winning. I think some immunity will be provided, but definitely not all. What do you think? I think what's going to happen and, you know, given the rule articulated by the president's lawyers at the outset for strategic and also, I think, integrity reasons, the best case scenario is this case gets remanded with instructions to the D.C. Circuit or the trial court to apply existing precedent to parse out a significant part of this indictment should be simply tossed out as ineligible under constitutional framework. Because that, sorry to interrupt you, but that because that what that will do is is decide

what's Trump actually going to get tried on? What what is fair game for a jury to actually look at and what's not? But all of that is very helpful for Trump, Harmeet. No, because it's absolutely because if first of all, it's delay. And second of all, it's my belief that nothing that falls into that private category is also should make it to a jury because there's First Amendment defenses. There's a number of other defenses, very strong defenses on that. None of this case should ever reach a jury. But on this immunity issue, most of the case should be tossed out. The D.C. Circuit should do its job. It refused to do its job below. And of course, the trial judge was openly contemptuous, I think, of all of these arguments and his other defenses.

So this will be a bench slap from the court to fix their really gross error that leaves all living presidents exposed. It's so interesting. It's complex. It's complex for me, too. So if the audience is struggling to hang on, I get it. But we're just basically what happened today. Net-net was good for him. I think he's actually going to leave with something better than what he had. I just don't know what it's going to look like. So it sounds like you agree with me on that. I agree with that. And look, to be clear, I think Michael Dreeben, very, very smart lawyer. The fact that he had to argue so long and produce test after test, pulling tests out of his hat, is problematic because the justices

don't want to see a slippery slope, wishy-washy, loosey-goosey ruling come out here. That's terrible for the presidency and for separation of powers and for the Constitution,

the operation of this government. It is important that a bright line test come out, that courts can apply clearly so that we don't have this again. Nobody wants to be hearing cases like this, I'm sure, at the court. Here's a last soundbite on this. This is Justice Alito raising a similar point in Stop 25. If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that

the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent. Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? So I think it's exactly the opposite, Justice Alito. There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election. And outside the record, but I think of public knowledge, Petitioner and his allies filed dozens of electoral challenges. And my understanding is lost all but one that was not outcome determinative in any respect. There were judges that said in order to sustain substantial claims of fraud that would overturn

an election result that's certified by a state. You need evidence, you need proof. And none of those things were manifested. So there is an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence. If you lose, you accept the results. That has been the nation's experience. Okay. I just wanted to say that listening to Sam Alito there, you know, they do kind of live in an ivory tower, but they know what's happening in the country. But he was talking about how, you know, prosecutors are going to do this thanks to a bitter opponent in a presidential race isn't going to cause instability. Welcome to our world, Sam. Yes, it's going to. We're all

living with a day to day. Can I add one more point here? I want to amend something I said. What's interesting is that President Biden himself may not be feeling the pain of potentially facing that because a separate special counsel has ruled that he's too feeble minded and old and depraved, frankly, mentally to stand for trial. So this is a triple jeopardy in that sense that the one guy who's orchestrating this witch hunt clearly from the White House is the one guy who some DOJ officials think can't stand trial. Quickly, the Trump criminal trial in New York, the hush money, the stormy, blah, blah, blah, blah. David Pecker's still on the stand.

Harmeet, the way I see this is, and I mean, I've got to say like the, is bloodthirsty too strong a term, but I mean, the bloodthirsty press covering this is a lot. It's a lot to listen to. Like it's a little dramatic for me. And I mentioned in the intro to this show, Maggie Haberman listening to Pecker. And I'll just give you a quick bit on what he's saying this morning. He is talking about how he had an exchange, several exchanges with Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer. And they came up with a system that would create a payment voucher voucher for Karen McDougal, the playboy playmate who was threatening to come forward about her affair with Trump for for McDougal's lawyer, that the prosecutor was getting louder, she reports,

as he drills into a critical element of the prosecution's case, that these payments to Karen McDougal were made to influence the election. He's getting louder to make the point. He is identifying exhibits that corroborate the story about McDougal. Pecker admits straightforwardly when asked that he did not, quote, want this story to embarrass Mr. Trump or embarrass or hurt the campaign. Per the New York Times, this is the crescendo of his story about Karen McDougal and hugely powerful testimony for the prosecution. Haberman says the testimony is leading into a clear story about knowingly violating campaign finance laws and Harmeet.

It is true that David Pecker, the American media Inc already struck in a cooperation agreement with the government so that they wouldn't get prosecuted. And Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking the law by doing these acts. But he actually went to jail after pleading guilty to a bunch of stuff. It wasn't just this. It had to do with these taxi medallions and all this stuff. But just because somebody strikes a cooperation deal or pleads guilty to a crime that later gets brought against someone else does not mean the crime was legally sound or valid in the first place. And what I really think, and I'm open-minded to, okay, maybe they've got this legal theory, walk me through it. I'm a lawyer. I want to be right more than I want to be loved by an audience. What I see here is still to prove,

because they're arguing this campaign finance violation, to prove there was a campaign finance violation for them to do all of this, a campaign donation that wasn't allowed. You have to prove that the only reason one would ever engage in such payments to a woman like Karen McDougal or a woman like Stormy Daniels or a doorman with his alleged story about Trump, which has been disproven, would be to advance a campaign. It has to be it's an objective standard that looks at the nature of the payment, not the reasons in this particular case. So I don't care. I don't care what Packer says about his concerns. Trump might lose where or what Trump even Trump could take the stand and say, I did it because I didn't want to lose. And it wouldn't matter given the nature

of these payments. But Harmeet, so you agree with me. I'm glad because it's so confusing. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Where is that? Where is that guardrail in what's allowed in terms of the testimony? And ultimately, I feel like the guardrail is going to be missing on the jury instructions, too. Well, look, this this case is a complete travesty of justice. And I don't say that just as a lawyer who's represented President Trump against Stormy Daniels and won six hundred thousand dollars total in judgments against her. I mean, that is the most biased possible witness. She owes him currently over $300,000 after some offsets. Secondly, it is very clear at the time of those prosecutions where Michael Cohen pled guilty that he was incentivized, as many criminal defendants are, to compose, to make up allegations that literally had little or

nothing to do with the underlying strong allegations that the government had against him with respect to taxi medallions and a bunch of other misconduct on his part. This other stuff was swept in there for purposes of planting the seed for this prosecution. You're absolutely correct, Megan. We've given the advice to many candidates and it is so common in corporate America. I have personally drafted agreements like this. Your client did nothing wrong, but there's a fake allegation by a disgruntled former employee or random member of the public. You give them $125,000 is literally nuisance chump change. It costs a lot more to try a case. It's nothing. And if there is a mixed motive for

a payment under campaign finance law, federal campaign finance law, the candidate wins. And that is the case here, that there is a mixed motive for any such payment. And that is, buy peace, save money, protect your marriage from frivolous allegations as a famous man about town frequently has to do. And so it is actually an open and shut case. And what the judge did in this case, Judge Merchant, is outrageous. He has prevented President Trump from bringing in campaign finance experts who would have advised the court that there is no finance violation here. This is the most biased. Absolutely. And my God, we have limited time here. But I could go on of the number of reversible errors this judge has committed. That is but one of many. And, you know, this morning with the Harvey Weinstein case coming down and the reversal in the New York court,

that literally what's happening in court right now in this Trump case is what the highest court in New York has said is impermissible. That is. OK, wait, wait, this is great. This is this is big. I want to I want to talk about this. Let me just set it up, though, because, yes, this is important. And thankfully, the Megyn Kelly show audience is smart and informed because we've gone neck

deep on the Harvey appeal with our pal Arthur Idalla, who argued it. And so for those of you who love Arthur like I do, go, Arthur. Yay. He won. I know we don't like Harvey, but that's a separate matter. We care about due process and we care about rule of law. And what happened is today, Arthur Idalla won. He was on the show explaining how he felt about how the argument went. He knew it was going to be kind of tight. He's trying to get the conviction of Harvey Weinstein on these sex assault and rape claims reversed.

Not because he, or I don't know what Arthur thinks, but not necessarily because of guilt or innocence, but because the process in trying Harvey was unfair. He was deprived of his due process rights because New York allows everything in against somebody who gets accused. Like all your bad acts. If you had taken the witness stand, everything he'd ever done, every woman who ever had an accusation tested or not would have been allowed to take the stand against him. It effectively deprives this person of their right to take the stand. Here's Arthur explaining some of it on our show just like a month ago. They tried to introduce women who rejected him under the premise that see these women who he's not charged with they rejected him so it must be true but the women who he's charged with rejected him as well and that just demeans women and that's what i told that to the judges i mean

what all women react exactly the same way of course not not. There were more women who testified against him who he was never charged with, never went in front of a grand jury than with the women who he was actually charged with. She said, how could this be a fair trial when it's a he said, she said case, and you took the he said out of the equation and you added more, she said, she said, she said,

that he wasn't even charged with. So we are waiting, honestly, on pins and needles. I have three men on the panel. Can they go home and tell their family, yeah, I'm helping Harvey Weinstein out? I mean, I don't know. I hope they can. I pray they can for our whole system of justice. For every defendant in the United States of America, I hope they have the strength to say, yeah, I'm helping a bad guy because under the law, he wasn't treated fairly. OK, so by the way, Harvey's going to stay in jail, but explain how this helps Trump's case. Yeah, no. So just I'll finish my thought, which is this is prior bad act kind of evidence that

that has got nothing to do with the case under prosecution, really. And the idea that somebody did something similar in the past and he's a bad guy because of that, that's literally a backdoor way to just smear him in violation of due process. And the New York's highest court has ruled that there is very clear precedent that says that you can't do that. So I think we can all agree, Harvey Weinstein, total scumbag, okay? However, it's enough to prosecute him for the actual acts that they were able to get him on within the statute of limitations. And if he's retried, they can still get a prosecution based on his disgusting behavior in the case at trial, as opposed to his disgusting behavior in

a number of cases where the statute of limitations had passed, the witnesses, you know, memories had faded. And, you know, he's going to be in jail for a long time and on both coasts for his horrible behavior, regardless of this. But due process wins in this case. And if this rule were applied in the New York case against President Trump, this David Pecker stuff, which has now already tainted the jury, is reversible error and requires a retrial without this evidence there. And with a different judge who's incredibly biased under New York law, had an obligation to recuse himself. And with that, I will rest my case. We consider it submitted. Harmeet, thank you so much. Great to see you. Thank you for having me. Isn't this so interesting? My gosh, so many of our stories coming together that we've been covering on this show. It is very fascinating to me to see how the Harvey Weinstein case might actually help Trump. And I do wonder whether that, that ruling that Judge

Mershon made the other day, you guys remember this saying everything could come in, you know, virtually everything could come in, not the, not this sexual assault civil verdict against Trump that was won by E. Jean Carroll, but the defamation verdict and the civil fraud verdict and the Access Hollywood, not the tape, but the transcript, all of these are alleged prior bad acts, at least some of them are, and they've been permitted. So it's not that this ruling is saying no prior bad acts can come in. There's always been an exception to that rule if it can prove pattern, for example, but it's been limited today, and we'll have to figure out how and just how much this could help Trump either actively in this trial or on appeal. In the meantime,

as I said, Harvey Weinstein's not getting out of jail. He's been sentenced to, I think, 16 years by the Los Angeles courts, and the New York DA has already said he's going to retry Harvey. So we're going to have another trial for sure. And he's probably going to win. He's probably going to win that trial against Harvey because let's face it, Harvey probably did it. I realize there are defenses that the women went willingly and all that. We'll see that play out. But win or lose, he should be convicted if convicted based on the testimony of the women who are subject to cross-examination and the rules of evidence and who you know who get who show up in court to present their story you should not be convicted based on a slew of past acts that aren't at issue

here or a slew of women who haven't had the full vetting that a criminal trial around them might lead to and so on. And we can't keep depriving men of effectively of their right to testify because everything but the kitchen sink come in against them. That's not good for us or for them. I feel like due process and justice won today and Harvey's not going anywhere. All right, coming up, we get to the Biden gaffe that I actually think might lose him the election. I'm not kidding. If I were President Trump, I would just run this on loop. I would start every campaign ad with it. I couldn't, I mean, I could believe my eyes, but it sounds like he still manages to surprise me with his utter daffiness. And I just can't believe his wife is allowing this.

Duggar, if this ever happens to me, honey, step in, step in. I don't have to do this show forever. We can go to Provence. We can sit in a camper. Don't let me humiliate myself like that. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on sirius xm at home or anywhere you are no car required i do it all the time i love the sirius xm app it has ad free music coverage of every major sport comedy talk podcast and more subscribe now get your first three months for free go to siriusxm.com slash mk show to

subscribe and get three months free that's drinking from a fire hose. Some days, not so much. Today, yes. Hundreds of students arrested across the country yesterday in the ongoing anti-Israel protests and Joe Biden's latest gaffe. Pause. Could it cost him the election? Joining me now, Josh Hammer, host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, and Sarah Gonzalez, host of Blaze TV's Sarah Gonzalez Unfiltered. Josh, Sarah, welcome back to the show. Great to see you. Thanks for having us. How can we not start with this? Here he was yesterday speaking in front of members of North America's building trades unions in Washington, D.C. It was such a simple assignment. It was so simple. Here's how it went. Imagine what we can do next. Four more years.

Oh, my God. Four more years. Pause. Pause. And when the White House transcription guy, God love this poor slob. Who knows what he's had to go through. They changed it to unintelligible. They refused to write pause, sir. We know it. We know what it was. It was very clear. He said, pause. He embarrassed himself again and he cannot be saved by the White House transcription guy. Sarah, I'll start with you on it. I really think this is the kind of thing that will horrify and stick. I agree. And I mean, look, we have watched gaffe after gaffe after gaffe with Joe Biden throughout these three and a half years. And even I, as critical as I am of Joe Biden and as aware as I am that this is

basically a weekend at Bernie's presidency, even I was like, I still cannot believe this happened. I saw it yesterday afternoon. Even in the evening, I'm like, I still cannot believe what I just watched here. This man has been in public service for what, 40, 50 years, and he still cannot read a teleprompter. It's because he's not here. I think we need to see it again and then pick it up on the back end. Let's watch it again. Imagine what we can do next. Four more years. Pause. Four more years.

Four more years. Oh my god. Keep going. Well, I just, it also can't be lost on everyone that the four more years chant was clearly completely staged because they wanted him to pause because they couldn't trust the audience to be that enthusiastic. They had to map it all out.

Unfortunately, they overestimated Joe Biden's ability to read from a teleprompter, which I'm sure we've all read from. It's very clear when they want you to pause. It's written differently in the prompter. There's no reason for him to make this mistake other than the fact that the man is half dead. It's true. You know, I was thinking about Josh, Mika Brzezinski on the Morning Joe show not long ago was angry when he tripped and fell on stage that time at his handlers. Why aren't they taking better care of him? You know, they know he's elderly. Why are you setting him up to fail or fall

or have these incidents? I mean, what are they supposed to do? Like he can only do it with a teleprompter. We've seen what happens when he doesn't have the teleprompter here. I mean, when he has the prompter, though, in defense of the Mika Brzezinski argument, which is like he should be spared these humiliations, he screws it up all the time. Here's a little montage of him, in other instances, reading the instructions in the teleprompter that are meant for him only. Watch. Percentage of women who register to vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so. End of quote. Repeat the line.

We can find that unity again. And the message said, end of message. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Oh, my God. Repeat the line.

I forgot about that one, Josh. Yeah, you know, I'm really happy you mentioned what the White House transcriber reproduces as, because what that actually reminded me of was that viral moment from the NASCAR race, actually, two and a half years ago, where the crowd starts chanting F Joe Biden. And they're like, oh, they're saying let's go brand. I mean, that was a let's that was a let's go Brandon moment in a nutshell right there. And I think that you both are right that things like this actually are really going to matter. Now, it's worth pointing out that Joe Biden has been a gaffe machine for the entirety of his political career. I mean, he's palpably senile at this point. I mean, it's not it's not a fun thing to say. I mean, I have a 94 year old grandmother. I mean, these things are difficult. I mean, it's not fun to discuss. But he obviously is senile. But that can't necessarily hide the

fact that he's been a genuine gaffe machine since the moment he first set foot in Washington, D.C. back in the 1970s. It really is remarkable, though, that when it comes to something as basic as a teleprompter, which literally any politician, anyone who is on the campaign trail who's giving us some speech, learns to master this very straightforward art. It's not exactly nuclear physics. It really is remarkable that he's committing this kind of mistakes in the year 2024. Hopefully, the American people are paying attention right now. I mean, ultimately, I mean, we're laughing here on the show and it's good to make that. He should. I mean, like this is a major

issue in so far as you look around the world, Megan. I don't need to be the one to tell you you cover it every day, but the world is on fire right now and the universities are on fire. All of our enemies are looking at that stuff. Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, they are kicking their feet up on the table and they are getting a bigger laugh out of it than the three of us just got on your show. Yes, you're right. I mean, Sarah mentioned weekend at Bernie's.

It's like a little combination of Bernie and Ron Burgundy, who was this, you know, anchor in this very funny movie back in, I think, 2004, because in the prompter, it apparently read, I'm Ron Burgundy with a question mark. That's Joe Biden here. Watch it just for old time's sake. Well, that's going to do it for all of us here at Channel 4 News. You stay classy, San Diego. I'm Ron Burgundy. Who typed a question mark on the teleprompter for the last time anything you put on that prompter burgundy will read he's bernie burgundy it's so funny to me i will tell you look i think i've told the story before but

there was an anchor at fox news who wasn't exactly the sharpest tack. And this person was signing off of a show and they forgot to have the person say, for example, I'm Megyn Kelly. Good night. And this person would say that their name every night when signing off. And the producers forgot to put the name in the prompter the one night that this person was signing off. And the anchor ad-libbed their own name. And when the anchor got off the set, said to the producers, I'm a professional. So proud that this person had remembered their own name, not even giving the gender on it. It's just, trust me, it actually happened. There are some real doofuses. They don't normally become

president of the United States. It's a problem. He's got the nuclear codes. And yeah, you point out we've got some savvy enemies watching every minute of it. Okay, so let's talk about what's happening with the college campuses. I'm interested, Josh, you're, you know, very pro-Israel and we've talked about this before. What do you make of the college campus madness and how, if at all, it should be reined in, right? The Columbia University is probably the best example because now you've got a push to get the president of the university fired because she called in the cops. She was trying not to be a Claudine Gay or Liz McGill, those other university presidents who testified on campus. She wanted to go the other way and be like, no, no, I understand. Israel knows you can't be anti-Semitic. But then she went so far as to

restore order or try to on her campus. And now she may get fired by her supporters on campus or previous supporters for doing that, contrasted with Governor Abbott down in Texas, who today said arrest them all, which may be, you know, well, is sort of a little bit harsher than even what she did. Yeah, I mean, honestly, Megan, I don't think that arresting goes far enough i mean typically when these students are arrested by local police or oftentimes even the municipal police departments i mean they're they're out within an hour or two of checking into the local police precinct i mean yeah they get a nice photo op in the handcuffs it probably actually increases their martyrdom

their victimology status frankly you know for for the locals who are kind of cheering them on back home i mean there need to be severe repercussions for this sort of behavior here. I mean, we're talking here about suspensions, expulsions here. This is not OK. I mean, just to just to give one very clear example of something that is happening on these campuses. You know, I saw on social media this text went viral where a wife was describing her husband going to 116th Street in Morningside Heights to evacuate their

Jewish freshman daughter from campus. And the wife described it as her husband getting there and barricading through these people shouting, go back to Poland, you dirty Jew. And she analogized it to refugees fleeing a war zone. Columbia's university is roughly 20 to 25 percent Jewish. It is in one of the largest Jewish population centers in the world, in New York City. And more to the point, this is Hitler youth Nazi stuff that we are looking at, Megan. It is disgusting.

I look outside. I cannot believe what is happening in this country, honestly. It's only gotten this bad recently too. I'm a fairly young guy. It was not this bad when I was on American University college campuses. But I think at this point, all options are on the table. Josh Hawley and Tom Conner calling for the National Guard. That seems to me totally, totally a good idea right now. We're talking here

about equal enforcement of civil rights. These students' Title VI rights under the basic civil rights statutes of the 1960s are being violated out in the open right now. Order must be restored by any means necessary. It is unlawful to discriminate against Jews because they're Jewish on college campuses or elsewhere. That's not lawful. You cannot stop them from getting to class. You cannot engage in an orchestrated campaign of harassment targeted at them. That is outside the free speech protections. But I do think we're into interesting territory now, Sarah, where you have Governor Abbott. I'll read you his tweet. I mean, I do like how Texas is like, don't mess with them. They are hardcore. I appreciate that. And I know hats off,

but I can see how this goes too far. He tweets out arrests being made right now and will continue until the crowd disperses. These protesters belong in jail. And basically the protests were the same as we've been seeing every place else. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in Texas, period. Well, I mean, it's America. You're allowed to be an anti-Semite. You're allowed to be a racist. You're allowed to be a lot of bad things. Like you can't stop it. You just can't do something to someone in the targeted group that crosses a legal line. And then he writes students joining in hate filled anti-Semitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled. So that's another thing. If you're in the protest and it's considered hate filled, you could be expelled. I don't know. We had a big debate about this yesterday on the show about like, I don't want you and I getting expelled or our

kids getting expelled because we won't say pronouns or we won't say a man's a woman. So we do, you know, we got to be careful. I agree. And I think that we need to clarify the language of what constitutes, you know, expelling someone because of their conduct. Obviously, these universities have every right to have some sort of a code of conduct that these students need to live by, and it needs to be doled out equally. But what is that conduct? Where is the line crossing? Because obviously, you have two separate issues. You have the arrests, and you have being expelled. And I think that Governor Abbott needs to clarify his language on the idea that

anti-Semitism is not going to be tolerated in the state of Texas. As you mentioned, Megan, people have the right to be a jerk in this country. And you know what? I'm glad when they show me who they really are so I can know to steer clear of them. So what does that mean? Anti-Semitism won't be tolerated in the state of Texas. But what I find so fascinating is that we seem to be conflating protests with riots and illegal acts. And I think that that's what the real problem is, because you hear from all these protesters that we were just trying to peacefully protest. These peaceful protesters got shut down in the state of Texas, and that just could not be further from the truth. None of these protests that I've seen, I'll use air quotes, none of these protests

that I've seen have been peaceful. I don't think that it's very peaceful to block people's right to travel freely, essentially kidnapping them on the highway because you feel like it. I don't think it's peaceful to threaten Jewish students and make them and harass them while they're just trying to cross their campus. And it certainly isn't peaceful to create an illegal encampment where they are not allowed to do that on these campuses. And so I think that we really need to look at this language and make sure that we're not allowing them to use the term peacefully protesting when we've seen that these things have been anything but. I would encourage these universities to expel the people who are crossing the line, who are threatening Jewish

students, who are harassing them them and who are doing illegal acts. But aside from that, I do agree with you, Megan, that that the language that was used in Governor Abbott's tweet, I think, needs to be carefully examined. And I would encourage him as the governor of my state that I live in. I would encourage him to perhaps clarify what he meant by that, because it is a delicate line here. And quite frankly, like I said before, I want people to show me who they are. Yeah. I mean, you can't like, and plus if we get to a point where a

governor can say no bigots allowed in the state, I mean, you, you guys know as well as I do that word gets used on everybody, anybody on the right side of the aisle anyway. So it's like, we're all, where are we all going to go? We can't all fit in Texas. You know, like we're going to need to be able to stay where we are. Having said all that, Josh, it's getting bad. I mean, it's like they've clearly popped up at campuses across the country. We've seen Yale. We've seen NYU. We've seen down in Texas.

We've seen Columbia, of course. They tried it. I'm going to start with the with the fun news and then I'll get to the more serious. They tried it at Princeton where it lasted about as long as Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels. It was very quick started and it was over. They set up their tents. They were ready to go. And then they got a stern talking to by some unknown person in the administration. And literally within five minutes, they packed up their tents. I'll show you the, well, take a look at Stop 43. You're all in violation of university policy. These tents must come down right now. This Your first warning.

Free, free Palestine! Free, free Palestine! Okay, yeah, hang on. Free, free, free Palestine! Free, free, free Palestine! Free, free, free Palestine! Free, free, free Palestine! Free, free, free Palestine! From the river to the sea!

From the river to the sea. From the river to the sea. Palestine will be free. Palestine will be free. You get the gist. Well, based on that guy yelling at them, here's what happened within five minutes. They're so tough at Princeton. Free, free, free Palestine. They're packing them up.

They're packing up every single tent orderly. They're folding them. They're still banging their drum. Josh, you get it. So that's, that's Princeton. This is the law and order campus. I have to say like, I would, I would still hire one of them. Like, that's fine. I understand you're on what I think is the wrong side, but you have a right to say that. And you complied when told to get out. Total chaos elsewhere at these other campuses. Yeah, I mean, you know, like I'm saying, I mean, I just I cannot believe what I'm seeing. I mean, I actually was down in the Florida Keys this week and I live in the Miami, Florida area. We were at a Jewish wedding. It was a big Zionist wedding. My friend is an Israeli and we were kind of waving the Israeli flag there. And in a moment of

darkness like this, I mean, having Simchas, having joyous occasions like that, I can't tell you, Megan, how important it is. I mean, to just feel the love from our community there because it's really bad. And all of my conversations with, you know, my fellow Jewish Americans are echoing a similar sentiment, which is, you know, is the earth really shifting under our feet?

You know, was the golden era of American Jewish life that existed for many decades after the Holocaust, was that kind of a flash in the pan? Was it kind of ultimately a result of kind of Western, perhaps even American guilt that the Holocaust happened? The younger generations haven't met Holocaust survivors. I mean, it's a whole crisis here. The crisis in higher education has been brewing for a very long time. Chris Ruffo had a great book about it last summer about the 1960s cultural Marxism. You kind of then factor in a lot of unfortunate immigration trends. We've imported a lot of people who simply do not share our values. And it's just a very, very toxic brew, Megan, right now.

And, you know, like I said, there's only so much that the Congress can do. I like what Mike Johnson had to say at Columbia University yesterday. yesterday, but it ultimately is up to governors, to mayors, to officials like that to work with law enforcement, National Guard as necessary to, if necessary, secure the civil rights of all Americans. That is literally what it is there for. I'm happy to hear- Just like they would do if the targets were black. There would be no debate about this, if the targets happen to be black. I've got to end on a different note entirely, because I saw you, Sarah, you posted about this. And I had not seen this one, but I know this clinic that's doing this to humans where there is a, quote, non-binary patient, 27, who underwent what's called a Barbie doll operation to remove all of her sexual organs.

No genitals, no belly button. This is a thing I've been telling folks about this at the so-called Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin that has been dubbed Frankenstein's lab. We are getting closer and closer to actual dehumanization. Yeah, we are. And again, that is in the state of Texas that this person came to in order to have those those surgeries. Look, I'm just so tired of playing using the left's language, playing with the idea that we want to make this illegal for children because it's wrong. And we know that you cannot turn into something that you were not born as. I think that we need to stop having that conversation and start shifting it to there's no reason that we should allow mentally ill humans. I don't care how old you are. If you are mentally ill and think that you should be chopping off your healthy body parts, we should not even participate in that

conversation as if that's a thing that we should allow mentally ill adults to do. It should be all across the board. This should be completely outlawed. History will look back and judge us harshly for the way that the medical community prayed their predators. Megan, they're preying on vulnerable people because they know that they will become lifelong cash cows. And it's just disgusting. It's so true, Josh. They that's she's exactly right. These are these people are not well. This is a 27 year old woman who had a total hysterectomy, got rid of. I don't know. There's like some hole that's left for urination, nothing else. And everything else is gone. And the first rule of medicine is do no harm. That's right. So, you know, Megan, you're a lawyer. You'll appreciate this.

I noticed something very, very interesting at the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday. So yesterday I'm going to relate back to the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday. So yesterday, I'm going to relate back to the transgender issue, I promise. But yesterday was the Idaho abortion law argument and basically whether there is federal preemption for medically necessary emergency abortions that would override Idaho's nearly complete ban on abortions. And Justice Alito got the Solicitor General of the United States, Liz Proligar, to make what I thought was a shocking concession. I saw Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation tweeting about it. That's how I saw it. Alito basically asked the Solicitor General of the United States,

is a mentally health-induced abortion ever truly medically necessary? And the Solicitor General said that it's an issue of brain chemistry. I guess that was her way of describing mental issues, but not a physical issue. So the takeaway from that is, okay, well, what about gender dysphoria? Is that an issue of brain chemistry and not actually a physical issue demanding that we go ahead down below and chop off Mr. Winky Wink or do this Barbie so-called gender-affirming care that you're referring to? I thought that was a shocking concession from a Democratic Department of Justice with potentially very serious long-term ramifications if the right side of the legal aisle is willing to pick up that argument and run with it. And I'll just make one final point really briefly here. You know, this whole thing about

chemical castration for minors, this is one issue where America is way to the left of even the Europeans. So Scotland, just like a week and a half, two weeks ago, said that they are not going to have the NHS, the public taxpayer funded health insurance agency over there. They are not going to have NHS involved in taxpayer subsidization of chemical castration for minors. England had said that already earlier last year. The UK is actually way to the right. Scandinavian Nordic countries as well. America is a wild, wild West. So I think you take these factors combined.

It continues to be what I say is a winning issue for the American right if we just pick it up and run with it. I'll give you the last word on it, Sarah. Yeah, I totally agree with Josh. I think the way through is that all of these detransitioners are going to be the answer.

They need to sue the hell out of all of these hospitals that are doing this irreversible damage to them. And you won't change the minds and the hearts of these evil doctors, but what you will do is scare them into thinking they might go bankrupt. And I think that that's the only way out of this.

That's exactly right. Scare them too with an inch of their insurance policy and they will go away. We have one coming on next week, a detransitioner to tell their story. Josh, Sarah, thank you both so much. Great to see you. And thanks to all of you for joining me today. I'm going to be back with you on Monday. I have tomorrow off with Michael Knowles. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.