The Megyn Kelly Show - RFK and Tulsi Coast Toward Confirmation, and Trump's Legal Fights Ahead, with Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis, and Sean Stone | Ep. 999
Episode Date: February 4, 2025Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard getting good news and most likely being confirmed soon, the absolute meltdown about it from the left, the corporate me...dia, and some on the right, Trump's disruptor cabinet taking shape, and more. Then legal experts Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis join to discuss Trump’s executive orders against DEI and whether they'll hold up in court, the difference between private companies and public universities when it comes to DEI enforcement, Trump’s legal efforts to stop "gender surgeries" and “gender affirming care” for minors, Democrats in New York pushing back against it, the harmful long-term effects on children, the legality of Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy admitting he's harboring an illegal immigrant above his garage, his attempt to walk back the story now, why you shouldn’t mess with Tom Homan and his team, and more. Then Sean Stone, director of "All The President's Men," joins to discuss why Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel are disruptors who are shaking up the political landscape, why this scares the establishment, the truth about the conspiracy against Trump during his first term, his life and upbringing as Oliver Stone's son, the JFK files release to come, and more.Aronberg- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZl9z2UMvN9mwpUoU9-E9bADavis- https://article3project.org/Stone- https://www.seanstone.info/Prize Picks: Download the Prize Pick app today and use code MEGYN to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup!Firecracker Farm: Get 10% off with code MK at https://Firecracker.Farm/ 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/megynkellyshowTax Network USA: https://TNUSA.com/MEGYN
Transcript
Discussion (0)
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're in day 15 at the Trump presidency.
Can you believe that? It's only day 15 and the news cycle is still moving at a frantic pace. The Finance Committee just approved Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
This means it will go to the full floor of the U.S. Senate, where now he's expected to be confirmed.
The big question was whether he would make it out of committee. And with every single one of the 14 Republican senators falling in line, all 13 of
the Dems voting no, he appears at this point to have the votes he needs to get through.
It's amazing. It's a great day for America. They're melting down over him, not just on the
left, but at some more conservative, traditional Republican places,
because they cannot get over his, quote, anti-vaccine positions.
Just, well, you're going to have to try. Try. Go listen to the two hours I did with him on
the vaccines. Do your homework. Figure out just how anti-vaccine he really is
and whether some of the questions he's been raising about them make sense. And then,
no matter what your answer is to that, push it to the side and come to terms with the fact that
Trump has said he will not be banning the MMR vaccine. He's not going to be banning any of
these vaccines. He will object to some of them
if he finds some to be problematic. Obviously, he's on record as funneling a lawsuit, a couple
lawsuits to law firms against Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, which many parents declined.
We did a whole show about that with a fair and balanced debate, pro and against.
He'll say so, but he's made clear it's really not about his personal views.
But in that position, would he be in a position to say, you know what, you might want to take a
second look at this one? Yes, good. That doesn't mean your kid won't have access to it or you won't
have access to it. But some of us have become a little bit more vaccine skeptical in the wake of COVID and this HPV vaccine, which has injured some.
We did a whole thing. The end conclusion of that HPV vaccine thing that we did was
the one woman was saying she landed on doing one shot instead of two shots. Whatever,
you make your own decision. But the point is you can have a debate. You can have a debate. And the fact that the news media, the left and this portion of the right that's so pro vaccine has shut down any
discussion of it. I told you when I was on Fox, you were not allowed to entertain any claims that
there was something wrong with the MMR vaccines. And I don't, I'm fine with the MMR vaccines. I
gave them all to my kids. Thank God all my kids are fine.
Wonderful things happened.
They gained some immunity and they didn't have any adverse reactions.
But why can't we talk about the people
who had a different result?
How is that dangerous?
People can make up their own minds.
RFKJ is going in there
to deal with the public health crisis
that is happening in this country
right now. It's not about vaccine. Would you just zoom out from your obsession with vaccines,
RFKJ critics? Would you spend two seconds looking at the way we eat, the way we treat patients who
get disease, who get obese, who we funnel through a lifetime of pharmaceuticals and
additional medical procedures without pausing to say, what's making you ill?
Why do children have autism now at a one in 30 rate as opposed to one in 10,000 30 years ago?
Why do children have so many allergies? Why are children getting ADHD
in record numbers? Why are children suffering from ticks? Why are all these children getting
Tourette's? We're just not supposed to ask those questions. We're just supposed to go about our
business and consume all the dyes and the chemicals in our food that's not the Europeans,
eat the pasta that has the wheat that's been sprayed with this toxic chemical as a pesticide,
just ignore the farmers who are dying from cancer from the pesticides potentially that
they're spraying. All that should be looked into. Is it not fair to actually
kick the tires on public health and figure out whether not only have we just accepted
living this way, which is totally unhealthy, I mean, literally unhealthy, making us sick,
but it's being pushed on. It is an active part of the game for too many of these industries.
Do you think big pharma wants us all to get better like that?
Do you think big ag really wants any sort of mandate that requires them to change the way they do business?
RFKJ had to promise that he would work with farmers and ranchers to push regenerative agriculture, which is better for you,
retilling the soil and so on. And he said he would, but why can't we have the discussion?
That's on the Republican side. They protect the farmers and the ranchers and the Dems and
everybody else wants to protect big pharma. That big pharma ads were all over Fox when I was there.
It's not just a leftist thing. The point is this has gone on for too long,
too long. Stop with your obsessive focus on vaccines,
which are not in danger. Listen to what he actually wants to do. And on that front,
thank you. Thank you to the Republican senators who got him through this committee vote. It's
not done yet again, but who got him through this committee vote. Thank you to Senator Cassidy,
whose office we targeted. There's no question, in a totally legit way.
You guys all called. You made it so that that line, that phone line, was basically no longer
good because you just kept calling. I called personally. I called myself. I didn't do anything
I didn't ask you to do. And emailed and said to him, please, please do this. We hear your concerns,
but we're not worried about the same things you are.
Please hear us on this guy. And if he turns out to be the kook that the critics say he is,
Trump will fire him. All right. Have you ever seen a president more comfortable with firing
bad actors or people who turn out to disappoint him? Fear not. He's not afraid of firing and
replacing. So there's always that backstop. Just relax. He's not afraid of firing and replacing. So there's always that backstop.
Just relax. He's trying something different. That's why he was elected. And you can make
exactly the same argument on Tulsi Gabbard, who appears to have the votes as well.
Her committee vote is today at 2 p.m. And the news is all good. Senator Susan Collins of Maine,
who seemed somewhat skeptical. Remember, we talked about her answer like I'm happy with
her answers. What does it mean? We took it as a positive. Well, she's she's going to vote yes.
And so is Senator Young. Something bizarre happened, though. Senator Todd Young,
he he gave it to her pretty good at her confirmation hearing. He was clearly not a fan,
clearly he's a Republican. And in the interim between last week's hearing and today,
she had to write him a letter. I mean, it's amazing the hoops they make these candidates
go through. They basically have to genuflect and tell them all the things I'll, I'll give you
everything you want on your Santa's wish list list. Here it is. So she wrote in this letter, I'm honored. Okay. I'm committed to working to restore trust in the intelligence community.
And then she says, as requested below are the list of commitments you asked that I make to you
in this letter. You wanted it in writing. I commit to holding accountable and seeking
justice against any Intel community employee contractor or subcontractor who is suspected of making or
facilitating an unauthorized disclosure of any Intel program. I will not advocate for any
protections which should only be extended to lawful and legitimate whistleblowers. So this
is basically saying, if we have another Snowden, are you going to run cover for him? And she's
saying, no. Okay, fine. And she said at her
confirmation hearing over and over, what I'm going to do as soon as I get in there is create a
meaningful avenue for any would be Snowden to come to me to say, this is what we're doing.
And I will make sure it is meaningful and we won't have to have another Snowden. And this is
the second piece of it saying, and then if somebody doesn't obey this process and goes outside of it and goes to the news media in the way Snowden does,
I will commit to holding them accountable. Then she, the second paragraph, I commit to working
with the committee to evaluate whether existing laws, regulations, and policies are sufficient
to deter an Intel community employee contractor contractor, or subcontractor
from making an unauthorized disclosure of any Intel program. I will have confirmed,
communicate explicitly to the Intel community, my commitment to holding accountable and seeking
justice against any violator of existing laws, regs, et cetera. They're really, really focused
on Snowden, that I will not contrary to a statement on X on June 3rd,
2019, protect any Intel community employee, contractor, or subcontractor who commits an
unauthorized disclosure. They do not want any alleged whistleblower getting any sort of
protection. I mean, the truth is it's more complicated than they're making. I mean,
of course you're sitting here thinking, well, I don't think I want that. I don't want
to blow our secrets. I don't want to endanger our spies. But as you know, it's more complicated than they're making. I mean, of course you're sitting here thinking, well, I don't think I want that. I don't want to blow our secrets. I don't want to
endanger our spies. But as you know, it's more complicated than that. You know, some of what
Snowden revealed or turned over to journalists is very controversial. We talked about that with
Glenn, but some of it was exposing a program that we had our top officials lying about that did
capture within its net Americans and our metadata, things about like where we were
and so on. It very controversial. And you had, you know, people like, um, James Clapper under oath
lying about it. So that's what, you know, the Snowden situation is, is complicated.
They're wanting assurances from her that would apply to a case that's extremely clear cut,
right? Where the person's about to violate our confidences and endanger our spies and there's no
reason to do it. I'm not sure about these assurances. I know she had to give them.
Believe me, I'm probably more against Snowden than I am on the Glenn Greenwald side of things.
Tucker and Glenn and all these people have been advocating for a Snowden pardon. I'm not there.
But I'm, I understand Tulsi's position and I understand why he did what he did. And I don't
know that there should be this hardcore rule that we're never going to consider like the real
whistleblower status of somebody if they want to do a Snowden,
if they want to pull a Snowden. Again, I'm not on his side for the record, but whatever.
And then they go on from there. The bottom line is Tulsi looks like she's got the votes. We're
going to know in a couple of hours. And this is all great because Trump is trying to do things
differently. Again, it just goes back to Trump is trying to do things differently. Tulsi's right.
They do not trust the Intel community. The. They do not trust the intel community.
The American people do not trust the intel community.
They've proven themselves to be extremely political in their operations and their maneuvers.
And we need an intel community that we actually do trust and believe in.
Like, why did the CIA in the course of 24 hours change from the COVID virus came from a
pangolin to it came from a lab over the course of 24 hours from Biden's presidency to Trump's?
Why'd they do that? Why were they saying they believed it came from an animal, from a natural
resource? And then 24 hours later after Trump takes office, they say, okay, it came from a lab.
Hello, we don't trust you. We know you're being manipulated. You're pushing somebody else's business.
I mean, there's been a lot that's happened
with our Intel services.
And if we can get somebody in there
who is almost slightly adverse to them, okay?
She's not, but in a way she is.
She's not on bended knee to them
and she's not above questioning them.
Then good, good. Maybe that
will lead to real reform. And again, if, if, if it doesn't, if Trump is dissatisfied with his
presidential daily brief, if he thinks Chelsea's falling down on the job, he will fire her.
So just calm down. Okay. Um, I'm thrilled. I'm thrilled that these two look like they're in
cash. Patel's obviously going to get in. And that means Trump should have all of his nominees and it should happen
pretty quickly because he needs them in place. You know, we're, we've already seen confusion over at,
um, OMB, you know, we saw the terrible plane crash. Thank God Sean Duffy had been confirmed,
but it's like he'd been confirmed earlier that day. If something were to happen in the Intel
field, God forbid, we had a terrorist attack. He needs his people in place. We all know that he's going to get his people. Republicans should not
drag their feet. He has a mandate. Let's go. All right, let's go. Trump's been firing off these
executive orders by the day. As you know, they're beautiful. Love, love the Trump EOs. But as a
lawyer, you get paid not to look at a situation and say, ah, that'll never happen, but to look at a situation and say, that's absolutely going to happen.
And how do I protect against it?
And that's the purpose of the next discussion we're going to have.
What how are the Democrats going to challenge these executive orders and how will Team Trump protect against it? The ban on DEI, his order against gender transition procedures, an end to birthright citizenship.
That's already been challenged in court and more.
And for all of that, we've got two of our favorites back with us in a whole new era of political legal news.
Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, managing partner of Dave Ehrenberg Law and host of Court Authorities on YouTube, and Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3
Project. Okay, listen up, football fans. It's Super Bowl time, and it's now or never. Don't
miss out on football action with PrizePix, the best place to win cash while watching and to have
a little extra fun while you do. Especially when your team's out of the hunt, prize picks is a way to get involved and have a rooting interest.
Pick some of your favorite players to score and enjoy the game on the edge of your seat.
If you sign up today, you will get $50 instantly when you play with five bucks. You don't even
need to win to receive the $50 bonus. It's guaranteed. Then you can make your prize picks.
Doug and I are going to be at the Super Bowl this this weekend rooting for the Eagles. That's his team. So maybe he will pick some players on Philly to score
touchdowns in the game. Prize picks adds a little spice to the viewing experience, whether you're
there or not. Download the app today and use the code Megan to get 50 bucks instantly after you
play your first $5 lineup. Again, download the PrizePix app today and use
code Megan, play five bucks and instantly get 50 from this promotion. Guys, welcome back.
Thank you for having us.
So Dave, now former Palm Beach DA, what happened? Did you lose an election or did you step down?
What happened?
No, I'm the rare Democrat who did not lose an election this cycle, Megan. I decided not to run again. It's been 12 years, I believe,
in term limits. So I self-imposed one after 12 years at this job. Also, I got married, as you
know, and I wanted to buy a house. Yes, you need some money.
Yeah, yeah. So I went into the private sector and you know, that it doesn't
mean I can't do more TV and, and, and, uh, shows like yours. I love doing it. So I'm excited about
the next chapter. Uh, just means I'm no longer state attorney. More of a has been, but, uh,
excited about what I'm doing next. Awesome. Well, good for you. And thank you for your service.
Uh, Dem side or not, I very greatly appreciate you doing the jobs. It's not
easy. Certainly not easy to be a DA, a lot of responsibility. Okay. So great to see you both.
You're the perfect team to talk about this with. I confess Mike Davis that with each EO, I'm like,
yes. And then I'm like, cause you can, you can feel the filings coming down against them. And
that's where they're all, they'll all play out, right?
Like each one of these is going to get challenged.
All right, so where to begin?
Let's start with the Trump executive orders that target DEI.
That's the most sweeping one.
It's the January 21 ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity, which
by the way, is the perfect name for it because we already have laws on the books
that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.
And that doesn't mean you can discriminate against whites.
It means you can't discriminate against anyone
based on their skin color, based on their race, period.
Which is why I've been saying from the beginning,
all this DEI stuff is illegal.
This is illegal.
You cannot make hiring promotion,
firing decisions based on the fact that somebody is a white guy or a black woman. It's not okay.
So what he's really saying to me, Mike, is he's just now going to enforce this. He's going to now
go around and find the places who have been flouting the law and threaten them, potentially
deprive them of their federal money. Okay. Trump ordered agencies
under his control in the executive branch to apply the civil rights laws of which I
speak against private sector DEI programs. He also ordered the attorney general to issue a report
within 120 days that includes strategies and policies to combat DEI in the private sector,
including possible litigation and identifying large
organizations to target for investigation. The order specifically allows for teachers
at federally funded institutions of higher education to still advocate for DEI. They can,
they can, I want to get the right words. They can advocate for DEI, endorse DEI and promote DEI,
but they cannot use race and sex based preferences at these universities for hiring,
for admissions, for promotions, et cetera, but they can still have classes on DEI. Um,
so you tell me whether this is going to withstand legal challenges that say it's somehow a crackdown on free speech or, you know, a factor of race that may or may not be the determinative factor and whether this is likely to stand at the end of whatever litigation comes, Mike. Well, remember what President Trump did with
this executive order on DEI is he repealed President Biden's day one executive order on DEI,
where President Biden essentially ordered these executive branch agencies to promote this Marxist
ideology called diversity, equity, and inclusion. And the problem, as you said,
Megan, is DEI runs directly contrary to our federal civil rights statutes. It is illegal.
It is a federal crime. It's a civil violation as well to discriminate based upon race, right?
And so, and sex.
And so what you're seeing with DEI
is that you have the federal government
under Joe Biden intentionally discriminating,
which is clearly illegal.
So President Trump's executive order
is very carefully crafted.
And it essentially tells his executive branch officials, like the director
of the Office of Management and Budget, his director of personnel management, his attorney
general, to find these programs and eliminate these programs to the maximum extent that law allows, right? So it's not just, he's not just waving a wand
and making all DEI go away.
He's telling his executive branch officials
that they have to follow the law to do it.
So within the executive branch,
that's why we're seeing video or that picture,
for example, at the Pentagon,
of them taking down the DEI mural
on the wall, like within the executive branch and the agencies that Trump has control over,
he's saying, remove the DEI paraphernalia, remove the DEI classes, remove the DEI language.
And then in the private sector, he's saying in particular, when it comes
to large corporations and nonprofits, I want my attorney general to submit a report within 120
days with recommendations on who needs to be sued, basically, to force compliance with the civil
rights laws. Publicly traded laws, publicly traded corporations,
large nonprofit corporations, foundations with assets of $500 million or more state and local
bar and medical associations and institutions of higher learning with endowments over $1 billion,
Dave. So he's saying for those groups, he wants the DOJ to actually start enforcing the civil rights laws if they are unlawfully discriminating on the basis of race or gender.
Yeah, Megan, he has more power when it comes to the purse.
When it comes to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, that's where universities get financial assistance.
And that's where the federal government does have a lot of power. And the
universities thus far have been slow in responding to the Supreme Court's decision, because there's
a loophole that Chief Justice Roberts allowed that you can talk about race and how it has affected
you in your essays. And you have universities like Harvard and others that said, okay,
Johns Hopkins actually asked you that very question, how has race impacted you?
And so universities know that as long as it was the Biden administration there, that
the anti-DEI would not be pursued, that the Supreme Court's decision would not be aggressively
enforced. Now, there's a new sheriff
in town, and I would think the universities are now going to start erring on the side of being
more careful than they perhaps need to be because they don't want to get sued. They don't want their
Title VI funding revoked. I think it's a tougher question when it comes to private institutions.
I saw that Roger Goodell of the NFL said that they're going to continue with their own DEI practices of the Rooney rule to interview a black candidate for a head coaching position.
They don't have strict quotas.
And so you're going to see individual institutions like Costco to continue to proudly have DEI.
I don't think there's a lot that the federal government can do on that.
They can, though.
The federal government can wield a big axe when it comes to colleges and universities.
Here's the other thing, though, Mike. I've mentioned this on the air before. I've never
named the bank out of respect for my friend, but my friend is a senior guy at a very large bank
in Manhattan. And he told me that he needed to get rid of some people because, you know,
they were cutting back and whatever, finding efficiencies. And he was specifically told it has to be three white guys. And he was upset because the three people who
were the weakest on his team were either black or women. And those, if he had to turf people,
he wanted to turf the weakest ones. And it just happened in this case, that they had been DEI hires and they were not strong.
And his best performers happened to be white guys. But he was told by his boss that you have
to pick amongst the white men. That's illegal. That's exactly the kind of person who should call
Team Trump in a whistleblower or anonymous situation and say, you need to come investigate my bank.
And this has happened to me. And then they come and kick those tires because there is a way of the federal government coming and involving itself against a bank if it's's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and she is very well versed on all of these federal civil rights statutes.
And not only are these private institutions potentially exposing themselves to tremendous civil liability for violating the federal civil rights statutes. You also have
a criminal component to the federal civil rights statutes. And so these banks, these institutions
that think they're going to be woke and discriminate based upon race, even though
the executive branch is making it very clear that
they're going to enforce the laws. I think they're doing this at their own peril. And I would say to
these executives at these publicly traded companies, remember, you have duties to your
shareholders to make sure that you're not running your company in violation of federal civil rights statutes and exposing
the company to astronomical civil liability along with criminal liability.
Okay, let's talk about the next one because it's getting interesting already.
Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation. That's the name of the EO.
This speaks to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries on minors in the name
of so-called gender affirming care, which is a complete misnomer. Um, I believe this should be
banned nationwide. This is child abuse. This should not be allowed on any child. I don't care
if the parents consent to it. A parent can't consent to take out a child's, you know, healthy stomach because it would kill them.
It would be child abuse. And so like they shouldn't be allowed to do this either. Absolutely
not. This should be banned on a nationwide level. This is barbaric that it's happening anywhere.
And so what Trump is saying is it is the policy of the United States to not fund or promote child gender transitions.
It will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called transition of a child from
one sex to another. And it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive
and life altering procedures. Organizations that receive federal education or research grants can no longer perform these
procedures. He writes the head of each executive department or agency that provides research or
education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals,
shall dot, dot, dot, end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children. And it goes on to say
the HHS secretary is also to use the following tools to end this, including Medicare or Medicaid
conditions of participation, meaning you can go ahead and continue performing these procedures
on children, a random hospital. You just won't be able to take any Medicare patients anymore.
Medicare will no longer be available at your hospital, nor will Medicaid. I mean, they're all going to comply. That's their
bread and butter. It also prohibits coverage for child gender transitions in insurance plans
that federal workers have, including any military worker. And here again, it has a directive to the department of justice.
The attorney general shall convene all States attorneys general and other law enforcement
officers to coordinate the enforcement of these laws, uh, of laws against female genital mutilation
across American States. So that speaks to the red States that have already banned this, um,
shall prioritize investigations and take appropriate
action to end deception of consumers by any entity that may be misleading the public about the long
term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilations. That's through, um, like advertising
through medical disclosures. If you don't tell the people, tell the families, tell the children
explicitly what exactly is going to happen to them. Then we can privatize investigations against you. And it goes on from there. So,
oh, and by the way, there's one in here for Tim Walls in Minnesota. He says the department of
justice shall prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end child abusive practices
by so-called sanctuary States that facilitate stripping custody from parents who support the
healthy development of their own children. That's a complete reference to Tim Walls and what he
did in Minnesota, making his state a so-called sanctuary where they will remove custody from
parents who don't believe in these procedures, put the child in the care of the state, and then have
a stranger act as their guardian while they chop off their healthy body parts. It's sick. Okay, so likely challenges to this one, Dave.
Yeah, Megan, I think a lot will be told
when the Supreme Court rules on that case.
It came before it in December.
This is the case out of Tennessee
where there was a challenge to Tennessee's
Republican-backed law that banned the transgender
surgeries for young people, for underage people. In fact, the conservative courts seem to be very
skeptical of the challenge, meaning that they were likely to uphold the law in Tennessee.
And I think that if they do uphold Tennessee's law, which is not just banning medical treatments, but also the hormones for people under 18 who are experiencing gender
dysphoria. And so if that is upheld by the Supreme Court, then I think all the other states
will have their laws upheld. I think there's about 24 states.
If I'm not mistaken, that case is about the hormones and not the surgical procedures.
Right. But if you can have a law that says that parents are not even allowed to let their
children take the hormones, then certainly you're allowed to have a law that says parents
are forbidden from having their children get the surgery. So that's why this case is so important.
I think that the Supreme Court
is going to resolve this matter for us. And it looks like they're going to allow bans to take
place. Here. OK, so here's here's what's already happening, though. Today in New York, you have
there's news that NYU Langone, which is a great hospital. Um, unfortunately they've
been doing these procedures or at least the hormones, because there's a report, I think it
was in the New York times yesterday that they, in the wake of this executive order, because they are
an institution that does receive some federal funds, um, denied or canceled two scheduled injections of puberty blockers. It's, I guess you get like a
thing in your arm, almost like a birth control pill as a woman. And they were about to do these
on two 12 year olds, which is not a surprise because that's when you start puberty. It's
disgusting. Like a 12 year old could ever possibly consent to what these drugs do to him or her. In any event, NYU
Langone canceled two of the procedures. And then there was a protest outside of the hospital last
night by these far left loons led by Cynthia Nixon, who is as far left as that. Yeah, it was
the group, the Democratic Socialists of America, the ones who are cheering all the dead Jews after 10-7, right in the middle of Manhattan, like, yeah, yeah, yeah,
dead, right.
Burned babies.
Yeah, we're in favor.
That's the Democratic Socialists of America.
So she parades out there with them.
And I'll show you her soundbite.
But more important than Cynthia Nixon is Letitia James, the attorney general of the state of New York,
who responded to NYU Langone saying, you better do these procedures because if you offer puberty
blockers for so-called cis kids, which is a disgusting term to just kids, to any kids. You can't deny them to, quote, trans kids or you have violated our
anti-discrimination laws, Mike. So that's now Letitia James is putting NYU Langone and all
of our other hospitals who are trying to comply with the Trump EO in a very difficult position.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what these Democrats are trying to accomplish here.
Democratic socialists, Mike. Democratic socialists. cut off and they're giving life-destroying pills and surgeries at a very young age, 12 years old,
13 years old, and then they want to have patients for the rest of their lives where you're spending
several hundred thousand dollars trying to maintain this gender-affirming care that these pills and surgeries that destroy the lives of kids.
Look, gender dysphoria is a very sad, tragic mental illness, but we're not seeing an explosion
of gender dysphoria in this country. This is a social contagion where these kids think it's cool to be trans and then their psychotic parents are actually going forward and allowing them to have these life destroying pills and surgeries.
I'm with you, Megan.
This should be outlawed across the country and it should be criminalized.
And if you're a doctor or a parent and you're doing this to a kid,
you should go to prison.
Yes, 100%.
These doctors are the problem.
What these doctors are making money,
hand over fist,
performing these bizarre surgeries.
And if you want to do that as an adult,
there's that weird clinic down in Texas
where you can get all of your genitals removed.
You can get your belly button removed.
You can turn yourself into some sort of cyborg if you want. I don't support it. I don't like it. I think you're weird and gross, but it's
really not my business. But when it's children, it's a totally different matter. But Dave, I think
you put your finger on it because what Tish James is saying is if you comply with the Trump executive
order hospitals, you are behaving in it. You're
discriminating between, between sort of regular kids and these kids who say that they're trans.
And that's exactly what they argued before the Supreme court in the case that you referenced,
challenging the Tennessee ban on these surgeries for minors. They, they tried to argue that the
proponents of these procedures, the people who don't want it banned, they tried to say it's sex discrimination to go in there and say that you can get a puberty blocker if you're an actual girl, but you can't get one if you're a, quote, trans girl, meaning like fake girl, meaning boy, that it's somehow sex discrimination.
And the Supreme Court did not seem at all inclined to buy that. And so Tish James's
objection really could be dismissed summarily, depending on how the Supreme Court rules within
a matter of months. You know, it's interesting, Megan, because they did make an equal protection
argument under the 14th Amendment. And I think it is a legitimate
legal argument to make that if the hormone drugs are available to juveniles who are not trying to
transition or don't have gender dysphoria, but they are not available to juveniles who do have
gender dysphoria, then that is an interesting equal protection argument to make. And I guess
then it's a question of, do we as judges put ourselves in the position of being medical
experts? Or do we put ourselves in the position of being judges where we defer to the legislators?
And right now, the judges are saying the latter. We are not going to try to know what's best and put ourselves in
the shoes of doctors. We're just going to defer to the legislature because we don't want any part
of this. And I think that's where it's going to fall. I agree. But I think this same type of
argument was scoffed at in open court when they tried to make it. And Mike, it's like, you can't, you know, take, take Ozempic. Um,
any adult, you know, maybe Lizzo wants to use Ozempic. I don't think most people will give
our hard time on that. But if you want to give Ozempic to a six month old baby, that's abuse.
You'll be in prison. You will be behind bars very quickly. Like we have different formulations
based on who wants the medicine and for what purpose.
And this is, this is, I mean, for some, it could be in essence, a vanity project to have these
puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones injected into their child. For some, it could be a form
of conversion therapy because in too many cases, they don't want a gay boy. They don't want an
effeminate gay son and they're bigots. They tend to be leftist bigots
who would rather have a girl. You're not a gay boy. You're a girl. And they push their kids down
this road. And their son would have grown up to be a totally fine, well, gay man. But they manipulate
him into doing. So it's just it's sick. It is like giving the Ozempic to a six month old. So I think Tish James will lose her challenge. And that leaves me though with Cynthia
Nixon, who we all agree, democratic socialists of America is a disgusting, vile group. And they,
they think they have the moral high ground here, Mike. She went out, she was of course,
one of the stars of sex in the city. She had the following to say. Most importantly, I am here today as the mother
of a proud trans man. That means a woman, a daughter. I am here today as the aunt of a proud trans man.
That means her niece.
My best friend's kid is trans.
And my kid's best friend is trans.
My trans kid had his top surgery at NYU.
His top surgery.
Her breast removed at NYU.
His doctors were fantastic.
His surgeon was the best we could have imagined.
And the idea
that this city is
filled with young people
who thought they had
a place to go where they could receive
the highest care and that
place has now been
shut to them. Sickens me. Sickens me to my core. I'll tell you one thing. She's right about one
thing. She is sick. She is sick. And to your point, Mike, about social contagion,
did she not just make your point? Yeah, I mean, it is truly sickening. Again, gender dysphoria
is a severe mental illness. We should protect them. We should treat them with compassion.
We shouldn't celebrate this and turn it into a social contagion where kids think it's cool
to go be trans and then have their psychotic parents like that woman
move forward with transgender surgeries, these life-destroying pills and surgeries
that change them forever. I mean, these kids can't even get Tylenol at their schools,
but their parents think they can get transgender surgeries? I mean, what would happen if a mother said,
we're going to cut off the arms and legs of my healthy child? People would say, you can't do
that. That is butchering your child. You can't do that. So how the hell do we let these crazy parents
cut off the genitals of their healthy children.
Yeah, exactly right.
But what do you make of it, Dave?
Because it just, I mean, it's barbaric.
And for her, you know as well as I do, 30 years ago,
it's not that there were all these trans people in hiding.
She's like, my, it's her daughter.
When you say trans, if you substitute in the word fake,
it actually gets you to the right result.
It's very confusing for people.
So she has a daughter who had her breast chopped off at NYU. And like so many other people, she wants to feel validated in her choice and her kids' choice by having other kids do the
same thing. And so she's going to go out there with the Democratic. It's no accident that she
could only find those loons to go march with her, Dave, in trying to make her
point. Megan, she ran for governor against Andrew Cuomo in a Democratic primary, and she got 35%
of the vote. That was a left-wing challenge. That was probably 34% more than she deserved to get.
She's spoken out against Israel and seems to care more about Hamas than the dead Israeli children
that are the victims of terrorism.
But as far as on this issue, look, I'm glad that Mike said what he said, too, because gender dysphoria is a real thing. And I think that it's important to treat these children with
compassion. I do agree that it's different when you're a child as when you're an adult.
And but at the same time, about like one percent, about one and a half percent of our country is identified as trans. And I do think that a lot of the conversation we have is inflating that number to make it seem like they're in every corner alley, they're coming to get you. And I think that it's important to realize we're talking about a very, very small group of people. I worry about discrimination against them. At the same time, I hear you. I think when you're a juvenile and you can't make the decisions for yourself under the law that perhaps we shouldn't be allowed, children should
be allowed to have that surgery. Now, the hormone blockers are a little different. I get it that
parents should generally have the say in their child's health, and lawmakers may want to curtail
that when it comes to this area. But that one's a little more confusing to me. I just think it's
clear, though, on the surgery that should be when you're to me. I just think it's clear though on the
surgery that should be when you're an adult. And just FYI, because a lot of people don't
know this, but if your child goes from puberty blockers right into cross-sex hormones,
he's sterilized or she is sterilized and absolutely no hope of sexual function.
So you have basically chemically castrated your child and they, they will never achieve sexual
pleasure ever. I mean, how can you argue that an 11 year old could ever consent to that? They have
no idea what that means, what, what that pretends for their life. And they'll, you know, it's like
people sue over this, the lack of consortium from a spouse because they're no longer able to perform
because they got so depressed after the car accident. You're guaranteeing lack of consortium for your child for the rest of his
or her life just by the hormones. Forget the surgeries. You know, Megan, it's interesting
you bring up 11-year-olds. As a prosecutor, we do differentiate under the law an 11-year-old
from a 17-year-old. We're not even allowed to direct file an 11 year old into adult court in Florida. You
can direct file, obviously, a 16, 17 year old. And so perhaps that's where it should be, where
there could be different rules in place for an 11 year old compared to a 17 year old. But I get it.
I understand as a parent why you are concerned. I just think since the gender dysphoria is real,
and I'm not a doctor that I just wish we could come to some sort of common ground on this rather than where we are right now.
All right. One quick question for you, Mike, on Trump's order that transgender people, you know, so-called.
Honestly, I just I really don't think there's any such thing.
There's people who have gender dysphoria who say they're a sex other than the one they are.
That's just too much of a mouthful. Anyway, he says they can't serve in the military anymore, like at all,
not even a desk job. And I was asking myself, you know, in light of the opinion by the Supreme
court, that it's illegal to discriminate against trans people in hiring, you know,
they've been given protected status when it
comes to hiring and firing at the job site, at the workplace. Could this be challenged?
But then you hear you can keep somebody out of the military if they have asthma. You know,
like there's a whole bunch of things that you can keep, like if they have the wrong tattoos.
So is there any question that that is a legal order by Trump?
Well, I mean, there's going to be a challenge. There will be a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
We fought a civil war, and we passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to outlaw
slavery, to free the slaves, and to provide equal protection and due process to the freed slaves.
And, you know, the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause has been interpreted since
then more broadly than freed slaves. I guess the question is going to be for the Supreme Court
whether we fought a civil war over transgender surgeries on kids. Oh, man. Okay,
let's do birthright citizenship because this is a big one. It's in the Constitution. It's in the
14th Amendment, speaking of the Equal Protection Clause, and it reads as follows. All persons
born or naturalized in the United States, Okay. So if you're born here,
just go with that and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States,
et cetera. If you're born here and you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
you're a citizen. So Trump issued an executive order saying, no, you are not a citizen. You don't get citizenship.
He says, if the mom is here unlawfully when she gives birth or the mom is here lawfully,
but she's not a citizen and she's only here temporarily. So he's basically just trying to
get it. Mostly he's trying to get it illegals who come across the border. They have their kid and
then their kid is an American anchor baby with all the benefits of citizenship. Now, Dave, there is
precedent as I understand it saying that subject to the jurisdiction does not create some loophole that's as big as the one Trump
claims and that we've been doing it right. Illegals who sneak in and have a baby,
their kids do get to be American citizens, but there are at least two cases, um,
on the other side suggesting maybe not. Maybe it's not as clear.
So walk me through your analysis of it.
Trump is hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns centuries of precedent here and redefines the 14th Amendment.
And he's got a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
So it's always possible.
But they liken themselves to originalists.
And if you look at the plain language of the 14th
Amendment, it says what it says, birthright citizenship is there. And if you want to undo
it, you got to amend the Constitution. Now, I understand that conservative lawyers are saying,
well, this is like foreign diplomats. Foreign diplomats are not entitled to citizenship either.
That's what an undocumented immigrant is and their children therefore are not
citizens. But that's not the way that the courts have been interpreting the 14th Amendment for many,
many years. Let me just jump in. Like if a diplomat commits a crime while he's in New York
City for the UN meeting, we don't arrest him, right? Because he's got diplomatic immunity,
because he's not really subject to the jurisdiction. And if a diplomat has a baby while she's on U.S. soil,
her baby does not become a U.S. citizen.
It's still a citizen of whatever country the diplomat is from.
So you're just saying you cannot analogize between an illegal person who's here
and diplomats like Trump is doing.
Right, right, because, yeah, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted since 1898
in a case by the Supreme Court that says exactly what we've been saying,
which is if you're born here, you get citizenship, and the only way to undo it is to change the Constitution.
And as for what happens to diplomats and their kids if they commit crimes, according to my sources, which is the movie Lethal Weapon 3, I think,
you get all diplomatic immunity unless
Mel Gibson shoots you to death. That is my legal authority as well. Mike, do we all concur?
No, I actually disagree. I just wrote an opinion piece on this in The Federalist.
If you look at that Supreme Court, that was- No, I'm talking about the joke on the film,
not about this adage. Oh, I'm sorry. Mike, you just walked right over
our joke. You just walked right over. I'm sorry. I missed your joke. I'm such a nerd. I apologize.
But great joke. All right, stand by. I know you have a very strong argument on the substance
that you want to offer. And we're going to do that right after this quick break. We'll pick it up.
This is actually a really good, this is a juicy one. I thought it was kind of a joke.
And the more I looked into it,
the more I was like, hmm, Trump does have a legal leg to stand on. And this one's going to be very
interesting as they really get into it. I've got some good news for you and it's called
Firecracker Farm Hot Salt. This small family business is making waves. And if you have not
yet tried it, it is time to change that. This was the gift to give and receive this past Christmas.
It's delicious and it elevates everything it touches.
Eggs, avocado toast, grilled chicken, and more.
It's got a kick, but it's not overwhelming.
The flavor enhances food without overpowering it.
The best part?
It comes in sleek, stainless steel grinders that are easy to take with you anywhere,
unlike messy hot sauce that runs out quickly.
Firecracker Farm hot salt lasts and lasts, that are easy to take with you anywhere, unlike messy hot sauce that runs out quickly.
Firecracker Farm hot salt lasts and lasts, providing hundreds of servings from just one grinder, way more bang for the buck. There are plenty of blends to choose from and refills are
available. So for those who find it a bit too spicy, keep this in mind. If you mix it with
some regular sea salt, you will tame the heat perfectly. Do yourself a favor and head on over
to firecracker.farm.
And here's the kicker. Use code MK at checkout for 10% off your order. Don't wait. This offers
only for a limited time. Firecracker.farm and use code MK for 10% off.
Okay. So just to reset, we have the 14th amendment, which reads in part,
all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are citizens of the U.S. and of the state wherein they reside.
Okay, so Trump comes out with his executive order that says,
well, your kid is not a citizen if he is born here.
If you, the mom, let's assume the dad doesn't have citizenship,
if you, the mom, are here unlawfully or if you're
here lawfully but temporarily. So if you're over here on some visiting student visa and you have
a baby, it doesn't apply to your kid. And certainly if you sneaked into this country or overstayed
your visa, it does not apply to your kid. Well, 22 states immediately sued, along with some pregnant ladies, to say that executive order
needs to be halted and that it violates the 14th Amendment. And on January 23rd,
they got what they wanted. U.S. District Court Judge John Koffenauer temporarily blocked the EO.
He's based in Seattle, but he's a Reagan appointee. And he wrote, there's a strong
likelihood that the plaintiffs will succeed in the merits of their claims that this executive order violates the
14th Amendment. The New York Times reports that he said in court, this is a blatantly
unconstitutional order. Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state
unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind. Now the debate is,
what does that term subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States mean? And Trump's DOJ argues it does not mean you're simply here and subject
to our regulatory power, like you'd have to obey our laws. It means you're here and you're subject
to our, quote, political jurisdiction and have, quote, direct and immediate
allegiance to the United States. So you're subject to our political jurisdiction. I don't know what
that means. Does that mean you can vote here? And you have direct and immediate allegiance
to the United States. Now, go ahead, Mike, because before we get to this 1898 case,
Wong Kim Ark, there were two other cases that are in this Claremont Institute's John Eastman
article in which the Supreme Court seemed to be suggesting, albeit in dicta, meaning not in the
relevant sort of holding the important part of the case, that Trump's interpretation is correct. But then,
as I understand it, we had a case in 1898 that while not exactly on point to those two pieces
of his executive order, provides the best fodder for the other side saying, no, it's a sweeping
interpretation of who gets citizenship. You go. President Trump's executive order is not only right, it's clearly constitutional. He has
this power to interpret the Constitution under Article two to make sure that the laws that he
is enforcing as the president of the United States are constitutional. And essentially, Essentially, what he's saying in this order is if you are here lawfully, if you're here as a lawful permanent resident, you can get birthright citizenship.
But if you're here illegally, if you're here temporarily, you cannot.
And that is exactly where the Supreme Court should land on this case. That
Chinese exclusion case from over 100 years ago dealt with lawful permanent residence, right?
And that was back before we really had the distinction between legal immigration and
illegal immigration that we have today. But even if you follow that Supreme Court precedent, remember,
this clause was passed in the 14th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision,
right? It dealt with citizenship for freed slaves and their children. And it was expanded
in that case over 100 years ago to lawful permanent residence.
But it's very clear that you do not have birthright citizenship for ambassadors and their kids.
You don't have birthright citizenship for invading armies and their kids.
So why the hell would you have birthright citizenship for, for example, Mexican cartel members who came here or Venezuelan prison
gangs who came here. You wouldn't. It's a silly argument. And I think the Supreme Court is largely
going to side with President Trump. Here is President Trump opining on some of what you just
outlined in Sat 12.
Do you believe that there are five votes on a Supreme Court that would uphold your
position?
On what?
Five votes on a Supreme Court.
What position?
Birthright citizenship.
I think so, yeah.
Look, birthright citizenship was, if you look back when this was passed and made, that was
meant for the children of slaves.
This was not meant for the whole
world to come in and pile into the United States of America, everybody coming in and
totally unqualified people with perhaps unqualified children. This wasn't meant for that. This
was meant when it was originally done for the children of slaves. And that was a very
good and noble thing to do. And I'm in favor of that 100%.
But it wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States.
So you don't see it requiring a constitutional amendment that would be?
I just think that we'll end up winning that court in the Supreme Court. I think we're going to win
that case. And I look forward to winning it. This has been going on. We're at that level.
We're the only country in the world that does this. There's no other country at this level. There's no other country in the world that
does it. It's crazy. So, Dave, here are the two cases that precede that 1898 Wong Kim Ark case,
which will be used by the president's challengers, Wong Kim Ark. But as Mike points out, that case is
distinguishable because it involved two permanent resident aliens. They were not temporary lawful,
but they were not lawful, but temporary, and they were not unlawful. Those are the two things that
Trump's order covers. So even in that case that went to the Supreme court, they wouldn't have
been bothered by Trump's department, a department of Homeland security. They would not have been, um, told that their son was not
an American citizen. Okay. But here are the two cases that are cited in that Claremont Institute
piece. They say, first of all, it all comes down to what does it mean subject to the jurisdiction
thereof? And the, the argument is, is it a partial temporary jurisdiction that applies to anyone here temporarily,
except for diplomats who are subject to our laws while within our borders?
Or do they mean, in order to qualify as like subject to the jurisdiction, do they mean
just those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as
owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power.
And they say that we don't have to guess because the drafters of the 14th Amendment unambiguously stated that they meant complete jurisdiction.
And they say the following.
The Supreme Court confirmed that understanding, albeit in dicta, meaning not the actual holding of the case, in the first case addressing the 14th Amendment, noting in the Slaughterhouse cases in 1872 that, quote,
The phrase subject to its jurisdiction was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States. It then confirmed that
understanding the 1884 case of Elk versus Wilkins, holding that the subject to the jurisdiction
phrase required that one be, quote, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the
jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
And he points out that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants
or even temporary, temporary lawful visitors are constitutionally entitled to automatic
citizenship merely by birth, by virtue of their birth in the U.S.
So, Megan, there's a couple of factual things since this is a show about facts. Facts first.
President Trump says that we're the only country that has this. There are 35 countries who have birthright citizenship, including Mexico and Canada.
Number two, I made a mistake earlier when I said that it was Lethal Weapon 3,
and Mel Gibson, who shot the diplomatic community, was actually Lethal Weapon 2,
and it was Danny Glover, who then said immunity revoked.
So facts first.
Appreciate that.
We are relentlessly factual here on the MK Show.
Appreciate it.
Yes, we are.
So here's the thing.
Mike, everything that's said so far is right.
President Trump's right that this debate stretches from the time of slavery and the 14th Amendment passed because they wanted to make sure the children of slaves are citizens because they're born here, they're citizens. question, does it include the Chinese? And that's when the Supreme Court ruled in 1898,
which is after the ruling you cite in that case, Wong Kim Ark, that yes, Chinese too.
If you're born here, you are a citizen here. And I'm just coming at this from a legal matter
where you have that Reagan appointed judge saying that if you make this argument in court,
you perhaps should have your bar license revoked because the
Constitution says what it says. And therefore, you'd have to get the Supreme Court to either
overturn hundreds of years of precedent or you gotta have a new constitutional amendment that
undoes the 14th Amendment. I'm not sure. I've got to be honest about this. I started off when
I interviewed Trump back in September of 23. I, I can't remember actually,
whether I raised this or didn't, it was on my list of questions. I know that. And I remember
kind of laughing at the argument. Like I was like, this is so clear. It's so clearly against
Trump being able to do this. Um, I think I did ask him about it. I have to go back and look.
Anyway, my point is I started off where you are, Dave, but I wound up where Mike is. Like the more I looked at it, the more I'm like,
this actually is not that clear. You say there's hundreds of years of precedent. There's really
only that one case that's been on the books since 1898, but they haven't been like reaffirming this
over and over and over. This is the case. But other federal courts have, I mean,
the other federal courts have ruled consistently with that case.
And until that case is overturned, then that's the law.
That's the rule.
But the Supreme Court.
That's correct.
That's correct.
But that case has, through other federal courts, appellate courts, has been reaffirmed that way.
They have recognized that there's not a conflict among the circuit.
There's no current conflict amongst federal courts that say. Right. But there's about to be.
As you know, there's going to be because somebody is going to you know, they've got these challenges
filed in Seattle and that'll go up. And probably Team Trump will potentially orchestrate a
different challenge in a more favorable jurisdiction that will go their way. And then you'll have a
conflict or maybe they'll just ride it up through the Seattle system, which I think is ninth circuit
and they'll get an adverse ruling to them. And then they'll appeal to SCOTUS hoping that,
you know, they've got enough, they got four, but we'll say that they should hear it. I just,
what, what does the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Like, what's it doing in there?
If they just wanted to give citizenship to everybody, you know, who was who was born here, why wouldn't they have just said all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.?
Why did they put in and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Sorry, they're trying to exclude the foreign diplomats and their children. So if you are a
child of a foreign diplomat, you also get immunity. And that's what they're trying to
separate. That's different from a child of someone who is in this country illegally.
They still get the privileges and immunities. They still get protection under the law. They still get due process. At the same time, they get citizenship.
So they're trying to carve out this exception from children of foreign diplomats who may be born here,
but they get diplomatic immunity who are not subject to our laws. They retain the citizenship
of the country that sent them. So that's the difference. Now,
if you want to try to say now they're all the same, that would be a dramatic change in the
interpretation. Well, I just don't know. I mean, if I if you look back at the Supreme Court's
actual like we have to look, what did the Supreme Court say closer to the time that the Constitution
was enacted and the 14th Amendment? And, you know, you go back to that 1872 case and they say
in its dicta again, but they say that phrase,
subject to its jurisdiction, intended to exclude children of ministers, consuls, those are
like foreign diplomats, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States,
intended to exclude citizens of foreign states born within the United States. I mean, that's,
it wasn't so clear to the Supreme Court in 1872 that they were talking about more than diplomats
children. They, they were saying you're born to parents from another country. You don't get the
provisions of this. And then again, 1884, a similar case. And then you had that case that's
problematic for Trump, but that, that did not have the same fact pattern that had two people who are here legally and permanently.
I just think, anyway, if you, if you come at it the way I came at it and you've just been told
over and over and over again, this is no brainer. I guess I just want people to know, maybe not.
I don't know whether this judge in Seattle has gotten neck deep in it either, but he's going to.
OK, speaking of illegal immigration.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, who is disgusting.
Sorry, but the covid overreach and the destructive, awful windmills are reason enough to dislike Phil Murphy.
He made this announcement just casually the other
day that he's harboring an illegal. Now he didn't say it explicitly, but there's really no other
conclusion to reach from what he did say. I'll play it again. Here he is on Saturday.
Tammy and I were talking about, I don't want to get into too much detail, but there's someone in our broader universe whose immigration
status is not yet at the point that they are trying to get it to. And we said, you know what,
let's have her live at our house above our garage. And good luck to the feds coming in to try to get
her. Okay. So you tell me why the feds would come to get her if she's not an
illegal. It's a very clear admission. He's harboring an illegal whose immigration status
is not yet at the point that she's trying to get it to, but it's at a point at which the feds would
try to get her. So it's an admission. He's definitely harboring an illegal, in my opinion,
based on what he said. Now you tell me, who in their right mind, Mike Davis, would take a look
at Tom Homan and say, that's a guy I would like to mess with. I would really like to tempt Tom
Homan to come after me because I think he's a weak, feckless man.
This man, just for those of you playing at home, here's Tom Homan.
We have seen one estimate that says it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year.
I don't know if that's accurate or not.
Is that what American taxpayers should expect?
What price do you put on national not. Is that what American taxpayers should expect? What price
do you put on national security? Is that worth it? Is there a way to carry out mass deportation
without separating families? Of course there is. Families can be deported together.
Who looks at him and says, I'd love to tempt the bull. I'm just going to take out my red cape and I'm going to wave it to see if Tom Holm is paying attention.
Well, he is because he responded, this is on Hannity Monday night, top 13.
Well, I think the government's pretty foolish saying what he said because I've gotten old of it.
We'll let it go.
We'll look into it and if he's gnarly
gnarly harboring concealing an illegal alien that's a violation of title 8 united states
code 1324 i would seek prosecution or the secretary would seek prosecution so maybe he's
bluffing if he's not we'll deal with that and as far as doing sanctuary cities well get in line
because the trump administration is going to do that already. Sanctuary cities are sanctuary for criminals.
Mike, thoughts?
I would not mess with Tom Holman if I were anyone.
He's probably the only person on the planet who I fear.
And so I would mess with that guy.
He's deadly serious. And I would say to these Democrat governors who want
to go on and admit that they're committing a federal felony by harboring illegal immigrants,
that's probably not the wisest thing you should be doing. He really is one of those guys who you
wake up like, am I legal? I'm legal, right? I'm good. I'm fine. I'm definitely legal. I don't
have to worry about Tom Homan trying to get me out because he's getting you out if you're here unlawfully. Now, a Phil Murphy aide, Dave,
tells the New York Post that the governor was misinterpreted, that Murphy was just referring
to a legal resident who's in his circle of friends and was worried about President Trump's return to
the White House. That's all totally legal in the circle of friends.
And I guess maybe not in the apartment over the garage
and with an immigration status not yet at the point
that they're trying to get it to
and worried about being deported by Tom Homan.
Well, Megan, of course, if that were the case,
why did he dare Tom Homan to go get him?
Why did he dare them if she wasn't living in his house?
But OK, right.
So this is why pencils have erasers.
The governor just made a little mistake.
And now he's doing cleanup on all nine to mix a metaphor.
No, you mean that the mistake was the admission.
He's screwed.
And so is his upstairs neighbor.
I'm advising the governor to cease using his mouth to talk about this any longer because it's not helping him.
I think there's a lot of emotion on my side of the aisle and a lot of anger, and I think that he just got caught up in the moment and was saying this stuff.
Now, if he really is an undocumented immigrant living above his home, then he's going to be in trouble. And he's committing a felony.
Well, you don't want to mess with a guy that even Mike Davis fears. I got that. So
I'd say that he needs to backtrack and make it clear, as his aid is, that there is no such person
living in the house. There's nothing to see here. He misspoke. He was referring to a friend in his
circle who is legal and was worried about getting caught up in the deportation. He's so dumb. He
already flagged it. He already read flagged it for Tom Homan. It's too late. Tom Homan's going to see
what's in that upstairs apartment. I have no doubt of it. And honestly, if he finds an illegal in
there, apparently she'll flee. I imagine she'd flee by the time Homan gets there. He's going to
find out who was it. You can't avoid this. He's going to find out who it was. The governor probably
just insured that woman's deportation. And guess what else, Mike? The governor could potentially
face felony charges. Here's the statute. 18, no, sorry, 8 U.S. Code Section 1324,
bringing in and harboring certain aliens, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Quote, any person who knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law,
conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,
any such alien
in any place shall be in prison not more than five years. So pretty good argument there,
admitted by the New Jersey governor that he knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact
that he had an alien there, an illegal alien, had entered the United States in violation of law
or remained in the United States in violation of law, either one, was concealing, harboring, and shielding from
detection, one of those, anyone, harboring, he harbored, that's it, or attempting to harbor,
has to be in prison for more than five years. You tell me where the governor should be hiring
a lawyer right now. I would advise the governor to hire a lawyer because, again, Tom Holman statute, this federal harboring statute.
This applies to a lot of people who are aiding, abetting, harboring illegal immigrants in this country, including corporations that hire them.
He harbored. He admitted to the harboring. He was proud of the harboring.
He tried to show a little swagger against Tom Holman and his illegal friend, and he are going to pay the price.
She's the least of your troubles now.
Only if they catch her there.
Oh, he's going to be like, she's my illegal from Canada, George Glass.
She's not living there anymore.
If she ever lived there, I'm sure she's gone.
You'd have to actually find her on his property.
The fact that he said it isn't enough to prosecute him. Which is more pathetic, Dave Ehrenberg. He had an illegal
up there and he had this stupidity to threaten Tom Holman or he never had an illegal up there.
And he's just tried to act like a badass, making up an imaginary illegal to try to look like a
tough guy in front of Tom Holman. I think it's probably the latter. I think that he was trying to get some street cred by saying, yeah, come and get it, Holman. You'll
get in my property over this dead body or something like that. You know, they say with the Second
Amendment, you have to pry my cold, dead hands off this gun if you're going to get it from me.
So I just think that was too much bluster. We all need to tone down the rhetoric.
Oh, my gosh. Either one is a humiliation for him,
but my money's on, there's an illegal up there. I don't know if she's still up there,
but they'll find out who she is. It doesn't, I mean, I think you and I could in about an hour
make a few phone calls at this point and figure out who's up there, who was up there, where'd she
go? And certainly if they ever got him like interviewed by an FBI agent or somebody who has,
you know, the authority to prosecute you, if you lie to them and Philip Murphy
had been given her up like that, like a, like a New Jersey ice cream cone on an August day
gone guys.
Thank you both so much.
A pleasure as always.
Thank you.
Thank you, Megan.
Thanks Mike.
All right.
Let me ask the audience that.
Do you believe Phil Murphy is harboring an illegal
immigrant in the apartment above his garage? Or do you think he made it up to sound tough,
like he could challenge Tom Homan? I am 100% in favor of he's harboring. He appears to have
committed a felony. And now we should just get our popcorn to see what happens
from here. Megan at megankelly.com. That's how you email me. Coming up next, filmmaker Sean Stone
is here. He has made a really interesting series and it is about the deep state. He happens to be
the son of Oliver Stone, a filmmaker in his own right. He was in some of your favorite movies as a child.
We'll show you some of that.
And he is blowing the whistle on just how deep the rot runs in his government when it
comes to the hatred for Donald Trump and those around him.
And frankly, what Trump is going to be up against in trying to clean house second time
around.
Stand by for that.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and it just stepped up enforcement for 2025. If you owe
back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't wait for the IRS to come to you. Simply avoiding your
tax troubles is the worst thing you can do. Getting ahead of this is the smart move, but you might not
want to contact the IRS alone. You could turn it over to the team at Tax Network USA.
Why?
Because not all tax resolution companies are the same.
Tax Network USA has a preferred direct line to the IRS,
which means they know which agents to deal with
and which to avoid.
Tax Network USA has proven strategies
that are designed to settle your tax problems in your favor,
whether you owe 10,000 or 10 million.
Their attorneys and negotiators have resolved over $1 billion in tax debt.
Speak with one of their strategists for free.
And stop the threatening letters, stop looking over your shoulder,
and put your IRS troubles behind you once and for all.
Call 1-800-905-8000 or visit tnusa.com slash Megan.
That's tnusa.com slash Megan. That's tnusa.com slash Megan. 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 SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
No car required.
I do it all the time.
I love the SiriusXM app.
It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.
Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free.
That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free.
Offer details apply.
We've talked a lot about RFKJ, Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel over the past week.
Their status as disruptors is a key component in the reasons why the D.C. establishment cannot
stand them. And that brings us today to filmmaker Sean Stone.
Sean's latest documentary series is called All the President's Men, The Conspiracy Against Trump.
It is streaming right now on our pal, Tucker Carlson, on his network,
the Tucker Carlson Network. Here's a clip from the series showing Kash Patel.
When did you realize the first time that the government was not what
you were taught? Honestly, you know, I grew up and I'm still that way. You know, cops are frontline
workers or firefighters or military. All of them are the greatest people on earth and we'll do
whatever we can to support them. But I also learned as a public defender that not all of them are incorruptible.
Unfortunately, some of them, and a very small number, lie.
And some of them break the law.
And so as a public defender, I would come into this courtroom and I'd be like,
wait a second, this cop just lied on this affidavit. What are you doing? You're a police officer.
You know, it was inconceivable to me. And that sort of started the
path, the conversation to the level of corruption in Washington, D.C. was not wholly new to me,
but I also didn't expect it at that level.
The series is a deep dive into the coordinated efforts by administration insiders and the media to take down Donald Trump
during his first presidential term. Provides great insight into Cash, Tulsi, and RFKJ's agendas.
Sean, welcome to the show. Thank you, Megan. It's a pleasure to meet you.
What a great idea, and obviously very timely. So what was the biggest surprise to you in going after the story?
I mean, how can I say I was surprised having lived through what we did to the first administration?
And actually, the series goes actually all the way up to after January 6th and the fallout from
that event. So I started this project in 21, But in many ways, I was tangentially connected to it
since 2015. And 16. I was actually working for Russia Today. In 2015. I went to Moscow's there
with Michael Flynn, General Flynn when he was at a dinner for a celebration of RT's news channel.
And that famous dinner became part of the basis, you know, for the whole
accusation that Flynn was a Russian agent. So I because I was working for Russia Today with
great journalists and hosts like Jesse Ventura, and Chris Hedges, and Tom Hartman, and so many
others, Abby Martin, I understood like this whole narrative of Russian collusion is pretty thin,
because you're, you know, they're out there.
The intelligence community that's assessment is saying that RT,
which is a bunch of Americans like myself doing news and journalism and,
you know, giving our perspective on, on the, you know, on matters, you know,
we are, we are the Russian agents.
I mean,
that's how I understood that there was something very wrong with the
narrative.
And obviously as we dug deeper into the stories that we focused upon,
we were able to show how the conspiracy was not Russian collusion.
It was really U.S. and Five Eyes intelligence conspiracy
to try to paint a picture of Trump as a Russian puppet.
Can we talk about the Five Eyes situation?
Because in about a half an hour, we're taping,
well, we're live right now on Sirius XM at 133 in the East. We're going to get, I believe,
a positive vote on Tulsi Gabbard out of committee, which is great. But some of the things that
she's spoken out about when it comes to the distrust of the Intelligence Committee right now
amongst the American public,
did not go over well with the senators in that room, left or right. They all seemed
adverse to her. They all seemed like, you know, I think they'd all wish that Trump had nominated
somebody else. But can you just give people a flavor for what you're talking about? And so
they know why. Why did Trump go with such a nonttraditional pick? Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, Tulsi's, it's like, as you know, a lot of us have
shifted political positions over these years because we were trying to find, you know, I think
what might be more of what traditionally would be kind of a traditional American centrist position,
trying to figure that out in
this insane time that we've been living through where a lot of us were critical during the obama
years um all of a sudden found ourselves outside the democratic fold you know who
at one moment were criticizing the bush administration for
unwarranted surveillance of americans um Patriot Act, things like this, right, the
endless war agenda.
We went from criticizing that to then the Democrats supporting it under Obama and a
lot of people being disenchanted by that.
I think Tulsi, who served, you know, served her country, served abroad, you know, came
back.
She was Democrat.
She was basically kicked out of the party for not going along with the
rigging that went on in 2016 when the democrats gave the nomination to hillary right so she then
basically says well i'm standing on principle here and kind of gets isolated from the party
i mean she stays with it obviously until 2020 if i recall she she was part of that primary debates
but essentially she realized his party's gone
in a different direction.
It's gone extreme pro military industrial complex, national security state, endless
war agenda.
The only person who's come out swinging against that since 2016 is Donald Trump.
And he's, Donald Trump has reshaped the Republican party around that, you know, what people call
America first, right?
But American interests first principle, which really is an old, you know, it's an old Republican principle. And something I don't
think I don't know if it was ever a Democrat principle, because the Democrats are always
actually the ones who started the wars, World War One is Democrat, World War Two is Democrat,
Vietnam was Democrat. So people forget this. And I think that Trump took it back more to this
Republican route of, hey, let's focus on our our country tulsi obviously rallied around that so yeah giving perspective when you're talking about a massive military industrial
national security state apparatus that is costing trillions of dollars um i don't know about annually
but certainly over the course of years then you know you're talking about a lot of money and it's
circling through what General Flynn talks
about with this sort of this why Washington and the counties around Washington are in the top 10
wealthiest counties in the country, right? Because you're talking about massive contracts and things
like this. So those that have been there like Flynn and Tulsi who've seen it firsthand and said,
I want to stand on principle, not on profit, they end up becoming targeted and accused of being,
you know, I don't know, Russian puppets
because they're opposed to an endless war.
That's what happened to Tulsi.
Yeah, exactly.
One of the interesting characters,
I mean, we play that soundbite of Kash Patel,
but one of the things I've just made a mental note of
is he was working with Devin Nunes.
They were looking at this
Russian collusion nonsense saying like, this isn't right. This is, this is, this stinks.
And Cash is like this firebrand, you know, fighter. He's a very colorful character. If you
talk to him, he's just kind of fun to talk to. And he's, he doesn't mince words. I like him.
But he's, he's kind of fun
and he's got flair, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And on the other side really was like
Robert Mueller, you know, James Comey, like these distinguished, respected old school prosecutors.
Right. And so when, when there was this battle of like like who's telling the truth, you know, like is Trump a spy? Is Trump does he have a server from Russia in Trump Tower like but they were right. They were right. And it's really the reason why talked about Trump's ties to Russia and how he had the prostitutes urinate on the bed.
Trump, the germaphobe, wanted somebody to pee in front of him.
OK, there was a time where we were believing all this, or at least asked to.
And here's here's a bit of that about how that went down.
Episode from episode four, SOT 29. To break through the walls of DOJ, literally, to go and get access to a FISA, when I heard
that through our sources that a Trump campaign official was being monitored, and I was like,
what?
I was like, are you kidding me?
I was like, I got to go read this thing.
When we first read the FISA, half of it was blacked out.
And then we had to go and fight for the redactions to be lifted just to read it.
And then we figured it out.
I was like, dude, this Steele dossier is in this thing.
So the Steele dossier is in this thing so this
field i'll say was the basis of the whole basis of the fisa it wasn't just the fbi you can read
the dossier and read the fires and know there's no way it was just these guys somebody else is in on
it so we actually were running a separate investigation or outside of the doj fbi
bubble into how this thing was put together. And we had our own sources.
And one of them told us the money for this thing came from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And this is one of those moments where you're like, never forget. So I run into
Devin's office. It was like nine in the morning. I was like, dude, I figured out who paid for this.
And he's like, huh? I'm like, the field SCA. He's like, I figured out who paid for it.
And I was like, Hillary Clinton. And he goes, if you're going to start drinking
at this early in the morning, get out of my office. So just for the people who haven't been
consuming Russiagate recently, they're talking about how the Steele dossier,
this made up piece of alleged intelligence, was the basis for getting a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
It was like they used this made up piece of intel to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump
campaign. Yet another reason why these FISA warrants became controversial and were mentioned
repeatedly in the Tulsi Gabbard hearing as though they're totally vaunted. They're above reproach.
You have to love them. You have to support them. You know, she's expressed some reservations about
how we've used FISA in the past. So have many others.
Anyway, this is all the background to that in part.
And then him asking, well, who's behind the dossier?
I don't trust the I definitely don't like the warrant.
And I don't trust the dossier that was the basis of the warrant.
And oh, my God, it's the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Like he says, the the aha moment, the moment you will remember where you were.
Yeah.
Well, so it's so interesting with the Steele dossier. And we actually get into the
Giuliani's Rudy Giuliani episode, he talks a bit about the his sources in the Ukraine,
saying that the dossier that Steele cooked up was cooked up in the Ukraine. And it kind of this now
you start to understand, like when you watch the series, you start to get the part of the bigger
picture, not the full picture, but part of the bigger picture of why Ukraine has played such a key role in our foreign policy the last 10 years, going back to 2014 in the Maidan coup, right?
And how we've basically escalated that conflict to the place where it now is in war with Russia.
But you see how this dossier was part, how do you say, was concocted through channels and allies of the Democrats there in Ukraine.
And basically then Steele himself being a former Russian intel guy, I'm sorry, former British targeted by the FBI's investigation, having this meeting with an Australian ambassador in London.
A lot of the cross channels going through this investigation all indicate that there's not just CIA, US intelligence, there's also British intelligence having its fingerprints on this setup of Trump.
And why British intelligence?
Well, this is an old game as far as we have to recognize the British are not our friends.
The British strategically use America.
They've been using America for over 100 years, going back to before the First World War.
But you think about it they use america just going to
think about the iraq invasion most recently when it was british intelligence that was helped handing
us the the the allegations remember about the rich in the rich uranium coming from niger and
things like this that was a lot of british intelligence was was handing that over the
british are very dangerous people i think american patriots have to recognize, just like we are now recognizing, hey, maybe
Canada is not necessarily like our friend.
Trudeau and company are not necessarily on the same page as we are.
The British, likewise, we have to be very careful about because they will use us to
play their games, to be the instrument of their war agenda, to preserve what was formerly
their empire. Now, we, you know,
we are sort of the champions of it, right, in terms of these zones of influence and trade and
economics. But again, I just, you know, caution Americans to recognize that this special
relationship already conveys a globalist or New World Order agenda, which has been talked about
for decades. Openly, I think, you know, people have said, like Biden have said, new world order and
called it that.
And so the fact that the British Intel guy, Steele, was the basis of this dossier should
be an indicator for those that are paying attention.
Very interesting.
Very interesting perspective.
I know that.
So I mentioned in the intro, you are a stone.
You are the son of Oliver Stone.
And I just permit me this one moment because your dad has made some of the greatest movies, including Wall Street.
I loved Wall Street.
We'll talk about JFK.
But I didn't realize you were in Wall Street, little you, as an actor.
And you played Gordon Gekko's son, Rudy.
Here you are in this clip.
Bonjour, monsieur buddy. Bonjour, brother buddy.
Ah, speaks French already. Kid at the highest score in his IQ test.
It is so difficult to get into a good nursery school now.
You gotta part, Keldar, we're third party.
Now, why would your dad include in the final cut a take of you picking your nose at the beginning and then throwing a strawberry in somebody's face at the end?
It's action, you know.
Directors, you know, are interested by actions, right?
So there are different actions that give some dynamic to the scene.
Do you have any conscious memory of that movie,
being in that movie?
I have memories of being on set.
Yeah, like very, very early memories
of being on the sets.
And, you know, starting from, I don't remember,
maybe even, it's hard to remember
because it blurs together.
We were in Philippines for Platoon
and then for Born on the Fourth of July.
We were in, you know, New York and Dallas
on talk radio, Wall Street.
Born again.
Born JFK.
It was a wonderful time in life to go between going to school, having some level of normalcy,
right?
Elementary school.
Sorry, my do not disturb is on.
But anyway, so going to elementary school and then going from that to a film set, you know, it's kind of a fantasy life, right?
Yeah.
Oh, that's a sweet picture of the two of you together.
And you're over the camera.
One more, and then I'll stop with this torture.
But you also played the son of Kevin Costner's character, Jim Garrison, in JFK.
And in this following scene, you're being held by Sissy Spacek.
No lines, but you're in this watch. Show this world that this is still a government of the
people for the people and by the people. Nothing as long as you live will ever be more important. It's up to you. Okay. So who do you remember as nicer,
Kevin Costner or Michael Douglas? Honestly, they're both very nice to me still to this day.
It's funny because it's like my two fathers, both very sweet people.
At the time, I would play a little bit like Michael with his son and we played tennis in
his house in Santa Barbara. And then we played baseball with Kevin and his daughter or daughters.
I can't remember how many kids he had at the time, but I remember playing baseball with them
in the backyard in New Orleans. So it you know, it's one of those,
it's one of those things where you just think of, yeah, it's, it's just life, right? These are
people. And then for other, you know, for others, they never met them. They look at them as almost
like, you know, the modern, uh, aristocracy, you know, Kings and Queens. Um, it's, it's,
it's, it's frankly, it's bizarre living the way I've lived on both sides.
Well, you know what, but it's, if you like them, it's a very good testimony on their behalf because kids, they have a radar for disingenuous people, people who are pretending to be cool or be good with kids.
They just sense.
They can see right through it.
So if you have a good feeling about them, they probably are good guys.
Your dad, obviously, there's a reason he made JFK.
And this has been one of the preeminent films of the past 50 years. It's just one of the biggies.
It's legendary. It got so many people reconsidering the JFK assassination. And now one of his first
acts as president by Trump was to order the release of the remaining JFK files. They say
maybe there's 3% that has yet to come out.
There's a reason it's been withheld. I imagine you're very curious to see what's in there,
but you tell me. Yeah. I mean, it's one of those things where no one's, I don't think my dad or
anyone's holding their breath expecting to find smoking guns within the documents. At the same
time, as you said, why have they been withheld for this
long what is that going to indicate because when you when you are you know people that are doing
this professionally researching looking at all the connections right it's you need as many puzzle
pieces as possible we're never going to get all the puzzle pieces to fill it in i don't think
but you will we will at least have more to hopefully indicate what went down that day.
It's one of those things where I wonder, was there ever a meeting that took place or was it
really more operational orders, things that are kind of implied, chain of command type of things,
only one person knows what they're supposed to do
and where they're supposed to be, right?
And one person above them knowing to tell them that information.
I mean, it's really difficult, right, to fathom how this went down
because those of us that don't operate as conspirators
have a hard time understanding how conspiracies work.
And yet they do work. They have worked.
Conspiracies are part of life.
And I think that if nothing else, I just hope that this doesn't become like, oh, now that files are out, we don't have a smoking gun.
We can put this – we can shut the door on this.
That's my only fear of the establishment.
People don't generally write the smoking gun down in writing and keep it in a record.
They usually hide the smoking gun.
Last but not least, I must ask you because looking at your bio facts, I love this. Sean Stone starred in and directed
his first feature film Greystone park in 2012 based on his real life paranormal experiences
in a haunted mental hospital. What? What? You know what? You never, you've never been to Jersey.
Come on. Jersey's haunted stuff. Wait, on you were you were a patient in a haunted mental hospital or you went
to document what was happening and you experienced the paranormal so it was it was an abandoned place
called graystone park and if you've seen the new bob dylan movie um complete unknown the opening
of the film he goes to visit Woody
Guthrie, who was a patient at Greystone. Greystone was a very famous establishment. It was there
since right after the Civil War. And they finally shut it down after over 100 years.
There were 3,000 plus people that were buried there. There were tens of thousands of patients
that had come up to come through the doors. it was notoriously haunted so we went ghost hunting my friends and i we broke in one night
we kept going back and documented a lot of stuff and some of some of it is in the film you'll even
see like moments that are genuine it's a fictional reenactment you know you say it's a docu
docu drum it's a mockumentary, I guess you call it.
Like it's styled like a documentary.
But no,
we have a lot of paranormal experiences.
That would be a whole show in itself.
That's the whole other one that we have to,
that we have to consume.
That actually really sounds fascinating.
But first you've got to check out his latest venture for Tucker Carlson on
the Tucker Carlson network.
I mean,
it's,
it's doing what's been out there for a while, right?
And it's called All the President's Men.
Of course, a take on the famous other film by that name,
All the President's Men, the Tucker Carlson Network.
Congratulations, Sean.
That's awesome.
Appreciate it, Megan.
Yeah, you know, it's been out for a couple months now,
but it's still relevant because as you mentioned,
Kash Patel, our next FBI director,
you know, tells who we talk about and just the overall conspiracy.
If we don't understand how conspiracies work, right, then we can't understand.
And you say we can't really understand the nature of our reality when it comes to politics.
If we're not willing to look at real conspiracies, you can't be so dismissive of them that you miss the ones that are real and are there before your very eyes.
Sean Stone,
thank you. See you soon. Appreciate it. Fascinating. Check it out. All the presidents over on the Tucker Carlson Network. We're back tomorrow with the fifth column. We'll see you then.
Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.