The Megyn Kelly Show - Shock New Details About Guthrie Kidnapping, and Don Lemon's Absurd Kimmel Appearance, with Rich Lowry, Charles C.W. Cooke, Jim Fitzgerald, and Randy Sutton | Ep. 1244

Episode Date: February 3, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Jim Fitzgerald, co-host of "Cold Red Podcast," and Randy Sutton, retired detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan PD, to discuss new reporting on the mysterious kidnapping of Savannah Guthrie’s mom, parsing what the sheriff is saying and not saying about the case, why she may have been specifically targeted in the abduction, the significance of how close she lives to the Mexican border, what the evidence at Savannah Guthrie’s mom’s home says about the potential abductor, reporting about cameras in and around the home, and more. Then Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review join to discuss Don Lemon’s absurd Jimmy Kimmel appearance, “The View” hosts who don’t understand the law, why the claim of "journalism" doesn't make Lemon immune from prosecution, activist judges trying to fight Trump’s immigration and deportation efforts, Trump and Biden's past use of executive authority, a native tribe whose land Billie Eilish’s $14 million mansion sits on speaking out after her absurd Grammys speech, Jack Antonoff not knowing what his own "ICE Out" pin means, and more. Fitzgerald-https://www.youtube.com/@ColdRedPodcast-tb2lb/featuredSutton- https://www.instagram.com/lt.randysutton/?hl=enCooke- https://twitter.com/charlescwcookeLowry- https://www.nationalreview.com/ Paleovalley: Visit https://Paleovalley.comand use code MEGYN at checkout to get 20% off your first orderCozy Earth: Celebrate everyday love with Cozy Earth’s Bamboo Pajamas—unbelievably soft comfort with an exclusive BOGO deal Jan 25–Feb 8. Shop now at https://cozyearth.com with code MEGYNBOGO!All Family Pharmacy: Order now at https://allfamilypharmacy.com/MEGYN and save 10% with code MEGYN10SaunaSpace: Discover why SaunaSpace’s infrared FireLight tech is redefining at‑home wellness—visit https://Sauna.Space/MEGYN and use code MEGYN for 10% off your entire order.  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone on Megan Kelly. Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show. It is a race against the clock in the search for Nancy Guthrie, mother of today's show host Savannah Guthrie. This case is bizarre and disturbing. Law enforcement sources telling the Los Angeles Times that blood was found inside of her Arizona home alongside signs of forced entry, prompting detectives to investigate. what they now describe as a, quote, possible kidnapping or abduction. Fox News reporting this morning that their sources say, quote, blood drops were also found leading from the entryway outside down the house's pathway toward the driveway. So both inside the house and a trail leading across the entryway and into the driveway. During an interview with News Nation this morning, Pima County.

Sheriff Chris Nanos would not confirm the reports of blood. But again, those earlier publications are citing law enforcement and said that the DNA results that they have tested so far have come back only belonging to Nancy. We're not confirming whether there was blood in the home or any of that. What we're saying is we do have evidence that we submitted to DNA labs, actually through other sources that we use. And they have confirmed that the DNA that we found was, in fact, belong to Nancy, the Savannah's mom, which we were hopeful that it wouldn't, that it would give us a different profile than just hers. But that's where we're at with the DNA.

We have other items that we submit for DNA research and see what that comes up. But that was the first submittal we got back. And we'll continue to wait for lab results, see if we find something else. So if those reports are real and accurate, Nancy Guthrie was bleeding. She was hurt somehow inside the house. She was bleeding as she was taken outside of the house. And so far, no DNA belonging to somebody else. That doesn't mean no one else was there.

It just means no one else left DNA, at least not that they've found so far there. Although, you know, with touch DNA being what it is in today's day and age, let's just wait and see on that. I'm sure they did a comprehensive testing of all the surfaces, and it's certainly anything that was near the blood trail to see whether they could get touch DNA. And was this person, if they actually took her so careful, Brian Colberger-like, that every inch of their person was covered, the odds are against it? The sheriff confirmed that they are still waiting on the results of additional items that have been tested.

Time remains crucial in this case with the sheriff warning that if Nancy does not get certain medication within 24 hours, it could be fatal. I mean, he said that yesterday. She was taken Saturday night, we believe, overnight Saturday into Sunday. And now here we are Tuesday. He issued a direct plea to whomever may be holding her. What would you say to someone who, if they're holding Nancy got through right now, what's your message? to them. Just call us. Let her go. Just call us. Family would tell you, there's no questions asked here. Look, if she's alive right now, her meds are vital. I can't stress that enough.

It's been better than 24 hours, and the family tells us, if she doesn't have those meds, it can become fatal. Today's show host, Savannah Guthrie posted on Instagram last night asking for prayers for her mother's safe return, writing, quote, we believe in prayer, we believe in voices raised in unison, in love, in hope. We believe in goodness, we believe in humanity, above all, we believe in him. We need you. Bring her home. We are expecting a press conference from local authorities to take place at 1.30 p.m. Eastern today. And just of note, before I bring in my panel, you heard the sheriff starting to sound a bit more dire now in the way he's talking about this. That was my impression, too. He did a lengthy interview with Ashley Banfield on her podcast yesterday, dropped dead serious. And he actually used the word dead. He didn't say she's dead. But he used it in a way that was kind of jarring and gave you a bit of a window perhaps into what his worries are, what he's thinking. maybe even what his opinion is.

I don't know. Here's SOT three. We also know we have to be careful. I mean, we hope that, you know, it's happened before. The police is, the sheriff is, oh, we, this person's dead and this, that, and then I say, you know, some hospital calls and says, hey, I think I've got this lady in my hospital room. So, you know, we're never going to give up hope. That's why you guys are so critical to us.

Somebody out there see something, says maybe they'll see her. We've gotten calls like that. Hey, I think I saw her in Flagstime. Hey, I think I saw her here. And so we'll chase those leads down. That was pretty interesting where he's basically saying he doesn't want to say anything about her being dead until he knows for sure. But to me, that sounded an awful lot like somebody who thinks the outcome right now is not good. It's unconfirmed.

Obviously, he doesn't know. But he's seen the inside of the house in a way that none of us has. And he knows a lot more than he's saying. In fact, he's been, you know, clearly somebody, and likely him, because he's been the spokesperson for the office, told NBC about that blood, and the LA Times, and Fox News has it, too, about the blood droplets. But then sort of tried to walk it back, saying, if I were asked that by NBC now, I wouldn't confirm it. Well, okay. He seems like a very nice guy, but his messaging has been a little inconsistent from place to place. It seems clear that there was blood inside the house, that it was hers, and that it led a trail right outside of the house, which is more than likely how they determined this is a crime scene. And this was not somebody who walked off of her own volition. Again, we're going to be having a presser in about an hour and a half, and we will bring you all the latest news from that as it unfolds.

Joining me now in the meantime, James Fitzgerald, former FBI supervisory special agent and criminal profiler and host of the COVID. Road Red podcast, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Lieutenant Randy Sutton. He's also founder of the Wounded Blue. These are not the meat sticks you grew up with. This is Paleo Valley. Made with 100% grass-fed beef from small-scale, regenerative American family farms. Paleo Valley lets you feel good about what you are eating and who you are supporting. In fact, Paleo Valley is one of the few companies that sources 100% of its meat from American farms right here in the U.S. Real ingredients real results. No preservatives, no gluten, soy, refined sugar, dairy, or GMOs. Whether you are road-tripping, working late, hitting the gym, or just need a quick pick-me-up, these beef sticks are for you. High-protein, low-gilt,

no crash. Keto, paleo, carnivore, whatever your lifestyle, Paleo Valley could work with it, not against it. And the flavors. Original jalapeno, summer sausage, terriaki, and more. Over 55 million sticks sold, backed by a 60-day money-back guarantee. Support, small American farms with regenerative agriculture. With Paleo Valley, you are not just snacking. You are making a statement. Right now, you can get 20% off your first order at paleovalley.com with code Megan. Jim, Randy, welcome to you both. What do you make of what we've heard so far? Randy, I'll start with you. Your thoughts. Perfect. So I watched the pressure yesterday. I've been following this case since it became public. And you're, you're really,

You're right in your characterization of the way the sheriff has communicated the issues of this case. There are a little disjointed. But clearly, they are taking this really, really seriously. They did call in the homicide section that was very telling in and of itself. They did say that there was blood evidence and that they were treating it like a crime scene. They had the search and rescue team out there. They were doing physical. search of the area with people on foot using their drones, using their fixed wing aircraft, their helicopters. They did mention that they used, they were using their forward-looking infrared, which would have a heat signature, should they find someone walking or someone laying down somewhere in the area, and all of that proved negative. That would be an indication that

this, that Ms. Guthrie was taken somewhere and is now not around that. area because they did a pretty thorough search. This is very, very troubling. Remember, stranger abductions are very, very rare. So there's going to be a, this is a massive investigation and there's going to be a lot of play here. The Daily Mail, just as we came to air, actually citing Fox News for this, reporting that Ms. Guthrie's pacemaker stopped sinking with her Apple Watch in the early hours of Sunday morning around 2 a.m. going from Saturday into Sunday. What they said was investigators told the outlet that Nancy's Apple Watch was left inside of her home. They write, which likely means the device stopped sinking. The device is,

her pacemaker and the Apple Watch, stopped sinking when the pacemaker was out of range from the watch. So it doesn't mean she died. It means she, with her pacemaker, was taken too far away from the Apple Watch for it to sink any longer. And that happened around 2 a.m., which would be a very good investigative piece of information, Jim. Yeah, I've worked a few cases, even in retirement of homicides with these Apple watches or similar watches. If they're found on the victim or certainly through the technology, through the cloud, whatever, they can really help determine not only movement and locations, but also time of death.

I suppose it makes forensic pathologist jobs a little bit easier in that way in terms of determining that. But to go back to the sheriff, and many times in the FBI, when we were working these real-time cases, we would be, as a profiler, we would be consulting with the spokespersons for different departments. And we would not tell them what to say, of course, but we would certainly guide them and do certain language usages, and especially as a linguist, I determined even better along the years how to do this. And you don't want to be inflammatory. You don't want to be overly accusatory. you want to almost make it sound like, look, maybe someone made a mistake here, one or more people, and just drop the person off, leave them go.

Sometimes as kids as you would know, Megan, or teenagers, it's not too often we get 84-year-old people like this. The blood is not a good sign either, whether it was arterial bleeding, meaning it's much more serious or not. So far, we just have drops. So she's obviously in some level of danger, but hopefully the people who are, in fact, have her in custody taking care of her, know this and are keeping her alive. And I'll add to her too, Megan, that whoever has done this are listening to us. I don't mean us personally at this very moment, but they are following the media on this. If you have even a modicum of sophistication to you when committing these types of crimes,

you're going to be following the media to find out what they know and get everything possible to help protect yourself and carry out the crime. And let's hope that's all they want to do is carry out the crime, get some money, and perhaps move on from there and not harm her. Randy, what do you make of the fact that yesterday, the sheriff, started off with a presser in the morning where he offered some detail. And then as the day went on seemed to be amping up his messaging around this, using the word kidnapping, using the word taken, abducted. And obviously, I mean, I think it was him who leaked the stuff about the blood to the L.A. Times. and possibly Fox, because he's been the main spokesperson.

I'm just assuming I could be wrong. But in any event, we saw more and more of him. I mean, I saw him everywhere. He was on CBS. He was on ABC. He was on NBC. He was on Fox. He was with Ashley Banfield.

He was with some other podcasts. Like, clearly he made the decision to try to get out anywhere and everywhere that asked for him. Yeah. And the terms that he used did escalate from, he was catching his terms a little bit more diplomatically during his press conference. But as the day went on, there were more and more details that leaked out. So why?

Why? To tell you the truth, I don't know why. I can't even begin to guess other than in watching his press and his interviews, he's not a very polished individual when it comes. down to communicating what he should be communicating to the public, reference this crime. I'm hesitant to be too critical of him, but I've seen much more professional, you know, individuals be giving out information when it comes down to a serious issue like this. I mean, I would imagine if what they really need is press coverage, which clearly they've

made a decision they need press coverage. It won't be long now before we hear from Savannah, because if there's one person involved in this case who can get the media to run a soundbite on every single television station there is, and to be quoted in all the newspapers, it's Savannah Guthrie. But what a terrible position for her to have to be in, to have to come out in front of the cameras and make a comment right now, and she doesn't know what's happened to her mother. My heart goes out to her. Jim, how do you even begin to come up with a profile of who would potentially steal an 84-year-old woman? Well, we always start with victimology. What do we know about our victim?

This is a low-risk victim, probably as low as you can get in terms of her everyday activities, her behavior, and even the environment in which she lives, where she travels, and of course her physical condition, which is not the best in terms of mobility, et cetera. So we want to find out everything about her in that regard. And, of course, expanding that, it's everyone she knows. Of course, family, friends, interview, all of them, go through emails, text messaging, such as that. But to then really hone in on who have been guests in her house in the last month plus. Obviously, family and friends will know about those.

What kind of repairment? What kind of medical people? What kind of delivery people? Salesmen just randomly knocking on doors. And even those people, you know, maybe plumbers or HVAC guys, they may not be, they may be legitimate and have nothing to do with this, but they have friends and those friends talk to friends. So that sort of all has to be worked out exponentially to find out everyone who's been in or near that house. These people didn't wake up at, you know, at noon on Saturday and say, let's go out and kidnap Mrs. Guthrie.

I'm saying these people, even though she's, an older woman, you'd probably want someone to back you up, drive the van, the car, SUV, whatever, and then have someone else go in. They could have, was it forced entry? It seems like it was breaking a window or something, or a little woman, you know, a younger woman knocking on the door, oh, my car broke down and they tricked her into opening the door. Another part of victimology, what kind of a risk, averse person is she? Would she open the door for a stranger? These are things her family and friends can tell. So that's what we first want to do to find out everything about her, all her goings on for the last month or so, emails, social media,

all those type things, who she's been in contact with, and all those people have to be interviewed in friends of those people and to see possibly a linkage to this. I won't say these are criminal masterminds who undertook this, but they at least got away with this so far, and they did some practice, some surveillance, and we got to look at technology for not just that weekend, but going back a week before, no doubt they cased her house, They surveilled it to make sure they knew what neighbors are doing, who's on the streets. And that technology may give some clues to that and to who did this also. And just to let the audience know, the sheriff had told one outlet that she was snatched from her bed in the middle of the night.

And then he took that back, too, saying he didn't mean to say that. So, like, I feel for the sheriff, you know, this is, he's been thrust into the national spotlight in a way he didn't anticipate. But you do have to give him like a day or two to find out whether he's going to stick. with the message that he delivered at the presser or in these interviews. But again, he's just trying to get the word out and get attention drawn to this. So we don't right now know whether she was snatched from her bed or whether it was the scenario like you just outlined, Jim, or maybe they rang the doorbell and she came down and they grabbed her. I mean, what we do know, Randy, is that the sheriff said she cannot walk more than 50 yards herself. Like, she's infirm physically,

but not mentally at all. And that would mean that, somebody would have to either take her or, quote, help her get out of the house and get into a car potentially. We saw her with a cane on the set of the Today Show. So she clearly used a cane. And I'm sure she was slow going. And they'd have to have pulled a car right up to that door, right? I mean, like it's 2 a.m. They would have had to pull the car if they know this woman's on a cane and she can't move well and she's fighting. You know, she's at the point where she's potentially bleeding, don't you think they would have had to have a car right up there in her driveway? Absolutely. And in one of the reports, and you know, as this dripped and drabbed information came out,

there was a mention of forced entry. That was one of the things that was said. And so I was hopeful that when I heard that, and then the droplets of blood, I was really hopeful that those droplets of blood might belong to the suspect. We might have cut themselves when breaking a window or something like that. That hope has been dashed because they did confirm that that DNA belonged to the victim here. So unfortunately. What about touch DNA, Randy? Because, you know, it's like now we've got touch DNA. That's what caught Brian Colberger. Well, for sure. And you can bet that, and this is one of the beautiful things about the cooperation with the FBI. They are unparalleled with their forensic abilities. And seeing that they were,

called into the scene early on, they have tremendous assets at their disposal. So they, but it takes time for that DNA evidence to surface. And then, of course, you know, DNA databases aren't, you know, it's not like the fingerprint database where everybody that's been arrested has DNA out there. So it is. Well, and on top of that, if it's, we have to factor in the possibility that this is somebody from Mexico since it's only, you know, an hour away from the southern border. And would we have, you know, if it's not an American, potentially, would we have DNA in the way we do for most Americans

linked at least, you know, maybe 10 times removed, but most of us are in there now, thanks to some distant relative who's gone to these DNA databases and given their blood. We just, we don't know. But Jim, it's an interesting question about DNA and the FBI's help. And also, we know it's been reported that the FBI's using its cell phone towers. it's triangulation, you know, how I can check the towers to see what phones were in the area at a certain time. So now the 2 a.m. info is very helpful. And unlike the three of us, the FBI almost certainly has Nancy's actual phone. And they can see what time she put it down. They can tell what time you went to bed. They can tell certainly what time you stopped

texting people, what time you went offline on it. So if they can probably put the time to within maybe even, you know, a couple minutes of when she got taken. And then they use those cell phone towers to see which phones may have been in the area. I mean, that ultimately, that's how they caught the D.C. pipe bomber or so they tell us. What do you make of those potential leads? Oh, sure. All of that is very important. And I assure you, as Randy was saying, there's a task force already assembled in the Tucson area of multiple agencies. I know border patrols involved, certainly FBI, Tucson police sheriff's department. and no doubt the state police.

And they're all working together on this. And I know, I don't know for fact, but I can tell you that people from Quantico, the FBI Laboratory are there in position now, and they're running through all these aspects you just described. Don't forget all the surveillance cameras up and down, the streets of Tucson, tag recognition software, facial recognition software.

And again, not just that night. They're going to have to grab it, of course, for that night, everything they can for those few hours, before and after, you know, 2 a.m. But they want to go back before that too. Would the fact that it might have been done at 2 a.m. be helpful because there's going to be less traffic, fewer license plates, to read and try to identify on the highway right around, you know what I mean?

Like, is that a good thing that it's been limited to a low traffic hour? Well, sure. And I mean, the benefit to the bad guys is that it's dark under the cover of darkness, all that they can get away with it. The bad news from a forensic and technology perspective is there's going to be fewer people out there to, in fact, you know, correlate or collate the different tags that are running back and forth and going, you know, in whatever direction. And this will be expanded by 50 miles to 100 miles in concentric circles, which would take us right to that Mexican border.

And by the way, these kidnappings, as Randy said earlier, they don't happen in the U.S. They're very, very rare. They do happen a lot in Mexico, Latin America, and South America. They know Mrs. Guthrie's the daughter of a, I'm sorry, the mother. of a very wealthy woman newscaster, and they know this is a prime target. And I'm just wondering if there's been a ransom demand already, but that's not being released. And some criticism perhaps dustified of the sheriff,

but maybe they're sitting on something that we, I'm sure they're sitting on a lot we don't know. Is it possible there's a ransom demand? If there's no ransom demand, then what's the purpose of this? Some kind of a revenge or something. And six weeks ago, we had the Brown University shooting

and the MIT shooting, that goes back 25 years and a whole continent apart. So if there's no money demand, then what's the motivation behind this? And I'm sure that's what the police and law enforcement are struggling with right now. Motivation will be nice to know for money or for revenge. The sheriff said no. He said no to ransom. And he said no in a way that I believed. He was like, that's just, we haven't heard anything about that yet.

No ransom demand. Unless they insisted he doesn't say that publicly. That's right. He could be misleading for everyone's protection. But for whatever it's worth, on the record, he denied that there had been a ransom demand. But you tell me, Randy, I, there's just no way in my layperson's view they didn't take her because she's related to Savannah Guthrie. I mean, what are the odds that this is just some caper where they've kidnapped an 84-year-old woman who just so happens to be the mother of one of the biggest news stars in America? America? Like, that just, that does not track to me. Well, in law enforcement, we don't believe in coincidences. And I don't believe in that coincidence either. You're absolutely right. Here is a very high profile. Her daughter's very, very high profile. And, you know, Jim was talking about victimology, highly critically important in, in this type of investigation. But the victimology is going to have to now expand to include the daughter, because they're going to be looking into

any threats, any type of past occurrences that might lead to some type of grudge. You know, there's people out there in the world, and you and I both know that they aren't playing with a full deck. And there are people that, you know, concentrate on an individual, and they become so incredibly attuned to them that they view themselves as being related to them or a love interest or anything like that. So all of this has to be looked at. You can't discount anything here. And that's what makes this such a very, very difficult investigation.

And it's going to require all of the resources at play here. And I just, as the time takes, by here, Megan, I'm really concerned. As time ticks by, the chances of survival are diminishing literally by the hour. I'm just trying to figure out, you know, why would you do this? You know, Jim, I'm thinking, we talked to Matt Murphy, a longtime federal prosecutor yesterday, and he was saying, you know, forgive me, but don't rule out a possible sex crime because he's prosecuting. cases where 79-year-old women were raped and attacked. And so sadly, that made some sense. But one would think that if that were to happen, she would have been left there or if she'd been

killed afterward that she'd be left there. I don't know. It's strange that they took her. Like, they clearly took her. And I suppose you could make the case that if they killed her in the house, forgive me for this kind of speculation, but we're all wondering what happened. That also could explain the pacemaker no longer communicating with the Apple Watch at 2 a.m. You know, that's the other possibility of why the sinking stopped. Well, this was a high-risk crime to go to the door, grab the woman, and do anything with her. It increases a hundredfold by putting her in a car and driving away with her. So much can go wrong after that.

You cross the line or one of your taillights is out, a police officer. stop you and you have all kinds of issues. Now, whether she's in the trunk, she has duct tape around her, you know, I'm just speculating here also. We don't know. But the reason to be fine, I agree with Randy. This is not coincidence. They knew she was the daughter of this prominent newsperson in the U.S. worth some money. I'm sorry, the mother. And her daughter was, of course, the newscaster. And if money is not a factor, then it has to go back to some personal issue. And there has been research done over the years. Of course, there are some men out there who get kicks out of sex with much older women. And the research was the older the women, the younger, the offender. So we have her at 84.

What does that say about this case? But there may be so much more involved here. We're not going to lock into someone in their teens or early 20s necessarily because of that research. But nothing can be ruled out at this point. I would urge if the person is listening to us out there, you make it look like this is so random and meaningless, you must have a meaning, you must have a purpose for doing this. Let the authorities know, put something out there somehow and hopefully give us a proof of life that this woman is alive. She doesn't deserve to be killed. She didn't do anything to you, I can assure. Do you know, Jim, they brought dogs in, all sorts of dogs, and I'm just assuming they brought both rescue dogs, you know, bloodhounds and also cadaver dogs. But would a cadaver dog

get a hit if a person had only been dead in the house for a half an hour? I think, and Randy could have to discuss this too, but cadaver dogs are so well trained and they have such an expertise. I mean, and there's some dogs even better than others, but I think they could pick up the sense, whether recently dead, dead in the house, or, you know, down the line somewhere. But I believe a dog, a cadaver dog well trained with a proper, you know, master, if you will, or trainer, they would find the remains if they're somewhere in the area. Maybe it's a good sign so far. That hasn't happened. The one thing from that sheriff is he's not talking like she was killed in the house. He clearly doesn't know whether she's alive or dead right now. But he's not talking like he thinks she was killed in the house. He did bring in homicide detectives right away. But like there's an urgency to him and him covering the field with the press yesterday afternoon suggests he thinks there's still time to save her.

Yeah, and that is, that's all correlation to what they found at the crime scene. Remember, very early on, they did couch this as a crime scene, and they talked about droplets of blood, you know, later on. When a body, when a killing take place, or murder takes place, it is, it is very messy, okay? You know, whether it's from blunt, you know, trauma for, you know, hitting someone, with an object, if it's a stabbing, if it's a shooting, it is, it leaves, it leaves a lot of evidence around. And so when he talks about that it was a crime scene and that they found evidence, and especially the droplets, that indicates to me that there was not a major crime scene found here, that there was not a pool of blood, if you will, or, or tissue or things like that. And that

would be, that would, I mean, if you look at all the different ways that, that, that a body can lose, you know, it's life. It's from, it's, it's from blunt trauma. It's from gunshots. It's from stabbings. It's from strangulation. But, but generally, it's going to leave, it's going to leave a lot of forensic evidence behind. And there's been no indication that there was a major scene found here. I think, I think that probably would have been something that, that would have been, that would have been told. And then they would have changed the way the sheriff sounds when he's talking. You know, Jim, there's a possibility that they did kidnap an alive Nancy Guthrie

and that she did pass after the kidnapping. I mean, good God, I think about my own mom, who's the same age. And I don't know if my mom could handle that. You know, like, I don't know if her heart could handle that sort of trauma. and poor Nancy Guthrie had the pacemaker, was on some sort of medication that they said she needs every 24 hours or it could be fatal. And I guess that's a possibility that could explain why we haven't had a ransom. Well, a few things here, Megan, and good points. The minimal blood, and it's too much, of course, for anyone, but the minimal blood at the scene could have been used a form of control early on,

slap across the face, punch to the nose, and that's where that blood came from. from just to get her to cooperate or get her limp and bring her out to the car. And I hate to be this graphic. But let me go back in time to when I was an FBI agent in New York City, right across the river was the Exxon executive who was kidnapped from right outside of his door. That was 1992. His name was Sidney Riso and high-ranking Exxon executive. And it turns out he was put in the box, taken away, back of a van, then eventually put in a box,

put in the pine barons. He died. but the husband and wife team still carried through on the attempt to get the ransom. And eventually within a few days to a week, they were identified and arrested. And they took FBI agents to the body. So I don't want to make this predictive or is something that we know it's going to happen in this particular case. But with older people, the stress and the strain of a forced kidnapping, I mean, think about it, your mother yourself. I mean, how would you handle this?

you know, even above 50 years of age, it could be very, very traumatic. And if you already have preexisting medical conditions, pacemaker, as she does, you're not getting the meds. It only exacerbates all the problems that can go wrong. But there have been, my point is here, there have been kidnapped victims who have died. And the kidnappers said, well, you know, we did what we did. We still want to get the money. Of course, I'm hoping they would, the family would ask for proof of life. the old days they would hold a newspaper up with the current headline to so that they're alive.

Nowadays with technology, you can do it different ways, but there's also AI, which can make them look like they're alive and they're not. So that part gets kind of iffy. So I'm just hoping I'm going to be positive here that she's alive and the kidnap is just finding a way to either release her, get the money for her, then release her, and go from there. But does it, since we're all on the same page that none of us here thinks that this was coincidental, that, you know, it just so happened. they targeted an 84-year-old who was Savannah Guthrie's mom. It does make it, so back to your theory, so it's either for money, potentially, or to punish her for a report potentially. It's a raw speculation with no support, but possibly there was some report she did. I'm sure the FBI is combing through all of her recent reporting for, you know,

the Today Show, any in-depth interview she did. I would imagine they're looking at all of that. But I also wonder, like, you tell me, wouldn't somebody that high profile be a huge risk for kidnappers? Even south of the border kidnappers where it's more frequent? Like, you got to know if you go for a woman like that, it's going to be on every television station in the country. And the heat is going to be really, really high, which I feel like would be a deterrent. Like maybe that's an argument against them knowing who this was. either of you guys have thoughts on that yeah i i agree with you um when you look at at the

uh high profile nature of this uh you know i i would venture to guess that uh most of america is now aware of this situation and they're not operating in a vacuum right they they have a landlord whoever took this whoever took this woman they don't live in a vacuum they have a life they have relatives, they have friends, they have business associates, they have, they have an area that they need to cover. So it's really, it's really worrisome that they have taken this, this, uh, action. Megan, if I may add, what do you think, Jim? Willie Sutton used to say, who was asked, why do you rob banks? Well, that's where the money is. So why would someone kidnap a high-profile person or their heir or whatever, and that's because that's the best

chance of getting money. Look, Patty Hearst, that was a political kidnapping in the early 70s, but they knew the Hurst family had tons of money. Frank Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped the early 60s. That was a high-profile person. There was an heir to the Coors brewery company, I believe, late 50s, early 60s, kidnapped. He was eventually found dead. So, and this happens with, across Europe and South America all the time. A lot of soccer players or football players in other countries, they come from Ecuador, Brazil, wherever, and the kidnappings occur there, even though they're making their money elsewhere. So it's high risk. You're right about that, Megan, but it's also high reward because, as Willie Sutton said, that's where the money is. So they think it's

worth a shot here. We don't know this is a kidnapping for profit yet. They're very, very rare in the US, but 65 miles from the Mexican border, it certainly can't be ruled out. But where's that ransom note or ransom demand that we're waiting to hear about? And like cartels, you know, we've been ramping up our efforts against them. You know, it's not Mexico. It's America. It's Tucson, Arizona, but it's very close. And, you know, you've got to factor in what's happening down there.

Speaking of possible politics, the White House just put out a post on X about it that reads as follows. The search for Savannah Guthrie's mother, Nancy Guthrie, is ongoing. are requesting assistance from the public. Anyone with information is urged to contact 911. Our prayers are with the Guthrie family as we hope for Nancy's safe return home. And they posted the picture of her. If you have information, call 911, pointing out this is what she looks like. She's 5 foot 5. She weighs 150 pounds. Blue eyes, brown hair last seen January 31st. And then this just also in, hold on. Brian Enton, who works for News Nation, just posted a video from Nancy's home.

He's saying the first thing he noticed coming out there is how incredibly remote the area is, that everyone lives on an acre or more. There are no street lights. He was out there last night. It was very dark. And we were also told that this is a neighborhood with like mostly elderly people, reportedly, Randy, that, you know, it's one of those sleepy retirement communities from the sound of it, this particular area where she lived.

but with a house that's a million dollars that's got acreage around it. We've seen the arials. It clearly had some grounds. You're going to have to have groundskeepers. You're going to have to have most likely a maid or a maid service that comes in. You're probably going to have somebody who comes in and helps you with your meals. You know, I mean, if Savannah was taking care of her mom in any way close to the way I take care of mom, my mom, I'm sure she had all of those things, you know, because she's both of our moms were widowed at very young. ages and didn't have a husband to do any of that. And even an 84-year-old husband is not totally capable of doing all that. So would you imagine that's where they're going to start, not to blame the staff, but look, the odds are that's close to Mexico. You're going to have a fair amount of people who are volunteering for those roles. And I don't know, I feel like if I were a cop, that's where I'd start. There's absolutely no doubt that that is paramount in the investigative process here. And I spoke to a law enforcement officer yesterday who has jurisdiction down there. Just telling me about this, about the area.

And exceedingly dark, there's not a street light anywhere near. It's a hilly area. If you're even going out for a walk, then you're going to be straining. So, yeah, the surrounding area would be inhospitable. for any length of walking. That's why when Jim talked about a vehicle being utilized at the outset, there's absolutely no doubt that that was a mode of transportation that will play a key role here.

But you did hone in on something critically important, and that is the people who work there, who would be most familiar with the property, who would be most familiar with the actions and the scheduling of the victim here. So, yeah, they will not only look at them, but they will look at everyone that they know. Because remember, nothing happens in a vacuum. There's, there's, there's, you know, conversations that take place between friends and relatives.

So you can bet that the landscapers, that the maid, whoever was working over there. And just like Jim said earlier, it was a plumber there earlier in the week, every one of these people has to be vetted. and they're going to have to undergo some serious questioning. I mean, I was thinking about it because, like, again, if her mom's anything like my mom, she was shouting from the rooftops about her well-known daughter. I mean, I was kid, my mom, when I go home to visit her, will go out to eat, and she'll say, stand up so people can see who you are. She loves it.

It's like, you know, it's vicarious, you know, affection. And she enjoys telling people that, but it can be potentially dangerous. and I'm sure that Nancy Guthrie had pictures of Savannah all over her home, so she wouldn't even have to shout it from the rooftops for somebody who had been in there as a service personnel, as, you know, a temporary worker, what have you. And that's another form of exposure. I don't know. I just feel like what kind of a plan is that?

I listened to Ashley Banfield, talk to the sheriff yesterday. She asked a lot of good questions, Jim. She asked, were there any footprints that were recovered, like outside, you know, if there were gravel or some sort of sand, nothing. He said the driveway was not that kind of driveway. And so he clearly does think they used the driveway. Nothing. No footprint, blood, nothing like that. She asked about the cameras. He said, he actually, I think he said there were not cameras inside, but there were outside. And then there was a report today that they had, when he talked to Ashley, he said, I'm hoping. that we can find the data on the cloud, but if not, then from the manufacturer, like the service provider. And then today it hit that there is no cloud database for these cameras. So now they're dependent on whoever maintains the cameras. And I suppose we also have to wonder whether the cameras were on and operational and not just for show or the contract lapsed. You know, just because there's a camera doesn't mean it was on. But how long would that take?

Right? It's like, what's the point of having the security camera if they can't get back to you with what happened in your driveway at 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, you know, if they can't do that within a day or two. If you got to wait a month, forget it. Yeah, I mean, lesson learned here for a $99 investment and $99 a year subscription, get a security system, whether you're wealthy or your daughter's wealthy and famous or not, you know, that's an idea for everyone out there. And look, it's very likely, again, I'm not going to paint whoever took Mrs. Guthrie as a criminal mastermind, one or more people, but they probably had enough common sense to know whether in advance, whether there was a camera system or not, because that would be a dead giveaway. They know the police, the first thing they would look at, there's the ring camera, a blink camera, whatever it is, and try to get information off of that. So they even knew how to disable that, or they knew in advance it wasn't operational,

or perhaps in advance they disabled the system there. Because so far we're not going to any breaks there. I think it's going to come down to other cameras, you know, from other neighbor's houses, even down the street. There had to be an ingress and egress to that property, east, west, north, south, whatever direction it is, whether they came back the same way they went, of course we don't know. But every single camera system along that way has to be looked at.

And Megan, you said very early on in our talk today that, you know, at 2 a.m., I don't know what time the bars closed in that area, but I mean, you will think the roads are a lot less crowded at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning than certainly 2 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon. So that could be an advantage also. So it may be technology. It may be DNA. We didn't talk about fingerprints. They probably wore gloves to the scene, which would have prohibited those being left behind. But other forensic evidence of old school kind, forensic kind, as well as technology are hopefully going to put this together. and they're going to take every path they can from that house in any direction and look at cameras in that regard and see who they can find that may somehow become a suspect. Those license plate readers, that's like only on the highways? I mean, that's, are they not, you tell me. I mean, how are they going to be helpful? Well, police cars have them too, and they can pick up tag and they can look at them, retrieve them, and archive them for days, weeks afterwards, depending on the department. So there are always, yeah, it's going to be a Herculean task.

And I tell you, whether because she's a famous, the mother of a famous person or not, that can be a whole different discussion. But there is going to be a large task force here. We're at least at dozens of people now, maybe approaching 100, bringing people in from all over the country, certainly on the federal level, to help out on this case. And they're going to be, just like with the Boston bomber, back in 2012, I think it was. You know, all the video they were going through then, they eventually found the two brothers. And with the Idaho killer, they made a car stop on him somewhere in the Midwest when

he was driving back with his father. That was a plate recognition software that got him at least pulled over then. So that will be put to use. It's being put to use right now, 24-7, and hopefully they're going to get a break in that regard. Someone is where they shouldn't be. That plus the cell phone. Throw in cell phone information. The towers. And that's going to help. I mean, I'll guarantee you the NSA knew almost immediately who was in that area. at 2 a.m. Like the NSA has got those records time after time, we're told, in a way that's very helpful. But this is not helpful, guys. This is just crossing my desk from the Daily Mail,

quote, a doorbell camera Nancy owned was removed by the time investigators arrived on Sunday. Now, that's very odd wording. I don't know whether that means they think the bad guys took out the camera, right? Like, I mean, that would certainly track with what they're saying, Randy, evidence of foul play, including, they've said, like, around the door, like around, they think there was a breaking and entering, you know. So, like, it's possible. I mean, if this person actually knew enough to go, like, take out the ring camera or the nest camera before they went in there, that's, I don't know. Is that sophisticated or isn't it?

Do you think every crook would know how to do that? Well, with the advent of these security cameras, you know, for years now, they're so commonplace. It is not an unusual set of circumstances for a crook to know about how to disable those cameras. It really is not difficult. So, but it does show the nefariousness of this. That, that it's interesting that it's coming out now that that ring camera was removed, not just disabled, it was removed. And the question that, of course, I have is, is that, because the sheriff mentioned something about a search warrant yesterday when he was referring to the security footage. You know, I'm not familiar enough with the ring camera to know whether that information was, you know, centralized somewhere within the ring system.

I know that, you know, to access it from your device, you know, generally speaking, it's your phone, you know, that you can go back and you can see but what took place. So that's a, but that's a critical component now that that's been released, that it just brings more and more attention to the fact that this was a planned abduction and this was not a, this was not a crime of passion. This was something that was planned that was, you know, that was, and I agree with Jim, too. I don't think it's one person. And, but here, here, where that that plays a role. You know, we all know that if you want to keep a secret, you got to kill the other person, right?

So the fact that we believe that there is more than one person involved could lead to a, you know, an ability to solve this through some information that might surface from that. Yeah, somebody talks. Exactly. Or makes a mistake. this just in on what to expect at 1.30. Per spokesperson at the press leader this morning, Sheriff Nanos is expected to talk about some of the evidence recovered at the Guthrie home to clarify what steps are being taken in the investigation and to address information regarding a potential vehicle of interest. Let's hope they actually have one. Guys, thank you both so much, Jim and Randy.

All the best. Really appreciate it. You're welcome. Thanks for having us, Megan. Wow. And if you have any information, any whatsoever, even if you don't think it's relevant, call 911. That's easiest. I'll tell you, I called yesterday.

I thought I had some information that might be relevant. Probably not. But like, just don't be the person who keeps it to themselves. Let the law enforcement officials figure out whether it's relevant. Coming up, we turn to politics with Rich Lowry and Charlie Cook from National Review. How are you showing a little extra love this February, whether it's for someone, one special or just for you. For many, it starts at home with cozy Earth. Their bamboo pajama set is a classic cozy Earth favorite and the sleepwear upgrade you will love slipping

into night after night. They're lightweight yet cozy and unbelievably soft. Fall asleep faster, stay comfortable longer and honestly look forward to putting these things on every night. This Valentine's Day season, Cozy Earth is offering a buy one get one or bogo pajama deal. You won't see any other time of the year and it's totally risk free. You see you get a 100-night sleep trial. So you can really try them out, plus a 10-year warranty. If you don't like them after 100 nights, you send them back in and get a refund. These viral PJs are so good. They sold out during the holidays, and now they're back with an exclusive deal only available through February 8th. Hurry up. Head to cozy earth.com. Use my code, Megan Bogo to get these PJs for you and someone

you love. And if you get a post-purchasease survey, be sure to tell them that you heard about Cozy Earth right here on the MK show. Celebrating. everyday love with comfort that makes the little moments count. I want to tell you big news tomorrow. We will be heading down to Washington, D.C. for an interview with Vice President J.D. Vance. It will be our first sit down with him since 2024 during the campaign. There's a lot to discuss. And we're very excited to bring that to you tomorrow.

We're going to try to get it on the air during the 12 to 2 live series XM show. But you know how these things go. that may or may not be possible, but we'll definitely release it on YouTube and via pod tomorrow. Anyway, stay tuned. We are going to aim to get it on during our live slot on Sirius X-M. So that ought to be fun. Why don't you send me an email if you've got something that you want me to ask the vice president. It's Megan at Megan Kelly.com. So much more news to get to before we do that. Don Lemon went on Jimmy Kimmel last night and played the victim. and the ladies of the view are speaking out about this case, too, giving their brilliant legal analysis, as always. Because, of course, you ask yourself, well, but what does Anna Navarro think when you look at any complex legal case?

I know that's what Rich and Charlie do. They're here. It's an N.R. Day. Rich Lowry is here. He's editor-in-chief of National Review and Charles C.W. Cook, senior writer for National Review and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast, find all of their work by becoming an N.R. subscriber, highly recommend I am. And I subscribe to the, all of it, the paper magazine and NR Plus online profiles, and it gets rid of almost all the ads.

And it's wonderful. Guys, great to see you. Charles, did you or did you not text Rich this morning or the morning of Don Lemon's arrest and say, what does Anna Navarro think? Well, I didn't because it's just an assumption between us at this point that we wait for her take and then we both echo it. and usually incorporate into National Review's editorial line. If only someday you could actually get her, so you didn't have to go through this far.

Now we're on pins and needles. It would be a lot easy. I don't think Charlie or I know what she said, so we need to know. We're going to come down on this issue. We need to hear the clip. I got you covered, Rich. Who looks after after you better than I do? She went on the view and she discussed the grand jury indictment of Don.

and this was her take in SOT 21B. He was at that protest like a week ago, right? In the church. And then a week later, they sent... They got a grand jury to indict him. To indict him. But this is after they had gone to three different courts trying to get judges to sign off.

And the judges, in all three previous cases, said to the DOJ, get the hell out of my courtroom, you clowns, there is no case here. So they basically did it themselves. They did it. They released the news at the exact same time that they released the Epstein documents. The Epstein files. So make no mistake about it, this was about gaslighting.

This was about going against Don Lemon and other journalists. By the way, all who happened to be black, happy Black History Month. And I think it's, you know, to send a chilling message to anybody who is covering facts. So she's not a big fan of the minister. grand jury. She doesn't appear to believe in the sanctity of that organization or the indictment it handed down. That's not how she felt when President Trump was indicted when he was a candidate. Just for old time's sake, let's take a look at 21C. I want to thank this special grand jury jury because they have been meeting for weeks and weeks. They've done this incredibly seriously.

These are not people with a political agenda. These are regular New Yorkers. Donald Trump finally won a popular vote yesterday. The grand jury voted to indictment. So there's a bit of an inconsistency there, Rich. But for the record, she doesn't think much of the grand jury and its indictment of Don Lemon. And they appear to believe that it's a race thing on the set of the field. Yeah, well, they seem to think he was just picked up randomly walking down the street. And if you're being arrested just for being annoying and being Don Lemon,

there would have been so many offenses prior to this where they could have gone to a grand jury and got some supposedly bogus indictment, he was indicted because he has likely committed a crime at whether he'll ultimately be convicted of this. I'm a little skeptical, but he was conspiring with these people. He knew about it beforehand. He was helping conceal it. He went into the church. He was part of the disruption. He was asked by the pastor to leave. He didn't leave, at least not when requested by the pastor. And those are the facts that led to this indictment. So I understand saying Look, I think journalists have a special status or he was a journalist in this instance, and it's an ambiguous case, and I don't think he should be indicted. There's some reasonable people to say that, but say he was indicted because he's a black man or he's a Trump critic.

No, he was indicted for what he did. And the First Amendment is not this special badge you get to hold up as a member of the press that makes you immune from laws that are applicable to everyone else in the United States. That's just not how it works. That's exactly right. I'm so infuriating to hear these inane discussions, Charlie, because the three of us know if we said we're members of the press and therefore we can accompany this group storming an abortion clinic. We have a microphone and we have a little thing that says press pass and they are storming. They're chaining themselves to the door. They're blocking women from entering the surgery room and we're part of it.

Like we're not chanting. We're not saying don't have an abortion, but we're right there. we're also looking at the women who are in the clinic and just by being there, posing somewhat of an impediment to their exercise of what they want to do. But we have a microphone. We say, I'm a member of the press. I'm documenting this historic protest that they're doing inside of it. They're so brave. They're in here. This is what protest is all about to make people feel uncomfortable. Trauma is part of it. You crying lady over there. Does anybody think that the Joe Biden, Department of Justice would have said, well, Charlie, Rich and M.K. You're members of the press,

so we're not going to bother you. No, I don't think so. I think one of the annoying parts of this, and I do think it will be close when it goes to trial, it's hard to convict people, it should be. There will be arguments advanced on both sides that might be persuasive to a jury. But I think the most annoying thing about this is that the defense of Don Lemon thus far, has been to shout the First Amendment. And as you say, not only is it the case that that is not a blanket warrant for anyone who considers himself to be connected to the press to get away with crimes. But the First Amendment is on both sides of the ledger here.

The reason the FACE Act, at least the second part of it, which relates to churches, was passed, was to deal with circumstances in which the First Amendment rights of churchgoers are being violated by protesters, if you must call them that. These people went further than that. And the local government does nothing about it. In structure, this is a sort of post-reconstructional civil rights era law that in other circumstances, Democrats like.

And in this case, for good reason. You don't want a scenario in which people can storm into a religious service and stop it and intimidate the churchgoers. And then the local government, because it happens to approve of the cause, says, ah, well, we're not going to do with it. The federal government in this case is acting to uphold the civil rights of those churchgoers. So if you're

going to look at the First Amendment in Don Lemon's case, that will be his defense, that he was merely there as a journalist. You also have to look at it on the other side of the ledger, but the people who are making this argument don't care about the other side of the ledger. They don't think that that counts. And in one case, Julian Castro,

they excised it from the First Amendment. You see this? Julian Castro tweeted out the First Amendment and he did dot dot dot where all the religious bits are because he yeah so he said he said when he was asked why he thought Don Lemon was in the right the First Amendment and they said Congress will pass no law and he went dot dot dot dot and then he said respecting and then he just did the bits to do with freedom of speech in the press he missed out the religious parts so you can't look at this if you don't look at both sides of it now in a courtroom they will look at both

sides of it it is quite complicated But the notion that Don Lemon is presumptively the victim here, I think is absurd. Yeah. I mean, part of the problem is many of the people who have chosen to opine on this case have not actually watched what Don Lemon actually did inside that church, how he sounded, how he behaved. I mean, I saw a debate between Harvey Levin of TMZ and Mark Garragos. Harvey was on Don's side and Mark was on the prosecutor's side. and Harvey was like, he had absolutely every right to go in there. It's a public place. It's a public place. It's not. A church is not a public place. It's a private place. And you get invited for a specific reason, which is to worship here as a Baptist. You can't just storm in there and start getting a manicure. That would also be trespass. You have a limited invitation to come in for a specific purpose. And if you're there for a different purpose, you are trespassing. But on top of that, as everybody who's been in journalism for two minutes knows, As soon as they tell you to get out, even if you do have the right to be there, even if it were a public place, if you don't, you're in trouble.

Now you're in trouble. And he was told. He was explicitly told by the pastor, I want you to leave. It's on camera. And we went back and actually watched exactly what happened after that moment. He went on to interview because he kept sticking his mic in people's faces, at least two more people. He continued his questioning. He did not even come close to immediately leaving the church.

several more minutes passed with him in the church. And then even when he finally did leave, that's when he made his infamously stupid comment watching the people run and cry saying, trauma's part of it. Trauma's all part of it, which is what the three of us are going to say with the crying abortion seekers. Sorry, you're going to have to feel the trauma. I'm just here as a journalist. This is what we journalists do.

We enjoy other people's trauma that we helped cause. Here's part of what he did. inside. I've played this for almost everybody because it's just so clear what he's doing. This is top 20. Our church had gathered for worship, which we do every Sunday, and we were interrupted by this group of protesters. We asked them to leave and they obviously have not lived. What do you think of it?

I mean, this is unacceptable. It's shameful. It's shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship. but there were folks I have to take care of my flock Listen we live in a There's a constitution in the First Amendment to freedom of speech

And freedom to assemble and protest We're here to worship We're here to worship Jesus Because that's the hope of these cities That's the hope of the world is Jesus Christ I want to be very respectful Please don't push me though We're here

We're here to worship Jesus That's why we're here That's why we're here That's what we're about What do you think Jesus would be understanding And love these folks? We're about spreading the love of Jesus. But did you try to talk to them as a Christian?

No one is willing to talk. Okay. I have to take care of my church and my family. So I asked this, you actually would also leave this building. You don't want us to chronicle whatever. Let you hear to worship. I'm always worship. I'm a Christian.

It's right there. I mean, he explicitly tells him to leave. And he starts it off by saying, I've asked everyone to leave. And he just keeps going and going and going. And then the ongoing commentary about how this is what it's all about. This is protesting. And you can just protest wherever you want, whenever you want, that's what the Constitution provides, Rich.

Yes. He went to the Anna Navarro School of Law. Yeah, you used the term we at one point. We're going to do this operation. It wasn't a royal we, although given his self-regard, you know, you might want to account for that possibility, is I'm part of this group, we. And he cites the First Amendment with the pastor.

He also showed the scene of these people, again, worshipping in accord with their First Amendment rights, getting disrupted and brayed at by this protesters, said, oh, this is what the First Amendment is, okay, when they're actually violating the First Amendment. My other favorite moment of his from inside the church, he's talking to one of the parishioners, you know, about what's going on. He says, well, there's a rumor that one of the pastors might be with ICE, and the parishioners like, well, shouldn't you know, right?

I mean, you have no right to go in there regardless, but why are you going in there on the basis of some idiotic rumor? So the whole thing is so moronic and wrong. Again, maybe he gets off, but if he gets off, it still doesn't really mitigate the offense. This was a terrible thing to do. It was a violation of our civil society and other people's rights, and he should be ashamed. But I'm sure he's enjoying it because there's more attention, and he's getting celebrated by all the people he cares about, whether it's Anna Navarro or Jimmy Kimmel. Oh, yeah.

So he went on Kimmel last night, and this, I mean, speaking of Don Lemon, loving. Don Lemon. Here's SOT 18. When did you realize that this was a very, very big story? I had no idea. I had a little bit of an idea when I asked to use the restroom. And, you know, sort of early in the morning, and there was CNN on a monitor. And on the thing I could see, former CNN anchor Don Lemon arrested in Los Angeles. And I said to the guy, it was like, is that, he goes, I said, is that happening a lot?

goes, you've been on all morning. Yeah. And he says, this is a big deal. My attorney said to me, I prepared a statement. You can rewrite it and edit it, but you need to deliver the statement. I'm like, deliver it to who? Like, what are you talking about? And they said, the people who are waiting outside.

And so I go, my husband and I walk out and I see this, like, I mean, I don't know how many reporters and paparazzi and helicopters. I had no idea. And I asked my husband, I said, what happened with the channel? today because I was concerned about that's my livelihood and my channel and my viewers. And he said, the channel's been going all day. I'm sorry. He also didn't finish either his live stream at the church or his interview with Kimmel, Charlie,

without reminding people to like and subscribe. That clip underscores one of the other problems with the commentary around this, which is common in the media. which is the belief that the First Amendment treats journalists who have press passes and W-2s differently than it does anyone else, that it applies to the press, that it's a protection of the press. It's not. The First Amendment applies no differently to Walter Cronkite than to some guy with an iPhone. But I do think that the way that the Walter Cronkites of the world, obviously he's dead,

but would expect to be treated, it's different than the guy with the iPhone. And I suspect that if this had been a right-wing protest, let's put it in a mosque just to make it more salient, and some guy who had never been a CNN anchor and wouldn't have been covered by CNN subsequently went in and did every single thing precisely the same as Don Lemon, except he wasn't famous and he wasn't on the right, I don't think there would be any outcry at all.

if a democratic administration brought a case under the Face Act. I think part of this claim that Donald Lemon and others have made is, but I'm famous. But that's not how it works. Now, again, I think it will be 50-50. I do think there are strong defences. I think that the facts will be difficult to pass out in front of a jury. But I just think the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong about this is crazy.

And the analogy I've been drawing is with the Wisconsin judge who tried to help the illegal immigrant escape. If you remember at the time, the first line was, oh, my God, the Trump administration's arresting judges, as if judges are immune from being held accountable for breaking the law. She did it. She was then charged and she was convicted by a jury of her peers because she committed a crime. There's nothing about a judge that is sacrosan and there's nothing about a journalist that is sacrosan. They are subject to the same laws and the same protections as the rest of us. It's what Harmy Dillon said on this show last Friday, which was you don't have a magic invisibility cloak just because you declare yourself a journalist while you are participating in a crime.

And we all know that. I mean, even just the basic prospect of trespass, which is not what he's been charged with because that's a state crime. But I mean, how many times, you know, in our journalistic careers have we not been able to enter a certain venue? we'd have to stay on the sidewalk. If I had a nickel for every time my photographer is like, my sticks are on the sidewalk, they're on the sidewalk, you know, like to protect us because we know we're going to get in trouble if we go any further. We can't.

We obey that. There are laws that my point is simply not that he should be charged with trespass, though he should, but just there are laws that apply to us, even though we're journalists. And we all know that. And when you say that to, you know, these NBCers or ABCers or CNN or who were trying to defend Don Lemon, they know that's true because that's at least one that they all know they have to abide by. Like our news organizations will make sure because they're the ones who have to pay the bill.

But somehow when it when it's a law other than trespass, when it's a law that's on the books to protect a religious organization, they stop being able to understand. It's like, but what do you mean? He was just there to document the anti-ice protesters. important work is really the unsaid piece of it, Rich. Yeah. So he could have documented it, maybe not just as well, but he could have documented on the sidewalk and waited for everyone to come out. He could have had them prior to going in and heard all their planning and whatnot and then talked to everyone when they came out.

But he was part of the disruption. And I just want to underline what Charlie said. Scalia is so good on this, was so good on this as so many other things. He pointed out, freedom of the press, we tend to think, well, it's the press like CNN. But at the time of the founding, that term kind of institutional press wasn't used. They were thinking more of a printing press, which anyone could have access to. Was Benjamin Franklin a journalist or was he a guy with a printing press? So it's meant to protect the freedom of speech of everyone, not just people who work at CNN.

Now, Don Lemon now is more like the guy, as Charlie alluded to, he's the guy with the iPhone camera rather than the guy with CNN. He's just now delighted he gets covered by CNN in an instance like this. But again, it doesn't, it's meant for everyone, freedom of speech. There are all sorts of other First Amendment freedoms. And just because you have that iPhone camera and you say you're covering it doesn't provide immunity to the law and from the law and doesn't mean you can go violate other people's First Amendment rights. Which they all knew when the J6 reporters got charged by Joe Biden and tried to raise the defense

that they were First Amendment press and were. just there covering it, which the DOJ did not tolerate or believe, and through the book at those, that handful of journalists that was trying to cover January 6th saying, you cross the line. It is not a shield in the way that you are trying to use it, the First Amendment. Just for the record, again, it's not exactly required as proof to get Don Lemon, but for the record for the Harvey Levins of the world. after the pastor explicitly told him to get out, which we all heard. He said in the beginning, I've asked everyone to leave, and he said at the end, and I want you to leave.

He spoke to two more parishioners. He continued to describe the scene. He told viewers to like and subscribe. I can't, you guys. He talked about the music being very loud and the pastor not offering a prayer to calm things down, which he didn't calm things down the way Don Lemon wanted in response to the ups and Don help cause. He talked about a young man being in the corner looking upset. He finally leaves about seven minutes later. The whole thing was only about 15 minutes, if that, because he wanted

to see what was happening outside his parishioners left. He never said he was leaving because the pastor absolutely did not care. Who among us would not leave a church if we were asked by a priest or pastor to leave? Right. I mean, legal questions aside, put First Amendment aside, Who would stay after a pastor in good faith asked you to go? It's, it's reprehensible. Was he waiting for an exorcism? Who would then go? He could use it.

But who would then go on the Angry Ladies podcast within 24 hours and say, those are all white supremacists in there? He tried to justify it by then completely disparaging everyone in that church. The children. No one had done anything. As far as he knew, there was absolutely no support for ICE. There may or may not have been one pastor who had an affiliation. Charlie, that was like doubling down on stupid. But, you know, I think that is a calumny and I think it is outrageous that he said it. So please don't get me wrong. But let's just assume for the sake of argument that it had been a white supremacist church. The First Amendment protects that. You don't get to do bad things and then go on television and say, but, the victims were mean. The victims are still the victims. That's the whole point of having a constitution that is small ill liberal and neutral and covers everyone. It doesn't matter whether those

people are the best people who have ever lived in the history of the world or the worst. They're still protected under the FACE Act. And you point out that it should have been a trespassing case at root. But the point is, as you know, the reason the FACE Act has been invoked here is because the state didn't bring trespassing charges. That is exactly why the FACE Act exists. It's a civil rights law. The only point at which the federal government gets to pass laws and enforce laws that protect civil rights is when the local laws are not enforced.

That was true in the 1960s, in the South, and it's true in Minnesota in 2026. And that's why I say it doesn't matter, because the left often thinks that unless the victims of a crime are African Americans in the 60s, then civil rights don't apply. But that's not true. This is a misconception that has actually corrupted a lot of our civil rights laws. So civil rights don't apply to Asians who are being discriminated against in education. Civil rights don't apply to Christians who as rights are being abused by progressives. But that isn't true. You don't have to... Or to whites who get fired for their skin color. You do not have to raise an affirmative defense in a civil rights case to say that you're one of the good guys. You're

covered if you're an American citizen whose rights have been violated. So it's especially annoying that he went and did that because what he wants the audience to hear is, oh, well, they're bad guys then. Well, they're not. And that's a horrible slander. But even if they were or the audience doesn't like them or Anna Navarro thinks that they're undesirable, who cares? The federal government still should uphold the law in their defense. I'll tell you what. The other thing that needs to to happen here is a civil lawsuit must be filed in particular against Don Lemon. If I were any one of those parishioners, most especially a mother of a child who was terrified or the woman who either broke her arm, they alleged it was broken in the indictment, but clearly hurt,

which is what Pam Bondi said later, I'd be suing because it helps. An intentional infliction of emotional distress claim can be brought. but they're much stronger if you can tie it to some actual injury, you know, like a physical injury. And certainly eyewitnesses seeing somebody hurt her arm or eyewitnesses seeing strong evidence of emotional distress like a child crying in his mother's arms would be very helpful to this claim. And Don Lemon has plenty of money from his multiple lawsuits. He continues to file against anybody who tries to fire him. And they should make him pay. They should make it at a minimum he should be made to pay for the trauma he helped cause.

those children. He's bragging about how he's the most famous. He's the biggest name. You know what that gets you? You get listed as the first defendant in the lawsuit against everyone who went in there. So we'll watch as that unfolds. All right, let's keep going. Speaking of crazy things in courtrooms, this judge, this judge who late yesterday tried to stop the Trump administration and for now has stopped the Trump administration from removing temporary protected status from Haitians. So Joe Biden let some nearly 400,000 Haitians into the country and said, with my magic wand, I declare you temporary protected status, which means you're not an illegal. You can't be kicked out because you've got my magic designation.

And Trump came in and said, I'm lifting that. We're not going to wait that out. I'm lifting that right now. And this judge has said, and this is the same judge who said that Trump wasn't allowed to say transgender people can't serve in the military. And she was reversed for a hysterical opinion she issued there. And now she's at it again saying Trump, as the sitting commander in chief, does not have the power to remove with his pen what Joe Biden granted with his. And on and on, you can hear the woman's ideology. Anna Reyes is her name, Federal District Court of Washington, where she says, there's a hostility to non-white immigrants that Christy Noem has shown. She goes on to say, the government has not cited any reason to end temporary protected status for Haitians abruptly. And its approach is not in the public interest, she's decided. Quote, the government does not cite any reason termination must occur post-haste. Secretary Noam complains of strains. that unlawful immigrants place on our immigration enforcement system. Her answer, turned 300,000,

352,9, 959 lawful immigrants into unlawful ones overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer, turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our health care system. Her answer, turn the insured into the uninsured. This approaches many things. In the public, interest is not one of them. What? Who died and elected her president, Rich? She's the new DHS secretary, I guess. So we saw this in the first term as well, where some judges apparently consider unilateral executive action a one-way ratchet. So Obama could do things unilaterally. And then when Trump just wanted to reverse it, judges said, no, no, you can't do that. That would be crazy.

And this is a version of that, made even worse by the fact that this is temporary protected status, with emphasis on temporary, which means eventually it's supposed to go away and be reversed. Look, I don't think it's a bad situation for these Haitians. You had an administration of letting them in with the assumption, oh, you get to stay forever. That's the way temporary protective status is very often work. But under the law, Trump obviously can revoke it. And this just goes to the broader aspect of this whole immigration debate over the last year, where the left and Democrats and Biden, they created facts on the ground by letting

a bunch of people in, either legally kind of laundering people otherwise wouldn't get in through these various means, the CPP app or this TPS status for Haitians and others, or just let them flood in and give them a notice to appear that's going to be ignored. And then when Trump comes in and says, okay, I'm going to revoke the temporary status, I'm going to, you know, end CPP. I'm going to go after and deport these people. Like, no, you can't do that. This is the status quo. And a big problem, are Hollywood celebrities, folks in Minneapolis, they now take it as a given that the status quo of ignoring the law, the black and light letter of the law was a status quo such as that it's an intolerable act of aggression if someone actually dares to do what the law says should

be done. You detain the illegal immigrants until their proceedings reach a final conclusion, and if they can stay fine, and if they go, you deport them. That's what it says in the law. And Trump's offense here is just trying to actually apply the law for a change. I mean, now we have a pair of rulings over the past 72 hours. This one, we discussed yesterday a bit with Jonathan Turley, the one from the judge in Texas, who decided that the little boy and his dad who were arrested by Border Patrol in Minneapolis and shipped down getting ready for removal back to their native country, that he had to be released. They both had to be released and finished his opinion with a picture of the little boy in the dog hat with the wrong date, said it was dated February 31st, was lecturing and sanctimonious throughout the opinion.

I mean, speaking of Scalia, Charlie, he would be horrified at the attempts to legislate from the bench we are seeing these days. Yeah, that second opinion you mentioned was honestly one of the most unhinged things I've ever read. from a judge to the point at which I initially thought it had been faked. The February 31st made me wonder if it was a joke. That was not law and he's not a judge. The annoying part of this, I think, is that these decisions are given the imprimatur of law. And so those who favor them can say, look, the Trump administration, once again has been struck down by a judge. But what is conspicuously missing from the first

case we were discussing, the Judge Reyes case with temporary protected status, is any specific references to the statute. Now, I am, as you know, a big critic of the way that Congress has over the years delegated powers to the president. There are far too many laws in in my view, that say, in the judgment of the president, or in the estimation of the secretary, or that just hand sweeping powers that were reserved to Congress to the president. But Congress has done that, and it's done that a lot

in the area of immigration. And one of the things that it has allowed the president to do, for example, is determine if there are any countries from which immigrants might pose a threat. You can shut those down. Another thing that Congress has allowed the president to do is determine whether or not people deserve temporary protected status, and when that temporary protected status stops.

The laws here aren't particularly complicated. They don't say the president has to file a report that meets 17 different criteria. They say in the public interest, they say in the judgment of the president. And the Supreme Court has historically treated this area as non-justiciable. That is to say that the Supreme Court does not decide whether or not the President's judgment was correct, only whether or not he got to make it. This isn't like the tariffs area, where it is much more cabined. So Joe Biden was allowed to determine that Haiti and Haitians qualified for temporary protected status, and Joe Biden did. And Donald Trump is allowed to say that they no longer

do. If, I think it would be silly, but if Donald Trump tomorrow said Britain is such a mess, the British entitled to temporary protected status. No judge could say that that was wrong and no judge could say that a subsequent president who made the opposite determination was wrong either. We've already had a Supreme Court case that is almost identical to this one. We know what the Supreme Court, this Supreme Court thinks about this matter. It has come up before. It will come up again. This will be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is going to say I think what I just said, which is this is a non-justicey-bo question.

The same power that allowed Biden to let them in allows Donald Trump to send them home. It doesn't really matter whether people like that, think it's fair or mean or great or bad. She mentioned insurance, employment, economic contributions. Those things are not in the law. If they were, she'd have a point, but they're not. So he gets to do this in the way Biden got to do it. And the judges do not get to second guess him unless there is a law that says to the contrary. This is the second time now that she's tried to overturn a decision by Trump or his secretary, thanks to, quote, animus.

The trans opinion she issued was all about his alleged animus and Pete Higgs says alleged animus towards trans people. This one's all about the alleged animus of Christy Nome to people from third world countries. And they quote her saying stuff similar to what Trump has said. like, I don't think she used the term shithole countries, but she came close. Like, we just don't want these people here anymore. They leach off of us and they're out. And she's using that to say this is a racial animus that's motivating this. Meanwhile, good luck with that.

If they actually do look at it. I mean, Trump very clearly wants to stop these immigrants from everywhere. I mean, he's, look what he did at the southern border. He doesn't want anybody here on temporary protected status. Like, I don't know if there's another example of a group of white immigrants from like Denmark, who he's allowing. They probably got shipped off to Greenland by Trump anyway, and a dog slide. So this is, this woman's a problem. She's an activist and she's using her own priors to try to sweep Christy Knoem and Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump all under this,

you know, you're full of hatred banner. And I, she's going to have to get her hand slapped again by the Supreme Court. You're right. Tricia McLaughlin, who's the DHS spokesperson, tweeted out, Supreme Court, here we come. This is lawless activism. that we will be vindicated on and went on from there. All right, stand by, guys. We're going to take a quick break, and we will be back, and I have a special, special treat for you guys on Billy Eilish. We did a story on her yesterday, and there's been quite a development, and you are just the perfect guys to discuss it with. Next. One of the biggest problems in American health care right now is access. You usually can't get medication until you're already sick. Health care should not

only work when it is convenient for the system, though. It should work when people actually need it. And that's where all-family pharmacy is different. They let you plan ahead by ordering prescription medications before you're sick. Wouldn't that be nice? You order online, a licensed doctor reviews your request and writes the prescription and your medication ships straight to your door. Doesn't that make sense? It's not like people are getting high off of Ivermectin. You know, like they want it because they're traveling, they don't want to have to wait, but they treat it like it's like some sort of contraband. Thanks to all-family pharmacy, you won't be dealing with waiting rooms, insurance delays, last minute scrambling, and they offer antibiotics,

antivirals, Tamiflu, Ivermectin, yes, and hundreds of other prescription meds. This is about access, responsibility, and being prepared, giving you the ability to plan ahead. Go to all-familyfarmacy.com slash Megan. Use that code Megan 10 to get 10% off your next order. You've seen those red light panels, right, but this is totally different. Let me tell you about the glow infrared therapy light from sauna space. They say it helps with screen fatigue, your skin, your mood, and energy. It's incandescent light, not LED, which makes all the difference. In the morning, it's like natural sunlight, and at night it helps you relax and get ready for seriously deep sleep. They say you can even use it for pain relief on sore muscles or cramps.

And the real game changer is their firelight sauna. The future of saunas. It's portable. It's gorgeous, and it's powerful, and you're getting red light therapy, as well as an infrared sauna all in one. All made in the U.S. with pure organic materials and zero EMFs. Sona space spent over a decade perfecting their firelight spectrum, and thousands of studies support the benefits. Elevate your at-home wellness with sauna space's firelight infrared technology. Visit sauna.com. And use code Megan for 10% off your entire order.

That's sauna. dot space slash Megan. Code Megan for 10% off. Hey everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel, and it is where you will hear the truth,

unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren Callahan, Emily Dushinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news. on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111 and on the Sirius XM app. Just FYI, that presser on the missing mom of Savannah Guthrie has not yet started.

We are monitoring. If it starts and breaks news, we will bring that to you. Back with me now are national reviews, Rich Lowry and Charlie Cook. So yesterday we discussed some of the antics at the absurd Grammys on Sunday night. And one of the people we discussed was singer Billy I. for saying the following. Watch. No one is illegal on stolen land. I love that.

And yeah, it's just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now. And I just, I feel really hopeful in this room. And I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting. And our voices really do matter and the people matter. I say, sorry. And that blacked-out part, she said F-ice. Her voice does matter, guys. It matters a lot.

It matters to the Tongva tribe, which is actually technically under her logic, the owner of the land on which her $14 million house sits. It's worth much more than that. It was bought for that a few years ago. And here is what has happened since Sunday night. Her lavish mansion located on land that belongs to the Tongva tribe, the indigenous people of the greater Los Angeles Basin, They're upset about this land. It's theirs ancestral land. They have issued the following statement.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide clarity regarding the recent comments made by Billy Eilish. As the first people of the greater Los Angeles Basin, we do understand that her home is situated in our ancestral land, they said, adding, she has not reached out to the tribe herself. Ilish has not contacted our tribe directly regarding her property. We do value the instance when public figures provide visibility to the true history of this country. Additionally, the tribe said they've contacted Eilish's team, quote, to express our appreciation for her comments. It is our hope that in future discussions, the tribe can be explicitly referenced to ensure the public understands that the greater L.A. Basin remains. is Gabriel Leno Tongva territory. And so the real question here is,

when is she going to return her mansion to the Tongva? Rich, I mean, 3-2-1, no time like the present. There's no such thing as an illegal on stolen land. I'm sure it'd be a great community center for the tribe, and she can go someplace else that she thinks was rightfully secure. Now, so many levels absurdity to this, one, stealing land, is what human beings did almost throughout the entirety of our history, very much including Native Americans, right? And this is, in some ways, it speaks well of us as a Western society

that you have people thinking this in these terms. We stole it. That was bad because no one, no Comanchee was thinking, oh, we really should have done that to the Apaches when we push them out. No, Iroquois, after they bought a bunch of rifles from the Dutch and the English, we're thinking, no, we shouldn't do this to the Mexicans, right? They just took the land. So if you kind of peel the onion, every tribe that, you know, Ben and Jerry say the Lakotas need the Black Hills back or whatever it is, they stole it from someone else. They moved in there and displaced other people. So this is how it works. And then it was through American leadership that you get a post-World War II situation where we take national sovereignty seriously, we take borders seriously. And this just goes to

how radical some of the contentions are on immigration. It's not just that borders don't have any legitimacy in terms of excluding people. We have no right to be here ourselves. It's a criticism of the United States of America at its foundations. Charlie, Billy Eilish will never give back her mansion to the Tongva, nor will any of these Hollywood celebrities who try to lecture us or make us do a land acknowledgement before we can hear them perform ever do such a gesture. As stupid as her comments were, and they were made all them also by the fact that for some reason And she seemed to be wearing an academic gown of the sort you would expect the commencement speaker to wear.

But the thing that I... The nature you can identify it as anything. I thought it looked like a domino. It was odd, wasn't it? But she clearly had just heard that sentence somewhere or seen it on a fortune cookie or something and decided to say it. But I thought the more disturbing part was when the camera panned to the audience. The expressions on their faces were so vacant. there was this sort of, yes, look in their eyes that honestly kind of worried me.

It was weird. And I think as a result, we'll perhaps not to take them too seriously because they're not going to do anything about it. As Rich says, though, the core idea there is, if taken to its logical conclusion, exclusive of the sovereignty and authority of the United States government and all of the 50 states as well. So while Billy Elish might not worry me, those sentiments when expressed from within the institutional left, as they often are and within academia, do. Because if there is no such thing as an illegal person, then there's no such thing as a citizen. And if there's no such thing as a citizen, then there's no such thing as a government,

because we live in a representative government and a constitutional republic. So she hasn't thought it through. It's very silly. But it is actually quite destructive of everything else that we believe in. And then if you look at the behavior in Minnesota, you can sort of see how one leads to the other. Because if, right, because if there is no such thing as an illegal person, well, then all immigration laws are illegitimate. And there's nothing wrong with nullifying federal law. And then you kind of get rid of everything we've built up.

Yes. Okay. Now, speaking of someone who hasn't thought it through, a couple years ago, this guy was in the news for getting married and Taylor Swift went to his wedding. He's written a bunch of songs for her. Apparently he's a prolific songwriter and he's very well known in the music industry and his name is Jack Antonoff. And he was there at the Grammys and he did have on one of those little ice out pins. And unfortunately for Jack, he got asked about it. And here's how that went. Watch. Can you talk to me a little bit about the pin that you're wearing tonight? I mean. Why is that important?

This is terrible, you know? I mean, it's time to, it's just for every reason you could imagine, I would think. But, yeah, a bit of speechless trying to even talk about it. Yeah. Absolutely. It's, like, hard to talk about anything else at this point. Yeah, I get it. But we can do both things.

and find a way to, I don't know, it's just a really good time for people to come together and figure out how to move through this because it's only gonna be small communities that can really help. Rich, he has no idea why he is wearing that. A Greenland related protest, maybe? The ice in Greenland?

This is why. That is amazing. This is why I've written about this. This is why so many of those people, when they complain, use the phrase, you know, with everything that's going on, because they don't know what's going on. So they've just heard there's something bad and they say it's very hard to talk about anything else with everything that's going on. Then you ask what's going on and they say, you know, everything. And then the moronic reporter is opposed to realizing, oh, my God,

this is actually a great moment. I could actually really expose him. She's like, oh, you know, like, who does have the words? Neither of them know what it is. No. No. And of course, For the listening audience, he's wearing the ice outpin, but normally you put that on your lapel. He has it way down on his, like, his hip pocket. It's almost like he didn't even want to wear it, but they were handing him out when you walked in. He's like, okay, I guess I have to put this thing on it and had the misfortune of being asked about it. It's like a skip from arrested development or something. So dumb.

And honestly, Justin Bieber, I mentioned him. he was out there with one of those pins yesterday. Truly, I mean, honestly, one of the dumbest people in public life. He sings well, I wouldn't take that away from him, but for him, who was like a week ago in his tidy white, he's doing a concert to try to lecture us, we pulled a couple of pictures of Justin Bieber. Because, like, when you see Justin Bieber walking around these paparazzi shots, where like literally the only part of him you can really see is just the little circle of his face because he's covered in his sweatshirt from head to toe, or he's wearing his bizarre. I don't know what, like, Justin Bieber is kind of like a Britney Spears figure to me. He's, like, kind of gone. He became too big a star, too rich at too early an age.

And now I don't, I mean, he's like probably about six months away from a conservatorship from the look of it who now wants to lecture us on immigration policy, rich. Should we ask him, perhaps, about temporary protected status and the latest decision, which is based on alleged racial animus? Yeah, it's a little bit like the French Revolution. You had to wear a cockade to show you're with the revolutionaries. And a lot of people just did it because they're scared or because everyone else was doing it or they're forced to do it. I think at one point the king was wearing it because he's afraid of getting executed.

But, yeah, there's an elite that decides what the cause is. And these are all lemmings. They, of course, pride themselves and their great independence of mind and courage, but there's nothing in the sort. They just do what everyone else thinks they're – they do what they're supposed to do and play act. And a lot of them are, you know, actors. And they sing the words put in front of them. And this is just a version of that. All right, guys, I got to go.

But you guys tell me, you've got my phone number. Show me text. You tell me what you think I should ask Vice President J.D. Vance about in our sit-down tomorrow. Looking forward to this, it'll be super fun. It's going to air on the program tomorrow. We definitely it's going to air tomorrow. And we hope it'll air during our two-hour block on Series XM between 12 and two. Okay, Charlie Rich, thanks. You guys are the best and we'll have full coverage of what's happening in the Nancy Guthrie case as well.

And for those of you listening, I would love your thoughts on what I should ask the vice president tomorrow as well. You can email me, Megan at Megan Kelly.com. Keep them pithy. As O'Reilly used to say, keep it pithy, please. Name in town if you wish to O'Pine. No, that's not really necessary. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.