The Megyn Kelly Show - Shocking DOGE Findings, Elon vs. Sen. Kelly, and Hillary's Hypocrisy, with Mark Halperin, Sean Spicer, and Dan Turrentine | Ep. 1037

Episode Date: March 28, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Mark Halperin, Sean Spicer, and Dan Turrentine, hosts of 2Way's The Morning Meeting, to discuss the breaking news of the Supreme Court potentially reviewing the Trump administration’s plan to deport Venezuelan gang members, the legal implications of the Alien Enemies Act, the public support for tough immigration policies, Elon Musk and his DOGE team speaking out now about how they're reforming government inefficiencies, the shocking waste, fraud, and abuse found within the system, whether the Dems should fight the DOGE work or support it, Elon Musk fiery response to questions about calling Sen. Mark Kelly a "traitor," how the war in Ukraine breaks down upon party lines, Hillary Clinton calling the Trump administration "dumb" over Signalgate, her hypocrisy given past email scandals and foreign policy failures, a few Democrats winning a series of smaller special elections recently, whether this represents a shift in the political landscape, what Republicans need to do when Trump isn't on the ballot, and more. Halperin- https://www.youtube.com/@2WayTVAppSpicer- https://www.youtube.com/@SeanMSpicerTurrentine- https://x.com/danturrentine Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldKars4Kids: Call 1-877-kars4kids or visit https://kars4kids.org/MK   Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday. Yes, it's Friday. Did this feel like a long week to you or a short week? I'm kind of in between. In any event, it's going to be a great day today. It's day 67 of the Trump administration. Only 67. Can you believe that? You know how like after 100 days, the news media always looks back and says like, what did this president accomplish? It's only day 67. He's lived up to virtually every single campaign promise he made. It's absolutely stunning. Through no thanks of the courts, who have been trying to stop him via leftist petitions to do just that at every turn.

And we have breaking news on that in one second. But first, just let me give you a couple of the headlines we're looking at this morning. We've got Elon Musk's Doge now going on real offense. This seems like overdue to me because, look, they've been taking such a beating in the press and in terms of their reputation and so on. And finally, they spoke out. They went on with Brett Baer last night, Elon and some of his top lieutenants in Doge. And what a difference. I think the numbers on Doge are going to go up after that interview and pretty quickly, their efforts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. I really, now having seen them, I'm like, why did they let this image of just young whippersnappers in their backpacks and like surfer boy clothes go on as long as they did?

These are studs and they should have been put out there a little earlier. Well, whatever, whatever, you know, better late than never. So we'll show you a lot of the clips from that. And we are also going to talk about this, the breaking news at the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to get to it all with editor-in-chief of Two-Way, Mark Halperin, and host of the new Megyn Kelly Media podcast called Next Up with Mark Halperin, launching soon, along with former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and former Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine together. They are the hosts of The Morning Meeting on the Two-Way YouTube channel. Tariff wars, stubborn inflation, no wonder gold has been routinely hitting all-time highs. In volatile markets like the one we have

now, don't sit on the sidelines with your head in the sand. You can take control and safeguard your savings. This is why so many Americans today are turning to Birch Gold Group. They have helped tens of thousands convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold. Is it time for you to hedge against economic instability with gold? To learn how to own physical gold in a tax-sheltered account, text MK to 989898. Birch Gold will send you a free, no-obligation info kit. Again, just text the letters MK to the number 989898. With an A-plus rating, with a Better Business Bureau, and countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold has helped many protect their savings with gold. It took us decades to get

into the tangled mess that they're trying to unpack right now in D.C. How long is it going to take to get out of it and at what cost? Text MK to 989898 today. Guys, welcome back. Good to see you. Good to be here, Megan. Thank you. Mark, I'm so excited to be working together. I can't wait to get this thing started. And the feedback from the viewers has been overwhelming. They are in love with this idea. Well, I couldn't be more excited. Very grateful to you, Steve, and your colleagues there for inviting me to join up and it will be fun. And I hope to be worthy of being part of the mega metropolis of your media empire. So thank you. Very excited about it. Mark, my words, you will be. Okay, let's get to it. So moments ago,

the Trump administration filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the court of appeals order in the Judge Boasberg case on the deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members. This has been one of, if not the biggest legal matter, that they've been hashing out in the courts. So how can you really choose? And Trump lost on Wednesday with a divided DC Circuit three- judge panel, um, a Trump appointed judge would have sided with the administration and Obama appointed judge sided with, um, the ACLU and the splitter was an HW Bush appointee who sided with the Obama judge and said, you can't, you can't use the alien enemies act to just deport a bunch of people. Now here's what's interesting. So they're asking the Supreme Court for immediate review because

right now what's happening is Judge Boasberg's order halting these deportations stands. So the Trump policy has effectively been shut down until we get a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on this. And there's been no realiary hearing. Like Trump is in there saying, no, the policy policy should be allowed to go forward until we have our final order. This is wrong. Okay. So we'll find out what the Supreme court does, but as this happens, a very interesting piece, um, in the news this morning. Okay. It was, do you have it, Abby? All right. No, I don't think that's it. Hold on. Stand by, stand by. Okay. I've got it. Sorry. I have so much paper. This is all stuff we're going to be getting to. So buckle up.

The question is whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used by a president when it's not technically a time of war, meaning war hasn't been declared by Congress, but the president has used other language from by proclamation and that if he can, it's an appropriate circumstance here. And the Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Boasberg on those points. They're not convinced that this is an incursion or an invasion as those terms would typically be used. Enter this piece. Today, it's posted on Real Clear Politics. It's by Bart Marquois, C-O-I-S. And he makes the strong case based on another piece of journalism he had witnessed that Trenda Aragua is indeed, it qualifies as a military incursion that's been unleashed on us by the Venezuelan government. And he goes through it in great detail, guys. He says, there was an extraordinary article last week by Miami Herald investigative reporter Antonio Maria Delgado. And Delgado interviewed a team of high-level investigators and analysts who had

been following the Venezuelan regime for over 10 years. The only team member to speak on the record was Gary Bernson, among the most highly decorated CIA veterans in recent history. The author here spoke with Bernson as well. He confirmed that Tren de Aragua was purposefully sent into the U.S. to destabilize our country by the Venezuelan government. Quoting Bernson here, the Venezuelan regime has assumed operational control of these guys, Trenda Aragua, and has trained 300 of them. They have given them paramilitary training, training them to fire weapons and how to conduct sabotage. They have given them all a four to six week course. They put these 300 guys

through that course, and then they were deploying them into the United States to 20 separate states. And the Bernson confirming to the author here that sabotage includes arson, taking a look at the LA wildfires, the cause of which we still have not yet determined and so on. The CIA, he says, doesn't have this information, according to Bernson, because they refuse to look at it. We tried to brief them about this three years ago. They were directed by the Biden administration to ignore it. And now those officials are trying to undermine President Trump, who listened. I have to tell you, as a lawyer, this is a very important addendum to this argument.

And if if they can just get a hearing in front of this court to justify Trump's declaration of invasion or incursion, I'll start with you on a spicer. It could be a game changer. Yeah, I'm going to go back to that. I'm sure as a lawyer, you know, the case I'm going to cite common sense versus nut job, where it very clearly the court, the court, the court ruled that you shouldn't have to argue that hard to get known gang members out of a country who came here illegally. I mean, this is on its face, an insane idea that a president of the United States has to go all the way to the Supreme court to argue that people who are known gang members coming illegally into the country have to go through some serious process to get sent back. I believe the court will side with president Trump, but I think it's sad that we

actually had to go to this level to do it. I don't, you know, this clearly has the support. I think of most Americans, the deportation plan in general, Mark has the support of most Americans. Maybe they've got some questions on trend or Aragua, but if so, that hasn't manifested in any polls I've seen. I think, you know, the more dangerous the potential illegals are, the more Americans want them gone. But you tell me how you see it, because as a legal matter, it's tricky, but I think Trump's in the right. But the biggest matter will be politically. If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the D.C. Circuit and allows Trump to do this, how does it play? And if they don't allow Trump to do this, how does it play?

Well, in a way, common sense versus nut job. There's always in the law, right, there's always ambiguity. And we don't know how any of these judges or justices will rule. When you add in the overlay of politics, it becomes more complicated. I think there's two important things here. One, you've illuminated, which is super important, which is the actual facts. If those facts are true, you'd have to make it akin to the president striking the Houthis. No federal judge is going to say, I'm enjoining the president from striking the Houthis, because this is for most Americans, and as a practical matter, it's every bit as urgent a war in some ways more urgent because it's right here at home than the president trying to clear up the shipping

lanes in the Middle East. So number one, the facts matter. And if those facts are close to true, he should be unshackled to do this. And these district court judges, I think, should show some humility about what they're interfering with and stop acting like this isn't urgent. Number two, as someone who's had who had federal litigation that lasted 20 years, I know full well how slow the wheels of justice grind. In this case, I urge every district court judge, every appellate judge, every Supreme Court justice to think about these cases and not treat them all like they're on the same conveyor belt of slow molasses moving. This one should get expedited and ruled on so the president can deal with not just fulfilling a campaign promise, but dealing with something that's threatening the life and liberty and property of Americans, which is, yes, akin to a war. Here's how the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals saw it, Dan. They said,

we understand that the government is arguing that we've had these unwanted illegals come into the country unlawfully, and you're calling it an invasion or an incursion. But the court said those terms, as used in the this statute must be considered in their military sense. Now, already as a lawyer, I'm thinking, okay, that's fine. Who has the ultimate say on military calls? It's the commander in chief. It's not Judge Boesberg. And it's not even the U.S. Supreme Court. And if you read the terms of the Alien Enemies Act, it specifically says that. I mean, the Supreme Court's already said we don't have jurisdiction to review commander-in-chief calls under this, but under very limited circumstances, they can review a

couple of pieces of it. So in any event, that's what they said, first of all. Those terms, invaded or incursion, has to be considered in the military sense. And then they go on to say, okay, these words in the statute must be read to mean, quote, a hostile encroachment by a nation state and concluded that these conditions do not exist because we haven't had a hostile encroachment by a nation state. Now, if this stuff about Trenda Aragua is true, that's a very different story. And Judge Boasberg had no right to shut down the commander in chief's call on this just from just with his pen. He hasn't had an evidentiary hearing at all. He shut it down saying, I believe they're going to win.

And the D.C. Circuit Court said, yeah, us too. And now if the Supreme Court doesn't step in, this whole policy could be shut down, even though the Venezuelans really may be trying to send an incursion into the United States because Judge Boasberg thinks he knows better. Look, Democrats should not ever be on the side of criminals who are illegal immigrants. And I think the issue of immigration has bedeviled the party now for the last eight or nine years. And I think to illegal immigrants and just say, look, the justice system should work this out. We have rules and processes in place. You know, let's let it work its way, but not try to kind of like spike the football and look like we are on the side of protecting criminal illegal immigrants. It is in everyone's interest to get them off the streets. To Mark's point, poll after poll, you know, here where I live in New York City, down in D.C., they had the big arrest earlier this week. MS-13 has been terrorizing parts of D.C.

where a lot of Democrats live for the last 10 years. And so where they're doing this, we should applaud Trump's efforts to try to clean up the streets and make America safer. Megan, if I can real quick, this is a win win politically for President Trump. If the Supreme Court, which which I believe it will rule in his favor for all the reasons that you kind of enumerated there, then it's a political win. If by chance the court at the highest level rules against him, I think at least on the MAGA base side, and I think for a lot of independents, after the four years that we were gaslit and told that there was no problem with immigration, that the border was sealed, that criminals weren't coming in, they'll give President Trump

credit for fighting. And so this to him is a perfect issue because there is no downside. There's a downside for the country. If the court rules against us, God forbid, they make us bring criminals back into the country. But at the end of the day, I think this is one of those ones where you if you're President Trump leading this to Dan's point, you have you've put Democrats in a trap. They either have to side with you or with the criminals. Yeah, with the worst of the worst, at least in some cases. The Trump administration is asking for an urgent review at the U.S. Supreme Court. And my understanding is, though, I'm going to have to go back and check this, but my understanding is it's potential. It's potentially the case that

Chief Justice John Roberts will be able to grant that. I know he can either at least grant them urgent review. My only question is whether he can actually, without the support of at least four justices in this circumstance, reverse the temporary restraining order being blocked. Anyway, I'll find out. But this is getting hotter, this whole case. And now it's going up to the big boys and girls who actually will have the final say. And one of the reasons why that's good is because I've made this point on this case before, but the Supreme Court's more aware than anyone, more aware than anyone, Mark, that they don't have police power and that the only thing that gets us to comply with their rulings is our general respect for the rule of law, for one another,

for this sort of implicit agreement we have to live as non-barbarians in a country where we've agreed that there's this through line that will keep us all within a certain bounds of behavior. And the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority on what the law is. And the Supreme Court knows, however, John Roberts above all knows, if he hands down a ruling telling the commander in chief that the nine men and women in black robes have the final say over what is perceived as a military threat unleashed on us by a foreign government. He's on the thinnest of possible ice, and he's so obsessed with the court, you just can't see him wanting to do it.

Well, he's an interesting figure, right, because he does vote sometimes against Republican presidents, including this one. He does care about the integrity of the court, the reputation of the court. The statement he put out a few days ago in reaction to the president calling for impeachment of judges whose rulings he didn't like, testifies to his willingness to play in the real world and not just in the rarefied air of the high court. I think that they're going to rule some against the president in some form, and they're going to be some that are result-oriented. They don't all rule on the merits, sad to say. I think in this case, and in the ones that are comparable, as you suggested, as has been mentioned, Deference the commander in chief on this stuff, something where there's clearly popular will. You can find that. You don't need to look outside the walls of the Constitution to find that.

And I agree with Sean. They'll probably vote with the president on this one. But Roberts has got to expedite these things. It doesn't make any sense for America to not expedite them. These should be on the fastest of tracks. They should be on a track like Bush v. Gore, not treated at all like normal cases because it's a campaign promise and it's happening now. This is not some abstract thing. It's happening now. So I wish you would expedite them.

And then, however the court rules, I hope the president does what he said several times he'll do, which is adhere to the rulings of the court. I think he will. I actually do. I think he will. I think he understands. I agree. Blowing off the Supreme Court is, and that really is a true constitutional crisis. We can't have more Lake and Riley's while we wait this out. John Roberts, controversial though he is, especially with righties who wanted somebody who was more like a Thomas or an Alito, he's a good man. And he is going to understand the danger of leaving little kids out there getting molested by these rapists. That is happening with these gang members and young women and men being murdered by them. I mean, every week we have a story. So time is of the essence. It's long overdue, thanks to Joe Biden. And Trump is trying to clean up a mess that was not of his own making.

I just don't see John Roberts wanting the Supreme Court to be the thing that stops him. We'll see. We'll know better after we hear from them and if we get an oral argument after that. Okay. I want to get to Elon Musk and what happened last night. Cause it was such good stuff. But before we go there, can we just spend a minute on something else Trump did yesterday, which I think is awesome and not getting enough attention. We got an executive order that will pull wokeness, DEI, and radical, you know, racism and gender ideology out of the federal museums, including most specifically the Smithsonian, the zoo, he mentioned. And also he's directed J.D. Vance to restore the national monuments and statues that fell post George Floyd, meaning they were ripped down by

protesters. Not all necessarily, but he wants them to take a look at this. I mean, it wasn't all, you know, people who are pro-slavery or who were armies in the Confederate Army or generals in the Confederate Army, Sean. We tore down, we, the country, Christopher Columbus statues, Thomas Jefferson statues, George Washington statues, Ulysses S. Grant, Francis Scott Key. Like, you didn't have to be all that controversial for these things to get torn down. And so Trump is actually going to take a look because, for example, at this women's museum that's being built, he says specifically they were about to put trans women, meaning men posing as women, and honors to them in this thing of Trump is stopping it in its tracks. Well, look, obviously, this is a big issue in the

election. Dan referenced it earlier before. I mean, the woke ism, the pendulum swung way, way, way too far. And I think what Trump is doing is resetting that this is again, where he can get some great wins on these things through executive order that while he waits for reconciliation, some of the big policy issues to come in, really kind of score points, the American people resetting the culture issues that swung too far. And so going through the museums, resetting these things, rebuilding these statues. And the funny thing is it's been probably eight or nine months since I see, saw any, any inside polling on this, but even when it comes to Confederate statues and renaming things like Fort Bragg, uh, those were extremely popular. It didn't mean that anybody was a

Confederate or racist or anything like that. I just, I think there's an aspect of not whitewashing history that was important. So there's, this kind of covers a lot of ground that I think he's on solid ground with the base and, and probably the majority of Americans, regardless of party. What he's doing, Dan, is he's actually having JD Vance take a look at the Smithsonian and the zoo, et cetera. And he's having Doug Burgum as secretary of the interior, take a look at public monuments, memorial statues, markers, and similar properties, um, that have been removed or changed. He says to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, et cetera. He can't go after like state monuments.

He can't go after, you know, the museum of natural history had Teddy Roosevelt out there. He got torn down because there was a Native American near him. Like whatever. There's just been a lot of tearing down. He can't, if it's a local thing, he doesn't have jurisdiction, but the federal land stuff and federal monuments, he does. Here are a couple of examples on what he's concerned about. In the Smithsonian American Art Museum, there's an exhibit that said, quote, societies, including the U.S., have used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement. Bye.

In another National Museum of African American History and Culture, proclaimed that hard work, individualism, and the nuclear family are aspects of white culture. Bye. of white culture by, and then as I told you, the women's history museum soon to soon, soon, it will be forthcoming plan to feature female athletes, including male athletes who claim to be female, which is not a thing. It's not real and it's not recognized by the Trump administration. So what do you think? I mean, here's the interesting thing. It's going to happen. Trump will sanitize these organizations of all this. And then we're going to be in an interesting position four years from now, if a Democrat were to win the presidency, because I think this stuff will be very popular

to get rid of this nonsense, to put back up the non-controversial statues, George Washington among them. And whenever Trump does something, I guess, with an EO, Dan, I've been asking myself, would the Democrats really have the nerve to tear back down George Washington, to shove back in the race essentialism at the Smithsonian, the trigger warnings on the National Archives that were all over the electronic database about our declaration of independence? What do you think? I certainly hope that no Democrat would talk about doing that. I mean, as a rule, this is mostly one of those 80-20 issues. You know, James Carville said last summer,

or I think it was maybe a few years ago, that sometimes Democrats sound like they're talking at the Harvard faculty lounge and not like a real person in the real world, you know, on the streets of any town USA. I think where Trump does stuff like, you know, put George Washington back on an elementary, you know, military base or something like that, there is general support for it. I think when he does something like eliminate the, you know, recognizing the Tuskegee airmen at the Pentagon. I think sometimes people will say, hey, it's a little too far and this is like small and petty. And so I think generally speaking, though, look, Sean said it is a huge issue in the election. The country kind of voted pretty overwhelmingly on this front. I think he enjoys broad support. And look, I don't know how much you remember. I think it was a year and a half ago or two years ago, the San Francisco school board, several members were voted out in a,

in a like recall election because the people of San Francisco parents of, of who lived in downtown were upset that the school board meetings during COVID were focused on renaming the schools in these kinds of DEI, of DEI neutral names and not reopening the schools for their kids to go back to. And so the history of Democrats focusing on issues that aren't, you know, important to the average American, per se, is part of what has got us in the hole that we've dug. And so to get out, I think we are best to focus on real issues that impact the real lives of real Americans and not go back to trying to relitigate DEI. Dan, what do you know? Tim Walsh has a bone to pick with you, my friend. He was out there campaigning with Beto O'Rourke.

Why? I don't, but he was out there having a town hall with Beto. And he sees the loss in 2024 very differently than you do, my friend. Here he is. That our strength is our diversity. We've been talking about this for years as a country of immigrants, and we let them define the issue on immigration. We let them define the issue on DNI, DEI, and we let them define what woke is. We got ourselves in this mess because we weren't bold enough to stand up and say, you damn right, we're proud of these policies. We're going to put them in and we're going to execute them. Lean in. He's saying, lean in to all those messages. Sean agrees. Sean says, yes, go for it. That's how we all feel. I have his back. Lean in. Lean in, brother. And more of Jasmine Crockett. I think we can all

except for Dan. Yeah, I think that look, I think most Americans, I think, do applaud efforts to diversify like a workforce to have to include different people in decision making. Like I think companies, you know, and there's a lot of research that you do get better outcomes if you have, you know, different aspects, different slices of America at the table. I think where there's real objection is on the E, the equity, the idea that you're going to specify 30 percent has to be X and 30 percent has to be Y, not who's most qualified, not who is the best for that position. And I think that's where the party kind of the middle ground when we think about the future. On Governor Walz, I didn't understand why he was picked originally and nothing he's done since he was picked has cleared up my confusion

on the question of the of these policies. Your viewers understand the central role these issues played in the election. I think part of the challenge for the part of the country that still doesn't get it is the media, for the most part, still doesn't get it. And when you ask about, will a Democrat change it back? Well, if they rename Dulles Airport, Steve Bannon Airport, maybe they would change that back. But most of these things, I think, will be very difficult to change back because the energy in this country is not with this frog boiling in the water move towards and fetishizing race and gender. But the energy is for people who say, thank goodness for the change and the change happening quickly. The changes in the other

direction happened very slowly, but they changed dramatically over time. President Trump and the cultural and social forces that are pushing back are happening quite quickly. And I think they're going to move as things tend to move quickly, tend to move hard and fast. And I think they're going to move as things tend to move quickly, tend to move hard and fast. And I think it's going to be very difficult for a Democrat, not just politically, but practically, to try to put these things back. The Republicans, and frankly, the more centrist Democrats who objected to this stuff when it was overwhelming us, they were silent about those objections because they were scared. Not only has that fright been eliminated, they're emboldened. You know, they voted for Trump. He's emboldened all of them. They're ready for this war. They now have learned that they're in the

majority and that this was a temporary insanity that we went through and that it has to be stopped because it's actually extremely dangerous. Like the whole, everything's turned, you know, in the past five years and dramatic. So I agree with you, it will not be brought back because the popular will of the people will not allow it. Now I opened the show talking about Elon on with Brett Baer and some members of the Doge team last night. And you know, I, I did wonder in watching it, why didn't we see this earlier? These guys are amazing. Like, this is exactly, we should all be on our hands and knees at night thanking God that men, and I presume there are women too, they weren't on the set last night, are willing to take time off from their real jobs and real lives and do this for us. They were all really just public servants. Go ahead, Sean. But to your point, the caliber of these people,

when he was talking about when Brett Baer was telling him, so you co-founded Airbnb. You're the CFO of Morgan Stanley. These, the credentials of these people, we talked about this a little on the morning meeting this morning, that it was the illumination of, of just the, it wasn't like, you know, finding some buried treasure. The guy was like, yeah, we found out that the department of HHS has 40 CFOs, 40 CFO, 40 CIOs, chief information officer. There are 4.3, 4.6 million government credit cards and 2.1 million employees. There's obvious things that

are like, that doesn't make sense. That doesn't compute. 8,000 American federal workers can retire in a given month because that's all the system can handle because it has to take a manila envelope going down a mine, a mine. That's how many envelopes can go down in a month. That's insane. And the idea that they were talking about utilizing common sense technology reforms, efficiencies to allow the government to run better. And even Elon, when it came to social security, made it very clear that what 40% of the people who call the social security hotlines were fraudsters trying to steal the money of American retirees. And what they're trying to do is put processes in place to protect the American consumer, uh, from fraud. It's something that I agree with you. I was like,

where has this been? I wanted to hear this for the last 70 days. And I finally am you. I was like, where has this been? I wanted to hear this for the last 70 days. And I finally am here. I was excited. I was fired up. I hope they do more because I think that the more people hear about not only what really goes on in government, but how it's being corrected, the more support Doge and Elon will get. Here's just a little bit.

You mentioned this in your last answer of Joe Jebbia, the Airbnb co-founder and Doge Digital Retirement Project guy. Here he is, Saten. Now picture this. This giant cave has 22,000 filing cabinets stacked 10 high to house 400 million pieces of paper. It's a process that started in the 1950s and largely hasn't changed in the last 70 years. And so as we dug into it, we found retirement cases that had so much paper, they had to fit it on a shipping pallet. So the process takes many months, and we're going to make it just many days. Will it be digitized? Absolutely.

So this will be an online digital process that will take just a few days at most. And I really think it's an injustice to civil servants who are subjected to these processes that are older than the age of half the people watching your show tonight. So we really believe that the government can have an Apple store-like experience, beautifully designed, great user experience, modern systems. He said that we're actually at the point where we have to train federal employees on how to retire. They have to go through a training. It's so embarrassing. I know. It is embarrassing. You know, Mark, what american student at home is going to have any reaction to that other than what it's great to have private sector people in in the government

uh who you know my favorite moments was when brett was asking them their motivation for doing it and one of them said he's got four kids and he doesn't want the country to decline for his kids um they're an impressive group and you know even democrats most democrats will say yeah there's inefficiencies the federal government but this is an attempt to to get rid of them uh you know we talk about waste fraud and abuse this is you know you could call it waste but it's really just inefficiency. And it's really not having the will to use the ingenuity of the private sector up until now to try to change these things. Al Gore talked about reinventing government, but that was in the dawn of the digital age.

There's so much more that can be done now using digital stuff. And this is, again, as Sean said a couple of times, this is such an impressive group from the private sector. I just hope that they're adhering to guidelines and I just hope that they don't get shackled. They do need to move fast for all the reasons that this plan was launched. In my head, like the way they were being described by the media, it was like I pictured like these dope smoking, hacky sack kicking, beanie wearing, foggy. Tie dye shirts. Put them in. Right. Put them in- Right. Put them in tie-dye shirts.

I'm like, I see these guys. Were they wearing Crocs or Birkenstocks in your mind? I couldn't get- Sandals. I never got down below the ankle in picturing them, but I definitely, I could smell the aroma. I had a perceived smell. They're not that at all.

These are actually really accomplished, badass professional guys who are super articulate on top of their game. Now, I'm sure they sent their best for the Brett Baer interview. There may be guys who better match my description. But, you know, chief among them was Elon with some very interesting facts of his own. Here's one here that somebody mentioned, but it's not for. The sheer amount of waste and fraud in the government. It is astonishing. It's mind-blowing. We routinely encounter wastes of a you about $10,000. The government was being charged almost a billion dollars for that.

For just the survey? A billion dollars for a simple online survey, do you like the national park? And then there appeared to be no feedback loop for what would be done with that survey. So the survey would just go into nothing. It was like, good thing. Casually. And you know what's so devastating about that, Sean, is you know it's true. I know. I've been in the military for 26 years, in and out of government. I mean, it's finally good hearing someone articulate what I've known to be the case for decades. Yeah. And just be honest about it. That's like the Social Security thing. Everybody can understand that, too. Why are we sending Social Security checks to people who appear to be 120 or an infant, which is what Elon was saying. He was like, people are sending checks to infants. And he was explaining exactly how they do the fraud. Someone has a baby and they steal their own child's social security number

and they use it to get some sort of payout from the federal government. And they ruin that child's credit because they just don't give a damn. Here is Steve Davis, who was called the CEO of Doge, though he didn't seem totally comfortable with that label, speaking to some of that issue in Sat6. Now, the amount of issues that were the Social Security system are enormous. As an example, there are over 15 million people that are over the age of 120 that are marked as alive in the Social Security system. And that's an accurate figure. Yes. Correct. 15 million.

Correct. This has been something that's been identified as a problem, again, pre-existing problems, since 2008 at least from an IG report. So there were some great people working at the Social Security Administration that found this 2008 and nothing was done. And so 15 to 20 million Social Security numbers that were this 2008 and nothing was done. And so 15 to 20 million social security numbers that were clearly fraudulent were floating around that can be used only for bad intentions. There'd be no way to use those for good intentions. And so one of the

things the Doge team is doing is carefully and very methodically looking at those and making sure that any fraudulent ones are eliminated. Well, that is shocking, but also not. And here's my question. I'm going to play one more side on Social Security, Dan, but this question is coming to you on how are the Democrats going to object to this? Everybody knows what a money suck Social Security is, along with Medicare slash Medicaid. We all know that. We all know we're not going to make a lot of progress, if any, on our national debt unless we get honest about what's happening there. Nobody wants us to touch the retirement age. We get it. It's political poison. But this stuff, this stuff, we can do. We can do. But the Democrats are saying no, no to Doge, no to Elon. He's evil.

Here's the second soundbite on Social Security with a guy named Aram Moghadassi. He's a Doge engineer. I'll say the two improvements that we're trying to make to Social Security are helping people that legitimately get benefits, protect them from fraud that they experience every day on a routine basis, and also make the experience better. And I'll give you one example is at Social Security, one of the first things we learned is that they get phone calls every day of people trying to change direct deposit information. So when you want to change your bank account, you can call Social Security. We learned 40% of the phone calls that they get are from fraudsters.

40%. That's right. Almost half. Yes. And they steal people's social security is what happens. As they call in, they say they claim to be a retiree. Then they, and they convince the social security person on the phone to change where the money's flowing. It actually goes to some fraudster. In 67 days, they figured all of this out, Dan. Why would the Democrats stand in the way of these fixes? So I think the important thing for the party is they need to split what is common sense from what is questionable. I think what

they're talking about here, and I actually saw this morning, too, they're talking about trying to upgrade the Social Security software and computer systems, which are literally decades old just because they haven't received the funding. They want to migrate it to a new platform where they're trying to do stuff like stop fraud. I ran government relations for H&R Block, and I know a lot about the IRS and fraud. And they're absolutely right. It's the Russian mob. It's all sorts of people who try to steal your social security file returns, you know, falsely before you do and get your refund. And by the time you realize what happened, it's too late where they're trying to do that. We should say that is good. It will also give us credibility with the public for when we say timeout, this might be objectionable. And one of those things is,

I know we all say, OK, cutting phone service and making you have to come in makes sense to try to deal with fraud. Sure, if I live in New York City, I can walk down to the Social Security administration or take the subway or a bus in lots of parts of this country. It is hundreds of miles to reach it. And the elderly, it's hard. Some of them don't drive. They have medical issues that makes movement challenging. And so when Democrats say, wait a second, you need to offer those telephone services. People need there has to be a way for them to verify and get through. That is where I think the public will say, yeah, OK, all right. But if all we do is always scream no and everything, it's a huge problem.

And I actually thought, you know, look, we're making some headway. We Democrats with Elon's favorabilities coming down. But to your point, Megan, those were real people. They were uncomfortable. They looked anxious. There's empathy and sympathy as they talked because they're just regular real people trying to help. And that, as Democrats, you know, is a just regular real people trying to help. And that,

as Democrats, you know, is a is something that we need to recognize. I mean, it's the same party that didn't stand for the little boy who got the badge and became the honorary Secret Service so I don't think they're going to feel for the for the Doge agents. But here's why I think, Mark, they're not going to give an inch on Doge or Elon. NBC News just did a focus group of black men who backed Trump and approve of his presidency and asked how they're feeling. And that focus group showed that nearly all of them, 10 of the 12, still are with Trump and staunchly. The only concern that some of them raised was about Doge. They said, I'm trying to get my numbers. They say 10 of the 12 said they approved of Trump's early tenure during his second presidency, but only five said they approved of Doge's actions. Only five said they approved. Three said they disapproved. And the rest of the

group, they weren't sure. So if I'm a Democrat who really just wants to win back power, I see something I can exploit here. And I'm not sure I want to do anything to give Doge credit for anything, even if it would be good for the country. Well, except as Dan said, they need to have credibility. I think we've all wondered why what we saw last night, those very articulate spokespeople for this effort were not out sooner. I'd say there are two other things

that they've done to hurt their cause and made it easier for Democrats to rally public opinion around some things. Number one, they've not totally been truthful and accurate, as Musk has acknowledged, about what's being saved, about certain programs they're using as examples, and they've not quantified it or qualified it accurately. And that's allowed the press, which is hostile to Doge and those Democrats who want to be against it, to be against it.

But the other thing I think they haven't done is they haven't told the stories. They haven't humanized it. We saw humanization last night with these folks. But to say, here's, there's just a cert, people are having their social security stolen. This has to be on a human level because cuts, while popular in the abstract, when you start to cut specific programs, you run into trouble. I don't think the Democratic Party has a plan right now. They're all over the map about how to deal with this. But their job of opposing it would be a lot more challenging if the administration talked about this in a way that was easier to understand why it's a good thing, not just in the abstract,

but with some real specifics that can be emotionally told in a way that involves great storytelling. I don't know why they haven't done it. Yeah. Why don't we see the guy who says, I tried to retire and it took me six months. I wanted to retire and one month took me six months to just get out because of the paperwork. We haven't seen those people all over TV. We had these guys getting closer and closer

to real person stories where you were like, oh yeah, oh God, that would be really annoying. Oh, that sounds so dumb. Here's one, Anthony Armstrong, DOJ OPM. What does that stand for? Operating? Office of Personal Management. Office of Personal. Why aren't they all, I guess he's over there in particular. Anyway, he's over there at the group that takes care of all your paperwork if you're a federal government employee. And here's what he said. A good example of overstaffing would be the IRS has got 1,400 people who are dedicated to provisioning laptops and cell phones.

So if you join the IRS, you get a laptop and a cell phone, you're provisioned. So if each of those IRS officers or employees provisioned two employees per day, you could provision the entire IRS in a little more than a month. So 12 times a year, you can reprovision. Why would you have 1,400 people whose only job it is to get out a laptop and a phone? Right. The whole IRS could be handled once a month. So that doesn't make any sense. And President Trump's been very clear. Scalpel not hatchet. And that's the way it's getting done. I mean, that sounds so right. Sean, you've worked for the federal government. That sounds so right that you'd

have to go through that number of people just whose only job is to do two things, give you a laptop and give you a phone, which literally should take even if you consider setting up your password and getting you registered on it at most a half an hour. How does somebody, how do we have 1400 of those in the IRS alone? Yeah. Well, the scary part is, is that they're not alone. There's probably 1400 people who do various other tasks. And as a guy who, look, I'm all about tech support. I either, I've learned that you just power things on and off and that's, that's the extent of my tech support. So I get it. I appreciate that.

And I welcome it. But I think 1400 is a bit excessive. And unfortunately, it's not. You know, like I said, you go to HHS and they talk about having 40 chief information officers, 40. I mean, generally, when you're the chief, there's only one. But it just shows you the duplicity that exists. I think to your point, these individuals themselves did the effort, a huge bonus by going out, the examples they gave.

And then if we can add in the human element, the number of people who took a month to retire or who couldn't get a benefit or who had their money stolen. We're missing that third of the piece. I was thinking about this as you were saying a moment ago, you know, the young gentleman that was so cool during the State of the Union. President Trump, I think, did better than any previous president highlighting his policies through those individuals in the gallery. I think they almost need to embark on a very similar policy or a similar effort now, which is to go highlight individuals who've had struggles with the federal government, who haven't been able to retire, who things, not just the dollar amount in the programs, but the overall crisis that exists.

Because that's not, to Mark's point, it's not waste or fraud, the fact that you can only retire 80,000 people. It just doesn't make sense. In the military, we went to electronic medical records because literally you would have to carry your bulky medical record around with you wherever you went from assignment to assignment, station to station. And that's how we handled it until some genius realized, wow, we could just digitize this like everyone else. And it has made life a lot easier, right? If we can start doing that within the federal government, it's a win-win for the government. It saves us money. It saves us time. It cuts down on bureaucracy. In fact, I'm sure as one of those gentlemen alluded to, the federal workers themselves would probably like to go that route as opposed to climbing up 10 file cabinets high to grab somebody's record from 1979. Or have to get training on how to retire. How to retire. The least amount of time you want to take on new training. Personally, I think they should just move all these records onto Signal.

Could make everybody's life easier. Nothing more secure. Right? I'd get at it in. We'd all get at it in. The best people use it. All right, stand by, guys. I will be right back. And I want

to play you an extraordinary exchange with Elon. Let's talk about that car you own, but don't use the one you're paying to keep registered and insured. It's just sitting out there, taking up space out front and it's not doing anybody any good. You have a choice. You can give cars for kids. That's cars with K, a call and have them take care of it for you. Just give them the info and they will come to you as soon as the next day and take that car off your hands at no cost to you. Even better, they will turn that car into funds to help children. So visit Cars with a K for kids.org slash MK. That's Cars with a K for kids.org slash MK. That's cars with a K and then the number four to donate, or just call cars for kids directly at 1-877-cars4kids. And they will get that car picked up quickly.

Plus you can get a tax deduction and a vacation voucher. These guys have been around for 30 years. You've seen the ads, right? They've done this over a million times. Call now or head on over to KARS, K-A-R-S, the numeral four, and then kids.org slash MK right now to get this done. Karsforkids.org slash MK. That's Kars with a K. Are you surprised at some of the legal efforts and some of the judges that have weighed in. There's about eight or ten now of these cases that are at least temporary holds. They're being challenged by the DOJ. Are you surprised by that pushback? Well, the D.C. circuit is notorious for having a very far-left bias. And when you look at the people close to some of these judges,

where are they working? Oh, they're working at these NGOs. Oh, they're getting them. They're Um, and when you look at, uh, the people close to some of these judges who, who, who are, where are they working? Are they working at these NGOs? Oh, they're getting them. They're the ones getting this money. Does that seem like a system that lacks corruption? It sounds like corruption to me. Mm hmm.

I mean, not said was one of the judges he's thinking about is almost certainly judge Boasberg, who is the one behind the blocking of Trump's effort to deport Venezuelan suspected gang members to El Salvador. Back with me now, my panel, Mark Halperin, Sean Spicer, and Dan Turrentine of Two-Way. Okay, I did look up the SCOTUS protocol for that appeal, and here's how it's going to go down. So just for those who weren't with us at the top of the hour, the Trump administration has appealed the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against him on his effort to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members out of the United States and place them in an El Salvadorian prison. The trial court judge was Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee, originally put on the bench

by W many years ago, but elevated to the federal bench by Obama. He has had a leftward bent, no question. And he's got a wife and a daughter who own or work in and run, respectively, an abortion clinic and reportedly the daughter with this NGO organization that helps illegals and gang members. So yeah, I think that's what Elon's suggesting is maybe going on there. And now the Trump administration, just before he came to air, has appealed their loss on the temporary restraining order Boasberg put against them to the U.S. Supreme Court just before we came to air. They want the high court to lift that temporary restraining order so they can continue deporting these Venezuelan illegals and shipping them off to El Salvador during the pendency of the litigation. And I was unclear when we started

whether Justice Roberts could do this chief justice alone. And I was right. He can do it alone. He's the chief justice of the United States. And each justice on the court has a region of the country for which he or she is responsible. And as the chief justice, he oversees the D.C. region, which is where this case is coming out of because all these federal government agencies are in D.C. Anyway, that's where it is. And so John Roberts, if he wants to, can grant the relief himself. He could, with the stroke of his pen, lift the TRO and say, have at it, Trump. And then the case would go back down to Judge Boasberg for litigation on the merits. You know, they would hash it out. It's not a final adjudication, but it is on the TRO. It's in a form of relief that he could grant to Trump,

or he could say, I'll give you an expedited briefing schedule in front of the United States Supreme Court at large. And so we'll keep the pedal down, but we'll let all nine of us decide whether you can do this, or he could just deny it and say, I'm not dealing with any of this yet, and kick it back down, which would be a loss for Trump. So Trump could win with a stroke of a Robert's pen. He could lose with a stroke of a Robert's pen, or he could get a hearing in front of the all nine justices. And hopefully we'll find out soon which one of those it's going to be. Okay. Elon Musk sat across from me in September at the all in summit and said, one of the main reasons he wanted Donald Trump elected and was willing to serve and was talking about forming

Doge and doing the, finding the efficiencies was his experience as really a rocket scientist, right? As a rockets guy and talked about how it takes longer to get the permission slip in his words to launch a rocket than it does to build a rocket, and how insane it is, and how you get fined $40,000 for dumping potable water, like water that one could drink. You dump it out of the spaceship when you got back, and the government would swoop in and fine you for it. You say, well, what do you mean? It's, it's potable water. Why is, why am I getting fined? That cut like comes out of the sky. Why, why if God drops it, is there no fine? But if I drop it,

I'm getting fined. Well, that's just the rules. That's the way. Well, what do you mean? Like, I'm trying to get us to Mars. Why are you hassling me this way? Like I could, my daughter could come by with a little garden, uh, pitcher and do the same thing. You're going to find her 40,000. This is what he was dealing with. And he had it up to his eyeballs, which is why he's now doing all of this, the red tape. And for those out there thinking it may just be a Republican issue, think again, because Ezra Klein of the New York Times, who's on this book tour, making a bunch of stops, swung on by Jon Stewart's podcast, I guess. I don't follow Jon Stewart at all, and it makes me a very happy person. But there was the following exchange.

Watch. Step four has to review and approve and award, again, planning grants, not broadband grants, planning grants. Step eight is states must submit an initial proposal, an initial proposal to the NTIA. Then- Is that the result of their $5 million planning fund, this initial proposal? I assume, but then what was the five-year plan? And what the fuck did they apply for? What was their NOFO? Like if the five-year action plan isn't the initial proposal, then what's the five-year

action plan? Forget NOFO, MOFO. Step 10, states must publish their own map and allow internal challenges to their own maps. Wait, who's challenging it within the state? Well, you know, organized interest groups, environmental groups, like I don't know who specifically, but any, literally anybody. This is, I want to say something because it's very important I say this. This is the Biden administration's process for its own bill. They wanted this to happen.

This is how liberal government works now. This is a bill passed by Democrats with a regulatory structure written by Democratic administration. Step 12. States must run a competitive sub-granting process. Oh my fucking God. At step 12, after all this has been done, I'm speechless. This is the $42 billion expansion of broadband internet service under Joe Biden, which has yet to connect a single household. Ezra Klein there detailing how in the end, only three of the 56 jurisdictions that did apply for it actually finished the process by the end of 2024. I mean, this is just, this is devastating. And you know why, you know why?

I mean, you guys tell me, I'll let any of you take it. This is why I think Trump's approval ratings are at a historic high for him and why the direction of the country numbers are so positive for him is because everyone knows this. They didn't apply for broadband, broadband, internet expansion, but they've had to deal with the federal government when their tax refund didn't come. It's a nightmare when they wanted to go on Medicare Advantage and upgrade. When anything went wrong with their federal government paperwork, they had to correct. We've all been there, calling or dealing with the federal government on any of this stuff, nevermind your taxes. it's a nightmare. So what Elon's saying, the Doge guys are saying, and Ezra's saying,

it all has the ring of truth. And I do think like, while Elon's getting battered and bruised, the people are generally going to back this. Maybe they feel a little bad about the layoffs of the federal employees. Maybe they just don't really like Elon because he's brash, but they like the cleanup in aisle seven. Who would like to take that? Well, it's even worse than that, right? So that just laid out the stupid process and the amount of money we wasted on broadband.

And people look at that and say, I had my own experience with like some tsetse fly in the backyard when they wouldn't let me put a shed up. But then they also look and go, wait a second, isn't there a thing called Starlink that you could get for like eight bucks that you don't even need to do all that? Right. I mean, it's worse than even that example that Ezra Klein was going through. That's just if you wanted to, you know, what it takes to lay down broadband and do this. But then you go,

okay, that's stupid enough as it is, but there's actually an alternative that's cost like no money. And that's linking up to Starlink, getting you internet, not having to lay down all that. The mindlessness of everything that the federal government touches is unbelievable. And you're right. Most people get it and they just need to have it validated in terms of the absurdity. Explain to them. Yes. All right. So I tease this before we took the break. We got into a bit of why Elon is disliked by some. He's not afraid to

throw a barb on X, which he owns. He doesn't sound like Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. He does not sound, he doesn't speak the same way he does. And one of the things he did was to call Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a Democrat, who's married to Gabby Giffords, and he's the brother of Scott Kelly, both of whom are astronauts. Scott's amazing, by the way, came on my show at NBC and told us all about how he was a straight C student. Straight C, right? Isn't that your first question? Did you get all As? You crushed physics. You know, you were a math whiz and a science. No. He was like, I was listless. I had no direction. And I was a terrible student. I became an astronaut. That's Brother Scott,

Brother Mark, also an astronaut, and now a Democrat senator. Elon called him a traitor in the context of Ukraine. And Brett asked him about it. And listen to this answer. We should have empathy for the thousands of people that are dying every day in trenches for no movement in the lines. So the borders remain the same.

For the past two years, thousands of people have died every week for nothing. For what? And I take great offense at those who put the appearance of goodness over the reality of it. Those who virtue signal and say, oh, we can't give in to Russia, but have no solution to stopping thousands of kids dying every day. I have contempt

for such people. I don't want to make that clear. Yeah. So you're optimistic. Because their virtue signaling and their lack of a solution means that kids don't have a father. It means that parents lost a son. For what? Nothing. Pretty powerful. Mark Kelly came in his crosshairs because he posted something on X about having just

returned from Ukraine and how, in his view, it was very important that we stand by Ukraine. He wrote, everyone wants the war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine's security. Can't be a giveaway to Putin. And went on from there. Here again, I have to say, Dan, I think the American public is with Elon. I think the American public, while they have nothing but empathy in general for Ukraine, they realize where we are, that this thing needs to end and that we can't keep throwing good money after bad as Americans. Well, I think there's two things here. I think generally speaking, President Trump ran on trying to end the war in Ukraine. And I think you're right, even within the Democratic Party and the Bernie Sanders kind of base, there is a desire to spend,

you know, focus and spend money on problems at home, not necessarily abroad, although aspirationally, as you say, people would like Ukraine to be protected. I think where Musk gets in trouble is when he makes statements like that. People died because Russia tried to invade Ukraine and they're trying to defend their homeland. Right. So I get why they dug trenches and they're doing everything they can to resist a country that's trying to take it over. I think when Musk does stuff like in the interview, say this is a revolution, we're trying to revolutionize things. The public doesn't necessarily love that language. I mean, this goes to like Joe Biden trying to suddenly become FDR, right? That's not what a lot of people signed up for in 2020. And so I think Musk, to your point, is brash. I would never bet against him as a businessman. He's unbelievably successful, to state the obvious. But he's rough around the edges. And I think as he wades more into politics, whether it's trolling people on X or kind of forcefully interjecting into politics, you get the good, but you also get bad that I think, you know,

you have to be willing to digest. But I think his numbers are coming down. He is the wealthiest man in the world with conflicts, you know, from here to kingdom come. I'm not saying I don't care about that. Well, they I actually think they do a little bit. George Soros. Well, that's it. Americans are inherently distrustful of very wealthy people who start getting involved in government. And to your point, Democrats who have had a lot of them in our corner and we loved it. It was damage was done to us on George Soros and other things. So I think, again, it's good and bad with you on. I want to get to what Elon's doing in Wisconsin, because this is an important election that's entitled,

How Much Dumber Will This Get? And she uses Signalgate and the messaging by Pete Hegseth and Mike Walsh and J.D. Vance and Tulsi and others on there as the jumping off point to talk about how dumb the Trump administration is. Some highlights. She calls the Trump administration hypocritical, dangerous, and dumb over this story. It's not the hypocrisy that bothers me. It's the stupidity. We're all shocked, shocked that President Trump and his team don't actually care about protecting classified information or federal record retention laws. I mean, this is so rich given her history, but we knew that already. This is her just trying to say like, I did nothing wrong. And all my whole controversy was made up. No one actually cares

about any of that because they're not blaming Trump harder. And Trump allowed this in the first place, which much what's much worse is that top Trump administration officials put our troops in jeopardy by sharing military plans on a commercial messaging app and unwittingly invited a journalist into the chat. That's dangerous and it's just dumb. Okay. I mean, fine. I really think that Hillary Clinton should have sat this one out given she's in no position to throw stones. She did this willingly. She had her homebrew server for years, an intentional choice. Actually, we do need to stop and take that one for on for a minute, like for years, an intentional choice that she's, she's trying to be like, no one really gave a shit about that. This is far worse. This

unintentional mistake that was done by adding in the journalist. And yes, they obviously, they intentionally chose Signal to have the discussion on. But we've already heard in recent days, Mark, that this was a means of communication used by the Biden administration. I just think she should have had Bill write it. She should have had some friend of hers on Team Blue write it. Someone other than the person with this brand of problems? Well, in Arkansas, we have a word for it. We call it chutzpah. Look, Dan knows Hillary Clinton better than I do,

but you can hear her voice in that thing. There may have been some ghostwriting help, but that's her. And she has the rare honor, along with Kamala Harris, of losing presidential elections to Donald Trump. And she will never get over it. And I understand why you're saying she shouldn't have been to write it.

But it's a pretty good enunciation of the view of tens of millions of people about what's going on. And the Clintons, both Clintons, they just love the National Town Square. They don't want to be away from it. I will also say that she has not just because she lost to Donald Trump, It's in her craw. She cannot help herself. And I'm surprised that she's been relatively low key in the first 100 days here because she is, I know from talking to her friends, she's very engaged on this in a day-to-day capacity. Here's what really galls me, Sean. She writes that as Secretary of State under Obama, she used smart power, while Trump is now using dumb power. As Secretary of State during the Obama administration, I argued for smart power, integrating the hard power of our military with the soft power of our diplomacy, development assistance, economic might, and cultural influence. None of those tools can do the job alone. Together, they make America a superpower.

The Trump approach is dumb power. I believe she's talking about, among other things, Ukraine, where she was secretary of state when we went over there. And to say we meddled in their election is to understate where we are today as a result of that meddling, in part, for which she takes no responsibility. She just talks about how smart she was and the way she manipulated the world and how dumb Trump is, who's now again having to clean up a massive Democrat fueled, if not made, but at least fueled mess that's cost countless numbers of lives. Yeah. If she still has that reset button that she handed Sergei Lavrov, maybe she wants to take a do of. For on this op ed and get a reset there. I mean, this is the woman who literally brought a reset button to try to make a joke over our

relationship with Russia and wants to lecture somebody else about that. I really wouldn't go there. Then to go into the classified issue after having kept all of your stuff on an unclassified server, wiping it with bleach, bleach blit. Uh, I, I just, there are days when you go, you might want to sit this one out. This was one. Wait, one quick follow up for you on it, Sean. Then she goes on to say she criticizes him for de-emphasizing the importance of embassies. Oh my God. Why would she touch anything having to do with an embassy or a diplomatic facility after Benghazi? I just, there's a million,

I literally feel like she's the one who let someone in her chat that shouldn't have gotten in and wrote that op-ed. Cause that, that, that, that, I know that's where it's like, I wish she could have at least blamed that on somebody and, and use the reset button, but it's just embarrassing how clueless, uh, and how unselfaware she is of her own vulnerabilities that, cause it's not just that when she does stuff like this, it means that Democrats have to answer for it. We have to talk. We get to talk about it.

This is one where you literally say, I'll write it for you and then hand it off to somebody else or just sit this one out or don't send it into the New York Times. Write it in your journal or put it on your unclassified. She doesn't think she did anything wrong. Keep it for yourself. I know. Remember how she tried to act bored during the Benghazi hearings? Like, oh, my God, I just didn't listen to this nonsense. Well, also, she definitely doesn't think her homebrew server or cell phones were wrong either. Go ahead.

But for just one thing we lost in the conversation about Signalgate was that the president and his team knocked out all of those Houthi targets. No lives were lost. Targets were hit. The Obama or the Biden administration lost 13 lives coming out of Afghanistan. She dealt with Benghazi. If we want to talk about missions and diplomacy and actions, I'll take the Trump record over her record, over Biden's record any day of the week. Yeah. I mean, we lost an ambassador.

Like she now she's just kind of like, oh, the embassies, there's a de-emphasis. Would you like to have the embassy conversation? Because we could do that. We could definitely get back into it. You purported to be bored about it. I know you like this thing, Dan. How did you like this thing? So I actually loved it. I will fully admit all the things. Yes. All the things that you guys both said and Mark, that she may not be necessarily the best messenger for the reasons that you guys all said, but I think she fully believes it. She, she, she's throwing punches. And I think the party has sat around frozen since Trump got elected. They're exhausted. They don't know what to do. They're questioning, you know, all their strategies and tactics the last four or five years against Trump. And I think to Mark's point, she sits there and she's I mean,

Hillary Clinton is, if nothing else, one tough SOB. And I think she's just like, gosh, darn it. We need to stand up and start saying stuff and I'll do it. And look, I give her credit. I mean, she knows exactly what we're saying are all the words about her. And she's not going to be our candidate in twenty twenty eight. But she is trying to give some some steel to the spine of Democrats to just say common sense as we see it stuff and get in the game and start trying to go at him instead of just sitting around in the fetal position getting rolled. Dan, do you think your donors on the Dem side or House rank and file House members were excited to see that op ed in The New York Times this morning? I think they were probably not excited to see the name. They're the reasons that we all just but I think they probably say, all right, you know, she's getting off the sideline. Like, I think and we may get to this. This has been the best week for Democrats,

probably since August of last year, kind of optimism going into the convention. There was less coming out of it. But I think they're like, all right, now Hillary's in the game. She's one of the few people in the party who's an aircraft carrier who can take the fight to Trump with clarity. And while the answer is some donors were not happy to see it, I know some were, not because it was her, but because, as Dan said, they need someone to enunciate the contrast. You know, Bill Clinton could do it. You know, Barack Obama could do it. They won't. They won't because they're former presidents, but she will. And so she's not an imperfect messenger, obviously, but go read it and take the name off of it.

And you'll see a lot of stuff, as Dan said, Democrats want to hear somebody saying, oh, I I want to ask you a follow up on Signalgate. But you mentioned that they won't do it because their former presidents. And, you know, there's this, I guess, unwritten rule, or at least used to be about unwritten about about sitting presidents, former presidents trashing the sitting president. And this is what Joey Behar said about it on Thursday. They also have a tendency to blame the Biden administration. It's like, move on, that ship has sailed. I never remember in my lifetime a sitting president trashing a previous president. I've never heard that before. You never heard Ronald Reagan didn't do it.

They're saying Ronald. And just quickly, just found in like a 30 second Google search. Here's Joe Biden as president. What in your view constitutes the primary threat to freedom and democracy at home? Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represented extremism that threatened the very foundations of our republic. Donald Trump has no character. The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. There's one more thing Trump and his Republican friends want to do. These are the kind of guys you like to smack in the ass. Okay. So yeah, some of that was when Trump had declared, but I could have given you 20 other examples of Trump not running of him. There's no there's no rule anymore. The only rule is there's no rules. It's just like the same as the end of Greece when Danny Zuko and Kinnicky were doing

the drag race. The rule is there ain't no rules. That's where we are in today's day and age. Back to Signalgate. Mark, what is happening with the weirdness between what seems to be like Team Hegseth and Team Walsh? Are these two guys maneuvering against each other to see if one of us has to go down, it's going to be you? What's happening? There's certainly people in their orbit who are interested in moving the spotlight if necessary to save their friend or their boss. I don't know about between the two of them. I think my belief is that everyone on that chain bears some of the responsibility because they should have said, whoa, this conversation shouldn't be here. If there's two primary mistakes involved, errors of judgment beyond the shared error of all of them, one is allowing Jeffrey Goldberg

on the chain. Still don't know how it happened, but the National Security Advisor is taking the blame for that. And for many, that's the big sin. And so Waltz is taking the blame there. But the other is the sharing of information that almost everybody I know, including Sean, because we've talked about it on two way, doesn't believe should have been on Signal. And that falls primarily on the Secretary of Defense. So they both have primary responsibility for one of the things that went wrong. Many people have noticed that the president has been more critical of Waltz than he has of Hegseth. And there have been some reporting that for a couple hours, a couple of days at least, there was some chance the national security advisor would go. So

those guys are both ferocious competitors. They both want to stay in their jobs. One of them has got more personal closest to the president, which is Hegsap. But it appears they're both fine for now. And in the last day, the tensions that I've heard between their camps have tamped down appreciably as it looked like they kind of teamed up to move the thing off the table. All right, Sean, same question to you. What do you see happening there? Yeah, go ahead. Well, this is my big tell. I said this this morning. It's the manifest to Greenland is important today. More importantly is the manifest returning from Greenland. So is JD. Right.

So pay attention to the manifest on the flight home. Does anybody become the special envoy to Greenland and just get stuck in Nook? I hope it's not Usha. No, she's fine. I think everybody loves her. She bought she bought a round trip ticket. But but I do wonder if somebody ends up hanging around the commissary too long there at the base. John, can you can you speak to what he was saying about, you know, the biggest question is, and I've heard this, too, from Trump. How did Jeffrey Goldberg get

into Mike Wallace's phone? Something Mike is denying, but we all know he was in there in one way, shape or form, or this mistake could not have happened. Yeah. So there's two things. Not all sins are created equal. And I think in Donald Trump's eyes right now, the sin of allowing Jeffrey Goldberg into that conversation is greater than Pete Hegseth probably going beyond what he should sensitivity wise on that chain. Right. And the mission was a success. So I think Trump looks at it and says, who am I more pissed at? Somebody who allowed this Jeffrey Goldberg guy into the thing,

who obviously is someone of dubious character to begin with. And obviously a never suckers and losers. So I think, Megan, the problem that a lot of people are having is, and I said this on the show, Jeffrey Goldberg is in my phone. I had to call and yell at him during the transition because of a horrible, horrible story when I met him the first time that his reporter wrote that I called to chastise him about. So it's not a, I think if Mike Waltz said, hey, yeah, he was in my phone book because one time he was writing a profile on blah, blah, blah. And no one, I mean, I have a lot of people in my phone that good and bad, but because over 30 years you that's, I mean, I actually have

Mark Halperin's contact information going back like 18 jobs time that I can do Mark's bio because I don't delete anything, But that's another story. The point is that like it wasn't if it doesn't. Jameson Greer might have been the who's the U.S. trade rep. It's JG. Maybe that's who. Why would they be putting a U.S. trade rep on such a conversation? I mean, that's that's again, that's a whole separate thing.

My point is it's an honest mistake. Instead of just saying, hey, look, the guy was in my phone book because I had to yell at him eight years ago or he did. Who cares? Instead of trying to do this, I don't know how he got in my phone book. I think that that's going to that could be the bigger problem because he's opened himself up to. I think that we should investigate this. Well, at some point, I don't know enough about tech, but, you know, maybe there's some way of finding out the date that a contact entered into your phone book or something like that. I bet there is. You don't want to look like Joy Reid.

Like, I don't know who made those anti-LGBTQ entries on my blog. I demand an FBI investigation. I agree with you. I don't think it's that controversial to have weird, bad, nasty anti-Trump reporters or whatever. In your context, it's like the nature of all of our industry. You deal with people you can't stand. You deal with people who can't stand you. Who change over time. I mean, you might have met someone 15 years ago. I've had people work for me during my six years at the RNC who I haven't spoken to since because of some of the positions they've taken. They're still in my phone book. I don't spend time purging it. I don't think that

was the big sin. And so this to me is going to be the rub. If there is something that comes of this, that's going to be a problem because a crisis should die after 48 hours if it's not given oxygen. And I think this thing has lasted way too long. I don't think they should have said it's not war plans. I just don't think that was worth a worthwhile argument. Well, I don't think he should have said Jeffrey Goldberg wasn't in Mike. I just think all of it. They should have said, here's exactly what happened. You just I mean, the way you put out a scandal is you say, here's everything. Here's everything. And we're going to get the defensiveness on the plan, though. I will say, as somebody who who understands what those terms mean.

Right. But the average person is really drawing the same distinctions. I mean, I get it. I understand why he felt unfairly attacked. But I just think as a PR like PR is something I actually know pretty well. He knows what I know. But you also. But Megan, here's the thing.

You also know the law very well. He knows war plans and I know PR. But Megan, here's the thing. You also know the law very well. And if I started pontificating and said, well, they should have just filed this motion inside of you as the good lawyer you are, you'd say you can't do. And I think there's a defensive posture for people in the national security space to say that wasn't a war plan. If Pete hadn't said that though, Jeffrey Goldberg wouldn't have released the actual text with the, with the, whatever you want to call those things. And the story didn't get better for Pete and Mike and everyone when he did that. So it's like, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I get their defensive reflexive response because you're defending something, you know, not to be true. I get why they did it.

I know. I just like it. You have to be smart when it comes to PR, same as you do as a military planner and be able to see three, four or five steps ahead. So it's going to make you feel better to do this counterstrike. But then then what? Right. And that's I bring it up because you're you know, we're talking about how we're now in day five of what should have been a 24 to 48 hour scandal. I think it's over. I don't think it's, I mean, the Democrats will still continue to try to light the flame. We also, you know, one of the things that didn't get much attention, someone brought this up. I can't, I will steal the idea, but it wasn't mine. As you think about this, Goldberg knew about this for weeks, right? And he held it until he knew there was a pre-planned hearing of the Intel chiefs on Capitol Hill.

Like he got away with that. Just think about this. He timed the drop of that story until he knew those chiefs were going to be on Capitol Hill. I mean, you talk about the PR piece of this. I will give the Atlantic credit for, for literally thinking about how to place the story and when to get the maximum effect. Well, Walter Kern and Matt Taibbi were on the other day and they had a really good point. They were like, why would you ever declare that you were on there? Just think, you could have four years of access

to the most amazing communications ever. And then at the end of the administration be like, here's everything I saw, oh my God. Like, it could have been an even better scoop for them. Anyway, I think it's over. I just thank God nobody on our side got hurt. The mission went off perfectly and that we should be grateful that it did. I guess the trade representative might've been on there because we were striking trade routes and the Houthis there in. Okay. Next up, we've got to talk about,

you know, on Monday, all the news was how the Democrat party is in shambles. It has its worst approval ratings in years within its itself. You know, it's Democrats hate, hate the party. Democrats hate their leaders. They have no leader. And then we start to see like last night, Elise Stefanik was withdrawn as Trump's nominee for UN ambassador because he needs her to stay in her seat. And then we find out that there was a special election in Pennsylvania in a jurisdiction Trump won by double digits that went blue. And now we're looking at two in Florida where Trump won by huge margins that are potentially in trouble. So what's happening? Is this a party that's in trouble or isn't it? That's where we go with the guys right after this.

I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app.

It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. What are we supposed to make of what I said before the break? I thought the Democrats were imploding and yet Elise has got to leave the UN job so she can hold on to that seat. You've got, um, this was a Pennsylvania state race that the Democrats won, but it was a, it was a jurisdiction, uh, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It was a state Senate seat that Trump won by 15 points in November and included the more conservative parts of a county that only one Democrat presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, had won since the Civil War. So Dems have to be feeling good about that. And then you've got the Matt Gaetz seat and the Mike Wahl seat in Florida, which are normally totally solidly red, but

Republicans are worried about those. Elise Stefanik won her seat by 24 points last year, and the guy who was running to replace her as the Republican on the ticket is up 16 points. But still, Trump said, get back down there, at least we can't afford to lose it. So I like what what's happening, Mark, what's happening? Well, don't want to overstate the trend here, because the country, the polls say, yes, the country thinks people think the country is on the right track. President Trump is still wielding his power in a pretty dramatic and some ways unprecedented way. Polls say, yes, people think the country's on the right track. President Trump is still wielding his power in a pretty dramatic and in some ways unprecedented way.

I think there's three things going on. First of all, with any president, the year after the election, you almost always see some sort of bounce back. The two gubernatorial races the year after the presidential, only two competitive races every year, or somewhat competitive, at least New Jersey and Virginia. And for years, they swung almost always to the president, the party, not of the president. So part of it is just it's a year after. Second is some of the stuff the president's doing does not seem relevant on the economy to a lot of voters, particularly on inflation, where is the president's focus been on the economy, it's been on tariffs, most people don't understand that some people are worried

about them. And we see consumer confidence is a little bit off. So or some polls a lot off. So I think I think there's an economic gap. And then you see that in the president's polling, where his ratings on the economy are lower. And that's a big issue for voters. And then lastly, there's no perfect off-year election that's going to tell you exactly what's going on nationally. But there's no doubt that a factor in these races is when Donald Trump isn't on the ballot, Republicans don't do as well. He's not on the ballot in these races. And Democrats finally have a little bit of pep in their step. They finally have a feeling of, well, we can't beat them in Washington. We didn't beat them in the last election. But if we win these special elections, if we donate money, if we volunteer, if we get energized, we can send a

message to everybody that we want to check on Trump. I think all those things have combined to put Republicans back on their heels. Doesn't mean they're going to lose any of these races necessarily, although they did, as you say, lose the one in Pennsylvania. But this is a time we talked about it on the show, this our show this morning. It's been the best week, we all agree, for Democrats since Trump got elected. And that adds up to creating an electoral environment that's favorable right now for Democrats as compared to the mean. Dan, Scott Pressler is the guy who went to Pennsylvania, moved there for more than a year prior to the vote, and really was very instrumental in turning it red. And he tweeted out, I'm going to be honest with you, even if you don't want to hear it. Republicans have been losing special

elections all over the country, even red districts in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Democrats are fired up. Unless we begin focusing on ground game, we will lose 2025 and 2026. Do you agree? Yeah. And I think James Blair, I think it was in an interview with Politico, the White House political director recently said, like, it is a little bit of a problem that our team, meaning kind of Trump and MAGA supporters, are pretty kind of happy right now. And you're always a little less energized when you feel like everything is being accomplished that you fought so hard for. Angry MAGA is more effective. Right. Whereas conversely, Democrats are fired up. And I think there's two things. Democrats are fired up about Donald Trump. They've also they're

fired up about the kind of incompetence and ineptness of their own leaders. And what you're seeing is this like we've had enough. And now, like we are going to force action from the bottom up for our own party to get its act together. And so on the local level, on the grassroots level, we can all talk about AOC and Bernie Sanders. Their politics are not necessarily my politics, but what they're tapping into, what they're showing the party, hey, we can get 30,000 people to show up in a red state. That is hard. I was in politics for 20 years. The only person who's been able to do it for year after year is Donald Trump. You know, Obama had like a two year period where he was like really

hot, could fill arenas. And then it became a grind. Trump is the only one in Bernie Sanders who can do it. And I think that you're. Trump is the only one in Bernie Sanders who can do it. And I think that you're seeing, you know, this week was signal. It was a little bit of a ding or self-inflicted error that Democrats said, OK, they're human a little bit. Right. They were fumbling around like it gave them some confidence. And so I think Democrats are energized. Republicans maybe not quite as much. And we'll see here. I also would not underestimate that what Mark said, Trump got elected on the economy and inflation, and he doesn't even talk about those things most of the time. Most of these press conferences, DEI, Doge with Elon Musk a lot,

Ukraine, it's not on the economy. And I think voters are frustrated. And you combine that with Doge having kind of a little bit of a rickety, you know, reputation in polls. You see some some pieces together. You know, Megan, the thing is, look, special elections are special. That's a fact. There are no lessons to be learned. And one of the things that I learned out of Pennsylvania beyond I mean, the environment we just talked about, there's no question Republicans aren't as fired up as Democrats right now, but mechanics matter and candidates matter. And in Pennsylvania, by all estimation, the candidate was not very good. The mechanics on the ground were horrible. That's what worries me about the Florida two special elections. The first district, which is the one held previously by Matt Gaetz, should be OK. Jimmy Petronas has run statewide before and won several times. So he's a good candidate. He's got a good fundraising base. He's got people motivated. The sixth district, which is the Mike Waltz seat, which is the Republican nominee's state senator, Randy Fine,

is not raising the money. Trump carried it by 30 points. 30 points. This should be a slam dunk. Now, again, it's special. So maybe he only wins it by 10 or 12, but right now it's dead even. There's even one poll that shows the Dem up. This should be a huge wake up call. The candidates matter, the mechanics matter, but that should still keep it within five or 10. We have a problem. Scott Pressler is absolutely right. And that I mean, that should still keep it within five or 10. We have a problem. Scott Pressler is absolutely right. And that's the thing is that at some point you can you know, those things matter for a few points here and there. We got a bigger problem, too, in terms of keeping the base motivated. Well, it won't be long until they get angry again. That's that's Republicanism. There's always somebody disappointing you. Go from fat and happy to angry in a big hurry. Yeah, it's easy. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race, we should spend a moment on,

spend a moment on too. I can't believe the amount of messaging I get on a daily basis about this race as somebody who lives in Connecticut. Like, why am I getting this online and everywhere? Elon's doing his, you know, you'll get a million dollars if you can show me that you voted. You don't have to tell me who you voted for. He's doing that thing again, going back out there. Everybody's sounding very alarmist on this thing. But the Democrat is up and by a lot, according to the latest poll, where her name is Crawford, Susan Crawford. She's up against Brad Schimel. And it's 50-42, according to the latest poll of likely voters, 500 of them, although Wisconsin, they say, is like impossible to poll.

So what's going to happen there? And why does everyone care so very much? And is it redistricting that this court is going to have the final say on? Yes, yes, that's the biggest issue. Redistricting. I mean, that would be a huge issue that people should care about nationwide, not just the folks in Wisconsin. A lot of voter ID thing, a lot of early voting will go through the state Supreme Court. So yeah, for a lot of reasons, people should care about that. I think there's no question Democrats have the edge going to this. This is going to be a turnout thing. And that's why you're seeing Elon Don Jr. Others try to make the case, tell a town halls, personal visits, et cetera, that Republicans could do themselves a huge favor if they pick up the Supreme Court seat. And I would say that

they're not favored to do it, but it's definitely one of those things is we head down the stretch that they have every ability to do. I can't think of any state. Sorry. Go ahead, Mark. I can't think of any state whose state Supreme Court decisions have been as impactful, not just in the state, but kind of nationally resonant as Wisconsin. And like the political culture and the states and the U.S. senators, they are actually purple, right? You can't think of very many states because there aren't very many left who have senators from different parties. Wisconsin does. Ron Johnson, far right MAGA. Tammy Baldwin, pretty far left. And you see on that state Supreme Court, the stakes are huge. Again, Wisconsin's probably been supplanted by Pennsylvania as the battleground state,

but it's still number two. And so the stakes are high in order to not just impact that particular state, but the symbolism is what's important to so many to say, we're going head to head with all the outside money and the state ground games to see who can win a very contested seat in Wisconsin. We've seen it before with Scott Walker. We've seen it before with the U.S. Senate race. It is high stakes there because of the national resonance of the state and our political culture. So, Dan, is what's going to happen? Let's say that if the Democrat wins, then the Democrats control that court. And then is it true that that could mean as many as two congressional seats, additional congressional seats for the Democrats? It could. I mean, we'll have to see. There's going to be a

gubernatorial race in Wisconsin here in two years in twenty twenty eight. And, you know, we'll just have to see kind of how it shakes out. Look, what it does do is just give a little, you know, momentum to the party. We just lost. But Tammy Baldwin did win there. I think one of the things that we're really watching for all three of us and Megan, you probably as well as Elon Musk in the fall last year was an asset to Donald Trump. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. He is now going there this weekend. He's put a lot of money into this race. He's been very vocal on X and other places. I'm curious if his presence helps, if he is still an asset, or if what we're seeing in polls that his favorabilities are coming down, his unf more Doge cuts, we head into this bill,

the reconciliation bill. It will start to say to Republicans, perhaps the ground is shifting. I don't like the chances in Wisconsin, but I'm heartened by the fact that the polls in Wisconsin are never correct. I mean, it's just like you you can't it's like having no pull whatsoever. So I suppose anything could happen because Trump won it. So, you know, it's not like so did Ron Johnson. So did Scott Walker. It tends to break to the right at the end. But that assumes a strong ground game. And as you know, these off year ones are just so, so. So reading electorate's very difficult., I mean, that's you're absolutely right. That's the one on one piece of hope.

The GOP has to learn to win without Trump because, you know, he's not going to be on the ballot again. I mean, I know there's some ban and talk, but he's not going to be on the ballot on the ballot again. You guys, it's a pleasure. Have a great weekend. It's so great to see you. Thanks for sticking with us. Great to see you, Megan. Thank you again.

Great to see you. Wow, so interesting. Aren't those guys great? If you would like to weigh in on the show, you can email me, megan at megankelly.com. And today is the day to go to megankelly.com because there you can register for our once a week email. We call it the American News Minute.

And it gives you all the week news in 60 seconds or less, plus some fun highlights of the show and some Stradwick antics. And I think you'll really like this week's Stradwick update, among other things that are newsy. Thank you all so much for watching, and you have a great weekend too. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.