The Megyn Kelly Show - Tesla Attacks, Weird Walz Comments, and Judges Keep Fighting Trump, with Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cooke | Ep. 1030

Episode Date: March 19, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by National Review's Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cooke to discuss a woke district judge who blocked Trump’s transgender military ban, the judge's focus on feelings and opinion over law, why Trump will eventually win in the Supreme Court, the gender insanity among leftists in America still, what could be motivating the judge who blocked Trump’s Venezuelan gang deportations, an overview of the Alien Enemies Act and the Political Question Doctrine, whether the Trump administration needs to wait to make the legal case first, Chief Justice Roberts taking a swipe at Trump, his rare public statement rebuking Trump’s call for the impeachment of a judge, Mahmoud Khalil complaining about the cold and being a “political prisoner” in his detention facility, his call for more protests in support of him, the anti-Trump and anti-Elon Tesla vandalism in America, the left trying to downplay the violence, Tim Walz's absurd and ridiculous comments about Trump-supporting men, CNN climate journalist Bill Weir’s embarrassing mistake about the EPA, how he’s actually an unhinged climate activist, and more.Cooke-https://twitter.com/charlescwcookeLowry-https://www.nationalreview.com/Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldGrand Canyon University: https://GCU.eduHome Title Lock: Sign up at https://www.hometitlelock.com/MegynKelly and use promo code MEGYN250 for a FREE title history report AND access to your Personal Title Expert —a $250 value! Check out the Million Dollar TripleLock Protection details when you get there! Exclusions apply. For details visit https://www.hometitlelock.com/warrantyFollow 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. Okay, there is so much news. There's so much news. I am thinking about the lawfare against Donald Trump just as much as Chuck Schumer is dreaming about Elon Musk. That's what's happening right now. We are in day 58 of Trump's presidency and the resistance is out in full force. This term, it's in the courts. We saw them use the courts against Trump to try to prevent him from getting to be the presidential nominee and to be the president. And now they are using it to try to ruin his second presidential term. They used impeachment twice during the first term. Now they're using the court's ad nauseum during the second term to try to block his entire agenda. And they have very

compliant, willing district court judges appointed by Obama and Biden helping them, helping them. They are trying to block Trump's clear constitutional powers. When it comes to who serves in the military, in his military, of which he is the commander in chief, you've got some woke LGBTQ female justice judge who thinks she knows better. Who the hell elected you, Judge Reyes, as commander in chief of the military? And not just the military. You got the border, you got hiring and firing inside the executive branch and much, much more. And this is nowhere near over perfect guests for today. It is an NR day here at the MK show, Charles CW Cook, senior editor and host of the Charles CW Cook podcast and Rich Lowry, editor in chief of national review.

You can find all their work ad free with an NR plus membership. You don't go out and buy a life jacket when the boat is sinking, and you don't buy gold when the economy has already collapsed. Clearly, others are heeding this advice as gold hit all-time highs already this year. It's not too late for you, too, and you could have Birch Gold help you diversify into physical gold. Birch Gold specializes in helping you convert an existing IRA or 401k in whole or in part into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold and for no money out of pocket. One recent five-star review said Birch Gold was, quote, knowledgeable, helpful, non-pressure. Get your free info kit on gold by texting the

letters MK to the number 989898. There is no obligation, just useful information. With an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and countless five-star reviews, text MK to 989898 and let the experts at Birch Gold help you secure your future today with gold. Charlie Rich, welcome back. Great to have you. Let's kick it off with Judge Anna Reyes. I mean, I'm at my wits end about some of this lawfare, but this one in particular. Let me just tell you something, okay? You can be kicked out of the military for your height, your weight, and your vision. These things can get you ejected from the American military. You can get kicked out if you're on the autism spectrum. You can get kicked out if you have certain mood disorders. You can get kicked out if you have ADD. If you have depression, if you have history of a single adjustment disorder,

depending on the circumstance, history of an eating disorder. All of that, the military can say you may not serve. But if you have gender dysphoria and say you're a trans person, you're a man who thinks he's a woman or vice versa, this judge, LGBTQ, she's the first openly gay woman on the bench in at least D.C., I think it is, has ruled you must be allowed to serve, that the commander in chief and the secretary of defense may not tell you that you cannot serve. You can be too short. Your anxiety can be a deal breaker. But you're thinking you're a woman when you're actually a man. It is biologically incorrect, she says. What has it come to? The lawfare has come to this? Yeah, so obviously this is an initiative entirely consistent with Secretary of Defense's entire priority at the Pentagon, which is to focus on warfighting and not get distracted by any other nonsense. And you can

make an entirely rational case that gender dysphoria is not consistent with the rigors of combat and what you want an organization devoted to combat to focus on. And in fact, this determination is so rational, it was actually the case. It was the status quo as of, what, 10 years ago or something. So it's an innovation where we've accommodated these folks. And this is, Megan, this for me falls into the range of these legal decisions, legal contentions. If it has to do with the president of the United States' core executive functions, how many people are working for him, who's working for him, what's national security and not, he's ultimately going to win

these cases. Now, I think it's highly irritating. These judges, some of them are totally ridiculous and it's going to delay things. But this seems to me one that he will ultimately prevail on. So, Charles, this woman, again, unlike one of her bosses on the U.S. Supreme Court, Katonji Brown Jackson, she does appear to be able to say what a woman is. And she wants, or at least she's got thoughts on gender, on how there's more than two. She'll state that affirmatively, there's more than two. And that's a biological fact, according to this judge. It's absolutely absurd.

And that she, in her ruling, took such issue with the Department of Justice arguing on behalf of the Department of Defense, because Trump's executive order on this, which was clearly a Pentagon thing, said it's important in the military to be able to be able to serve with integrity and honesty and in wellness. And she said, that's them accusing all trans people of being liars, which I mean, not for nothing, but you could make the case. If you're looking at me and you're Charles C.W. Cook and saying you're a woman, yeah, I'm probably going to think you're not telling me the truth. But in any event, she got in this lawyer's face and said, oh,

that shows animus. It's like hatred by President Trump towards trans people. And what should I do to you? Should I ban this guy? This lawyer went to the University of Virginia Law School. Should I ban all University of Virginia lawyers from this point forward for being liars? This is part of why the DOJ filed a misconduct complaint against this judge after an earlier hearing. She's out of control. Yes, this is one of the worst Trump law cases I've ever seen for a whole host of reasons. First off, there's simply no constitutional or statutory basis for this decision, and therefore it's void.

Second, the fake constitution makes an appearance here where the, as Rich says, core powers, core competencies, core allocations of authority to the president are subject to these supposed standards of kindness, niceness, which simply don't exist in the law in this area. There are some circumstances where rational basis review, for example, might obtain, but you don't get rational basis review in the military. The president and the secretary of defense can decide who

serves and why with effectively plenary power. The third reason it's grotesque is if you read all the way to the end, as I did last night, you sense a certain underconfidence in the judge because she lapses the conclusion into all this mawkish nonsense where she starts thanking people for their service and talks about the military as if she's making a speech on Veterans Day. And then she says, this, of course, will cause all manner of public debate and disagreement in the country, which is a good outcome. Why? You're a judge. The creation of debate is totally irrelevant to the job description. It's not good or bad either way. Your job is to follow the law. So this really struck me when reading it as the work of a politician rather than of a judge.

Same. Thank you for saying it so clearly. Could not agree more. She, she goes, to me, this is like, she's looking for a pat on the head from GLAAD or the human rights campaign. She, she's waiting for Sotomayor or Katonji Brown Jackson or Kagan to say, good girl, you're a good little girl. You, you wrote all the right things. Kagan, not for nothing is, uh, she's gay, isn't she? I don't know why that just got away from me. I'm pretty sure Kagan's gay. I have no idea. She played softball. That's all we know. She was a softball star at some point. That's circumstantial, but we can admit it into evidence. Okay. But this is what she writes in part. At times, leaders have used this concern

to ensure military readiness, to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving. Fill in the blank, which is, she writes those words, is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness. Fill in the blank will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness. Allowing fill in the blank to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order. First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our nation is safer for the millions of such blanks and all other persons who serve. Now, first of all, that is not her judgment to make. She is not commander of the armed forces. And there actually are hot

debates going on in this country right now about not minorities, but adding women to positions, for example, in combat has made us the strongest we've ever been when it comes to our military readiness. That's something that she, this is not for her to opine on rich and for her to try to treat transgender individuals, the same as blacks or Latinos, is outrageous. One is skin color and race, and one has to do with a mental disorder that's in the DSM-5. Yeah. So one opine is the right word. What you read would be pretty good, at least kind of bog level, one third of the New York Times column, right? But that's not her role as a judge. And we had a lot of loose talk, right, of a constitutional crisis. I think we talked about that last time we were on. It's a constitutional crisis if judges are overstepping

their bounds and impinging on the executive authority. And the people who scream loudest about a constitutional crisis, they never focus on that, right? Everyone has their appointed role in the constitutional system. And if anyone oversteps it, that is profoundly wrong. So this decision is profoundly wrong. And the point you make about your race being different from your so-called gender identity is a good one. And this is one reason, and maybe we're going to talk about this later, that the left is so wrong footed on the trans issue. They thought it was a civil rights issue. Right. They thought it was like civil rights for African-Americans or civil rights for gay people. And they've gone into something that most people do not consider that way because it is a totally different category. And this opinion is a prime example of that. She goes on to say as follows. Stand by. OK. It is self-evident truth, she posits, that all people are created equal. All means all. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. less so charlie she's suggesting that trans people are being treated in a way that makes that renders them unequal and that this is not allowed

in our military which is not true right so i believe that all men are created equal you can't see it but just over a top my desk is a copy of the Declaration of Independence in a frame. And that maxim, which really is the foundation of everything I write about, has absolutely nothing to do with this question. It is also true that people who grow no taller than four foot five are equal. They're not inferior. They shouldn't be treated differently under the law. They also can't or shouldn't be able to join the military

in the same way as a six foot five Navy SEAL should. What we're talking about here is not the usual questions of how citizens are treated by the government when the government interferes with the liberty or property or lives of the citizenry. That's when all of the maxims in the Declaration and the premises of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, equal protection, and so forth, apply. We're talking about what should be a lethal fighting force. We have always very harshly discriminated within the military for the sole reason that the military exists to fight and kill and die. This is absurd. And I can't think of a better illustration of what Pete Hegseth said during his hearing that the military has left its historical presumptions and come to see itself as some sort of social club or social experimentation society than this. You will not find, Megan, someone who

is more willing to wave the Bill of Rights around or demand equal protection or call for the original understanding of the Constitution than me. But the original understanding of the Constitution simply does not involve judges enforcing what they think is equality within the commander-in-chief's purview. And that is ultimately all that matters or should matter to a judge. Mm-hmm. That's right. She goes on to say, OK, she's rejecting the Pentagon's position because one of the justifications they they gave her when they got sued over this was the costs associated with so-called gender affirming health care, which is a complete misnomer. Gender affirming health care would say here, I misnomer. Gender affirming health care would say

here, I'm a shrink. If you were born a boy, you remain a boy. That's what it should be. But it's, of course, one of those terms that's been manipulated by these leftist activists. So in any event, she's saying that the military has said, look, providing this so-called health care to trans people for their gender procedures, because right now we're paying for their surgeries. Well, maybe not right this second, because Trump signed the EO, but actually it's not effective till the end of March. So we are. We're paying for their surgeries. We're paying for their hormones, their cross-gender procedures, all of it. And the military went in there and said, look, we're we're paying five point two million dollars a year for this stuff. And she responds by saying, well, that's only fifty seven hundred thousandth of a percent of total military spending for twenty twenty four.

So once again, Judge Reyes thinks we've elected her to be the chief accountant over at the Pentagon to decide what's worth it and what's not. And then she has the nerve to point out the department spent approximately $41 million for Viagra in 2023. $41 million for Viagra, about $5.2 million for gender-affirming care. Defendants do not explain why the former and every other medical cost is acceptable, while the latter requires banning trans people from military service. This is unbelievable, Rich, because you've got men, active duty men who rely for their health care on the VA, on the Pentagon if they're active duty, who, yeah, some of them need Viagra. And this woman wants to shame them and the military for providing it, well, if they won't also pay for us to, in other cases, chop off penises and try to create fake vaginas and then send them out

and tell them to go kill ISIS. I can't. Yeah. No, it's core executive function, core executive decision what you're going to spend money on and what you're not. It's a little bit like saying, you know, if the military says we don't want to recruit obese people for combat roles and the judge saying, well, you can pay for the Ozempic, right? It's not that much. You know, you're paying much more for your missile programs and your tanks. So why won't you pay for this? It's not her decision. And as Charlie rightly points out, this is, it's not, not everyone gets to serve in the military, right? If I want to go in combat right now, which I don't, my hat's off to everyone who does,

they'd say, no, you're too old, you're out of shape, and you've never made a bed, you know, in your life. You're not suitable for the military life. And they'd be right. And by the way, another reason to take the initiative here that the Pentagon is, is it's very important to Pete Hexeth to send the message, we're no longer doing social services. We're no longer doing progressive social studies. We're focusing on fighting because that is a way to attract the people you want to the military. These guys and gals who are attracted to the military life, they're different than we are. They want the adventure. They want the risk. If they wanted to sit and get a lecture about how they're racist, sexist, transphobic, and all of that, they go to their

local community college. That's not what they want to do. So you want to create the, send the image and send the message, which he has in various ways, right? He's done deadlifts in Germany with the guys, this, a whole host of other things to send, you know what, to say for the people who are attracted to this, we are a military organization. People are in shape. That matters to us. That's another thing he's doing is having a review of, of the physical fitness of members of the military. Come here if you want the adventure to defend your country. So I see this as part of that. Yeah, she she's very angry in this opinion about the alleged animus. Again, it's another word for hatred of President Trump in the executive

order. She writes the military ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning. Its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact. Thus, even if the court analyzed the military ban under the rational basis review, which is the easiest one to pass, it would fail. Defendants have not provided a legitimate reason for banning all transgender troops. The military ban is unique in its unadulterated expression of animus. Now, I looked at the ban and I didn't see any of that.

I'm not going to read the whole thing because it's long, but it talks about, here's, they say, during the Biden administration, the Department of Defense allowed gender insanity to pervade our military organizations. That's not animus. Gender insanity pervading the military organizations means a lot of things, and there's nothing hateful about it. This included not only permitting the military to increase the number of individuals not physically or mentally prepared to serve, but also ordering DOD to pay for service members' transition surgeries, as well as those of their dependent children at a cost of millions to the American taxpayer. The U.S. imposes rigorous standards on all military service members to ensure they're prepared to take on the challenges.

Fitness, health, welfare, and readiness standards must ensure they're ready to fight. On the battlefield, there can be no accommodation for anything less than resilience, strength, and the ability to withstand extraordinary physical demands. Individuals who are unable to meet these requirements are unable to serve. This has been the case for decades. I basically am reading the whole thing, by the way. Cohesion requires high levels of integrity and stability among service members. High levels of integrity and stability.

I'm like, honestly, is this where she's getting animus from, saying that? It can take a minimum of 12 months for an individual to complete treatments after transition surgery, which often involves the use of heavy narcotics. That's true. As I've mentioned before, there's someone in my extended family who went through this. It's a crazy story. One day, maybe I'll get permission to tell it, but trust me, yes, that's true. During this period, they are not physically capable of meeting military readiness requirements and require ongoing medical care. This is not conducive for deployment or other readiness requirements. Anyway, this is not full of animus. She is the

one who is full of animus, Charlie, as evidenced by what she said during the hearing when she said, I am not going to listen to what the current sitting defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, says are the readiness requirements of the military. I choose instead to look at Joe Biden's chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who she says has a stellar military record. And she said, unlike this current guy who's only been there for 30 days and had only a, quote, limited deployment for a short period prior to his TV career, having obviously no idea that he's had at least three deployments to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Afghanistan and to Iraq during the most

dangerous period of the Iraq war. How dare she diminish his military experience and check his opinion as the sitting secretary of defense? Yeah, so I agree with everything you just said about Pete Hegseth, and I was strongly in favor of his nomination. But let's just a thought experiment assume that instead of choosing Pete Hexeth, Donald Trump had chosen someone that all three of us thought was an absolute moron. It wouldn't matter. Because Donald Trump would have won the presidential election, he would have taken hold of after his inauguration, the commander in chief powers, and providing the Senate had agreed, his choice for Secretary of Defense would have been installed in the Department of Defense.

When this case was argued, that person, this hypothetical moron, would have been able to make these decisions. One of the criticisms that we on the right very often make of progressives is that they don't really want a democratic system. What they want is rule by experts. And what this judge is trying to do here is prove us right. Because her argument was, I don't like the expertise or credentials or opinions of person A, the person who was actually in charge. So I will instead try to sustain the opinions of person B, who is no longer Secretary of Defense and who was serving at the pleasure of a president who was out of office and whose would-be successor lost. There is no rational basis review in this area. I know that she lays out what would satisfy

it, but there is no rational basis review. There is no mechanism by which she gets to decide whether or not she respects the person who won the election or the person who the Senate agreed to put in the Department of Defense. None of that happens. And with animus, I agree with you, it's not really dripping with animus. But again, thought experiment, let's assume that it were dripping with animus. In most cases in the law, there are a few exceptions. But in most cases in the law, having the court try to decide the emotional state or mental motivations of people who are promulgating rules, especially within the military, is just inappropriate. That's not how law is supposed to work. We write down our laws and we decide whether or not they have been satisfied. So even if she personally detects

animus in that or thinks that it was hateful, with a few exceptions that absolutely do not obtain here, it doesn't matter. She doesn't get to make that call. Couldn't agree more. All right, let's move on because there are other cases to get to. And there's a lot of lawfare being unleashed against Trump. It is obviously the ACLU's slash left's, but I repeat myself, favored tool in stopping the Trump agenda. You had quickly a decision from a judge. This guy, too, was an Obama judge last night saying some of the cuts made by Doge and Elon Musk at USAID must be reversed. You have to restore access to emails and computers for these employees. Basically anything that came from Musk or Doge has been undone saying he's a non-confirmed government appointee, you know,

executive branch appointee. And therefore his decisions had to be struck down because he wasn't, he, the judge finding he needed to be Senate confirmed to be doing this. Look, I don't want to spend time on that one because the effect of that is Marco Rubio just needs to make all the same decisions and he'll be fine. All the same things are about to happen. It's just Marco Rubio, who is Senate confirmed 99 to zero, by the way, will now make those same decisions. They're basically saying Elon was ahead of his skis on exercising certain powers. He needs to be more of a reviewer and a recommender as opposed to an executioner of his specific findings and recommendations. Okay, so that's that. Then we have to move on to what's happening with the

Tren de Aragua members accused who Trump deported to El Salvador, which is a pretty effective deterrent. Warning to Tren de Aragua members, now may not be the best time to try to sneak across the border and enter the United States because there's a new sheriff in town and his name is Tom Homan and he will track you down and he will put you on a plane. And before you know it, you will be in this prison in El Salvador. Good luck to you. I have zero sympathy for any of them. But a big legal dispute has unfolded over whether Trump has the right to do this. Now, first, let's spend a moment on the judge. His name is Brosberg.

He is in the these are all D.C. District Court judges, federal district court judges in Washington, D.C., because that's where the government's based. He was an Obama appointee. And there's a very interesting question being raised online about whether he should have recused himself from this case to begin with. And I'll tell you, I've got my own questions about it. Laura Loomer, who, you know, she's said some things that are not true and that are conspiratorial, but she said a lot that is true. She is not wrong just because she's controversial. And we'll find out, we'll update the audience. But she went, and we believe what she did is she looked at his confirmation hearing to see what he said about himself. And it looks to us

like at his confirmation hearing, he did confirm that he has, he had two daughters, twins, one of whom is named Catherine. He, it looks like Catherine's age right now would be 24 or 25. And that dovetails with the picture that we have of the alleged Catherine Roseberg, who is being accused in this exclusive thread by Laura Loomer of working for a 501c3 called Partners for Justice, which gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice. Partners for Justice strongly opposes mass deportations and legislation targeting members of criminal gangs and has been a vocal critic for the lake and of the lake and riley act loomer reports um you can see in a screenshot she she posts that katherine boesberg and we think it's the same katherine boesberg but that does need to be confirmed but boesberg's an unusual name and it's spelled in both cases b-o-a-s-b-e-r-g um tweeted out an article celebrating judge

boesberg's blocking trump's deportations of vuelan gangbangers. And this would be Catherine Boasberg's boss. She tweeted out, her name is Emily Galvin Almanza. That was rightly quick. Trump administration live updates, judge orders halt on deportations of Venezuelans under wartime law. The problem here potentially is that this judge's daughter could potentially be hurt in her employment by a substantial reduction in crime rates, in caseloads involving that keep partners for justice busy, relating to gangs and deportations. And so there is a possibility that this judge inappropriately sat on this case or at least violated an ethical canon by not disclosing that his daughter has an active role in protecting gang members and illegals from deportation. Let's just start there, Rich, with all those qualifiers, your take on it? Well, let's put a pin on that and see what the facts are. He is an Obama appointee. His view of the law, Constitution, not mine, but he has a pretty good reputation. Now, this case,

it involves a couple of things we've seen before. One, the Trump folks kind of rummaging through current statutes to find things that give them the authority they want to do on deportations or on the border. This was quite effective in the first term. There was a migrant crisis, small scale compared to what we saw under Biden. In Trump's first term, Trump was tearing his hair out. How can we possibly stop this? You had Stephen Miller and others going and looking at current authorities and using them in a creative and lawful way to create the system that Biden then ripped up. But that had succeeded in basically stopping border crossings. Now here, they're going back to the 18th century, and there's nothing wrong with that necessarily, right? 18th century has a lot of good things, including the United States Constitution.

But it also involves what we're talking about in the first segment, determination by the President of the United States, what national security is, what's an invasion, whether we're at war. And here, I do think they're pushing the envelope. You know, maybe they're banking on, maybe they'll be right. The Supreme Court will ultimately just say, look, you're the chief executive, you're the president. You say it's an act of war, these gangs coming into the United States. We're not going to contradict you. But I'm not sure that's going to be the case. And what the judge is asking here, basically, is just to freeze things in place. It wasn't like Judge Ali, you know, in one of those early USAID cases, they got to spend all this money,

you know, billions of dollars of money in 36 hours or whatever it was. It's just, let's hold these people so at least I can hear the merits here. So on this one, I wouldn't have gone to war with them, but they have. I think, Charlie, that you and I may disagree on the propriety of Judge Boasberg holding the hearings on this and thinking that he can second guess the Trump administration on this. And that's that's fine. We can get into that. But my own position is, if you look at the wording, first of all, let's understand this. Trump has already changed expedited removal. They've already expanded the scope of expedited removal. So let's forget for table for a moment the Alien Enemies Act. Expedited removal has been used by all administrations

in certain cases to just return people at the border. Get out. You crossed over. Congratulations. You swam the Rio Grande. Goodbye. I don't care. Get out. We can see that you're an illegal and you sneaked in here. Goodbye. Well, he has expanded the use of expedited removal. It used to be within 100 miles of the border and 14 days of their arrival to anywhere in the country against any person who's quote undocumented, who can't prove they've been here for continuously two years. All right. So Trump's already done that, saying that's how Tom Holman's going into these communities and saying you're done. You're out. I don't have to

give you a hearing. You're just leaving. Now, some have had hearings and just decided to stay because even when under the Biden administration, they had hearings saying you have to leave. You don't qualify for asylum. We never enforced it. We just turned them back out into America and let them live here. So those people are also being ejected. And those might be some of the people who are on one of those planes Trump sent to El Salvador. At least that's what the administration's claiming, that they're not all ejected under Alien Enemies Act. Some were ejected under good old fashioned immigration laws. They'd already been told to leave and they overstayed. OK, so in any event, if expedited removal can allow Tom Holman to go grab somebody in Colorado and kick him out,

why why is there any controversy over this at all? Why are we even arguing Alien Enemies Act? That's my number one thought. My second thought is, OK, but we are. The administration has said Alien Enemies Act 1798. It's a law that was written by the very founders who drafted the Constitution, applies. And that law says if there's been a declared war or if the country is suffering from an invasion or an incursion by a potential enemy's force, the president has the authority to deport the people associated with it without due process. It's really what it says. There's no hearing required. You can just throw them out. And Trump is relying not really on the war.

He's relying on invasion or incursion. And if you look at the statute, which I did pull invasion or incursion, how do we determine like obviously active war declared that's by Congress. You have to look to see if Congress had declared war invasion or incursion says as declared by the president. So the enabling statute here passed by Congress at the time of the founding fathers says the president gets to decide whether it's an invasion or an incursion. And once he's declared that, which he has here, he may deport people without due process, which is why I believe he did. He was well within his rights to do what he did.

And I think the rest of that enabling statute, Alien Enemies Act, kicks in, which says there is no power of judicial review under these circumstances. Now you go. Well, a few things. We're talking about the Alien Enemies Act because Donald Trump has invoked it. In other words, he has conceded by doing that, that he needs a power to be conferred upon him by Congress. And that's the one he's chosen. The law in question, as you say, has two sections. One of them refers to a declared war. Now you said that the invasion had to be declared by the president. Is that the word declared or is it announced? Either way, I'll

look it up. I'll give it to you. The argument that was made by Stephen Miller. The president must make public proclamation of the event. Exactly. And that matters, Megan, because there is a difference between declaring a war, which is a congressional function, and proclaiming something which can be an action done by someone else. Now, I don't know the answer to this. I'm not pretending that I am the oracle, but I do know this. The act in question has been invoked only three times, and they were all during wars that were declared by Congress. In 1948, this law went to the Supreme Court because three years after hostilities had ceased with Germany, Harry Truman, who had become president after Franklin Roosevelt, was still using the Alien Enemies Act to expel Germans. Now, the Supreme Court looked at it and they said that the decisions of Harry Truman were non-justiciable. In other words, that the courts could not get involved.

But that case did not address the invasion clause that you mentioned. It only dealt with declared war. At the time in 1948, Congress still had a declaration of war active against Germany that was not repealed until 1951. And what the court effectively said is, this is a political question, because there was a war declared, because there was a war fought, and because that war created all of these offshoots and consequences, it would be wrong, I think this is correct, for the Supreme Court to determine when the war was over, especially given that Congress had not done that itself. They have never had a decision that related to the invasion cause.

Now, it is possible that if they did, they would find that that was also non-justiciable and the determination of an invasion was solely up to the discretion of the president. But to get there, you're going to have to have a court case. And the core argument that is being made here is that it was inappropriate for this judge to get involved in this, given that the issue is or should be non-justiciable. But I don't think that that is obvious at all. If we're going to find out that this is non-justiciable, we're going to have to have an argument about it that probably goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, which is what I think we are now seeing happen. So I'm not upset about this. I would also note, as Jack Goldsmith pointed out, that even in that 1948 case, there were some elements of the law that the court said were within its purview. For

example, it said that the court was allowed to decide whether or not the people who were being deported fit the bill. Were they old enough? Were they enemy combatants? And so on. Not whether or not there was a war, not whether or not the law could be invoked, but whether the individuals in in question were appropriately set. And I think what you're seeing here is the judiciary saying, hang on a minute, we're dealing with individuals. The constitution protects due process for persons, not citizens, in all manner of ways. There is no obvious precedent here. We need to litigate this. And you can't do that when a plane is in the air and it's on its way out to a high security prison. So I'm less upset about this. Now, do I think that the vast majority of the people to whom this is being applied are likely terrible, terrible people? Yeah.

Do I want them deported? Yeah. Would I like to get rid of every illegal immigrant in the country? Yeah. Would I like to get rid of these ones in particular via a trebuchet? You're damn straight, I would. But the argument here, I think, is different than the argument that I've made and you've made about the vast majority of these solitary judges who have tried to impede the Trump agenda. Most of those are doing so with no basis in the law whatsoever, basically out of political animus. And this is not the case here. So I have more time for this one than you. I have a problem with this judge. I don't agree that he can debate the propriety of the individual. I really don't. I think once you determine that

it's a male from Venezuela over 14, it's not for him to determine whether they're a gang member or not. That's up to Homan and Trump. But the court is allowed to do that bit. That's not for him to determine whether they're a gang member or not. That's up to Homan and Trump. But the court is allowed to do that bit. That's what the Supreme Court case is. Yes, for sure. And even the DOJ has acknowledged that. Even the DOJ in its filings has acknowledged that, that there is a very bare minimum of inquiry that this judge is allowed to do. But they're arguing that he far exceeded his remit. And the notion that an unelected federal district judge could turn around two planes in the air carrying gang members from Venezuela out of the United States. Again, Stephen Miller raises some very good points without knowing what the fuel supply

is, without knowing what the wake time hours of the crew and the pilot are without understanding whether there was a safe place for them to turn around in international airspace. The hubris of this man to think he could do it. And by the way, he's making a big deal out of the fact that he issued an oral ruling early Saturday saying, don't let those planes take off. And he didn't write it down until later in the day. And he thinks they should have complied with the oral ruling. But if you actually look at the rules of civil procedure, there is a requirement that you write down, especially when it comes to TROs,

that you write down what you're mandating. So I think that's why ultimately the judge abandoned what had been done after his oral ruling. But the left-wing media won't tell you that. They ran with, oh, he issued the oral ruling early in the day. No. The one that governs is the written ruling. But how else do we litigate this? I mean, you've got on behalf of the plaintiffs here, you've got two statutory claims and a constitutional claim. And maybe the Trump administration will prevail and maybe it should. But the people in question, although, again, I'm sure most of them are terrible, are allegedly in this gang. They have been accused of being in this gang.

If you are a judge and this comes to you and you don't have a definitive Supreme Court ruling on this because of the distinction between declared war and an invasion, and you have two statutory questions being made, plus a constitutional question, does the act in and of itself violate due process when used in this way? I don't know what you do other than involve yourself. But you're saying the distinction between declared war and invasion in a way that would undermine the Trump administration's argument right now. It only helps. It only helps the Trump administration's argument right now. Declared war would undermine them because they don't have a declared war against Venezuela right now, not by Congress. But incursion or invasion, as I read to you, the statute says the president makes public proclamation of the event. That's all that's required. The president makes public proclamation.

He did. He did that. But it doesn't say. Right. But it doesn't. The Supreme Court case that the judge is obliged to follow as a lower court judge does not say what to do in a case where there is no declared war, because the 1948 case involved a declared war by Congress. There's never been. That's a higher burden. That's a higher burden of proof that was met in that case. This is lower. There's no question that there's been a public proclamation and then and it won't take long for a judge to see that that had happened. And then once you get to that, you look at you look at that 1948 decision and you say you see that they say it is not justiciable. And they go on to say there are all sorts of reasons how that will end, Charlie, to your point, in very bad results. It will end in the denial of due process and it will end in people who maybe aren't Trenda Aragua getting deported on the plane. But that's too bad. That's that this just isn't an area in which a president can be second guessed. But that's not what that case is. The case applies to

declarations of war. I think your argument is a very strong one that could well prevail in a court. But that portion of the law has never been litigated. The law has never in history been used outside of a declared war. So I hear you. I just don't see how that undermines my argument. Well, because, for example, in the case that went to the Supreme Court, declaration of war was determined by the court to mean by Congress. Presidential proclamation has no court adjudicated meaning, which means when a plaintiff goes to the court, it's got a plain meaning. Does it? Yes. Listen to the statute. Listen to the statute. Quote, whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government or, okay. So, so, or they're separating or any invasion or predatory incursion

is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government. And the president makes public proclamation of the event. That's it. It has to have happened, and the president has to have made public proclamation of it. They separated it out from declared war. Declared war is a much higher standard. Proclamation, we're going around and around on this. But, well, we're not. But the point I'm making is that even that standard is subject to a whole bunch of questions. For example, is that a constitutional delegation of power? Is Congress allowed to say... I'm sorry to interrupt you. Let me give you this point because I understand what you're saying. So I just want to advance it and then I'll give

it back to you. There is something called, as you know, because you're a constitutional scholar, though not a lawyer, but you are a constitutional scholar. I listen to you and read you enough to know you are, called the political question doctrine. And we don't allow courts to decide political questions because they don't have the expertise or authority to to decide them. That's what this is. That's that's really why the Alien Enemies Act says when it comes to these certain things, it's just the president's call. And we are not going to have federal district court judges second guessing the commander in chief on these issues. That's why it's not a what by what criteria is Judge Roseberg going to decide whether this was an incursion or an invasion? It's not for him to do. But the law does not say that it's non-justiciable. The Supreme Court said that one portion of the law is non-justiciable in part. And my point is that while the argument you're advancing is... They didn't say one portion. You're saying one portion.

No, the whole thing is very narrow. It doesn't say only the thing we're talking about is... No, they were interpreting the Alien Enemies Act. They did not say... And we make a distinction as between declared wars and incursions. Every time in the 1948 case that the non-justiciability of the law is referred to, it is within the context of a declared war. What I'm saying is that if you are a judge and you have been brought this case and you have presented to you quite a lot of novel questions, including constitutional ones. Again, I think your interpretation could well prevail, but there are all manner of laws, especially older laws, that include unconstitutional delegations of power that the courts under current precedent would strike down. So if you are that judge, if we had a war with Venezuela, your role would have been to say, I'm sorry, this has been settled. This case is not for the judiciary. I can't do anything about it.

Go away. But that's not what happened here. And that's why I, and I think Andy McCarthy, I don't want to speak for him, have some time for the fact that this is now going to work itself up the chain. No, that's fine. I understand that. But it's going to work itself up the chain because there are a whole host of novel questions. Okay. Yeah. It's one of the rare times where I really disagree strongly with, with Andy and maybe I'll be proven wrong. You're always on dangerous ground when you're disagreeing with Andy McCarthy, but I do strongly. Um, the thing is rich, the political question doctrine is something that you guys should just keep going. You know,

you guys should keep going. I was learning so much. I was like, and then every time you talk, I was like, Megan's right. And then Charlie said, no, Charlie's right. Well, we'll get Andy and Mike Davis on here and then we'll really do that. But I think the American public understands the political question doctrine, even if they don't know that that's what they're understanding. They understand that the commander in chief has certain inherent powers that that the Congress may not and that the judges may not second guess, like being commander in chief and deciding how many resources to devote to a certain war. You know, there are certain things you would you everyone would be outraged if a judge tried to second guess.

It's not your turn anymore. I'm getting rich into the discussion. You can't help yourself. And this is one of the problems in the judge trying to turn around flights that had already left U.S. airspace. Yeah, well, in terms of politics, obviously, this this is good for the Trump administration. All you need to know and all most people will know is have limited time to focus on this is the president. United States just deported hideous gang members or alleged hideous gang members, most of whom probably are hideous gang members to El Salvador and a judge tried to stop them. So they're with the Trump administration.

By the way, the president of El Salvador is, you know, incredibly like, give me more of these guys, you know, no other foreign leader is I want your gang members, but the president of El Salvador, this is what I do. This is my core competency. So look, I have not, I have not followed this as closely as you and Charlie have, but it seems to come down to me. Can the president just, if there's any, just the slightest culpable argument that something's an invasion or coercion, can he just say it and no one else can countermand him, right? And in that case, he's going to win in Supreme Court. Right. But I don don't think is it an invasion the way we typically define an invasion or an incursion? We've got 10 to 12, 10 to 20

million illegals. Listen, Rich, you got I got to take a break and we can resume this on the other side. But I have to say, you got almost 100000 Americans who died just last year from fentanyl, which is being brought across the border by these folks, which is being made in the United States now by a lot of these folks. These labs are so easy to set up. And fentanyl, the size of a grain of salt, can kill many people. So, you know, you have actual American lives being cost to the tune of between 75 and 100,000 a year. Number one cause of death for young people in America. Yes.

You can absolutely say invasion or incursion. Well, look, there are bad things that happen or terrible things or tragic things that aren't the product of an enemy action. Right. Is Venezuela ordering these gang members to come into the United States to wage war against us? They opened their prison and knew they were coming here. Well, that's that's different than an invasion. Right. That's not the Trump administration. That's that's as far as Megyn Kelly is willing to go.

But the Trump administration is saying that they were sent here and and they were asked that explicitly and said, yes, Venezuela did do it. If there's a if there's a culpable case such that, you know, you find it reasonable, can a judge just say, forget it? The president, I say it says it. So he's declared it. He's proclaimed it. Yeah. And the story that that may be the argument that that prevails. But I'm with Charlie in that it's a political question. Judge Brosberg doesn't get to decide whether Trump has accurately deduced that there is an invasion.

He's the commander in chief, not Judge Brosberg. All right. I'm sorry. I got to take a, I got it. Roseburg. I got to take a quick break. We'll be back. Great debate. You guys stand by. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid

learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. Plus, you can pick them in your March Madness bracket. Go Antelopes! I feel like they're playing Maryland. I'm trying to remember, but I definitely did choose them. Yeah, Maryland. Because my method is I choose the teams that I have some connection to, unless I have no connection to either, in which case I go with the odds. But I have a connection to GCU, thanks to that wonderful university being an advertiser on our show. And I hope you give them the same benefit of the doubt in making your choices. With over 340 academic programs as of September of last year,

GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu. Did you know scammers can literally steal your home right out from under you? The FBI calls it house stealing, and it's a growing real estate scam. Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee, and file it with your local recorder's office. So when was the last time you checked your home title? Probably never.

And that's exactly what scammers are counting on. So let me tell you about Home Title Lock. Their million-dollar triple lock protection keeps your home and equity safe. They can help you do this. Here's what you get. Immediate 24-7 monitoring of your property, urgent alerts if there are any changes, and if fraud should happen, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost. Get a free title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim and access to your personal title expert, a $250 value just for signing up.

Go to hometitlelock.com, use my promo code Megan250, or click on the link in the description and make sure to check out the million dollar triple lock protection details when you get there. Hometitlelock.com, promo code Megan250. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM. 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 Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura Blembeck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly,

Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and

more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. First of all, guys, can I just tell you, you know, I'm at the beach this week because my kids are on spring break. So this isn't I'm not in my studio. And I was asking if I could get a coffee in here.

And this is what they brought me. This is so sad. Look at this tiny little. I said these people are obviously not in news. No self-respecting news person would ever just have a tiny little espresso cup with a coffee. In any event, I need it just to keep up. Okay. I got this going, Megan, so you can envy me.

Yes, that's respectable. I appreciate that. Okay, before we leave the topic of lawfare, we have to talk about Chief Justice Roberts. So, like, out of nowhere yesterday, I couldn't believe it. When I saw the statement circulating on X, I'm like, did he just drop this? Like, this wasn't in a case. No, he just decided now would be a good time to drop this. Now, I will say in his defense, but I'm not defending this, Trump tweeted out that Judge Boasberg should be impeached and said all the

stuff. He's a hack, whatever. Well, Trump's done that. He's constantly criticizing judges. This is not the first judge he's done that to. Did anybody watch what happened during the lawfare? So Roberts came out around noon yesterday with the following statement, quote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. By the way, in a potentially ill-timed motion that came late in the day, there was a congressman who moved to impeach Judge Boasberg, which is, it's like a little, it's unfortunate when you've done that. And then within moments, the chief justice has said,

this isn't appropriate, but it kind of gets to the very nature of what's wrong here, which is, it's really not for Chief Justice Roberts to say, Rich, I mean, I respect the chief justice. I respect what he does for the country. But Congress is in charge of whether a judge gets impeached. And it's really not any of his damn business. Yeah, totally agree. By the way, this puts paid to the conspiracy theory that had a brief life after the address to the joint session of Congress, where Trump said, you know, appreciate it on a hot mic to to Judge Justice Roberts. You know, I always remember. And I was like, oh, it's the immunity decision that he's thanking him for, where you actually look at the full tape. He's thanking everyone as he goes down the line here, generals and other justices. So and Trump leader said he was he was thanking the chief justice in

those words for swearing him in. Yeah, for swearing him in. So this was this is really, really dumb because one, he's not going to get impeached. Right. So there's there's not maybe you can make the case if he's on the verge of getting impeached the first time the judge is going to get impeached for not corruption, but for one of his rulings or actions, maybe the chief justice would feel compelled to speak out. But he's just responding to a Trump criticism of this judge, which was lurid and over the top and all caps and calling for him to be impeached. But if the chief justice is going to get in the business of rebutting the president of the United States every time he criticizes a judge, the chief justice is never going to shut up, right? He's going to be very busy. And these

are cases that are going to come up to him in his court. So what if this didn't happen? Trump didn't take the debate. But what happens if Trump hits back at the chief justice, right? And you get a war between the president, a war of words between the president and the chief justice. You speak, if you're a justice of the court, you should, you know, they do book tours and whatnot, but you should speak largely through your opinions, your well-considered opinions, when you've considered everything carefully, it's come up to you appropriately, and it's something in your ambit, that's your role. So this was, at the very least, imprudent from the chief justice. And not only that, Charlie, but Judge Boasberg is a big boy.

He's the chief judge in the District of Columbia. It's right underneath the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He can take the president's mean tweets and he can handle a congressman saying he ought to be impeached and starting impeachment proceedings, which Rich is right, will go nowhere. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts pretending like he's got to be the daddy of this judge or any other when he's been remarkably silent when justices came under death threats, when Chuck Schumer was on the steps of the Supreme Court threatening them that they would reap the whirlwind, when Judge Aileen Cannon was being attacked relentlessly for handling the Mar-a-Lago documents case, including threats of impeachment. I don't remember him releasing statements, setting the record straight on how an errant federal district judge ought to be handled back then.

So I guess I'm just belligerent today, Megan, because I disagree with you both on this as well. First off, Schumer did. Let's get him, Rich. After Schumer made that terrible statement about the whirlwind, Roberts did put out a statement. He condemned it and made a similar statement to the one he made yesterday. So he does have a history of doing this. Yeah. So first off, I think it's consistent with the way that he's acted as chief justice. Second, if it's inappropriate for someone who doesn't work for the legislative branch to opine on impeachment, then it's inappropriate for Donald Trump to do it. So if Donald Trump comes out as the head of the executive branch and says we should impeach justices, well, it's reasonable in response, in my view, for the head of the judicial branch to say, no, you shouldn't. Why?

Congress is, of course. You of all people, you love the Constitution. This is a remedy. Congress has the right to impeach federal judges. Right. But John Roberts did not say that it is illegal for Congress to impeach it. He didn't say that if Congress impeaches it. Well, it's been established that it's not an appropriate response.

What he said was actually correct constitutionally and historically. It's not that Congress cannot impeach justices or judges if they want to. It's that they should not do so on the grounds of pure disagreement. I mean, we presumably all think this because we, the three of us, spent four years railing righteously against the Democrats for trying to pack the court simply because they didn't like the opinions of the majority. Congress can pack the court. It's allowed to do that. But it's totally reasonable for people to say, don't pack the court just because you don't like that. But it's totally reasonable for people to say, don't pack the court just because you don't like Clarence Thomas or you don't like Alito.

So I think for the judiciary to say, hey, we don't do that. We don't impeach people based on their opinions only for being wildly corrupt or what you were. That is for the Democrats in Congress to say. That's that's what the Democrats should say in response to this motion to impeach that's been filed by this Republican congressman. That's he's not Democrat in chief and he's not the daddy. This is one of the problems with Chief Justice John Roberts. He's not the daddy of the judiciary. He's not. His oath is to uphold the Constitution. And he too often, must we go back to Obamacare, decides to maneuver in a way that would protect the court as opposed to in a way that would uphold the oath. You'll find no argument from me if you want to criticize some of John Roberts's opinions. But I think that if you look at the presumption

undergirding our constitutional order, it's that ambition will counteract ambition and each branch will protect itself. And actually the big problem that we have at the moment is that that is very often not true. So to me, when I see someone like Trump criticize the judiciary, although I think he's sometimes wrong on the merits

and I don't often like the way that he does it, that's fine. When I see, I wish we'd see more of it, Congress criticizing the president, including the president's use of powers that the president has and indisputably is able to exercise, I think that's fine. And if I see the judiciary defending itself and saying, actually, no, even if it's not true, actually, no, this judge is good, and we don't talk like that, and you should not impeach us for our opinions. I think that's fine. I think that is Madisonian in nature. Now, if those branches usurp the power of others or interfere in ways that are extra constitutional or unconstitutional, then I will have a huge problem with it. But John Roberts chastising Chuck Schumer in 2020 or responding to criticisms

of Boasberg and calls for his impeachment. I think it's very different. It's very different. Speaking up against a threat. I mean, that's like a direct threat against justices is one thing that I didn't remember that he did that. But that just knowing it is completely appropriate because they were being threatened by the majority leader of the Senate. But this is not what's happening. This is a procedure that's available to Congress to impeach a rogue federal district judge, which is what many people think about Boasburg right here, given the discussion that you and I just had. And it's not for John Roberts to weigh in. Maybe he'll get his time on the Boasburg

decision, but this is not the time. And I'll tell you, I agree more with Mike Davis, who tweeted out the following. Dear Chief Justice John Roberts, I agree more with Mike Davis, who tweeted out the following. Dear Chief Justice John Roberts, for more than two centuries, he's playing off of the words used by Roberts, it has been established that impeachment is a political decision by Congress. An activist judge ordering planes to turn around during a national security operation is not a judicial decision. It is a highly illegal and extremely dangerous sabotage of the presidency, which is an impeachable offense. Your statement is not an appropriate response. The normal impeachment process exists for that purpose. And here's just one more, which I would love to ask you about, Rich. Julie Kelly writes, for more than two centuries again,

Congress has abdicated its oversight role related to the federal judiciary, creating a crisis of confidence among the American people that is quickly destroying trust in the third branch of government. And she right fixed it for you to Roberts. But I think that raises a very interesting point and captures the angst and anger that so many Americans are feeling right now as these judges try to stop the Trump agenda in its cradle with decisions like the one we kicked the show off with by Judge Reyes, right? That there is a federal judiciary creating a crisis

of confidence by overstepping their remit and then absolutely no oversight role being exercised by Congress or by anybody else. You know, that's that's her frustration. And it's the frustration of a lot of Americans. Yeah. So first of all, I love this National Review Day, Charlie versus Megan. It's I love I love the throwdown we're having here. Look, I think Roberts is right on the merits. I don't think it'd be a good idea to just go and impeach judges for their opinions unless they're mentally ill or something or just not competent to carry out their duties or they're found in gold bars in their suit pockets the way Senator Menendez was. But I just don't think he should have said it. I don't think it helps the standing of the Supreme Court that he's so concerned with justifiably. But

Senate confirms judges, right? That is part of our system. But we're not going to impeach these judges. There's never going to be the votes for it. So So the end of the day, this is a real sideshow. Yeah, there's they're not going to be the votes for it, but they're trying to make a point that he's way out over his skis. I mean, yesterday, what we saw was the ACLU feeding him the questions that they wanted the DOJ to answer about these planes. And he just did it hook, line and sinker. This is what the ACLU wants to know. You bet you better answer it. And so now we have the commander in chief removing gang members from the country, having to answer to the ACLU exactly when, where, why, who, all of it. And again, it's very controversial given the discussion that happened in the first hour of this show. Okay. On the subject of, uh, lawfare, one of the people that Trump is trying to deport is Mahmoud Khalil, who was a Columbia

University student, who was the spokesperson for a very controversial group on campus called the Columbia University Apartheid Divest Group. And that was the group that took Hamilton Hall hostage, committed tons of property. I mean, we showed the video on Monday, but I mean, less people forget it was extremely riotous, broke the windows with hammers. They threatened Jewish students. They didn't allow Jewish students to get from A to B on campus. We could go down the list, but very controversial stuff. And he was their spokesperson saying you divest from Israel, Columbia, or you get more Hamilton halls. That's how this is going to go. Now he wants to play the victim and the left is only to help happy, happy to help. He's how this is going to go. Now he wants to play the victim and the left is only to help happy, happy to help. He's got some 19 lawyers representing him for free. Well, he decided

to write a letter guys, um, dated yesterday. It's long, but I'll read just a couple of highlights. My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I write to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law. Writes about how he was allegedly accosted, along with his wife, by the DHS agents when he got to 26 Federal Plaza. I slept on the cold floor. He's obsessed with the cold. You should go back to Syria. It's very warm there. He's going to be Federal Plaza. I slept on the cold floor. He's obsessed with the cold. You should go back to Syria. It's very warm there.

He's going to be much happier. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my... I'm telling you, the man, he doesn't... He shouldn't be here. The Northeast in March is no place for Khalil. Um, my arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech. Uh, he talks about how he was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism

from both the Biden and Trump administrations. Um, et cetera. Okay, he says they're determined to support Israel with weapons to kill the Palestinians, blah, blah, blah. He goes back to the racism. President Shafiq Armstrong, he's talking about Columbia authorities, and the dean laid the groundwork for the U.S. government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students, arbitrarily, he says, and allowing viral doxing campaigns based on racism and disinformation. Colombia targeted me for my activism, activism creating a new authoritarian disciplinary

office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. That sounds just like Colombia, doesn't it? And then he ends it by saying the Trump administration's targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa holders, green card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. This comes as a U.S. district court has just decided that they will not let this case be heard in the Southern District of New York, which is what Khalil wanted. Nor will they let it be heard in Louisiana, which is what the DOJ wanted. They will have it be tried in the district court in New Jersey, which was the government's fallback because they brought

him to New Jersey after detaining him in New York. So it's sort of a split the baby situation. But I think the Trump administration could be happy with New Jersey over SDNY, which is pretty far left. Your thoughts on whether he has been detained because of racism and Columbia worked to set him up and deprive him of his right to free speech, guys. Well, it's preposterous, but it's the political views you'd expect of this guy. At least he didn't use the word that some have used to describe his dissension, which he's been taken hostage. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that might have been his wife's statement that was read from the courthouse steps last week, which is just perverse from people.

But not read by his wife, interestingly. What's that? But it wasn't read by his wife. It had a woman. Everybody thought that was the wife. She read the wife's statement. It wasn't the wife. Yeah, yeah.

The statement was from the wife. It was read by someone else. But these are people that torn down flyers of a picture with pictures of Israeli hostages who've never said anything about Israeli hostages who were literally pulled from their houses, their their beds, their children held in dungeons. heinous acts of violence being perpetrated against them. And this guy, who is an immigrant to the United States, as Marco Rubio has eloquently stated, has no right to be here. Charlie can speak to this fulsomely, by the way. If you're an immigrant, a legal immigrant on a visa, tourist student visa, or even a green card holder, you are obsessed, if you're a normal person, with abiding by every single law and rule. You don't want to park on the wrong side of the street because what might happen to you. And this guy, you know, there's a cognizance of guilt, right? Megan, he said, well, I don't go in the media very much

because I'm an immigrant here and I might get in trouble. I don't want to get in trouble because who knows what could happen, right? And it's happened. So it's entirely on him. And it kind of ties back to the first segment on the trans issue. In the military, you don't have a right to be a member of the military. And you don't, as a foreigner, have a right to be in the United States. So I'm sure it's not pleasant to be in a dissension facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. But he brought this on himself. And this is something, I think it's a bit of a close call. But I think ultimately another theme in our discussion today will be based on the determination of Marco Rubio that it is against the national security interests of the United States to have these protests

creating a false image of what we are and what our priorities are. And he was a leader in that effort. So goodbye. I think you called that the King's card in your discussion with Andy on his podcast, which that's well said. Yeah, that that's despite all the debates over the laws and the rules and the way you can deport somebody, et cetera. Marco Rubio has this ace in the hole, which says there is an explicit statute saying the secretary of state can deport you if he thinks you pose a reasonable threat to the foreign policy of the United States. That card has been played on Mahmoud Khalil. It's over and no one cares how cold he is without his blankie. He took this. He took the campus of Columbia University hostage and acted as a spokesperson for the group that

was threatening a lot more mayhem, Charles. I mean, it doesn't matter whether it was actually charged as a crime by Alvin Bragg, what he was doing very much looks like extortion and conspiracy under the criminal law to me. And you don't even have to prove that. All you have to prove is Marco Rubio made a reasonable determination. I think Marco Rubio's reasonable determination will prevail here. I do suspect this might take a while, though, because there are a bunch of complicated questions that will gum up the works. One is whether or not what he engaged in was speech. I think a lot of it was

not, but half the country thinks it was. And then there's the fact that he has become a green card holder. And a green card holder is a US person. They can still be deported. But the criteria for deportation is much narrower. And of course he has an American wife who is pregnant. And I think she's eight months pregnant. So in one month

he's going to be the father of an American citizen. No, well, it isn't. It's going to gum up the works though, I think. But I think Marco Rubio's explanation... Here we go again, C-squared. Let's do this. It's irrelevant. It's something that they use to pull on the heartstrings of the judge, but it has absolutely no legal relevance that you're married to an American or about to have an American baby. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't in that we've been discussing some judges who are bad and who are willing to put themselves in the way of the Trump agenda based on flimsy pretexts.

And until you meet a panel of judges who is not doing that, then this is going to grind on. I mean, I think it could take a year as it winds its way through the system. And I think some of the questions, and we'll find out who's right, I suppose, but I think some of the questions that are going to be litigated here are what constitutes the rights of a U.S. person, which is a green card holder, whether it matters that he was a U.S. person after the various actions were taken. Well, no, but I mean, of course, U.S. person is a term of legal art, which you know,

but it's not synonymous with American citizen. It's not. You're not allowed to get public benefits. You're not allowed to vote. There are all sorts of rights that the three of us have as American citizens that he doesn't have. Correct. But for example, and I'm not actually arguing with you here, even if I sound like it, but for example, a U.S. person is allowed to own a gun.

I know this having been a U.S. person before I became a citizen. You can own a gun. And the Supreme Court has ruled that right of the people to keep in bare arms applies to U.S. person. So there will be a judge. I promise you this. There is going to be a judge who looks at this, says the First Amendment supersedes Marco Rubio's argument, and that as a U.S. person, he is protecting all of his activities. And I should point out that one of the reasons that Democrats and the left are getting all these favorable rulings is because they're judge shopping. They're making sure that they file these cases in the most leftist jurisdictions that they possibly can and and trying to get, you know, a good judge. That's why they wanted this case with Khalil to

stay in the SDNY. It's why they're thrilled with Judge Boasberg, Judge Chong, who just Chong, who just did the the USAID ruling. All these people are left wing appointed judges. And so they're thrilled. But unfortunately for them, we have a Supreme Court that right now is six three with the conservatives, notwithstanding Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, who's been slightly soft. So we'll see how she does. But I think in the end, I feel like Coney Barrett will do the right thing. I don't know about the chief judge. And that's a five four ruling in President Trump's favor on, I think, most of his agenda, which will be ultimately upheld. OK, let's keep going. That's Khalil. He was not held because of racism. He was certainly not held because of some discrimination by the Columbia University administrators.

Good God, they let them hold the university campus and abuse Jews for months. I mean, it just went on and on and on. And now he's got the nerve to claim this is racism against him. He's assimilated in that respect. It's the most American thing in the world to accuse our own country of racism. We've got to spend a minute on, as long as we're talking about double standards, Tesla and Tim Walz. We got to talk about Tesla and Tim Walz. So Elon Musk's company and Elon Musk are under attack from coast to coast. There's this new campaign to vandalize Tesla vehicles, Tesla dealerships, to key, you know, when you take your key and you scrape, you scratch,

which is very expensive to fix the side of a Tesla car. Some people are throwing Molotov cocktails at the Tesla vehicles. And again, we've seen even vehicle dealerships targeted. This is Elon Musk is quickly becoming the left's favorite target, even more so than Hitler, fascist, orange man, bad Trump. And what we saw, what we're seeing now is some Democrats sound awfully close to defending those attacks on Tesla and the dealerships. You know, they're smart enough not to say that explicitly, but they're sounding awfully close. Before I get to Walls, here's left-wing operative and Hillary Clinton BFF Neera Tanden versus Scott Jennings on CNN last night.

And that's the American left right now. It is one angry mob after another willing to take things into their own hands up to and including keying, firebombing, and otherwise vandalizing cars and car dealerships and charging stations. It's outrageous. So when they do it to a Tesla dealership, it's really bad. But when they do it to the halls of Congress, we should pardon them. Is that your position? No, I've never. Are you okay with the January 6th pardon? I know you haven't been around for a while, so let me educate you about my position about January 6th.

I'm so sorry. Let me educate you. So let me educate you about my position. You want to attack me? Let me finish it. Let me finish it. Guys, let's do this January 6th. I'm just asking you a question.

I'm sorry you're getting emotional. Yeah, I'm sorry you're a condescending person who hasn't been paying attention to what I do. I have repeatedly, just like my friend Ashley here, said that no violence in our political system is acceptable. But this right here, what's going on with a guy who helps our country, who runs successful companies, who doesn't have to be doing this, and now one of his companies is under systematic terroristic threat and violence all over the country and people seem to be laughing about it or fine with it. It's outrageous. Anyone who commits violence against Tesla or Congress or anyone else should be put in jail a thousand percent. But that does not stifle dissent or opposition from Elon Musk.

Give it a little lip service. Give it a little both sides. I'm so sorry to say that people are legitimately upset. They are legitimately upset at Elon Musk. And they're doing it on their own. But there is no reason to have violence in the country. But I just wish all of us would support criticism of or would support punishing people who are violent wherever they are. So they're very upset. They're legitimately upset. They're doing it on their own and we should really be condemning january 6th in this in this moment as well your your thoughts on that one

charles she just can't do it can she all she has to say all she's obliged to say as the citizen of a free republic is it is never acceptable to firebomb cars because you don't like the guy who owns the company. And she can't do it. Joe Biden, by the way, nominated her for a federal position. Thankfully, the Senate shot it down. Joe Manchin, I think, saw sense. But she cannot do it.

And that is because at the root of modern American progressivism is the suspicion at best and the conviction at worst that violence is sometimes justified, that riots are necessary, and that all these power dynamics and hierarchies of grievances that we've been treated to for years justify what we see on the streets often and hear at car dealerships. It's absolutely astonishing to me that she can't do it. And the newspapers, incidentally, have published headlines over and over again that run a little bit like Neera Tanden's answer there, which is suggesting that Elon Musk has angered people and therefore that they can't be held responsible if they resort to violence. It's appalling.

Rich, we did have the almost vice president of the United States, Tim Walz, decide to weigh in on this. And here's what he had to say in response to Elon Musk. I mean, obviously in response to Elon and what he's doing with the federal government and all that, but here's what he decided while Tesla's under attack, while Elon's under attack. This was his message yesterday. Saying on my phone, I don't know, some of you know this on the iPhone, they've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day, two 25 and dropping. So, and, and if you own one, if you own one, we're not blaming you. You can, you can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off, you know, and take out, just telling you. you so your thoughts on that as this is one of the largest american manufacturers and employers of

americans that we have but he's celebrating the drop in stock this not to mention as elon musk rescues our two astronauts who were stuck on the international space station it's just your thoughts yeah it's meant to punish and coerce Elon Musk. And this whole campaign is loathsome and un-American. Now, it's fine, obviously, to protest if it's peaceful and lawful. It's fine to boycott. You know, there's a boycott against Bud Light a year or two ago, but I don't remember Bud Light delivery trucks getting Molotov cocktailed or 7-Elevens getting shot up. So this is a low level, you know, it's not hijacking planes, but it is a low level form of domestic terrorism, the basic definition of which is violent acts that are ideologically motivated and meant to change the course of a government or

government policy. They want to make Elon Musk afraid. I don't think he scares easily, but they want to make the people who work for him afraid. They want to make the potential customers afraid. They want to make the people who own the cars afraid. Right. The last thing you want to think of to protect your person and your property. And that they're celebrating this or can't condemn it is utterly contemptible. And speaking of the left celebration of violence, here's another soundbite. This one is still Tim Walls, but it's on Gavin Newsom's podcast Tuesday. You got to respect people you disagree with. Even, and you can't just dismiss people. How do you fight it?

Well, this notion of text. I think I can kick most of their ass. I do think that. But I don't know if we're going to fall into that place where we want to, okay, we challenge you to a, you know, a WWE fight here type of thing. But it is, it's a natural reaction. I think it's one of the reasons we're losing so many men.

And again, it's multi-ethnic. It's not just white men. We're losing them. We're losing them to these guys online. That's why I brought- These are bad guys though. These are bad guys. But they exist and we could deny they exist.

They exist. Not only do they exist, they persist. And they're actually influencing young kids every single day. How do we push some of those guys back under a rock? I think we have to first understand what their motivations are. I think we have to understand what they're actually doing. You don't think it's racism and misogyny? Oh, my God, there's so much in there. I'll start with you on it, Rich, since Charlie and I have done a lot together, that there's everything in there, right? Like, I'm going to kick their ass.

Okay, sure. Sure, Jan. These are bad guys, the online influencers. He's clearly talking about, you know, sort of the manosphere that helped get Trump elected. They're bad. And then the how do we kick them back under a rock? The leftist instinct to silence always there when it's not their POV. And then just the cherry on top.

It's all they're all racist. You couldn't like if I if I sent you into like a back room with a bot and you were to program it to say the things that the left believes about the right half of America, that's what you'd come out with. Yeah. And that was the guy they selected that was supposed to appeal to ordinary Americans and to rural net Tim, Tim Waltz. When he says push under a rock, it's consistent with what we heard from him about the first amendment where, which he totally doesn't understand and says that it bans hate

speech, right? So this is ultimately where they want to go. They want to censor and coerce. So I'm not a big Gavin Newsom fan. Obviously, the guy is way too slick. But the project here, I don't know if sure whether it's not sure whether it's going to work out for him politically, but the project to at least understand that's a huge step forward. And that big debate between Waltz and Newsom, Newsom is right. Let's understand what's going on and maybe find out a way to appeal to these people once you know why they've gone to what they consider the dark side. But Waltz is with the left. No, they're horrible. They're racist. They're misogynist. Nothing to learn. Nothing to understand. We're righteous and they need to go away. And that's the attitude. I mean, we've seen it for a long time for the left, but it was the attitude that that sunk Hillary Clinton in 2016. And they're still not over it. It's not solvable for them, Charles. Like it's they can sit there all day long. Tim Walls thinks the answer to losing young men as voters is for him to be like, I'm going to kick some ass. I'm going to kick the ass. I'm going to do it. As opposed to the way they talk about men, the way they talk about white men,

their policies, when it comes to white men getting jobs and getting ahead and treating them like they're second class citizens. Not to mention the irony of these two dudes, these two governors talking about like how we've lost all these young male voters who are literally running the most insane leftist states Gavin Newsom when it comes to what can be done with a child who expresses gender confusion. He made Minnesota a so-called trans sanctuary state where the where the state can rest custody from a parent who won't, quote, affirm. Gavin Newsom right there. I mean, a sliver behind him in California. And these two are like, well, we just had to figure out how we're losing voters, especially men by the droves. Gee, maybe we need to have more tough talk about kicking ass. Yeah, it will never cease to be weird that having put together a ticket that consisted of Kamala Harris and Tim Walls,

the Democrats went on a two week offensive where they described verbatim J.D. Vance as being weird. Tim Walls is one of the most weird people I've ever seen in politics. I've lived in two countries. I've spent some time in a third, france which is well known for having strange politicians and tim wells may well take the cake he also can't decide there which i think is genuinely interesting whether or not he wishes to condemn what he sees as toxic masculine men or emulate them it's an odd thing to do to say we need to put them under the rock. They're bad people. Those sort of men have no place effectively in our politics. But to start the segment saying, I'm going to kick their ass, because the vast majority of the people he's talking about would

not say that. Now, if you threaten their girlfriend, they'll tell you they'll kick your ass. But they wouldn't start with that. That wouldn't be the opening gambit. So he seems somewhat confused as to whether he wants to eradicate them or to become them. This is such a good point. This reminds me of there was a friend that Doug and I had. It was someone I knew professionally. And we wondered whether he was gay because he never had girlfriends and he was a very good looking guy. And just there were a lot of gay men in our lives.

Our friends were like, is he gay? Is he gay? Anyway, he used to run around and say to Doug and to our other like male friends when he had an alleged girlfriend, like, she looks amazing naked. You should see her naked. And Doug and his guy friends would say, that's not how straight men talk past the age of 19. Right. Like that too is gay is really what they were saying. And I think you're onto something there about Tim Walls, right? Like actual tough guys. You're not like, I'm going to kick his ass. I'm going gonna kick their ass based on nothing you know who else did it a lot was and i'm not suggesting anything uh joe joe biden right he's this tottering old man he'd barely stand up anymore and he'd be talking

to i'll you know i'll take you down you know let's have a push-up contest it's this false bravado and masculinity overcompensating. So true. Okay. I'm still stuck on my story. I saved this one. I really want Charles's viewpoint on this because I think you both are going to like it and I think you both heard it. But I really want to hear what Charlie has to say to another Charlie. This one goes by Chuck.

His last name Schumer, and he appeared on The View and had some real thoughts on the evils of the right. In his view, here he is in SOT 5. It's a different kettle of fish than it used to be, and that's why we're fighting them so hard. They are controlled by a small group of wealthy, greedy people. And you know what their attitude is? I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me? I don't want to pay taxes.

Or I built my company with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, the land and water that I own, or my employees. They hate government. Government's a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it. We are not letting them do it, and we're united. For the listening audience, he ends it with his fists in the air once again, like when he tried to get that chant going,

we're gonna win, and no one joined him. He just thinks if he raises his fists in the air, somehow it's gonna inspire us. Charlie, your thoughts on that? Well, I think if I were the Republicans, I would already be looking to run that in 2026 in the midterms. And look, that is one of the Democrats' big problems. They just believe

that the people who pay the vast majority of taxes, if you look at our progressive tax system, the people who create economic growth and invention. The people who really do serve as the backbone of the private sector are the problem. And their suspicion of big government is ungrateful. And they've been doing this for a long, long time. This didn't start with Chuck Schumer. Barack Obama used to do this with his whole, you didn't build this nonsense. Elizabeth Warren talks like this. You can go back a hundred years and you'll find Democrats talking like this. Now, it's not the case that Americans on average are as free market oriented as I am. And I'm aware of that. I am much more free market-y than the average American. But I think this is in some way related to the previous clip that you just paid,

which is that a lot of Americans, they do have a certain get up and go, especially the young men you're talking about who feel that they want to go out there and express themselves without being told that they are the problem. Now, it's not that I'm saying men are more entrepreneurial than women, but I'm saying that women don't tend to be told they're the problem by the Democrats, but men do. And if you combine the message that we just saw from Tim Walz with the message that you just saw from Chuck Schumer, it's essentially, go away, go under a rock, don't create anything, don't innovate, don't take risks. And if you do, we're going to take the money that you generate from them. And I think that together, those messages are why a lot of young men, and it seems to be disproportionately non-white young men, for all Tim Walz's accusations of racism and misogyny,

the group that moved the most in the last election was young men of color. Those people are the ones who are put off by this message. So I think they're going to have to shift because I don't think that's how you win back the country. Your thoughts on it, Rich? It's just pathetic. Look, I think Schumer made the right call on avoiding a government shutdown, but he's just kind of been exposed as not very good at this.

And there's something about the Senate that creates certain kind of leaders. They take on the aspects of the institution. Now, this is true of Mitch McConnell. Republican base didn't like Mitch McConnell, even though he was very good at his job in the Senate. But he wasn't going around pumping his fists and trying to pretend like he was something he wasn't. And that's what Schumer is doing, just like Tim Walz is when he's saying he's going to kick people's asses. I will say at least this is a cartoonish version of what a lot of Republicans or Elon Musk wants or thinks. They're not Nazis. So Elon Musk is a techno libertarian, but people are spray painting swastikas on his car because they just think if anyone's on the right and they disagree with them, therefore they must be a fascist or Nazi. At least this is a cartoonish version

of the way entrepreneurs or libertarian-leaning Republicans think, but it's still cartoonish. And Chuck Schumer just doesn't, you know, I think AOC would be an idiot not to challenge him in that Senate primary coming up several years away now. But I think she should go for it. Yeah, these guys are so out of touch and just embarrassing themselves. I mean, the more the better. Tim Wall should stay out there talking. And Chuck Schumer, too.

It's just I guess he doesn't realize how uninspirational he is. The thing with Tim Wall is like we're going to kick their ass. All I could think of when I listened to him was that viral video that was on YouTube when YouTube was really first taking off with that little girl. And she's like, he's going to come out of the movie. He's going to kick my ass. Remember that one? The mom's kind of laughing. Like you can't say that you say, but anyway, that's who he sounded like, except far less cute. Okay. We've got to get to this incident on CNN, which I've been promising the audience for days and it just haven't been able to get to. Bill Weir, who is a far left radical climate activist, is the chief climate correspondent on CNN. And he covers, as a result, EPA and now Lee Zeldin at EPA. And he went on Caitlin Collins' show late last week with a, quote, fact check of an EPA press release about what they're doing over there as they try to reform or really kind of undo some of the extreme quote reforms that Joe Biden put into

place. Here is what he reported. They were putting out press releases with such a flurry, about 31 different actions and rollbacks that some of them had typos or placeholders at the top. We have one of those there. Trump EPA announces zero, zero, zero. You can see there it's sort of shoot first, fill out the press release later. EPA administrator, the guys are shaking their heads for the listening audience. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin took to X the very next day writing another media fact check face plant where the fact checker doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about. And he says, these aren't zeros. They are the letter O. O-O-O-O is not a typo, says Lee Zeldin. 40 CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, Subpart O-O-O 0000 or Quad O is a federal regulation under the Clean Air Act and then

goes on to explain exactly what they are doing. They are they're letting people know that they're about to have open debate on whether the EPA can, as Zeldin feels, change those increased standards that the Biden administration put on. I think it's methane producers. But in any event, Charlie, your thoughts on Bill Weir's so-called fact check as the CNN resident expert on these issues? Yeah, well, I'm glad you used the word expert because for years now, there's been this back and forth in the courts between the law as it was written by Congress

and the EPA's interpretation of it. Thankfully, many of the cases have gone the way of congressional will in recent years. But every time they do, we get these dissents from people like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in which they laud the experts in the community and say, we should just be giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want. And then we see one on television absolutely beclowning himself. And we realize why we have the system that we have. It's very, very embarrassing. It is also what happens when for years, you know that the media is on your side and just will reflexively back you and publish your talking points as if they were facts, you become lazy and flabby. I think, you know,

the average press secretary for a Democrat is worse than the press secretary for a Republican, because they're just not used to doing the work. They're just not used to the hostility that sharpens people. That was a good example of it. And I'll just use this opportunity to say, Lee Zeldin is one of the best of the nominations that Donald Trump made, and seems to be doing an incredible job at EPA, not only in policy terms, but in making sure that all of the work that he's doing is legitimate, and the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. I think when this administration is over and we look back on the story of it, we will say that the EPA appointment and conduct was probably one of the best parts of the whole thing. This is what happens, Rich, when your

left-wing activism blinds your obligations as a reporter. Yeah, well, we all have our moments and I wouldn't have known what all those are, but I'm not environmental reporter. So this is hugely embarrassing. And Lee Zeldin, I agree with Charlie. He's great. Now, you got to be careful because the first time around, a lot of great stuff happened to EPA as well. And it all got reversed because it wasn't careful enough. So hopefully Lee Zeldin is dotting his I's and crossing his T's there. But I would also, I wouldn't think like O's would be a natural stand in for something that's going to be filled in. Usually you leave something blank.

You'd have underscores. Or the journalistic way to do it is a capital T and a capital K. So, yeah, Weir should have been a little more spelled, a little more careful here. Here's the thing though. So this guy, Bill Weir, I don't know if you guys are, probably nobody's familiar with him because no one knows who he is, but he being in the business and on cable news, I've been watching this guy for years and he is as rabid a partisan as they come. He was at ABC. Now he's at CNN. And I want you to know just how rabid. Okay. Let me just start with his

climate activism and just radicalism. All right. Charlie and Rich, you both have young kids. Imagine doing this to your child on Earth Day. All right. He published a letter on CNN.com to his son, River, marking the child's fourth Earth Day, where he warned of mass extinction. And here's what he wrote. April 22nd, 2024. This is just this past April. There are still dark days, to be sure.

And since you love animals so much, I can't bring myself to explain just how many of your favorites are on Extinction's Brink. And while technology in the hands of the soulless can divide us, it can also connect the helpers in ways that can save entire ecosystems. This is a follow-up to his 2020 version of his letter to his then-newborn son, where he wrote, quote, the milk in your bottle was warmed by dirty ancient fuels. As a result, you will learn to walk on a planet that has never been this hot for humans. Charlie, is that what you wrote to your babes when they were first born? It's not.

You know, the other thing, aside from being borderline child abuse in its content, it's so overwrought. It's embarrassing. That's what I would write as a parody. If you told me, you know, there are people who do this, come up with the letter, I think I'd be nervous about publishing that for fear that it seemed unbelievable. Your dirty milk, my terrible fossil fuels. So that's how he talks to his son. Rich, you have a newborn baby. I'm sure you're writing her letters just like that.

You probably have to run right now to do it. Yeah. What is weird? He has kids like a dead polar bear. Sorry, dead stuffed polar bear. Sorry, this polar bear is dead. That's just the world you you live in. This is one of these. They get like every climate reporter in the country, probably if they haven't written those sort of things to the kids, they think it right. It's like covering gender or misinformation or disinformation. There's not one honest, straight, objective journalist who ever ends up on a beat like that. Yes. All right. So he ultimately was forced after being publicly shamed to issue a correction on CNN, which he did. That's good. That's a bare minimum that's

required of people. But if you look at this guy's actual reporting, taking away his mental deficiencies as evidence in those letters, it's, of course, completely biased, pro-Obama, Biden, anti-Trump. And I've got to just show you these couple of examples before we go. All right, here he is. Just see if you can tell me if you can spot the difference in the way he reported on Trump, which will play first, versus Obama, which we went back and just pulled some of his coverage of the Obama inauguration. We're going to play these two back to back, 24 and 25. These are such vital years right now that we're dealing with. And then this new administration, not only ambivalent about the science, but almost

antagonistic. So we'll see. We'll see who is able to hold the lines. Now, for anybody who remotely cares about land and water and animals and climate, this is an obvious choice. They live in two different planets. On planet Trump. He's still on Trump. There are no gigafires out west. Miami is not flooding. There are no experts telling us that this is just the beginning of a new normal. Think things are bad now. Imagine the hell on earth that would be three degrees of global warming. Well, Donald Trump is basically saying, go to hell, go to that hell, because he doesn't want to even acknowledge the existence of the problem. Well, Charlie, we know that wind can make a cold day feel colder,

but can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer? It seems to be the case, regardless of the final crowd number estimates, never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed

by the blanket of humanity. What? from above not not humanity what he's a terrible writer also Churchill thing and that was that right at the end he was trying to paraphrase Churchill about the seagulls or the

before no he said never before which is which is the line that Winston Churchill used after the Battle of Britain, an air campaign that quite literally saved Britain from Nazi invasion in 1940. So he's transplanted that into a description of the inauguration of, I presume, Joe Biden. No, Barack Obama, 09. Oh, Barack Obama. Okay, even better. Of course. That is such a great example, though, of how these people's priorities are all out of whack.

Literal existential survival of the British Empire gets moved over onto the same plane as Barack Obama becomes president. Just insanity. Could you believe that, Rich? Yeah, it's it's parody, you know, and they can't just say, you know, oh, the science suggests if the projections are true, that 50 years from now, 100 years from now, keep warming this way. Natural disasters will marginally be worse. Right. I mean, it's always hell is is upon us. Every single natural disaster is directly caused by climate change. It's kind of like COVID and that the people who are most supposedly committed to the so-called science get over their skis and ignore the science to make the most hysterical politicized case for the policy outcomes they want.

Yeah, the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity, he reported at the Barack Obama inauguration, as opposed to Trump. He wants us to go to hell. Seagulls are just looking for a stray sandwich they can snatch. That's the seagull play. They're not awed by anything. That's exactly right. Anybody who's been to the beach, including Jersey Shore, knows that. It's really incredible. And that's why I would submit for the record that Bill Weir's quote mistake on Caitlin Collins, which by the way, she shared in

was no mistake at all. It was an agenda masquerading as journalism, which is why he got humiliated. Charlie Cook, Rich Lowry, love having you guys here. Thank you so much for giving me so much time. It was a pleasure to see you guys argue. I have to do it more often. Respectfully debate. But you know what? I've heard Charlie make this point before. That's what's so great about podcasts, right? Like you can have a full discussion like this. And we imagine trying to do this on an hour at Fox News. Charlie, you never could have. Absolutely. No, definitely not. All right, guys, you can hear more wonderful analysis over on The Editors, a podcast I love and listen to. The only downside to it is they only put it out

twice a week. Great to see you guys. Okay, tomorrow we have Gabby Petito's parents are here with me, and then we're going to take a deep dive into things like Snow White and that debacle with our culture panel that went over so big after the Oscars. They're back by popular demand. Don't miss that. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.