The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump Trial Circus Begins, and Biden Foreign Policy Chaos Consequences, with Alan Dershowitz, Glenn Greenwald, Noah Pollak, and Josh Hammer | Ep. 766

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Megyn Kelly begins the show discussing the unprecedented moment in America as former President Donald Trump goes on trial in NYC, the anticipated “media circus,” the mockery of our legal system coming to light, the unprecedented moment worldwide as Iran attacks on Israel, whether the Biden administration is responsible for chaos in the region, and more. Then Noah Pollak, Free Beacon contributor, and Glenn Greenwald, host of Rumble's "System Update," join to discuss the true scope of Iran's military capabilities, whether Iran’s attack on Israel will lead to a larger escalation of war in region, the consequences of President Biden’s foreign policy chaos, whether America should be less involved with Israel’s conflicts in the Middle East, the reasons Iran hates the United States, and more. Then Alan Dershowitz, author of "Get Trump," and Josh Hammer, host of the "America on Trial" podcast, join to discuss the details of the absurd Trump “hush money” case, why we'll see a very biased jury pool, what the ideal juror would look like, the truth about the faulty legal theory connecting hush money and campaign expenditures that's key to the Trump case, the “R-rated” trial content ahead, whether Donald Trump will take the stand in the “hush money” trial, Trump's statements in court vs. court of public opinion, and more. Pollak- https://twitter.com/NoahPollakGreenwald- https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwaldDershowitz- https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Jews-Hamas-Barbarism/dp/1510780548Hammer- https://www.thefirsttv.com/americaontrial/ Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, a truly unprecedented time in American and world history. Two enormous stories unfolding right now that will have implications for decades to come. The trial of a former American president now officially underway and Iran's first direct attack on Israel. All these years of threats. And finally, it happened at 10 a.m. this morning. A clerk inside of the Manhattan criminal court in New York City called the case, the people of the state of New York versus Donald J. Trump. The first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump officially underway right now as they begin selecting a jury. At the moment, they are trying to deal with the prosecution's push to have Trump held in contempt of court for violating, they say, the court's gag order, stopping him from criticizing witnesses. Michael Cohen was all over MSNBC on the weekend criticizing Trump.

But because of this judge's gag order, Trump can't say anything about Michael Cohen. See, that's how it works. And Cohen was truthed about in typical Trump style, where he leveled a couple of accusations against him, calling him a liar and a convicted felon. And now they're trying to seek to hold him in contempt. What will happen to Trump? If you get thrown in contempt, normally you go to jail. You sit there for a day or two. What's this judge going to do? We'll get to that. We're watching it. I've been following developments on this ongoing saga since the hush money story first broke in 2018. And I remember sitting there on the set at NBC. Can I tell you, it happened to be a day when I brought my daughter with me to work because she

had school off and she was writing in like a little journal while we were discussing the case. And she said something like they're talking about Donald Trump in his underwear. I remember seeing her little diary after the fact. This is now made its way into a criminal case against the president. It's surreal what's happening. Before he went inside this courtroom today, Mr. Trump addressed the cameras saying this trial is, quote, an assault on our country, but that he's, quote, honored to be in court today. Watch. This is an assault on America. Nothing like this has ever happened before.

There's never been anything like it. Every legal scholar said this case is nonsense. It should never have been brought up. It doesn't deserve anything like this. There is no case. And they've said it. People that don't necessarily follow or like Donald Trump said this is an outrage that this case was brought up. This is political persecution. This is a persecution like never before.

Nobody's ever seen anything like it. And again, it's a case that should have never been brought. It's an assault on America. And that's why I'm very proud to be here. This is an assault on our country. And it's a country that's failing. It's a country that's run by an incompetent man who's very much involved in this case.

This is really an attack on a political opponent. That's all it is. So I'm very honored to be here. Thank you very much. This trial will not be televised, but don't let that stop the thirsty anti-Trump media from making it into a circus. Take a look at the scene outside the courtroom today

and what will likely be the scene for the next six weeks, at least, could be longer, probably will be, while this trial takes place. Our friend Mike Davis capturing these scenes on the ground. We are following these developments and I have to tell you, to me, this is a sad and disgusting day. I talked about this with Glenn Beck on his show earlier. I woke up today feeling unsettled, feeling down about this case. It's not that I love Trump. As you guys know, I'm not a Trump lover.

I'm not a sycophant and I'm not a Trump derangement person either. I'm sad for our country. And I am sad for Trump that he's being put through this. What's he accused of doing? Paying off, yes, she's a porn star, but let's just be honest about it. Net net, paying off a lover to keep quiet about an affair and then not writing down in the books, I paid off a lover to keep quiet about my affair. They've ginned up that moment into 34 felony counts. Yes, there's other stuff around it, and I'll talk about that.

But at its essence, that's what this case is about. For that, they broke nearly 250 years of precedent and indicted a former president. It's a disgrace. It's a humiliation for us, the United States. Forget Trump. Alvin Bragg, he's humiliated himself and he's brought us down with him. I said to Glenn, it's as if they took someone like Princess Diana and made her into a street whore. That's America and what he's reduced us to today with this mockery of our legal system. In all of the get Trump efforts, this one is the most offensive. There isn't even a colorable basis to be bringing this claim. You guys know what it is about at this point.

He didn't document the hush payment properly in his books. And they claim that that was in fact, not a misdemeanor, but a felony because it was allegedly done to cover up an underlying crime, which elevates it from a misdemeanor to a felony under New York law. They're trying to, this is trying to go after companies, big companies that cook their books to falsely document or hide underlying fraud on taxes, et cetera. That's not what this is. The underlying felony that elevated this, that resurrected the dead claim, which was a two year misdemeanor into a felony. Well, it was a campaign finance violation. So says D.A. Alvin Bragg. That claim was rejected by the feds who are actually in charge of such prosecutions as a loser. Why is it a loser? Because all the campaign

finance officials to look at this say that payment to Stormy Daniels was not a campaign finance violation. It was a man trying potentially, or at least in one way, to stop his wife from hearing the gory details of an affair. And if it has any sort of dual purpose, any purpose other than to get one elected, then it doesn't come within the realm of campaign finance. That's the law. That's the law. That's why the Fed said we're not interested. It's why this DA's office said, yeah, we're not interested either. And only when Alvin Bragg, who ran on the promise of how many times he'd sued Trump and promised to do it again, once he got at the helm, it became a case. I'm disgusted. I'm disheartened. I have very low hopes for fairness toward Trump during this trial,

either by this judge who clearly can't stand him and shouldn't be trying the case at all, or by the jury, who, if you play the odds, is going to absolutely loathe Donald Trump, as 87% of New Yorkers do. They voted against him. He used to be loved when he was just a businessman and full of color and swag. Well, things change when you get political. We all know that. It's a dark day for America. Alvin Bragg ought to be ashamed of himself. And I understand what Trump was saying when he said, I'm proud to be here. He's got to spin it. You know, he's taking this legal bullet and testing the system because he must. And also because he's, I'm sure, horrified at what's being done. This thing has motivated so many Americans to side with Trump,

even though they don't like his personal conduct. They're not in favor of extramarital affairs, which Trump denies. They're not even in favor of Trump's behavior. And they weren't even going to vote for Trump. But now they will because this bastardization of the legal system. So I understand what he's saying. I'm proud to be here. But make no mistake about it. Today could be the game changer in the 2024 presidential election. This is a before and after moment for America, both when you look back 250 years and when you look forward. This could be the thing that changes November.

And if you think I'm kidding, go look at the polls. Half of independents, one third of Republicans say if he's a convicted felon, it changes my vote. Do they mean it? We don't know. We talked about it last week. What if they do? What if they do mean it, you guys?

It's not gonna be hard for Alvin Bragg to get a conviction with a New York guys? It's not gonna be hard for Alvin Bragg to get a conviction with the New York jury. It's not 100% guaranteed, but it's not going to be hard. It's not. The odds are Trump did not document his hush payment accurately and that they'll be able to prove that and that this jury will say, yep, they got him. And that could make the difference in an electorate already somewhat on the fence about whether they want Trump 2.0. That's the whole goal. The whole goal behind this whole thing. Now it officially gets underway today, notwithstanding repeated efforts for that I can count as of late by Trump to delay it.

And now they'll draw out the jury selection, I'm sure, as long as possible. Delay works in Trump's favor. They're saying it's six to eight weeks. That's two months from now. Let's say that's a June verdict. If there's any way he could stretch it out longer, he will. But he's not going to stretch it past November, not unless something unforeseen and catastrophic happens. And therefore what happens today may have an effect on certainly Trump's personal life, potentially his freedom, though I doubt they put him behind bars for this. It's potentially on the table and the future of this country, the border, healthcare, the economy, fairness and girls' sports, due process for men on college campuses.

There's so much at stake. The security of America, our policy toward Israel, the Middle East, Ukraine. Where do we spend our dollars and cents? What's the future look like? Does Iran become more bellicose, all of this potentially laying in the balance here as this New York jury gets selected and soon sworn in. In just a bit, I'm going to be joined by Alan Dershowitz. Very happy to have him today. And Josh Hammer. Remember Josh went to, I think, Duke and then Chicago Law, University of Chicago Law School, which I think right now is number one. And he's been following

the developments in all the Trump cases very closely. And we're going to talk about what we can expect this week as jury selection begins. What kind of juror is best for Trump and what kind of juror is best for the prosecution? And we'll get into why some are saying, hey, you know, hold on. This may not be a slam dunk for the Manhattan D.A., Alvin Bragg. But as we watch all that in lower Manhattan and keep in mind, there's neither audio nor video from the courtroom, but we are getting a live live updates, tweets and so on from reporters who are either in the courtroom or in the overflow room. And our team is monitoring those by the second. So when we hit hour two and we get to the

Trump case, we'll have all the very latest of what's happened. But we've got to talk about the possibility of world war. That's also big. We're witnessing a very tense situation overseas in the Middle East, as you have undoubtedly heard. The world now awaiting Israel's next moves. Israel leaders have said they will respond to the attack they suffered at the hands of Iran this weekend. But the Biden administration has warned that while the U.S. helped defend Israel from the barrage of missiles on Saturday, America will not support any counterattack by Israel. But how much responsibility does President Biden himself bear when it comes to the chaos we're seeing in the

region? Because just as Trump's prior behavior will play out in a New York courtroom today, Mr. Biden's priors should play out against him over the next six to seven months and will play out against us all as the Middle East becomes less and less stable. Some steadfastly believe the United States should stay out of this as far out as we can get. And our friend Glenn Greenwald will join us in a moment with that take. But we start today with Noah Pollack. Noah's a political writer specializing in issues concerning foreign policy, Israel, and the Jewish people. He's a contributor for the Washington Free Beacon, and he believes after this weekend, the United States is one step closer to former

President Barack Obama's dream, he says, of a U.S.-Iran alliance in the region. Noah, thank you so much for being with us today. There are a lot of concerns amongst regular Americans today about we want to support Israel, but we do not. We don't want another war. We don't the United States getting another involved in another war. And we certainly don't want a World War Three. So just start at the 30,000 foot level and tell us, like, where are we on that scale? Thanks for having me. And great to see you again. And I don't I think the talk about World War Three is a little overblown here. The Iranians are not a nuclear power.

They don't have a conventional military. They don't have an air force. They have basically what we saw over the weekend is, for the most part, the extent of their military capabilities. Now they can shoot more drones and ballistic missiles and things like that. But I think there's some people who are being a little loose with the facts and with the reality here by claiming that we're risking World War III. I mean, obviously, if there was some risk here of like a Russian or Chinese entrance

into this. That would obviously be a different scenario. But the idea of Israel counterattacking here against Iran, we're not that's not going to cause World War Three. In 1987, when the Iranians were screwing around in the Gulf and they had mined the Persian Gulf, Ronald Reagan did something called Operation Prane Manus, which is over the course of a couple of hours. He put most of the Iranian Navy on the floor of the Persian Gulf. And that was that. The Iranians are big, blustering bullies, and they don't actually have a whole lot behind all the bravado other than what we saw over the weekend. There's no World War III that's going to happen here. What what were they doing? Because we saw the Iran strike of the Iranian, sorry, the Israel strike of the Iranian leaders on April 1st, and they took out and they said the men directly responsible for 10-7. So that was a retaliation by Israel after it was attacked.

Then Iran comes back and and acts like it is the initial victim and says, all right, we're attacking you. But I've read it two different ways. They're feckless and they kind of are not very good for some of the reasons you just outlined at warfare. And they tried, but Israel was too strong with Iron Dome and Arrow 3 and all these defense systems? Or was it, no, no, no, they can do much better. It's not that they're feckless. It's that they intentionally struck things they knew Israel could defend against because they too don't want to escalate. Yeah. I mean, it's almost beside the point. I mean, they launched 300 projectiles, including ballistic missiles the

size of school buses, at Israel, at another country. And that is an act of war. As far as this game over like the tit for tat, I find this to be ridiculous. Like Iran has been chanting death to Israel, death to America since 1979. They have pursued a strategy in the Middle East that they call the Ring of Fire, which is surrounding Israel with their terrorist proxy groups. This has been going on for decades. They fund, arm, train Hamas, Hezbollah, the Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen. Israel is literally surrounded by Iranian proxy terrorist organizations that are funded

and armed by Iran that shoot missiles and commit terrorist attacks on Israel on a constant basis for decades. The idea that Israel bombing this fake diplomatic facility, which was not a diplomatic facility, it was an IRGC base, and the IRGC is a U.S. designated terrorist organization, by the way, they eliminated several very high value targets, guys who were overseeing the ring of fire strategy. These were the guys who were like the liaisons with the terrorist groups and helping get them arms and money.

These are the guys that helped Hamas plan October 7th. And taking out those, those are the most legitimate military targets in the history of military targets. And the idea that this is some like tit for tat, oh, you know, Iran has been at war with Israel since 1979 and Israel is finally responding. And the people who claim that there is some like equivalence here, it's just, I think they, I think they know what they're doing and they're not being honest. There isn't, there isn't, but now what? Right. Because now Iran's done what it did. Israel defended against it with the help of the United States, the UK, France. And now there's a question of is it is

that piece of this done? Because Israel saying it's not done, that they will respond, that they have to. And the United States is saying, we're out. If you're going to do that, I'm not going to support it. And we're not going to support what happens after it. The Biden role here is so shameful. The only thing he cares about is his reelection. And it's not so much votes in Michigan. This is the interest of his administration is to not have to run for reelection with a war

going on in the background that enables Donald Trump to point out the very obvious thing that I think everyone sees, which is that during the Trump administration, there was peace treaties breaking out in the Middle East. And during the Obama, well, okay, this is kind of the Obama administration. During the Biden administration, there is war breaking out in the Middle East, all over the place. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the eating we have here is war. This is Biden's wars. This is because Biden has distanced the United States from Israel.

He has pursued the Obama-Iran deal strategy of Iran can do no wrong. There's like Obama's law, which is that Iran is allowed to attack anyone they want, but no one's allowed to attack Iran. And this is enforced now by the Biden administration. These are Biden's wars that he caused. And now his administration is desperately trying to figure out a way to not have to run for reelection with these wars going on in the background. And so what he does is he basically goes to the Israelis who depend on the United States and value an alliance with the United States and value friendship with the United States. And so what he does is he basically goes to the Israelis who depend on the United States and value an alliance with the United States and value friendship with the United States. And he basically says to them, I'm going to hold your arms behind your back so you can't respond

because I don't want there to be a war going on while I'm running for reelection. And that's actually what's going on here. And it actually is bad for the United States. It makes the world more dangerous. It makes the Middle East more dangerous. The Iranians correctly read from this that they have a free hand and that the United States will hold back its own allies. And everyone in the Middle East, this is not just about the Jews and Israel. This is the Gulf Arab States, Saudi Arabia, UAE, our allies, U.S. allies, oil producing countries are in the crosshairs. The Iranians want to go after these guys.

They hate those regimes. There's a reason they were making peace treaties with Israel is because they want to be united against Iran. Biden is playing with fire here. And now that the fires are burning, he is just basically telling the people he has influence over, which is the Israelis, you're not allowed to fight. Let's back up because you said Biden helped create this. Like this is on him. What's happened to begin with. That's why he's so desperate to make it stop before November. Of course, he accused Trump of having set the stage for all of this. He he warned us that Trump was the one back in 2020 who was going to get us into war with Iran. I'm going to play that. And then I want you to explain what you meant, like what exactly did Biden do that led

to this moment in your view? Here's soundbite seven first. I'll watch. The world has changed because what Trump has done and the American people, including independents and some Republicans, know how bad he is, know how much he's misrepresented, know how he's getting close to getting us in a war. I said there's the walls closed in on this man. I how much he's misrepresented, know how he's getting close to getting us in a war. I said, as the walls close in on this man, I'm worried he's going to get us to war in Iran. Unfortunately, I may have been right. The fact of the matter is there's a lot at stake in this election. Wow. It's unbelievable to hear under the circumstances. So go ahead. Look at how lively and coherent he is. My God, it's only four years ago.

Like the contrast is enormous. It's terrifying. Look, Biden, we, you know, there's an old line about if you seek peace, prepare for war. And it's true. It's thousands of years old. And it's a very simple concept,

which is that when you're dealing with people who wish you harm, if you act weak and if you indulge them and if you give them goodies, hoping to buy them off, typically they're going to end up seeing that you're weak and they're going to attack you even more. And then there's the alternative to that, which is you actually have to be tough and look tough. And if you if you walk around looking tough, odds are you're not going to actually end up having to fight. That is exactly what Trump showed. He was right. His foreign policy was actually a huge success in the Middle East.

Foreign policy is very simple. You reward your friends and punish your enemies. And then you'll have more friends and you'll have fewer enemies. It's actually not that hard. And what Biden has been doing and what Obama started was rewarding our enemies and punishing our friends. That is the basic dynamic of Obama-Biden policy in the Middle East is anyone who's pro-American, you screw them over.

So the pro-American people in the Middle East are the Gulf Arabs and the Israelis. And Obama was always trying to help the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinians. Biden has continued this with Iran. And I don't I have my sort of theories about why this may be. I think Democrats, especially left wing Democrats, kind of like the I like these guys who don't like America because progressives don't like America either. So there's like a you know, but it's it creates more conflict. And I think that the Obama or the Biden people are incredibly bad at their jobs. They're deeply unwise and mediocre people who really do believe that they're like chess masters here, when in reality, foreign policy is rarely has an opportunity to play chess.

It's much, usually much simpler, which is you stand with your friends and you oppose your enemies. To your point about these progressives, like not liking America, there was an event with it by this anti-war committee in Chicago. And this was filmed before the attack by Iran on Israel began. But boy, it really, it really gives you a feel for what you're saying. This Shabir Rizvi in the clip we're about to show is teaching the anti-war demonstrators how to chant death to Israel and death to America, which is a fun little lesson. I mean, you know, I remember when I was young, we learned Spanish. We maybe at your typical anti-war demonstration, you'd be chanting something about love. You wouldn't be chanting in America, in Chicago, death to America.

Here it is in Sat 17. Mar Bar Israel! Mar Bar Israel! Mar Bar Israel! Mar Bar Israel! Thank you. What does that mean? So, it has two meanings, depending on who you ask. It can mean left to or down with. So, can we get a Mar Bar Amrita? We can get a Mar Bar Amrita. Yes, we can.

Mar Bar Amrita! Mar Bar Amrita! Okay. First of all, it's America. So if you're going to wish for our death, please get it right, sir. Um, second of all, that's one microcosm. It's Chicago. Hello. It's Chicago, but it's happening in more and more places because the, the number of chance I could play for you right now of pro-Iran and anti-Israel in America is stunning to me. So what do you make of it, Noah? I hate to say this, but, you know, I think a big part of the energy and the vibrancy

and the aggressiveness that you're seeing from over the, especially over the past six months of the explicit pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, pro-terrorism activism on U.S. campuses and in some of these cities. These are oftentimes Muslims. They're recent Muslim immigrants, the children of Muslim immigrants. There is a real problem. We know this from polling, both in America and in Europe. There is a real problem in which Hamas and Iran and terrorism and kind of fighting an unending war against Israel is shockingly popular among Muslims. And obviously there's huge numbers of Muslims who don't believe those things and are patriotic Americans. But something that's been troubling to me over the past six months is the avoidance of being honest about where this is

coming from. I have a feeling that most of the people in those audiences who are learning, you know, death to America, death to Israel chants are not from the local Episcopalian church. There was, there were chants of Hands Off Iran as well at this Teamsters Union headquarters in Chicago. And it was like straight out of central casting from over here. It's like with the pink masks and the service poodle and the pro-trans t-shirts. Yeah. I mean, you could, all right, but I want to ask you this because in a minute, Glenn Greenwald is going to come on and we're going to talk a little bit about, you know, sort of this other sentiment that we, the more isolationist sentiment is just short form it, right? Like we shouldn't, we don't want anything to do with this. And, um, I don't put Glenn necessarily in this following category, but let me just say this

on this show. I really had no appetite whatsoever to platform people who were defending Hamas's attack against Israel on 10-7, and I still don't. None. But now that it's turned into an ongoing conflict and Israel has exacted some measure of whatever you want to call it, you know, justice against Hamas. And it's, it's ongoing. I can see how there's growing criticism and now it's evolved into a debate about, you know, how long can it go on? How much of a role should we play? And I have a very open mind on that debate. I'm fine with that debate and we're about to have it. But I think Glenn is going to make the case that, you know, America and the pro-industrial military complex are always pro-war and they never really do much pausing about whether we're going to get involved. And that means my kids and, you know, your kids

and his kids could potentially, you know, and, and there is that concern for Americans out there, like Israel's done what it needed to do. It hasn't completely eradicated Hamas, but it's done a lot. And is this the point at which we actually should encourage them to, as President Trump said, time to wrap it up now? Look, I'm all for wrapping it up. The Biden, it's funny that it's really one of the ironies of the Biden foreign policy here is that for an administration that doesn't want this war to happen, they're the ones who continuously delay it and prevent the war from reaching a resolution. This is like one of the major tenets of the Biden doctrine is that no one shall be allowed to win or lose a war. He just freezes these conflicts in sort of in perpetuity. And that's what he's done with Israel. I mean, if you think that the reason Israel hasn't gone into the they have the ball on the 10 yard line in Gaza and in the next the

final operation is Rafah. And if you think the reason they haven't done that yet is because like the Israelis got cold feet, it's Biden has been threatening them. He's been threatening them to cut off munitions resupplies. So I am all for war being decisive and short as possible. What I think the isolationists get wrong and the people who look at the messiness and the complexity and all of the bad actors out in the world and say to themselves, we are blessed, which we are, to live here in America, insulated from all of that by two giant oceans and by two neighbors, frankly, who are wonderful neighbors to have in geopolitical terms, you know, Canada and Mexico. And why can't we just kind of ignore all of that and just stay out of it? The problem is, is that there is never,

it's never a question of whether someone is going to dominate, whether or not someone is going to dominate. The question is always who is going to dominate, because someone will dominate. And so when it comes to the Middle East, if the United States does not have a leading role there, an influential role there, we will have a serious war between the next tier of powers, which are Iran and Israel. The way you actually have a peaceful Middle East is by the United States at very low cost, simply providing arms and military flexibility to its ally Israel, which will then handle its own problems. The United States, the Israelis don't want the United States getting involved in their wars.

The United States has never gotten involved in Israeli wars other than resupplying arms. There has never been American soldiers who have fought for Israel. And it is, in fact, completely the Israeli war doctrine is completely opposed to any foreign power assisting it in a conflict that Israel fights by itself for itself. And all they ask for is help with weapons. This is good for America. This is, by the way, classic realist foreign policy. It's called offshore balancing, where you arm a reliable ally to keep order in their part of the world so that you don't have to. So if you're an isolationist and you don't want America to have to have soldiers in the Middle East, the policy you should favor is for the United States to arm and back Israel so that

there can be peace. That policy actually was the policy that started really, and I don't want to go into a whole sort of rabbit hole on the, but after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, that was kind of what the United States pursued. And since 1973, there has not been a state versus state war in Israel's part of the Middle East, whereas before there had been numerous state versus state wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973. Every few years, there was a major state versus state war. That was because Israel was weak. And as soon as the United States started providing arms, it stopped state versus state war. Now, there's been terrorism, but terrorism is much different than state versus state war. Now there's been terrorism, but terrorism is much different than state versus state war. So supplying Israel with arms is actually a really

low cost way for the United States to get things that it wants out of that region and do the right thing at a very low cost. The idea of destroying everyone- We were more involved militarily in this past strike by Iran in terms of stopping the missiles from coming and with some destroyers sending in some cover. But that was defensive. It was it was. And that was also intentionally designed. It was intentionally designed to create leverage for the Biden administration to then be able

to say to the Israelis, and now you're not allowed to hit them back. That was the whole reason they did that. It was totally cynical. We're dealing with deeply cynical people here. The problem is that if the United States doesn't play some role, I don't want the United States to be militarily in the Middle East invading countries and doing regime change and things like that. That is not a role that we need to play. However- Right, it failed. Right. That didn't work out, especially the sort of democratization

aspect of it. But if you want to see real war in the Middle East, which we're seeing now more and more, it is precisely because the United States has withdrawn its support for Israel and the Biden administration has been so critical. The Iranians think that they have a free hand now that the Americans have turned against their allies and they're not actually that wrong. And you will get more war. Okay. This is, I don't understand the motivations

of someone like Glenn Greenwald on this, because to me, like, and I think the record of history is pretty clear, that if you want to keep the peace, you have to have some level of strength. You can't just ignore everything and hope. If we don't have some involvement with Europe, Russia will own Europe. If we don't have some alliance with Japan and South Korea and countries in the Pacific, China will own the Pacific. And then we will live in a world

in which horrible, evil regimes like communist China and Putin and the Iranian regime dominate whole parts of the world. And then our oceans will not seem so able to insulate us from trouble. And we will not like the world we live in. Noah Pollack, great to see you. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me. Up next, Glenn Greenwald, response. Mr. President, what is your message to Iran in this moment? Don't. Our American personnel at risk, Mr. President. Okay. That was President Biden warning Iran not to attack. Guess what? It didn't listen. Joining me now, Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and host of Rumble's system update. Is anyone surprised that Iran did not listen to

President Biden, that no one listened to President Biden, and that the many don'ts he's offered over the past seven months have been entirely empty threats? Yeah, if you don't mind, I'd love to answer that in the context of a couple of points I just wanted to make from your last segment from what you and Noah Polish were talking about. I think we have to remember the Israel and Iran have had kind of a low-grade war going on for a long time. Iran supports Hezbollah, which they see as a defensive force against incursions into Lebanon. But a lot of the world, including the West, sees Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Israel attacks Iran in all sorts of ways, with devastating cyber attacks. They murder nuclear scientists on Iranian soil. That has been going on for years. What happened

on April 1st, though, was a massive escalation in how these two countries engage in this low-level combat, which is Israel did something that no other country would do, which is they flew over an Iranian consulate, an Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, and bombed it and killed senior military leaders. And I think if we were to ask ourselves if another country flew over an American embassy or an Israeli embassy, bombed it, killed our senior military leaders, how would we respond? Probably a lot more aggressively and severely than Iran did. I mean, there's no country in the world that can have its embassy bombed and not respond in some way. So I do think that's the kind of context for what happened here.

They say that what they bombed was the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the IRGC, which is a terrorist organization. And they took out actual planners of the 10-7 attack. And that's why they say it was fair game. I mean, that's always what Israel and the United States says that we've heard for 25 years. Anytime they do anything, we torture people, we imprison them without charges, we drone them to death. And then we find out what they're trying to say. I don't think I asked her. But I think their argument is I'm going to give you the floor. If we found bin Laden after 9-11, but he was next to a consulate where we normally don't attack leaders, we'd bomb him. We would have bombed him. We wouldn't have had any qualms about bombing him. And I think that's Israel's defense. I'm not sure that's true. And there have been really extreme

instances in the past. I mean, Julian Assange was inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the U.S. firmly believed he was radically harming national security. They could have easily gone into that building and taken him. But they respected the inviolability of embassies. Embassies have been used in all sorts of ways. I can't remember a time when a country bombed the embassy of another country. The last time I think was during the war in Yugoslavia when the U.S. accidentally bombed China. Okay, forgive me. I just want to get this thing because we have a short time. Why wouldn't Israel, even if that's true, right, if it's an irregular thing to do,

why would they have any qualms about doing it when Iran was behind the 10-7 attack where their babies were getting murdered? Like that's also against the rules of war. I don't think we'd have any qualms whatsoever. You've broken every rule there is, so we're going to break one in return to take out the guy who helped plan this thing. The US was attacked on 9-11 in all sorts of horrible ways. We did a lot of things that many people regret, invading Iraq, invading Afghanistan, overthrowing the government in Syria, overthrowing the government in Libya. I don't think we ever bombed an embassy. And even if you want to justify it with this terrorism narrative, we definitely killed a lot of civilians. But even if you want to justify it with a terrorism narrative, the fact is that no country in the world would refuse to respond. It was, of course, something that was going to provoke an Iranian response. But the main point I want to make here, Megan, is this, which is I think NOAA radically minimized the extent to which the United States is involved in Israel's wars and the extent to which the United States supports Israel. We give Israel $4 billion

every year. Much of that, but not all, is used to buy arms from American arms dealers, but it's still a transfer of wealth to Israel. $4 billion by far more than any other country gets over decades, even though millions of Israelis have a higher standard of living than millions of Americans. On top of that, we don't just provide them with arms. We also pay for their wars. We often involve ourselves in their conflict. You pointed out that yesterday or the day before, we did send fighter jets to take down missiles. It was defensive, but we are involved that way and also by bombing Yemen. And we isolate ourselves diplomatically to protect Israel. All the time

there are UN resolutions supported by almost every country in the world, and we use our veto power to protect Israel. And many leading military officials like David Petraeus have said that a major reason why we're so at risk in the Middle East, why our service members are, why our assets are, is because that region perceives that we are always tied to the hip with Israel. And I think it is a legitimate question to ask. It goes far beyond a normal alliance. Why it is that we pay for Israel's wars, we arm Israel's wars, we give them $4 billion a year, we sacrifice our soft power and standing in the world to protect them.

And if we're going to do that, and I think it's really worth asking why, why can't Israel pay for its own wars? Then of course, we also have the right to say, look, we're paying for your wars. We're giving you the weapons. There are things that we don't want you to do that harm our interests, like doing a major retaliatory attack against Iran that could very well drag us back into another Middle East war that Americans overwhelmingly don't want to be involved with. And I think that's the key to the U.S.-Israeli relationship is that we are tied to them in ways that we are not tied to any other country in the world. We arm them. We pay for their wars. We do everything to protect them. It's a very unique and peculiar relationship.

What about the fact that, you know, I mean, if we leave Israel to its own devices, we're worried that something like, you know, an Iranian attack will happen. We certainly don't want to see Iran emboldened. One country's chanting death to America since 1979, as Noah points out. One country isn't. One country is an ally that is aligned with us on its views of democracy and what peace looks like in the world. Like, why wouldn't we do everything we can to shore up Israel, which, as Netanyahu and others have said, lives in a very tough neighborhood? Israel is a nuclear power. They have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. They have one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world. They have a thriving economy. They have the Middle East, Silicon Valley. Why can't Israel take care of itself? Why can't Israel pay for its own wars? I think that's a big question. And when we tie

ourselves to Israel, it does harm American interests in all sorts of ways. The potential to be dragged into another Middle East war is obviously significant, but also the anger and hatred toward Israel gets directed at the United States as well. Noah was saying- Let me ask you about that one. I get that, and I cede that point, but I also feel like, come on, they hate us. Not the Iranian people, but the leaders over in Iran, they're going to hate us less if we don't back Israel. I don't buy it. Hell no. They hate us because of our principles, because of our constitution, because of the way we live, because when we walk around in tank tops, we could go down the list. But it's not it's not going to go away if we stop supporting Israel. Megan, this was the debate about 9-11. Like, why did they hate us? Why did they attack us? And

the neocon narrative was, oh, they hate us? Why did they attack us? And the neocon narrative was, oh, they hate us for our freedoms. And bin Laden repeatedly said there was that letter that recirculated that was banned from TikTok. We are angry at America because they are constantly insinuating themselves into our region. They imposed a sanctions regime on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. They put troops on Saudi soil. The reason Iran hates us, and I'm not justifying it at all, but I think it's very important to have open eyes about your own country,

is that in 1954, we overthrew their democratically elected government, the CIA did, and we imposed on them for the next 25 years one of the most savage and brutal dictatorships in the world, the Shah of Iran. And so when Iran had its revolution and finally deposed their dictator, the Shah of Iran, of course they knew the United States was responsible for his imposition on them for all those decades. And so they had a lot of animosity toward the United States. There are all

kinds of countries in the world, Korea and Japan and Brazil and Norway that have the same freedoms as we do. Yeah, but Glenn, I mean, you're looking at a country, Israel. Israel has a sense of due process and fairness. And Iran is hanging people from cranes. Iran is stoning women to death for not wearing the damn hijab. How the hell are we going to have a relationship with them? It's a no. Megan, we have relationships with the most savage dictators on the planet, our close allies in Saudi Arabia and our close allies in Egypt. Okay, but you have Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, all of which are American allies that are among the most brutal and savage dictatorships in the world. We're fine with having relationships, good relationships and alliances with countries that are extremely repressive as long as they do the bidding of the United States.

One of the reasons is their hatred of Iran and vice versa. I mean, those two groups are Shiite versus Sunni, and there's a longstanding hatred between them. One of them wants to completely annihilate Israel, and one of them was actually open-minded to doing a deal with Israel and getting to a better place when we were backing Israel under Trump, when we were helping making it stronger. And these other allies, Saudi Arabia and the others, were starting to look at it like, you know what, maybe we are going to have to deal with this country. We're moving toward peace. It's true. The dictators of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state regions understand that there can be economic benefits from a relationship with Israel. They don't represent the people of those countries. These are dictators imposed by military coups that the United States

propped up. And all I'm saying is we're very tribal as human beings. We always like to see things through the perspective of our side to believe that we're the morally superior ones. We're the victims. They're the aggressors. They're evil. I understand the appeal of that narrative. But you were just talking about the multiple wars that we fought in the Middle East. We invaded Iraq and destroyed it. That strengthened Iran by strengthening the Shiite militias. Saddam Hussein was a vehement opponent of Iran. We created the vacuum out of which ISIS emerged. Even Tony Blair says that. We were in Afghanistan for 20 years.

We've been bombing that region for a long time. I think on some level, we have to take some responsibility for why there's anti-American resentment in that region and ask whether that's worth it. I agree with that. I don't disagree with you at all on that. And I'm very open-minded to the growing strain of isolationism, for lack of a better term,

in the Republican Party. And you're not a Republican. But I mean, this country was sort of born into isolationism. That's how we were through the lead up to World War I. We didn't want anything to do with any of this. And we get sucked into these conflicts. And those two, you know, as the t-shirt reads, back-to-back world champions, World War champions. And things have gone south for us ever since. Every war we get involved in. Exactly.

Exactly. I get it. And so I'm not this bellicose pro-war neocon at all. I just, I see the value in aligning with Israel. I see how evil the Iranian regime is. And I have absolutely no tolerance for the fucking bin Laden letter. Zero. No, I'm not saying the bin Laden letter is good. I'm just saying it expresses the reasons why so many people in that region harbor anti-American sentiment. It's not because they love our

freedoms. I don't believe we should take bin Laden at his word. No, you go to anywhere in that region and you ask people why they have anti-Mexico. There are all kinds of free countries around the world that people in that region don't hate. You know, I said they don't hate South Korea. They don't hate Japan. They're not the leader of the free world. Oh, please. Right.

You can't compare any of those to America, but okay, keep going. No, but you're saying that the reason they hate us is because we're free. And I'm saying that a big part of the reason they hate us is because we're free. And I'm saying that a big part of the reason they hate us is we because we've been bombing that region for decades. We've been interfering in their government, overthrowing their democratically elected leaders and imposing dictatorships on them. If we stop tomorrow, if we stop tomorrow, they will still bomb us. They will still try to get into the New World Trade Center. They will try to get to Wall Street. They will send ISIS.

They will continue coming for us. It's over. There's no mending the fences with the radical Islamists who chant death to America, even if we don't support Israel. There are, of course, radical groups in the Middle East that are just psychopaths like ISIS. But to assume that they're all just these primitive people on the warpath of violence without any rational cause or any rational reason, I think is a mistake. The two things I just want to say is the two documents I just want to cite that I think are crucial to understand this context. One is the farewell address of George Washington when he said the whole point of our republic

is that we're not going to have any enduring alliances with any country or any enduring amnity to any country as well. We're going to avoid international conflict that way. And then Dwight Eisenhower, when he oversaw the war machine and the military-industrial complex in the U.S. security state throughout the 1950s, when he left in 1961, he had nine minutes on national TV to give his farewell address. And what he chose to use it for was to warn us about the grave dangers of the influence of the military industrial complex, this permanent faction in Washington that exerts its own interest higher and more powerful than even our elected representatives. And what they always want is

work because that's how they profit and get power. And I think we have to be very much more alert to that danger than we have been. I totally agree with that. I've heard you talk about that on System Update on your show on Rumble, which I enjoy. I like hearing your point of view on these things. And I think that's one of the reasons why RFKJ has become so popular, because he's sounding the same alarm. And we do need to be conscious of that, that we have this machine that pushes us, pushes us into war after war. And that's how we got here. Whether that's happening here or whether those are the reasons to stop it, that's how we got here. Whether that's happening here or whether those are the reasons to stop it, that's a bigger question than what I'm trying to get to.

But Glenn Greenwald, always worth listening to. You're brilliant. Thank you so much for coming on. Always great talking to you, Megan. Thanks for having me to have these divergences. It's great. Appreciate it. Bye-bye. To be continued. See you soon. Okay. We'll be right back with more on the Trump trial. We are now a few hours into the first criminal trial of former president Donald Trump. So far it's motion practice where they're arguing over procedural items and no jurors were told have even entered the courtroom for voir dire the way it works. Having served as a, uh, I actually got selected and served as an actual juror on a case, a criminal case in New York state Supreme.

I can tell you exactly how it works. I've been called down for the jury pool many, many times. And you just sit there, you guys have done it probably in your own jurisdictions, your own districts. You sit in this enormous room. When you get registered, you get a little video, which includes all sorts of justices, like from the New York's highest court, the court of appeals. And one that features chief justice, John Roberts telling you everybody serves By the way, he actually did serve. It's one of my

favorite law stories. He didn't get selected for the jury, but he had to go down and apparently went actually into voir dire and got questioned by one of the defense lawyers who asked him, like, profession? Well, I'm the Chief Justice of the United States. Perhaps you've heard of me. Anyway, didn't get selected. But that's what you do. And then you get questioned. You go in in sort of groups of, let's say, 40 into the individual courtrooms where the trials are happening. And you sit there and then the defense and the prosecution get their chance to see whether you're a jury for a juror for them. And they either strike you or you get selected. And so none of that's even started yet. I think they're all still sitting in the pool room because the lawyers are in the courtroom arguing about

procedures outside of the courtroom. The media and others are in a feeding frenzy. Here's just a quick sample. Have our cameras high in the sky watching the president's motorcade as he arrives in downtown Manhattan. An unprecedented moment playing out here in lower Manhattan. The former president's motorcade just arriving here at the courthouse as he sets to go in for day one of what will be a historic moment for the country. On the air for a moment never before witnessed in American history, a former president on criminal trial. So no, he's not been abided by the gag order. And we're going to have an important moment soon to see whether the DA or the judge does anything about it.

So first thing out of the DA's mouth should be, Judge, he violated the gag order. If you tolerate this, it's like raising a child. If the child breaks a rule and you let it go, you've lost them. His history happening right before our eyes? We're just getting our first look at images of Donald Trump inside the courtroom. There are historic images there. The first time a former president

sitting at a defendant's table at the beginning of his own criminal trial. As we've also explained, many honest brokers, including legal scholars on the left, the right, and center, do view this particular case as a joke, as completely empty calories and is something that should never have been brought or allowed. That's regardless of one's feelings about former President Trump. Many people who can't stand Donald Trump have come down with the same opinion. Meantime, inside the courtroom, reporters are describing fairly dull discussions so far. In fact, the New York Times' Maggie Haberman suggested that Mr. Trump himself fell asleep. That's amazing. If true, that's amazing. But there have been a few key moments already today, including the judge denying the prosecution's

request to introduce the allegations against Trump that emerged following the Access Hollywood tape, you know, grab them by the P word. The judge calling that tape or the allegations around it complete rumors, complete gossip, complete hearsay. The New York Times reports that this keeps prosecutors from, quote, telling the full story they wanted to about how this how his campaign was fearful of losing votes from women. Wow. We're going way down deep in the rabbit hole. Joining me now to discuss Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and

author of the books Get Trump and War Against the Jews. Very timely books. Also with us today, Josh Hammer, senior editor at large of Newsweek and host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, in which he takes a deep dive on all trials against Trump. Alan, Josh, welcome back to the show. Wow, what a day. So let's just start with that latest news that it appears that the judge is going to refuse to allow the Access Hollywood tape to be played for the jurors, but says the comments that Trump made could be introduced as evidence, I guess, of how women hated him. And that's why he needed to pay to bury this tape with Stormy. Alan, what do you make of it? I think it was the right ruling. I think the

tape itself should not go in, but anything he said is an admission. Look, it's so obvious that he had mixed motives in doing what he did, paying the hush money. Obviously, one of his motives was to protect himself from hatred from his wife and protect his family and his business and his friends. But another one of the motives may have been to enhance the possibility of getting elected. You don't prosecute people for mixed motives. You don't try to psychoanalyze a man running for president. They tried to do that, obviously, in the Edwards case. they failed. 60 years of teaching, practicing, and writing about criminal law, I've never seen a weaker case. But if you listen to CNN, this is the strongest case possible. This is a murder case where there's a confession and a videotape.

But, you know, it's just not true. This is an extraordinarily weak case requiring the state to speculate that the reason he failed to indicate the fact that he paid hush money was motivated by his desire to violate a federal statute, though the feds didn't prosecute, and though they haven't really focused and specified what the federal felony is. This is such a contrived case. You'd think if you're trying the president for the first time, a former president, you'd come in with a really, really strong case. And indeed, the feds didn't prosecute him for this. Initially, the DA's office didn't go after him, but then radicals in the office, left wing Trump haters, pressured Bragg to bring this case. And, you know, he had promised he was going to get Trump. And so this is his attempt to get Trump. But of course, in New York, notwithstanding the weakness of this case, it's very possible that a jury will will convict him. It's a jury that is probably going to be comprised of lots

of people who voted against him. And the jury questionnaire is one of the dumbest questionnaires I've ever seen. They ask the jurors if your hatred or negative feelings toward Donald Trump will prevent you from rendering a fair verdict. What potential juror is ever going to admit that he can't give a fair trial, except if he wants to get off the jury? It's an invitation to perjury. Yeah, well, they're going to because they're going to want to get on this trial. I mean, most people would love to be on this trial. Let's face it, they're all probably going to wind up writing books. They're going to be the next, what's her name? Hutchinson, Cassidy Hutchinson with their insider's take on whether Trump was or was not asleep. They're going to

lie to get on the jury. And that's the problem. Like you don't want an eager juror. And this is a district Manhattan that went 87% for Joe Biden, Josh. So they've, you know, this is why Trump asked to move, to move this case to something like Staten Island, which is much more Republican. Why, if Alvin Bragg's case is so strong, why can't he make it in front of a jury that's potentially more right leaning? Well, I mean, the question answers itself, Megan, because as the esteemed professor rightly says, this case is one of the most farcical things that any of us who follow legal proceedings have seen really in our entire adult lives. I mean, you know, just to try to kind of step back a moment here. So Trump has basically six current trials, you might say, four of which are criminal

prosecutions. And those criminal prosecutions are the two state prosecutions in New York and Georgia and then Jack Smith's two federal probes in D.C. and Florida. Look, I am a fairly open conservative. I'm going to vote for Donald Trump this fall, but I will be intellectually honest and concede to you that I think at least the Florida case has at least some legal merit here. They're prosecuting under the wrong statute. The espionage act there is ridiculous. But all that to say that I'm trying to assess this on my show, America on Trials, intellectually honest as I can. This case in New York City, Megan, as the professor just discussed, I mean, this is an

absolute joke. So the SDNY, the federal prosecutor's office, looked into these exact charges. They passed on prosecuting Alvin Bragg's predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office, Cy Vance Jr. He looked into this. He passed on it. There are too many issues here to count. So the underlying charge, fraudulent bookkeeping in New York State. First of all, last I checked, that had a two year statute of limitations. So the statute of limitations should have told a long time ago. Now, Alan Bragg's theory of the case, the way that he purports to get around the statute of limitations problem while simultaneously upping this thing from a misdemeanor to a felony, is that his theory of the case is that the fraudulent bookkeeping, meaning the internal accounting books at the Trump organization, because they said the Michael Cohen stuff was legal services, it was actually a campaign contribution.

He's saying that it's in furtherance of the campaign in 2016. But as Professor Dershowitz just said, it seems fairly obvious that at best, at best, there are mixed motives when it came to Donald Trump's reasons for wanting Stormy Daniels to pipe down there. Now, look, Donald Trump, you know, say what you will about him. Again, I'm planning on voting for him this fall. But, you know, he's not exactly a Jerry Falwell moral majority figure. I mean, at his penthouse in Trump Tower, he's got the Playboy magazine covers there. This is not the kind of guy who would necessarily feel the need to go above and beyond to kind of keep this porn star from speaking out there. So surely, I think any reasonable juror who's not a left-wing zealot should be able to conclude

that indeed there were at best, at best mixed motives here. But they're going to get a very biased jury pool, Megan. You're making a very astute observation is that the incentives here are deeply, deeply perverse for people to want to get on that jury to go sell the book, go do the CNN, MSNBC talking circuit there. It's going to be a total circus. And the most important point is that this is a point of no return for the American Republic. It is just so sad, I think, for those of us who call ourselves constitutionalists.

Many of us rude the day that this would come and it's finally here. And it's really quite tragic, I think. I agree. I feel sad today. I don't you know, I listen, Trump and I have had a weird relationship and it's not like I'm his number one fan, but I feel sad. I feel sad for him and I feel sad for us. We made it almost 250 years without doing this. And now we crossed that barrier for what? For this, for Stormy Daniels, for not documenting a hush money payment, which, you know, Alan has said many times on his show that defies the whole nature of the hush money payment. If you have to write it down and say this was to pay off a porn star. So she didn't tell everybody, but I do want to get into the specific allegations and to the jury pool and the jury selection, because that's what's happening

today. And it's very interesting to me, Alan, you've been involved in countless numbers of jury selections. This is where you winner lose the case. You know, we just saw, in fact, speaking of you, um, we just saw one, uh, one of these clips resurfaced from the OJ trial. And this woman was one of the jurors. She happens to be black. And she was talking about how she kind of openly was into the jury nullification. She knew she was going to vote in his favor, even though she believed he did it. Just as a reminder here, here's that soundbite. It's not 50 from ESPN. Do you think that they're members of the jury

that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King? Yes. You do? Yes. How many of you think felt that way? Oh, probably 90% of us.

90%? Did you feel that way? Yes. That was payback. You think that's right? She shrugged. So the jurors do it. They like to get on the jury for all sorts of reasons, and they might come to certain conclusions for all sorts of reasons. And the defense lawyers and the prosecution's job is to figure out what those motivations are and either get them on or off. So you tell me if you were advising Trump's team, what's their ideal

jury look like? Well, first of all, let's go back to the OJ case for one second. It was the prosecution who decided what the jury pool would be. They could have tried the case in a suburban white area, but they decided to bring it downtown. They decided to have nine black women jurors on the theory that they would be more sensitive to their role as women than as black. They made every mistake in the book. Anissa Ashenbach, the white juror, decided to acquit even though she thought he probably did it because she believed the police tampered with evidence. So there's lots of reasons why jurors would either acquit or convict. But I agree try to get non-college graduates. I would try to avoid the elite kind of left-leaning, typical Upper West Side, I hate to stereotype, New Yorkers. But it's not going to be easy. Remember, you only have a certain number of peremptory challenges. And this judge seems utterly biased against Trump. And I don't think

he's going to allow challenges for cause. Apparently, what I heard, at least this morning, he's not going to allow follow up questions by lawyers if a juror says, well, I think I can be fair, even though there are facts that suggest maybe they couldn't be fair. Look, if I were the defense attorney, I would insist that no juror be asked, can you be fair? It's an absurd question. You should be asked, what have you ever said about Donald Trump? What has anybody ever said to you about Donald Trump? What have you heard about him? What radio shows do you listen to? What TV shows? What newspapers do you read? I would try to get the facts, but I wouldn't allow the juror to express a view as to whether he can be fair or not. As I said before, that's an invitation to

perjury. And so I think we're going to see a lot of perjury committed. And I don't think we're going to see a judge who's going to try very hard to get an absolutely fair, fair jury in this case. So, you know, I think it's very likely in the end there'll be several jurors who will have disguised their strong bias against Trump in order to get on the jury and convict him regardless of the evidence. Josh, who is your nightmare juror? Like who's the juror you would absolutely say zero chance we're letting this person on the jury for Trump? I mean, I think it has to be kind of, you know, you're basically what Alan was saying, you know, you're stereotypical,

you know, MSNBC, you know, binge watching, you know, progressive who was shouting at the top of their lungs out January 6th was it was an insurrection. And, you know, the orange man is then is the next coming of Mussolini. Anyone who shows up with a mask. I would say, like, truly, this is let's be honest, I've selected juries. You go back and you discuss all the things you're not supposed to discuss. You know, you're not not technically supposed to be making these decisions based on certain and unchangeable factors. But you do like they're they're this that they're the other thing. And the mask will play a role or I don't know, like if you've got someone who looks just like Rachel Maddow, like a woman with the short, short haircut with zero makeup, with like a bitter face.

I would say not a Trump. I would tell. Am I wrong, Josh? So you're not wrong, Megan, but that's the kind of thing that only you can say. And I probably can't get away with saying, but but you're definitely not wrong. Look, I mean, I mean, the mask is a decent proxy. I mean, there's any number of other proxies you can. You probably don't want to want someone in there who's got purple hair or pink hair or anything like that. But but ultimately, you do want to actually like learn some questions there and where

they get their news from is a very valuable source of questions. But, you know, the jury questions that the judge here, Marshawn, the one whose daughter is fundraising off of the fact that that her father is prosecuting Trump, it's a whole circus. It's a total mess. But the judge, the jury questions that he approved last week, at least that I saw, they're trying to ask these jurors whether or not they're supporters of the Proud Boys or QAnon. I mean, it's very, very, very weird stuff there. But I can't underscore the basic rudimentary point enough here, which is that Manhattan went roughly 87%, if I'm not mistaken, for Joe Biden in 2020. I mean, math is math, Megan.

At a certain point there, you can try to strike jurors the best you can there. But this is about as far left-leaning a jurisdiction as you're going to get. I hate to say it, but I hope I'm wrong. But I have a hard time believing that if it ultimately gets to a verdict prior to November, that this thing is going to come out any other way than guilty, at least on some of the charges. Well, no, this is New York paradigm of a fair place compared to District of Columbia, District of Columbia, much, much. And for me, the paradigm juror that I don't want is somebody who went to Harvard or somebody, particularly somebody who went to Harvard who was on the Harvard faculty. I mean, it's at a place like Harvard. You can't even speak up in class and say anything positive about Donald Trump. I mean, they think he's Hitler. As you know, people stopped talking

to me when I, I'm not, I didn't even vote for Donald Trump, but I defended him on the floor of the Senate and lost all of my connections to Harvard friends, to Martha's Vineyard friends, to New York friends and people like that. Do you really expect anybody like that is going to give a fair trial to Donald Trump? I mean, they will tell you in the privacy of their home, even if you were innocent, anything we can do to stop him from being president, we will do. And the polls show that a conviction of a felony could influence enough independent voters to turn this obviously very close election against Donald Trump. This is election interference personified. All right, let's talk a little bit about the charges. We brush by this campaign finance

alleged violation. That's the underlying felony that somehow erases the two-year statute of limitations on the misdemeanor of cooking your books. So cooking the books, you know, writing the right, the wrong thing down for this payment. He called it a legal expense to Michael Cohen, when in fact it was a payment to Stormy. They couldn't have brought that. It was a two-year statute of limitations and it expired. And this underlying campaign finance violation is the reason they were able to resurrect it because, oh, you mess with your books to cover up a felony. That was a felony. You guys have both mentioned it. I want to play it for the audience. We had former FEC, Federal Election Commission official Brad Smith on the show, appointed by Bill Clinton, all right, appointed

by a Dem who served for many years talking about what would make it a campaign finance violation and what wouldn't. It's very hard. It's very, very hard to show. Here's a little bit of that from April 5th. It was episode 522. Watch. Let's suppose I decide to run for Congress and I say, you know, I need to be in a debate and I need a really good suit. So I go out and I spend, you know, two thousand dollars on a suit, which I would never otherwise do. Right. It doesn't make it a campaign expense, even though my purpose was to do it to influence the election. Or suppose I'm an individual and I have a messy divorce in my background and I decide I'm going to run for office. And I say to my lawyer, can we seal those records? And I pay my lawyer to try to seal those divorce records, even though I'm doing it

for the purpose of influencing a campaign. It's not a campaign expenditure. And he went on to explain, guys, that under the relevant laws, it has to be something, a payment that could only ever be to support your campaign. So a suit wouldn't work. Burying bad info on the Internet wouldn't work. And paying off a lover not to go public with your extramarital affair wouldn't work. That's from a guy who does this for a living. That's why this thing shouldn't be here at all. But Alan, that should have been dealt with on the papers, right? Like that's never good. That argument doesn't go to the jury. No, I agree with you. The judge ruled essentially that the jury could conceivably find that it was the only purpose. You know, under this theory, Alexander Hamilton would have gone to

jail for paying hush money to prevent his affair, adulterous affair. Both he was married and the woman was married. And there was an allegation that he used treasury money to pay it. And eventually, initially, he denied it. Certainly, he didn't put it on any forms. Eventually, he was forced by Jefferson's cronies to write a book, a little pamphlet, which I actually own, in which he admits the affair. But never in the history of the United States, and I would submit never in the history of the United States, and I would submit never in the history of the world, has anybody ever been prosecuted for failing to disclose hush money. As you said, I said from the beginning, why would anybody pay a nickel in hush

money if they knew they had an obligation immediately to disclose it? It's not hush money if you have to disclose it. This is the most absurd case. And I would think a good jury could appeal to the common sense of at least one juror and say, would you ever, ever pay hush money if you knew it would be exposed? And, you know, the idea that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the only purpose that he did this payment, the only purpose was to influence the election, is to expect proof of something that's just impossible ever to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with you. This case would have been dismissed, should have been dismissed by a decent judge. But look, what judge wouldn't want

to be every day in the press? One other point I want to make. It's an outrage that this case is not on television. The first case involving a criminal prosecution, a weak case. Why are we not entitled to see how bad this case is on television? Why do we have to listen to an analysis of it by CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times? In the OJ case, there was a poll that was done. People who actually saw the case on television every day were not surprised at the verdict. It's people who read about it from the New York Times or from Tubin on CNN who read about

it or heard about it through biased reporting that were absolutely shocked at the result. For example, they didn't report on the fact that a sock had been tampered with and blood had been poured on it by Officer Van Adder because they didn't want to do, they didn't want the public to know that. And if you didn't see it with your own eyes, you would say, oh my God, how could these jurors have acquitted? But when you saw it, you would then understand why jurors after, four or five of them afterward, said, we didn't think he was innocent. We thought the police tampered with the evidence, and we couldn't trust the evidence. That's why we acquitted.

That's why this case should be on television. It's an absolute outrage, a violation of all of our rights not to see every moment of this case, not to see the judge on trial, the prosecutor on trial, as well as the defendant on trial. Yeah. At a minimum, they could release the audio the way the Supreme Court does on the big cases. There's nobody that hates cameras more than the U.S. Supreme Court. They hate the media and they have no obligation to give us anything. But even on the big cases, they release the audio, understanding that they're ultimately public servants.

They work for us, as does Judge Mershon. And, you know, we have a very high public interest in this case for all the obvious reasons. Continuing forward with the actual charges, Josh. So we talked about the underlying campaign finance violation that got us, you know, a resurrection of the expired you cooked your books allegation. Now, we're going to spend most of this trial neck deep in R-rated material, right? It's going to be a parade of witnesses we expect that are rather unsavory from Michael Cohen, who is a convicted felon. He was Trump's longtime lawyer who paid Stormy Daniels this hundred and thirty thousand dollars

to Stormy Daniels herself. We think porn star. There is a former playmate of the year, 1998, Karen McDougal, with whom Trump allegedly had an affair, who also was paid off to keep her silence. She was part of the AMI slash National Enquirer catch and kill scheme, which I do want to talk to you about some interesting developments there. But I'm just going to give you this first because Stormy Daniels talked a little bit about whether she expects to be a witness when she went on The View promoting the documentary about her. She's everywhere, everywhere. But Trump can't say anything about her in Stop 40. Listen to this. I'm absolutely ready. I've been ready. I'm hoping with all of my heart that they call me. No one. I don't need someone to speak for me. And I would I relish the day that I get to face him

and speak my truth. OK, she's going to speak her truth, her truth. Uh, Josh, she's going to go on and speak it. And that's, what's interesting to me is like, I don't even know if it's necessary, right? It's like, I mean, maybe stormy, but like, do we really need to go down the rabbit hole of potentially the Trump tower doorman who apparently made up out of whole cloth, the allegation that Trump had a love child in Trump Tower with one of the employees there, which was he was proven later to be full of lies. Anyway, that's what the people at home are going to see. And you tell me. But I think it's by design. Those Republican women who used to vote GOP who don't like Trump, they're going to have

six to eight weeks of R to X rated material around President Trump to talk about at the dinner table each night. And I do think it's all by design. So it's a very interesting hypothesis, Megan. I guess what I would say to that is that if that were really their goal, they probably would militate in favor of what Professor Dershowitz is saying and actually televising it all, because if you really want to kind of instill into the minds of the suburban voters that Donald Trump is is a misogynist, he's so terrible to women. Look at him. He's sleeping with these porn stars. And you might actually want to see the porn stars when they sound like the way Stormy Daniels

just sounded in that view clip. Oh, contraire. Oh, contraire. When you see Stormy Daniels or hear her and you see Michael Cohen, you have the opposite reaction. I mean, it's much better for them to have Nicole Wallace, you know, cleansing it, you know, basically whitewashing the testimony as you know, she was like Mother Teresa up there with her allegations against Trump. Keep going. No, fair enough. Point well taken. So, look, I mean, that definitely might be part of the Democratic calculus. I mean, obviously, all this amounts. And again, we're kind of now zooming out a little bit here and focusing on the broader picture.

A lot of this does amount just to straight up election interference. I mean, that is the term that a lot of the Trump campaign is using. I think that they're on very solid ground for doing so. Again, this underlying charge, we can't emphasize this point enough. Both Alan and I have made this point. Both the SDNY and Alvin Bragg's predecessor, Cy Vance Jr., looked into these charges and dismissed it because it was too frivolous. Alvin Bragg. I know all that. You already said that. Yeah, he's a soros fund that has to be. I want to keep it moving forward. I want to focus on the testimony that we're expecting and the evidence that's likely to go up on that stand. And that leads me to my next point, which is it's not just going to be the Stormy Daniels thing, Alan. It's it's a broader allegation about Trump paying off media and potential witnesses before the 16 election to keep, I guess the theory is women happy with him or at least not unhappy with him. And something interesting happened over the weekend. A reporter, Lachlan Cartwright,

who used to be second in command in the AMI universe, the National Enquirer, owned by David Pecker, run by Dylan Howard, and he was Dylan's number two, came out with this sort of tell-all piece. Then he moved on to the Daily Beast, Lock and Cart. Right now, I think he's a Hollywood reporter contributor and New York Times contributor as well. Okay. And he says, I think, I don't know, he might get called as a witness. He's talking about the so-called catch and kill scheme that I think we're going to be hearing about because Bragg mentioned it. And when he indicted Trump about how David Pecker at AMI loved Trump, if you were a friend of Pecker, it was FOP and you would be protected. And that's how they got this Karen McDougal story. They paid her allegedly, I think, 130 grand to give them and only them her

story so that she wouldn't go to a competitor and broadcast this stuff about Trump and their affair. And they ostensibly gave her the money to write a fitness column. You know, she was talking about how that was a nonsense. There was McDougal. There was the doorman. He gets deep into what they did. He says, here's a little bit of what he, it was a writer then read Lachlan's piece aloud for the daily podcast yesterday. Here's a clip. It's out 32. In August, Howard told me he had met with a former Playboy playmate named Karen McDougal, who said she had an affair with Trump. Howard told me that Pekka bought her story for $150,000, but that it would never see the light of day. It was the second catch and kill on Trump's behalf that I heard about. Late in the afternoon, on the Friday before the 2016 election,

I received a call from Lucas Alpert, a Wall Street Journal reporter. Did I know anything about a woman named Karen McDougal? I froze. I told Alpert I would call him back. This was a catch and kill, I told Alpert. I went on to explain the tabloid practice of buying stories to bury them. And Alan, the allegation is that they did this over and over and over to interfere with the 16 election. So I think that's what we're looking at here. What do you make of it? It's common. It's very common practice. Happens in the legal profession, too. Occasionally,

people try to hire me, not because they want me to represent them. They want to make sure I don't represent the other side. So it's a version of catch and kill. Catch and kill has been a very, very commonly used tactic by very wealthy people to buy stories so that they'll never be published. So it's credible. I think it's true from everything I've heard. I know that my reaction, the same thing, Josh, was, yeah, I believe every word. And I guess we're going to hear from David Pecker, who's going to cop to all of this, as I think he's already been interviewed by the feds and all that. But who cares? Like, why wouldn't you, if you could shut somebody up from going out there and saying terrible things about you, do it for what for Trump is petty cash? Yeah, I mean, where's the crime here? I mean, where exactly is the crime?

I mean, look, the late great Justice Anthony Scalia famously said that if your view of the Constitution or to, you know, to use that here, if your view of the law in general perfectly mirrors your personal idiosyncratic preferences, then you're probably not being a very honest assessor of the law. It's not like the law is going to criminalize literally every action out there that every single person views in his or her own capacity as icky or immoral or otherwise wrong. But as Alan says, so-called catch and kill, based on my surveying of what I've read, has been common practice for a very, very, very long time. Donald Trump is obviously a wealthy man. He has the capacity to do that. And again, why would he not do so? But Megan, if I may, I want to emphasize something as well, which is we didn't spend enough time, I think, on that very illuminating Brad Smith commentary, the former Democrat FEC commissioner. What he's saying there, as you said, is that you

have to show that the only sole and unequivocal motive was for legal election campaign finance that there was nothing else in the world that could possibly factor into this. Again, what I say to that is that, you know what, maybe if the candidate were like a Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or someone who presented as a very conservative Christian, he had something to cover up. OK, maybe in that case, Donald Trump is someone who everyone the right mind knows has has been around the block when it comes to women. He has led a very glamorous and glitzy life for a long time. It's all baked in. It is all baked into the equation. The guy who said two Corinthians, not second Corinthians back in Iowa in January, February 2016, the guy with

the NBC News Billy Bush tape. I mean, no one knew or no one thought that this guy was was necessarily kind of, you know, a daily pews attendee in church or anything like that. So it just doesn't make sense based on the fact that all this is baked in to begin with. That's going to be an interesting job for the defense, though. It's going to be an interesting job for the defense. You're absolutely right between us. But is the defense going to put on the facts that he's a Lothario and he's not a good guy and everybody knows he's a runaround? Is the defense going to put that on?

Because that could cut both ways in front of a jury. Juries don't think the way you and I think logically, legally about everything. And so the defense attorneys are going to be sitting around making a very hard choice about how much of that to put in front of the jury. I think in the end, they ought to put it in front of the jury, but we'll see whether Donald Trump wants them to put that in front of the jury. It's a very interesting legal defense by suggesting an immoral person, an immoral legal. But again, this is New York and we all know Donald Trump for decades now. We've all kind of grown up with a lifelong New Yorker, not New York City, New York State, but New York for itself for 20 years. You know, we all have memories of Trump. He needed help. They put

out the bankruptcy cans at the coffee shops to help Trump with his money. Like he's been a playboy. He's been a a bon vivant. So I don't think that will shock any of the jurors. But yeah, you're right, actually offering testimony to it. And I don't even know how they do it, because while Trump says he's going to testify, we all have our doubts. And that's where I'm going to pick it up next. I'm going to squeeze in a quick break and we're going to come back with that question. Will he? Should he take the stand? Alan and Josh, stay with me.

I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly.

You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are no car required i do it all the time i love the sirius xm app it has ad free music coverage of every major sport comedy talk podcast and more subscribe now get your first three months for free go to siriusxm.com slash mk show to subscribe and get three months free that's siriusXM.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. So Trump is saying he definitely will testify.

Alan, do we believe that? And should he? Of course, he won't testify. 100% certainty his lawyers will tell him he can't testify. If he were my client and he didn't take my advice and decided to testify, I would have to quit the case. Why? The first question on cross-examination will be, did you have sex with Ms. Daniels? There are three possible answers. No, which gets him indicted for perjury. Perjury, a really serious case. Yes, which is obviously not helpful.

Or I don't remember. I've had sex with so many porn stars. I really can't. There is no possibly good answer to that question. In the OJ Simpson case, he wanted to take the stand. I told him I would quit the case if he took the stand, that I could not watch on the witness stand being asked whether he beat his wife, because we knew he did. There's pictures and he would deny it. And he didn't take the stand. Then he won. And when he did take the stand in the civil case,

he lost. So I can tell you with 100% certainty his lawyers will tell him not to. And I think they will persuade him. Now, he will want to take the stand. And in the end, he has the right to take the stand. By the way, the judge may have to, under New York law, if he doesn't testify, may have to call him up and say, you know you have a right to testify. Even if your lawyers tell you they don't want you to testify, you have a right to testify. It's your right, not your lawyer's right. But prediction, he won't take the stand. He's saying he will.

He's a strong personality. By the way, he's just reentered the courtroom. They broke for lunch. He did testify, right? Say again, Alan. How does he answer the question about Daniels? Yeah, good question. I don't know. But Trump has a way of being kind of slippery with the truth. It's different when you have a good cross examiner there and you're forced to give clear and concise answers and they can really box you in as lawyers are trained to do, Josh,

I do think Trump would have his hands full and he's not dumb. He's brazen and somewhat narcissistic, like all presidential candidates are, presidents. Not somewhat, he's definitely narcissistic. But what do you think? I mean, he doesn't want to get convicted. So will he listen?

Yeah, I think he will. Look, Donald Trump is definitely contrarian. He definitely, I think it is fair to say, a narcissist. I mean, most presidents, as you say, are. But, you know, if you look back at Donald Trump's presidency, Megan, he actually oftentimes did listen to the people around him. So he signed the First Step Act, the criminal justice reform bill in 2018, which I think went against his instincts.

But those around him, such as Jared Kushner, wanted to see that bill signed. Back in 2017, you had, and I'm getting in the weeds here a little bit, but just briefly, you had the UAE-Bahrain-Saudi embargo on Qatar. Trump's instincts were actually to support the embargo. He was talked down by Rex Tillerson. So there's a lot of examples back to his presidency of him actually getting talked down from his instincts from the people around him. This is the first criminal prosecution he's ever faced in his entire life. He's been famously litigious he's ever faced in his entire life. He's been famously litigious. He has been in court many times.

He has never been the defendant in a criminal prosecution. I think for any human being that is going to militate in favor of some deference to your defense attorneys who have been here before with other clients in the courtroom. So overall, I definitely do concur with Professor Dershowitz. Look, I can give you an example of him listening to me on one occasion.

He called me once and said that his son-in-law was pressing him very hard to recognize Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. And he was having real doubts about that. And I made some very, very strong, both legal and military and other arguments in favor of it. And thankfully, he did listen to me on that. He also listened to me on some matters relating to his impeachment. He was actually quite a good client when I defended him. But Alan, if Trump is going for jury nullification, because as you know, you would have told all your your clients indicted twice by Jack Smith, the documents case, which is serious obstruction. You would have said, shut up, stop talking about this, stop mentioning it, rally, stop talking to reporters about it.

You're you're and he didn't listen. So what's to stop him from thinking, I'm going to get on the stand, I'm going to be me, and I'm just going to say what I want to say because I have a bigger audience I'm trying to speak to. I don't really face jail time in this proceeding. And I'm going to do my thing because this is about jury nullification and sort of speaking past this jury to the American people. By the way, I would not have told him if I were his lawyer to be quiet outside the courtroom. I would make a sharp distinction between what he says outside the courtroom and what he says in front of the jury. I think he's done the right thing in front of the court of public opinion. This is a political trial. This is election interference. He has the perfect right to say

it. He has the perfect constitutional right to insult the witnesses. I agree with all that. But you do really think you should you think you should have sat down with somebody like me and gone through what documents did you have there? Do you think you had the right to CIA agency document like that's no lawyer would advise him to do that? No, nobody who's guilty should ever sit down with you. Let me be very clear about that. If you're innocent, I sat down with you when I was accused of misconduct. I volunteered to sit down with you because I was completely innocent. If I were guilty, you're the last person I would want to have cross-examined me. You're so damn good at getting at these issues. So no, he was a fool for sitting

down with you, but he was not a fool for going in front of large crowds and saying election interference, the judge is this, the judge's daughter is that. He had a right to say that. You fight fire with fire, and you fight a political persecution with political answers. But once you're in the courtroom, and you know you can be asked questions that you would otherwise not be able to be asked, namely, did you have sex with Miss Daniels? No, you don't do that because he's going to end up being cited for perjury. The only way, look, maybe he didn't have sex with Daniels. That would change everything.

If he never had sex with Daniels, then he can testify. But if he did have sex with Daniels and she's credible about that particular issue, then he really does risk his freedom if he says that he didn't have sex with her. Because I would not ever believe that the D.A. or the attorney general or the feds would not come after him for perjury if he did. Yeah, because if you're Trump and you lie under oath in a New York state Supreme Court house, they'll come for you for perjury. But if your name is Fannie Willis or Nathan Wade, then you have nothing to worry about. They won't. It's different for you. I've got to make this point, Josh. Per Reuters, Joe Biden this week

over the next week is scheduled to make three stops in Pennsylvania. Joe Biden won Pennsylvania in 2020 by less than one point five percent, roughly 80000 votes. Trump will be sitting in this courtroom because he's required to because he's a criminal defendant. Already it's beginning. Right. To your point of it's obvious election interference. Right. Yeah, no, it is obvious election interference, Megan. I mean, and the American people, I think, have enough common sense where they can see this dichotomy of one man on the stump and the other in courtroom and start asking some

obvious questions as to, hmm, you know, why is this the first time that a former president who happens to be a major presidential candidate once again, why is he sitting in this courtroom? You know, earlier today, I saw Judge Merchan say that Trump's going to have to be there every single day this trial is going on, Megan. And what Merchan actually said in court today is that if he's not there, then Trump's going to get arrested for failing to appear. Well, what's going to start happening if multiple of these other trials start getting underway? Perhaps Judge Aileen Cannon down in Florida is going to start that classified documents case in July. Right now, it's actually May 20th, which is probably going to delay it further.

How is he going to be in two places at once? Trump's probably going to have very little time on the actual campaign trail this year, and that is obviously a massive advantage for Joe Biden because guess what? Trump's rallies are actually hugely inspiring for a great many number of Americans who are deeply dissatisfied with the current state of the republic and the current state of

the Biden regime in power there. So I think it is stark and obvious for people who are actually going to look at this and start asking the next question, which is why are we here? Why are we at this point where one guy is on the campaign trail trying to persuade independent voters, while the other guy is stuck in courtroom with an obviously biased judge whose daughter is working for a company, Authentic Campaigns, that is fundraising 90 plus million dollars off of the fact that her father is trying to prosecute the first president in American history. I agree. And he should bring it, hopefully, to the Supreme Court, saying that his right and our right to listen to him under the First Amendment is being interfered with. And these trials should be postponed. under the First Amendment is being interfered with.

And these trials should be postponed. By the way, you're talking about Pennsylvania. I'm going to make a prediction here. Biden is going to lose Pennsylvania. He's going to lose Florida. He's going to lose Arizona. And he's going to lose Nevada if he continues to move away from Israel. He's making a stupid mistake. He's trying to win Michigan, which he'll never win because the people who are now screaming and yelling, death to America, death to America, will never, ever vote for Biden. He'll never satisfy them. And as a result of trying to win the 12 votes in Michigan, he's going to lose 60 electoral votes in places where pro-Israel voters are going to vote against them. And places where pro-Israel voters are going

to vote against them. And they should if he continues to move away from Israel. So Biden's making not only an immoral decision if he moves away from Israel, but a really dumb political decision. I mean, to your point, John Fetterman has been as big a supporter of Israel as we have, and his numbers have only shot up in Pennsylvania. He's got something like a 70 percent approval rating there, which is like amazing for a politician. One of the things that I was thinking about was this morning that both counsel were talking about dates. They're taking every Wednesday off of this trial. They're going to take, I think, a couple of like pre-scheduled religious holidays off. And the defense, Josh said, can we have off this one day because it's Barron Trump's high school graduation

and Trump would like to be there, the judge didn't grant it. He's like, we'll have to see. I mean, it's just you can you can feel this guy's disdain for Trump right from the get go. And I think we're going to have to get used to a whole lot of rulings going just like that. And that really is a thumb. Like the fact that the judge clearly doesn't like Trump could make all the difference in this case. One hundred percent. Yeah. The fact that the judge is not like Trump, the fact, again, that you're an 87 percent Joe Biden voting jurisdiction like New York County, New York. I mean, in my opinion, make in my opinion, Judge Breshawn should have accused himself in this case. I saw personally from my surveying of the evidence, more than enough

evidence indicated the fact that he was grossly biased with his daughter in her current position there. The fact that he was so adamant in doubling down there. You know, the left for so many years has decried Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginny, for being this power couple where Ginny is the activist and Clarence Thomas is. Well, do you guys actually believe in conflict of interest or do you only believe where the judge or the juror happens to be right of center? I mean, the question obviously answers itself here. But unfortunately, we live in a day and age where there are two standards and there are two tiers of justice. And look, again, I just find it very tragic that we're in this place to begin with.

As an American patriot, I really just genuinely hate it with every fiber of my being. I agree with you. Got to go. Absolutely. No doubt that that his daughter will make money if Trump is convicted, convicted. And that he should not be on this case. All right, you guys. Great discussion. Thank you both so much. Alan Dershowitz, Josh Hammer. And before we go on to tell our viewers tomorrow, our friends from the Ruthless program return. We'll see you then.

Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.