The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump vs. Judges, Clooney vs. MSNBC, and Legacy Media Failing in New Media, with Mike Solana, Dave Aronberg, and Mike Davis

Episode Date: April 4, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by legal experts Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis to discuss the ongoing legal battle of Judge Boasberg’s injunction halting Trump’s deportations of gang members, the dangers of judicial overreach, the interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court's involvement in this and other lawfare 2.0 issues, the issue of deporting illegal gang members to El Salvador, the legality of imprisoning deported individuals without due process, and more. Then Mike Solana, founder of Pirate Wires, joins to discuss explosive details from a new book about the downfall of Biden’s campaign and presidency, George Clooney reportedly flipping out about an MSNBC segment claiming Obama wrote his New York Times op-ed, who's most to blame for the cover-up of Biden’s cognitive decline, why Jill Biden is deserves some of the blame,  the ongoing debate over Trump’s tariffs, why everyone needs to chill for a few months to see how they'll work, how this has been a point Trump has been making for decades, Kara Swisher's ego and her bizarre new comments, legacy media failures in the new media world, and more. Davis- https://article3project.org/Aronberg- https://www.youtube.com/@courtauthoritiesSolana- https://www.piratewires.com/ Angel Studios: Become an Angel Guild member today and get 2 free tickets to The King of Kings movie when you become a premium member. Visit https://angel.com/MEGYNBeam: Visit https://ShopBeam.com/MEGYN  and use code MEGYN at checkout for up to 40% off Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday. Yay, we made it. Later today, Mike Solana is back with me in studio. I'm really looking forward to that. I really liked him the last time. But we begin today with our legal eagles, our top legal team on Lawfare 2.0. The biggest obstacles to Trump's second term agenda have not come from Congress or the media. They have come from the courts. Judges slapping down injunction after injunction after injunction. These are nationwide injunctions that stop the Trump agenda in its tracks. They have blocked Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. That one that that can be forgiven. That's a big one. OK, but they have been

out of control on virtually every one of his executive orders. They've paused the ban on trans individuals in the military, saying, I guess they're the commander in chief now. Trump's not. They have halted his deportations of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. Those cases have raised fascinating legal and political questions. And there are so many others that they have said they've tried to stop him on his DEI agenda, on his on his gender agenda, on cleaning up our federal employee ranks and firing dead weight. I mean, you name it, they've stopped it. And this appears to be how we're going to be living for the next four years. The only question is whether the Supreme Court is going to start doing its job and sending a message to the lower courts that no one elected them to do anything. Literally nobody elected federal district court

judges. They're not the president. And they have a role. Absolutely, they have a role in when there's overreach. But in certain lanes, they actually don't. Courts are not allowed to decide, quote, political questions. Political questions from the dawn of time have been left to the other branches because those political branches are directly answerable to us. So if they screw up a political question, we will fire their asses. But we cannot fire federal district court judges. They have lifetime tenure. And so that's just part of why it's been so controversial what they've been doing to stop Trump. I mean, the whole Trump second presidency in its crib.

Joining me now to debate Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney general state attorney, I should say, for Palm Beach County, Florida, and now managing partner of Dave Ehrenberg Law, as well as a frequent contributor to the Legal AF YouTube channel. And Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3 Project. He lives his life saying Legal AF. That's his core motto. You can see Dave on MSNBC. You can see Mike on Fox. But this is the only place you will see them together. What are you doing this Easter to celebrate with your family? Angel Studios, but this is the only place you will see them together. What are you doing this Easter to celebrate with your family? Angel Studios, who gave us the box office hit Sound of Freedom, has an unforgettable movie coming this Easter called The King of Kings, an animated story of the life of Jesus, featuring an all-star cast including Oscar Isaac, Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman, Forrest Whitaker, and more. Using stunning animation with

vivid theatrical scenes you've never seen in a movie like this, King of Kings brings the story of Jesus to the big screen for a whole new generation. And we have a special offer. Become a premium member in the Angel Studios Guild, a membership that puts you in the driver's seat to help Angel choose which movies it greenlights. And you will get two free tickets to see King of Kings and every single theatrical release from Angel Studios. It's a great deal. Get two free tickets to see King of Kings and join the Angel Guild as a premium member at angel.com slash Megan. Take your kids to a truly wonderful movie this Easter season

and be a part of making family entertainment great again. Angel dot com slash Megan. Guys, welcome back. Thank you. OK, I'm so happy to see you. So we've got to kick it off with the trend to Aragua deportations. And yesterday there was this hearing on in the court of Judge Boasberg, which is in the D.C. federal district court. a month ago after Trump put three plane loads of suspected Venezuelan gang members on planes, at least one plane of which had already been ordered to be removed by a federal district judge and said, get out of here. You're going to El Salvador. The ACLU ran into court, said Judge Boasberg, Judge Boasberg, please stop it. It's unconstitutional. And he said, you know what? It might be. Stop those planes and said to the Trump administration, if those planes are in the air, you turn them around right now.

I don't care if they've left U.S. airspace. Tell them to turn their asses around, get those illegals back to America. And with respect to two of those planes, they'd already left and they did not comply with an order to turn the flights around. And with respect to the third plane, it had not yet left, but it did not have any illegals on it who were being deported under the controversial law that was in front of Judge Boadsburg, which is the Alien Enemies Act. So the Trump administration didn't feel like they had to do anything on that plane because they were like, these people have been ordered removed. We're not using the Alien Enemies Act. You really have no jurisdiction to say anything about those illegals, Judge. to that, Mike Davis, this judge did issue an injunction a month ago saying, and no more deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. You turn those planes around and no more using the

Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, period, until I've decided whether there's really an invasion or a predatory incursion, which is what's required under the Alien Enemies Act for the president to be able to deport them in the way he has. I will decide. And the Trump administration said, no, you won't. You will not because the jurisprudence interpreting this act has said there is no judicial review of that call. And things didn't change in the past 250 years. You didn't find new executive authorities as a district court judge. You will not determine whether there's been a predatory incursion. That's Trump's call, period. And there's been legal precedent to that effect.

And Judge Boasberg said, oh, I will decide. Screw you. I don't accept this. It went up to this D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They ruled two to one for now to support Judge Boasberg and his restraining order against the Trump deportations. And Trump went to the Supreme Court to say, reverse that restraining order. This is an outrage. These courts don't have review over me. Not on this. The high court hasn't issued any ruling. They have asked for briefing on the case and briefing has come in. The Trump administration appealed. The ACLU filed its responsive appellate brief. And now the Trump administration just filed its reply. So it's fully briefed. And we're awaiting a call by the Supreme Court on the underlying substantive case. And then there's

the second matter of whether they should be held in contempt. That was a five minute recitation of a very complex legal case. I hope I got it right. Mike Davis, why do you say the Trump administration is right? President Trump campaigned on the fact that he's going to cut waste, fraud and abuse. He's going to secure our border and he's going to get these illegal immigrants, particularly this vicious terrorist gang, Trendy Aragua, along with MS-13, the hell out of our country. And President Trump is doing the unthinkable. He's actually doing what he promised American voters he would do, and he's doing it fast, right? And President Trump won a broad electoral mandate. He won 312 electoral votes, all seven swing states. He won the popular vote.

He kept the House. He won a comfortable majority in the Senate. And he's exercising core article to power under our Constitution. He's not stealing Congress's legislative power under Article 1. He's not stealing the Supreme Court's judicial power under Article 3. He is enforcing our laws. He's repelling an invasion of our country, which he has the absolute constitutional right, constitutional duty to do under Article 2 of our Constitution, separate from any statute, separate from any case law, separate from any regulation. He's doing what the Constitution requires. And these judges are exercising jurisdiction.

They do not have this. Judge Boasberg, I think it was four Saturdays ago when he was not even the emergency docket judge, opened up his courtroom. He exposed an ongoing military law enforcement and intel operation. He endangered American lives and the lives of our allies. We saw the security blueprints in El Salvador. We saw the massive number of soldiers, intel officers, law enforcement ready to take the most dangerous terrorists in the Western Hemisphere. This judge ordered planes to turn around. Did he know the fuel levels? Did he know

what the security footprint was back in America? He did not have the power to do this. He doesn't have the power to have this case, period, but let alone to sabotage an ongoing military operation and expose it and endanger American and allied lives. This is why I'm calling for his impeachment, and I don't say that lightly. Dave? Well, good to be back with you, Megan and my friend Mike. You know, Mike heads a group called the Article Three Project. You can see it on his wallpaper as opposed to my background, which is of a St. Bernard. It's called intellectual heft. But, you know, as Mike would know, Article 3, which is the judiciary, does not define the judicial power. And so the Constitution does not limit the remedial powers of the federal courts.

And so you have Congress that could step in and put in regulations and limits. But here the judge is doing what a judge is supposed to do, and that is checks and balances, Marbury v. Madison judicial review. And the judge here is saying that you can't use the Alien Enemies Act to deport these folks without more due process, because hold on, we're not at war with Venezuela. There's not been a congressional act of war. And so we're going to put a hold on this. And the Trump administration has tried to play games with it by saying, well, we are complying with your written order, but not your verbal order. Also, when you came out with your order, the planes were already in international

airspace. You don't have jurisdiction. You know, they're playing games with it. And ultimately, it's going to be the Supreme Court that makes a decision here because the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. So so far, everything is actually going according to plan. You know, I have to tell my folks on the left to say, hey, calm down. This is not a coup. This is actually the proper way to deal with this, where the administration appeals these matters all the way up to the Supreme Court. And they have not said they're defying Judge Boasberg's order. They're saying that Judge Boasberg's order doesn't apply because, you know, it was at International Aerospace. So as of now, I'm trying to walk people off the edge. And they're saying they didn't apply and that he didn't have the authority to issue them,

both. They're arguing both. But they are complying. They are proceeding as though he did have the authority. Exactly. That's why I'm trying to say that to the folks who are saying this is a coup. No, no, actually, because they are saying that they are complying or he doesn't have the power, that actually is a legitimate argument they can take up to the Supreme Court, as opposed to, no, you do not have the authority to issue a ruling and we're going to ignore whatever ruling you come up with anyways. That's different. OK, but Dave, how is it? The federal district courts are allowed in the argument of the ACLU to decide whether there's been an incursion, a predatory incursion by a foreign government. How are they better positioned to determine that than the commander in chief and

the sitting president of the United States? Well, they're entitled to interpret the Alien Enemies Act. And here the judge is saying there's not been a declaration of war. And so this act does not apply, does not give the executive branch the authority to make. You're not answering. No, no, no. So let me stop you there, because there's three different ways that you can get Alien Enemies Act to apply. Act of war, invasion or predatory incursion. Trump seems to be citing the latter, too. They don't seem to be arguing that we're necessarily at war with Venezuela. But for sure, he's saying if you look at his declaration, it says invasion and predatory incursion.

So there's no question that you can have those other things without Congress. Oh, and the executive branch has the ability to interpret that statute as it wants, just like the judiciary can say, no, no, no, you've gone too far. Article three gives the power of the judiciary to look at matters like this and say, no, this is our check. This is our balance. They're not allowed to decide political questions, Dave. How is it not a political question whether we've suffered a predatory invasion from Venezuela? You know who decides that, Megan? It's the U.S. Supreme Court. And it is telling. They never questioned our declaration of war after 9-11. They didn't question our declaration of war with respect to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The courts have typically been reluctant to go anywhere near that kind of political declaration because they understand when you're talking about political questions, the president is at the apex of his powers and the courts to say they're at their nadir. They have nothing. They have none. Only Congress has the power to declare war. The executive branch does not have. But this is something different. Well, remember, the Alien Enemies Act says declaration of war. Or as you correctly said, there has to be an invasion or a threatened invasion. And the president doesn't have the unlimited unchecked power to interpret that act to say, I'm going to decide there's an invasion. Because if you give the president that kind of power, then Katie bar the door. There is no limit to executive power now.

We are Katie bar the door. There is no limit to executive power now. We are Katie bar the door. Let me let me read to you from Ledecky versus Watkins, 1948, interpreting the Alien Enemies Act. OK, they say, accordingly, we hold it the full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power under the Alien Enemies Act and the declarations may validly be left where the Congress has constitutionally placed it on the president of the United States. The founders in in their wisdom, made him not only the commander-in-chief, but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs. He who was entrusted with such vast powers in relation to the outside world was also entrusted by Congress almost throughout the whole life of the nation. With the disposition of alien enemies during a state of war, such a page of history is worth more than a volume of rhetoric. And they go on to say

all systems of government, this is quoting from an earlier case, suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty in our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description. But if they will not, the case to be sure is without remedy. If they choose fools, they're talking about as leaders, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people. The whole thing is about how if we effed up in picking the wrong leader, politics is the remedy, not courts.

Megan, there are several laws at play here. It's the Alien Enemies Act, which we've already discussed. And then there are the conventions against torture. The ACLU is resting a lot also on the fact that this prison where they're sending these folks to violate federal law on torture. I don't think that's their best argument, quite frankly. I think the Alien Enemies Act is a better argument. But because of these outstanding questions, the judge has a right to weigh in and to make that decision and impose an injunction. And then it goes to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which it did. Judicial review, two to one decision.

They said the judge did not act improperly. And now it goes to U.S. Supreme Court. So to me, this is happening the way it should be happening. And the fact that U.S. Supreme Court has not jumped in already tells you that this is not an easy question where the president. It tells me John Roberts is missing a hefty pair. I'm sorry, but that's what it tells me. You tell me, Mike, John Roberts could have said I by himself. He had the power to say, no, that temporary injunction injunction that was just upheld by the Court of Appeals is lifted. No, you're not doing that. And there could have been

a slapdown. But now he wants to bring it to the whole court. OK, fine, we'll do that. But the Supreme Court should ASAP issue an order slapping down the district judge and the court of appeals for not understanding the difference between a legal question and a political one. Yeah, we're in very dangerous territory when you can have a district court judge in America sabotage an ongoing military operation, order the president to turn around planes, bring back 200 of the worst terrorists in the Western Hemisphere back to America without knowing if we have the security capability in place like they did in El Salvador. This is very dangerous when judges wade in to these commander-in-chief powers of the president. So I would say this to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and I would say this to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. the president, ordered the president to issue $2 billion in checks in foreign aid without the

president being able to do a national security review to make sure that we're not funding, for example, Hamas terrorists under the guise of Gazan humanitarian relief, right? And so all that did was embolden these activist judges. And now we see Judge Boasberg taking the judiciary to the brink by threatening to hold in contempt of court Trump administration officials for not abandoning a military operation and not endangering the lives of American and their allies and landing those damn planes, which is what they had to do in this circumstance. And so Judge Boasberg is going to take us to the brink. And this could be stopped. And this could be stopped today if the Chief Justice John Roberts would do his damn job and get his judicial house in order and get these judicial saboteurs, these activist judges in line. There was an amazing, amazing piece posted to National Review this week, co-authored by John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, both of whom are very well-respected attorneys.

John Yoo was instrumental in the Trump administration. My friend Glenn Greenwald would really want me to tell you that his defense of some of the overreaches on torture and so on were inexcusable. That is some people's view of John Yoo. I think he's brilliant. And in this co-authored piece on National Review, they lay it out so clearly. I urge everybody to go and read it. The title of it is, stand by, The Court's Overstep in the Messy Clash with Trump over Trend de Aragua. And here is what they say in part. OK, I'm going to read from it. The two to one decision by the Court of Appeals upholding Boasberg intrudes into the province of the elected branches of government over war and national security. A federal court has never before overruled the decision of a president or Congress that the United States has suffered an

attack or an invasion. They go on to say judicial review does not extend to every constitutional question. The Supreme Court itself has long recognized that there are certain political questions which the Constitution itself has committed to the final decision of the president or Congress or which have no legal standards that the courts can apply. That's the problem here. There's no Judge Boasberg does not know better than Trump whether an invasion has happened. He doesn't. There are no legal standards for him to use in determining that. That is a call by the chief executive, by the commander in chief, who is getting intelligence briefings, who has classified

information coming to him on a daily basis of what the Venezuelans are doing. And as we pointed out in another piece that we discussed earlier this week, which we mentioned by Bart Marquardt, there is evidence that the Venezuelan government works with Trenda Aragua and has intentionally sent them here. Quoting here from the piece, the Venezuelan, this is from law enforcement, high-level investigator who is actually on the ground, saying, quote, the Venezuelan regime has assumed operational control of Trenaragua, has trained 300 of them. They've given them paramilitary training, training them to fire weapons and how to conduct sabotage. They have given them all a four to six week course. They put these 300 guys through that course and then they were deploying them into the United States at 20 separate states in 20 separate

states. And by the way, the Alien Enemies Act, Dave, only requires that there be an attempted an attempted predatory incursion. We're there. How how do you say Judge Boasberg is better positioned with zero, zero presidential daily briefs, zero access to classified information that he gets from Tulsi Gabbard and all those around him who head up the Pentagon and the national intelligence branches to make a call on whether we're suffering from an attempted predatory incursion? How is he better suited than the commander in chief? Well, I'm thankful that there is a judge out there and judges in the appellate court who actually are trying to constrain the unlimited power of the executive branch, especially when you have these intelligence folks who apparently aren't so good at their jobs that there are people out there who were sent to this prison who are not gang members. And so that's where the judge should be stepping in to at least to check the power of the federal government to make sure that they're

compliant with a lot of people. Right. But still. So just for the record, that's twice you've gotten out of bounds on alien enemies. Once you said they basically get a habeas review, which is a different thing. And secondly, you said that this may be torture, which is a different thing. On the big, big question of whether Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport suspected Venezuelan gang members, it's a win for President Trump. And once that's a win for President Trump, we can nitpick about whether an individual guy gets a habeas review, etc. But it's a huge win for the Trump administration. And it's a very important one, because what the leftist ACLU right now is trying to do is clip the wings of our sitting commander in chief. Go ahead. Well, I'm glad that he's targeting this dangerous gang, but I'm not glad that there are individuals

who have been deported who are not members of the gang without any due process. And so I actually like the fact that there are judges out there who are trying to slow down this process to make sure they get it right. And that Alien Enemies Act is not absolute. It doesn't give the president unlimited authority without any check. There's still Marbury v. Madison judicial review. There are still Article III judges out there. You keep saying that. Right, but also—

Can I just say, I'm reading here again from the John Yoo piece, okay? Recognizing these limits to the judicial role is no dereliction of duty. In Marbury versus Madison, the very case that first declared the power of judicial review, in that case, the court said, we say what the lies. The courts are the ones who say what the law is. Chief Justice John Marshall used his own discretion, quote, okay, he says, for his decisions, quote, he, the president, is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience, end quote. His choices cannot be questioned in court because, quote, the subjects are political, end quote. These issues, quote,

respect the nation, not individual rights. And being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. They too understood, Dave, that if it's a political question, it is not the courts that have the final say. The unitary executive theory, where pretty much the president is the most powerful of the three branches of government. And I get it. And John Roberts seems to agree with that, that he was the one to author the immunity ruling. So it is telling that that same John Roberts is not moving to protect President Trump from judicial review because he knows what the lower courts know,equal branches of government. And this is the first time in history that Congress has stepped back and emasculated itself and given all of its power to the presidency, to the executive branch. So I'm glad that there are judges out there who are at least doing their job to slow down this unquestioned—

I mean, it was the Congress of 1798 that did that, Dave. He makes it sound like it's Mike Johnson. Mike Davis, you know, like. It was the Congress of 1798 that said, we are choosing to give the executive these extraordinary powers and without judicial review. And the Supreme Court, in interpreting that act, said there's no judicial review of this. It's a political question that we are out of our lane if we try to take on. Mike, let me get you to weigh in on it. Let me just read you just another little snippet from the John UP's. Again, well worth everyone's time. He goes on to say courts have studiously avoided second guessing the decisions of the

elected branches of government. Federal judges refused to rule on the legality of not just the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but every war in American history, even the Guantanamo Bay cases. There they deferred to the decision of President George W. Bush, etc. Now, he goes on to say the following in the case by the D.C. Circuit that that affirmed the temporary restraining order against Trump's deportation powers under alien alien enemies. He says the D.C. Circuit ignored the judiciary's traditional deference on questions of war. Judge Karen Henderson's opinion, Karen, Karen, sorry, she displayed little modesty in rejecting the claim that Trenda Aragua's conduct

qualified as an invasion. Based on her review of the history of the 1798 Act, she concluded that an invasion, quote, required far more than an unwanted entry. To constitute an invasion, there had to be hostilities. She observes that, quote, in every instance in the Constitution, in laws and debates of the time, invasion is used in a military sense. Same goes, she concludes, for predatory incursions. Yu goes on. On this ground alone, the Supreme Court should grant emergency review of this case. Federal judges do not have the capability, the understanding, or access to information to make sensitive decisions on whether a foreign actor represents

a national security threat, nor can they judge the harms that could arise from action or inaction. Courts are not designed to make policy decisions involving probabilities and risks, which are characteristic of war and national security. Mike. I would say this judge, Karen Henderson, lovely lady, but she's like this 80 year old judge, Republican appointed judge who hires all these liberal H.W. works, all these liberal law clerks, not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and it's time for Judge Henderson to step down, retire. It was time eight years ago for Judge Henderson to step down and retire. And this case is a perfect example. She's just clearly wrong here, and she's dangerously

wrong here. When you have judges taking on the president's commander-in-chief role and trying to second-guess the president when he's trying to expel foreign terrorists who are working with enemy countries to sabotage America, that is his constitutional duty as commander-in-chief to get these terrorists the hell out of our country. And any judge who thinks that they have the power to second guess and get in the way should not be on the bench. Okay, now let's talk about the individual rights. I really feel it very strongly, contrary to what you say, Dave, contrary to the argument I had with Charles C.W. Cook on this podcast two weeks ago. Trump has this power under the Alien Enemies Act, and it's really clear. And

I think these judges are way out over their skis. And I actually do have hope that the Supreme Court is going to slap them and hard and remind them that they're unelected judges, that nobody elected them to do anything. They're not commander in chief. Judge Boasberg's had his fun playing mini commander. He's not. However, on the right to individual review where one person says, wait, I'm not trend to Iroquois, that actually can be heard. And the administration has conceded that they've conceded that. And actually, if I went back and did a dive, my God helped me into other cases interpreting the Alien and Enemy Act, including one that came down in 1813. Gentlemen, this is how I spent my morning.

This is how much I love you. 1813 cases I was looking at. Where the court later clarified in a case called Lockington v. Smith, that judicial review. They had said that judicial review into whether an individual is actually an alien enemy is OK. Like that, that we will allow. Not to whether the president had the power to declare it or use it, but individual circumstances, like I'm not trend or Aragua. Yes, you can have judicial review. And then they went back in Lockington in 1813 and said that review need only be available subsequent to incarceration. So Trump did no wrong. He did no wrong putting them on a plane and shipping them off to this El Salvadorian prison. But now, and this is why the administration is conceding it, they will have to give individual hearings where the person is claiming, I'm not trend to Iroquois. And I don't exactly know how that happens. I don't I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't even know what the procedure for that would be.

Dave, do you have any idea? I don't know. Once they're in another country. And I do think he did wrong in that they put him on the plane after the judge said you can't do this anymore. So they knew what the judge ruled and they were like I said, they were playing games. But just to be clear, it appears they only did that with plane number three. Planes number one and two were already airborne when the judge issued that. Right. But the ruling refused to turn the planes around. That is true. Right. Correct. Correct. And just because you're in international airspace doesn't mean the judge's ruling doesn't apply to you or else. Wow. That'd be fun. Every time there's a judge's ruling, you just send the people into international airspace and torture them.

Whatever you need to do. Also, you know, you're right. I don't know what the process is now. This uncharted territory now that they're in an El Salvador jail. And I don't know. But, you know, there is something that we haven't mentioned yet. And it's the War Powers Act, which is of 1973, which does show that Congress has a say in all of this. Now, what's unusual now is that Congress has decided to give up their rights and say, you know, we're going to step back. We're not going to have any power now, which is why I think the judges have stepped up more aggressively than Mike would have liked. I mean, that's all very sweet, but they don't have the power, Mike.

I mean, here's the issue. Even if these terrorists are entitled to some sort of judicial review, it was not in the D.C. district court. It was not with Judge Boesberg. He wasn't even the emergency judge four Saturdays ago when he opened up his courtroom, when he exposed this ongoing military operation, when he endangered American and allied lives. I mean, this was a very high stakes operation. And separate from that, look at the foreign policy implications of this. El Salvador president takes this high risk to take these terrorists, and then he has the planes turn around. What foreign leader would want to cut a deal with the president of the United States if they're going to be humiliated because an activist judge decides that they're going to be the commander in chief on Saturday and sabotage and abort the operation. And you've undermined that leader in his country. I mean, separate from the security issue, you're damaging the president's ability to conduct foreign affairs.

Here's what's really crazy. As far as we can see, nobody, including the ACLU, is I raised this question repeatedly this week saying I'm looking into the legality of shipping them out. I mean, not that I accept he has the power, as I've just argued for the past half hour plus. But is it legal to put them in prison? Like that to me is an interesting question. How do they wind up in prison without due process on criminal charges against them, you know, for for being gang members, for committing alleged crimes? How do you I get how you deport them. You can ship them back to where they came from. That's no problem. You can ship them back to where they came from. That's no problem. You can ship them back to where they were born. The law recognizes that.

I just don't know how you can ship them into a prison. But here's the weird thing. As far as I can tell, literally nobody's even arguing that that's an issue. Like, literally nobody. Even the ACLU is not making that their argument. Dave, they're saying, well, they're putting them into jails in which they could be tortured. But they're not saying they're putting them into jails. Right. Right. I noticed that, too, Megan. They're holding their hat on the torture because that's an infamous prison where

they have been put, but not on the fact that they're in a jail to begin with. So that is something I must say. You must have found some sort of ambiguity in the law that would allow the administration to deport people into prisons. But, you know, this is a notorious prison. And I didn't like I don't know what you guys thought, but I didn't really love the image of Chrissy Noem standing in front with her Rolex watch in front of those. I just it gave me North Korea vibes. I didn't like that. The United States was putting out. I did not like it. And I did a big bit on it. But, you know, people disagree. I would say my audience is split. I actually expected them to be totally against me and you, Dave, on that and say, you know what.

But actually, they were about, I'd say, 55 percent in our camp and 45 percent in defense of her. And the reason they are, I think, Mike, is like cases like the one that just came down today out of South Carolina, where another illegal was out there driving a car without a driver's license, of course, ran a stop sign and killed some college student with his whole life in front of him. You know, just run over and then abandoned, hit and run in the middle of the night. That's why that's why people don't give a shit. You know, that's why it's like, I, as soon as I have my, like, I don't know if it's just my, my human heartstrings that get pulled when I see the Christie Noem thing with the guys behind her, like human props, just makes me uncomfortable. Um, then they go out the window, you know, cause like, look what these guys are doing to us. They're killing our kids.

So what would the left do? You know, it's like that's one of the problems here, Mike, as we look at this is like, what are the other solutions? Trump is cleaning up a mess. Look, for four years, the Biden Justice Department persecuted Trump supporters who trespassed into the Capitol. And I didn't hear the left losing any sleep over Trump grandmas in the D.C. gulag. But the second, we have the most vicious terrorist in the Western

hemisphere, Trende Aragua, along with MS-13 gang members who were sent to our country from Venezuela to sabotage our country. They are kidnapping, They are robbing. They are raping. They are torturing. Look, Joe Biden let 15 million illegal immigrants into our country. I used to be a lot more liberal when it comes to immigration, legal immigration. I'm pretty anti-immigration right now, and I just have very little sympathy for any of these Trendy Aragua or MS-13 terrorist. Mm hmm. Let's keep going because there's other cases, too.

Can we spend a minute on this Judge Reyes, Mike Davis, who has decided the Trump administration is synonymous with animus. Pete Hegseth, as the sec def, cannot say trans people cannot serve in the military because it's full of animus, meaning hatred against trans people. And she says, I know, I know I'm going to be taken up an appeal, but I'm basically doing the right thing because I'm standing up for trans people and animus, animus, animus. And you say, this is insane. This, this, What we're dealing with are people who have gender dysphoria. They have severe mental illness. And, you know, you can have compassion for people with gender dysphoria, but to have a judge force severely mentally ill people into our military undermines our troop readiness. It undermines, once again, it undermines the president's commander-in-chief powers. And, you know, this is not the same as letting black people into the military. This is not even the same as letting gay people into the military. You're dealing with a severe mental illness and you're putting them into our military. It's not appropriate for these judges to do this.

This is another instance, once again, where the chief justice needs to get his judicial house in order or Congress is going to do it for him. This judge went on about how, oh, we've always had disadvantaged groups, marginalized persons who haven't been allowed to serve. But, you know, it doesn't that that doesn't make it right to do that now against trans people. She's the one who questioned Pete Hegseth's service. She's like, oh, you know, I don't even know if he's really been in active combat.

Meanwhile, he served three tours of duty. She's going to defer to the Joint Chiefs commander of the last administration instead of our current SEC DEF and our current commander in chief. What do you think of Judge Reyes, Dave? I read the ruling, Megan, and here's the part that I thought was interesting, is that the Secretary of Defense and the administration decided not to say transgender individuals cannot serve. They didn't say that. They said we are classifying gender dysmorphia as a medical condition like heart disease that keeps you out of the military, you know, like flat feet, which I don't know if flat feet still keeps you out, but I definitely have it. So here's the thing. If you wanted to keep out transgender service members from the

military, then say so. But they didn't do that because I guess they thought they would be repudiated by the court. So instead, they came up with a ruse. And the ruse was really bad. No, no, we're not against transgender individuals. We just think that gender dysmorphia makes you unable to be a fit service member. And yet there's a history of people who have served very capably who are transgender service members. And so I think the argument that they did was a fake argument, a ruse, and the court saw through it. So I don't have an issue with the court's ruling. It will be taken up on appeal

and ultimately it'll get to the U.S. Supreme Court. Will, what do you think of that one? Is that one gonna get reversed? I'll start with you on it, Dave. I think the way that the ruling came out where they said, if you want to ban transgender individuals, say so and make an argument for doing so.

But you can't do it through this other method of just saying we're gonna classify gender dysmorphia as a condition that makes you incapable of serving like having terrible asthma or something. So I think in that case, that argument will fail before the U.S. Supreme Court. And I think Judge Reyes will ultimately be upheld. Mike, when you're dealing with transgender, you never know, because my former boss, Neil Gorsuch, gets a little weird on these cases. So who knows how he's going to rule that day. But I think if you follow the law, the president, as the commander in chief, has the constitutional duty to make sure that our troops are ready to fight and win wars. And when you put severely mentally ill people in the ranks, that undermines

the president's commander in chief powers. Back on the initial case we were discussing, Mike, do you think, because it certainly sounded from that hearing yesterday, that Judge Boasberg, who's trying to determine whether Trump is in contempt of court, the Trump admin, because of the planes not turning around midair. We reported on our AM update show this morning, Margo Cleveland, who listened to the whole thing for the Federalist, was saying the way he was speaking was, it's not a question of whether, it's just a question of who exactly violated my order. And that's all I'm really looking to find out. And was getting very angry, this is our reporting based on our readings of the various news reports, was getting very angry. This is our reporting based on our readings of the various news reports, was getting very angry at the Department of Justice for not saying specifically who they told

to stop the planes and who refused that instruction based on the judge's order. And he kept taking his glasses off and throwing them on the table. He was reportedly scowling and scoffing, says Julie Kelly, who was watching the whole thing. So it certainly looks like he's going to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court. So if you assume he does that and then they appeal and I guess the D.C. Circuit, maybe this panel or another could potentially uphold it. What does that look like? How do you what what what what do they do? Find him somebody going to jail for a few days.

Like, what does it even look like? I would say this to D.C. Obama judge Jeb Boasberg. You should step back from the brink here because you are going to light on fire the federal judiciary's legitimacy. And that's all the judiciary has is its legitimacy. Once it loses its legitimacy with with the American people, it loses everything. It doesn't have an army. It can't enforce its orders. It has to do it through the executive branch.

And this is the one case, and I've never done this before. Not only have I called for Judge Boasberg's impeachment, this is the only time I have ever publicly advocated that you ignore an order of a court. Because not only is this so illegal, what this judge did by trying to interfere and sabotage and undermine the president during a military operation, it's so dangerous what he did. So it's highly illegal and highly dangerous. He put American and allied lives in grave danger by exposing this operation. He undermined the president's ability to conduct foreign affairs. And I would say this, I was a law clerk before. I don't think that the law

clerks that Judge Boasberg hires are green berets. They can't turn around planes and they're not going to be able to enforce this order. So if he holds, if Judge Boasberg holds Trump officials in contempt, I think that the president, if it's criminal contempt, the president should pardon immediately. And if it's civil contempt, I would say to Boasberg, piss off, go enforce your own order. That's the danger here, Dave, is the Supreme Court, John Roberts in particular, very conscious of the fact that there's no police power by the high court. And on a question as tenuous as this, right? Like, as I said before, Trump at his apex and the courts at their lowest. Do we think John Roberts would take the risk of saying, yeah, you, you have to stop deporting under the alien enemies act. And yeah, I can, I affirm

the contempt holding that judge Boasberg is likely about to hand down. I mean, it's very, very thin ice. I think, Megan, that the Supreme Court is going to uphold Judge Boasberg. I think they're tipping their hand by their inaction so far. They could have acted and reversed that injunction already. I do think the interpretation that this administration is making on the Alien Enemies Act is overbroad, but we'll see what the Supreme Court says. That's very interesting what you just said, the tipping of the hand. Keep going. As far as the contempt, I actually agree with Mike on that.

I don't think Judge Boasberg wants to go down that road because if he does issue contempt against administration officials, it's up to the marshal's office to enforce it. And the marshal's office is under the executive branch. Now, there is something obscure in the law that says that if the marshal's office doesn't want to do it, you can actually go to like local sheriffs. But can you imagine that happening? They'll go to the local sheriff to arrest the lawyers for DOJ. No, that I think, I think Judge Boisberg realizes that. So I think any sanction will be something so minor it won't cause much of a ripple. Yeah, this is going to be it, Dave. How long till we hear the left start to say, like, this is our chance to get Trump back in jail? This is back in jail. Judge Boasberg, he's going to do it. Yeah, I I don't think I just don't understand how it could even work. Can I ask you, Mike Davis, what since the Trump administration is conceding that there's an individual habeas right now,

that means for the listening audiences, you have the right to say, like, I've been detained wrongfully. If they say, Megyn Kelly, you committed a murder and you're in jail, you know, you're being arrested here. You have the right to say, I'm not Megyn Kelly. I'm Karen, whatever. And so the Trump administration is admitting, is conceding, at least in the Boasberg case, that there is an individual habeas right for people to challenge being labeled Trenada, Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act. So how should that go down? Because what's happening is we're shipping them off to this El Salvadorian prison, which is not great. I mean, even our own State Department and others talk about what happens in these El Salvadorian prisons, and it's very unattractive.

I mean, they're housed like animals, like in like a pigsty with like 100 people in a cell and no mattresses. And the cleanliness has got questions, at least reportedly. OK, so how does it happen and who offers them a hearing? And like, you know, a lot of ink has been spilled this week on this Kilmar Abrego Garcia, this guy who was found by a lower judge and then a higher appellate court in the immigration system to have ties to MS-13. But the media would just tell you he's a father. He's a father of a little boy and he's married to an American citizen. He got pulled out of obscurity and sent to this prison. It's a lot more complicated than that. But if this guy wants to have a hearing on whether he's really

trend to Aragua, how does it happen? It's a good question. I mean, he could file a habeas petition in Texas where the planes took off. Maybe we can come up with a good solution. Maybe we can send Judge Boesberg and his law clerks down to that El Salvadorian prison and he could be the prison lawyer and he can handle all these. It's an amazing idea. And I think it'd be a good way we can impeach Boesberg and make him the prison lawyer in El Salvador. Yeah, it's like a form of president. You're president of the prison. Clearly, you're looking for executive authority. You know, but we do, I think, I think there needs to be some established procedure. And again, under the 1813 Supreme Court interpretation of all of this, it's okay if they don't give

him a hearing before they deport him under Alien and Enemies Act. He's fine there. And even before they imprison them. But at some point, if these individuals are saying they're not trend to Aragua, we're going to have to hear those claims in some way, shape or form. And Dave, the other question is what they're supposed to be. We paid we paid them six million bucks to house these prisoners for a year. So what happens after the year? Does anybody know? Do they like. They just get that out. I don't think El Salvador wants them milling about. Now that's the contract expires at the end of the year. They have to renegotiate like any other contract. It's a pretty good deal for the administration.

But right. But let's just hope that they get it right, because any person who's wrongfully detained there really is a tragedy because that is a terrible facility. And you would hate for innocent people to be sent there. And hopefully there will be some due process where they will have hearings. But like I said earlier, we're in uncharted territory here. And so Mike's guess is as good as mine as to what the next step would be. You know, Mike, today on Instagram, I saw this young gal who was talking about medical tourism and she went to Turkey and in one day had every test you could have done on your body scan and blood tests and so on and dental work. I mean, you name it, they did it. And apparently she only paid 800 bucks for this in Turkey. So it's medical tourism. I mean, what I feel like Trump is engaging in, in penal tourism,

where he's getting this, you know how much it would cost to house 300 prisoners here in the United States for a year? Way more than six million bucks. This is like the Turkish, this is the equivalent of the Turkish day spa. I would say to these illegal immigrants, particularly these terrorists, there's a new sheriff in town. And if you come to America, we're not going to put you up in four star hotels anymore. We're going to put you in an El Salvadorian prison. Yeah. Times have changed. You guys are the best. I've missed you. Thank you so much for coming back. Thank you. Thanks for having us back, Megan. All right, you guys. See you soon. Conservatives believe in self-reliance, taking responsibility for your own health,

your family, and your future. So I want to tell you about Beam's Dream Powder. Beam is proudly founded in America and run by people who share your values, hard work, integrity, and delivering results. It's a science-backed, healthy nighttime blend packed with ingredients shown to improve sleep so you can wake up refreshed and feeling ready to take on the day. Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients, reishi, magnesium, melatonin, and more. Beam has already improved over 17 million nights of sleep, helping people across the country wake up and feel their best. Here is the deal. Beam is giving you the ultimate Patriot discount of 40% off your order. Try their best-selling dream powder and get up to 40% off for a limited time. Go to shopbeam.com slash Megan and use the code Megan at checkout. Shopbeam.com slash Megan and

use code Megan for up to 40% off. Support an American company, invest in yourself, and start getting your best sleep tonight. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly.

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

Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show. We are continuing to get incredible details about the downfall of former President Biden's campaign and presidency from two new books. One of the new details includes Hollywood actor George Clooney once raging against Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski. I love this story. I love it. It's for so many reasons, which we'll get to.

Joining me now to discuss that and so much more is Mike Solana. Mike runs a news outlet called Pirate Wires. Last time he was on our show, we got a huge response from our viewers and listeners. So we are glad to have him back on. Great to see you again. Thanks for having me back. Okay. So I love this George Clooney story.

And let me make sure that I have the proper attribution so that I, uh, I protect the innocent, uh, the good reporters who are actually bringing this stuff out. Hold on. Where is it? What did I, where did I put it? Where is it, Deb? Oh, it's in the original. It's in the AM update. Sorry guys. Okay. So, um, this is the Whipple book that we talked about the other day. This Whipple book is, let's see, Chris Whipple, and it's called Unchartered, How Trump Beat She got a copy and released a couple of the nuggets and so did The Guardian. But hers was a really interesting nugget. And she's apparently in this book, they reveal that George Clooney saw Morning Joe one day

right after his op-ed and Mika Brzezinski was suggesting that Barack Obama was behind the George Clooney op-ed. That was basically making Clooney seem like Obama's puppet. Here's the Mika clip. I'm going to walk you through it. Watch it. It's not 22. This wasn't George Clooney.

But, well, what do you mean? It just wasn't. Come on. Well, who do you think it was? Matt Damon? It was not Matt Damon. Who do you think it was? It wasn't Julia Roberts either. Who do you think it was? Matt Damon? It was not Matt Damon. Who do you think it was? It wasn't Julia Roberts either.

Who do you think it was? You can say the name. You won't melt. It's not Voldemort. Are you saying you think Barack Obama put him up to this? I think that Barack Obama has a lot of influence. Okay. Literally everyone thinks that he put him up to it.

I mean, this is like, but here's what is reported. Whipple writes. At 10.05 a.m. after Morning Joe had wrapped that show, one of the show's producers walked into his Manhattan apartment. His phone started buzzing and he answered. The voice was familiar. How the F could you let her link me with Barack Obama saying he made me write the op-ed. It was George Clooney. The producer pushed back. Listen, I didn't do that, he said. You effed me! Only with the real word, Clooney shouted. You're my friend. You should have stood up for me. Oh my God, you little baby, you man-child. Okay, that was me.

George, the producer said, this is not an effing movie. There's no script. It's just not a movie where you go script page to script page. F you, replied Clooney. F yourself, said the producer. The exchange of F-bombs lasted about five minutes before Clooney hung up. A few minutes later, he called back for another round of cursing and arguing. The actor called a third time just after noon and the shouting match went on. The producer had had enough. This is a morning talk show on a cable channel, he shouted at Clooney. Nobody gives an F what we say

or if we say he should get out or if he should stay in. Nobody effing cares. It's skywriting. It's effing gone. George, I told you before, we'll try and take care of it tomorrow morning. I promise you. I don't know whether I trust you, replied Clooney. Well, F you, said the producer. If you don't trust me, stop effing calling me. Okay, we just got, we got to spend a minute on how pathetic these characters come across, right? Like, I'm tough and I'm telling George Clooney to F off, but I promise we'll take it back tomorrow.

I've got you. Please don't hate me, George Clooney. What I don't understand is why he, I mean, presumably he wants people to know that he's associated with Barack Obama. So maybe the interesting tell here is actually that Obama has declined in relevance. Is that like really the reason that he's angry? It's like, don't tell me that I'm, that I am like Obama's patsy, but why not? Like that would be, that would carry some weight for a George Clooney previous era. Um, but maybe not as much anymore. Well, you saw in the recent poll of democratic front runners or leaders, who is the leader of the Democratic Party? Barack Obama only got 4%. I know. And I

really thought it was him until that poll. I think AOC had 10%. So that's not good for, that's not really good for the Democrats, to be honest. Well, I can understand why as a man, you would feel totally emasculated by what is probably the truth, which is you were just the puppet to a more important man's opinions. You know, you may think that your president, he thinks he's a journalist now because he played one in a movie years ago. He's out there lecturing journalists on how to do journalism and be great at the end of his new Broadway play. Maybe he thinks he's president too, because I guess he doesn't want to be subject, subjugated to Barack Obama because he was apparently genuinely pissed off. And what's

so funny about this is he's like he's worried that Mika Brzezinski's implication on mourning Joe is going to hurt his reputation somehow. Somehow it's like it's going to hurt his street cred with what the leftists who watch MSNBC, George, I have news for you. We all believe it. She's not alone. We know this is what, what has happened. Why does he care? I mean, do you think that maybe he has some kind of political ambition? I think so many of them do. He thinks, you know, there's this wide open space. There is no leader in the democratic party. It's going to be me. I'm going to, I'm going to roll out there. And yeah, Stephen A mean he says he's not gonna do it

but it's like ever since trump ran people think well anyone can do it you know if trump can do it anyone can do it that they had they never like they never recovered from that original assumption about things and so now they're still trying to get people to go i mean it might be better than what they have now i don't know on the dev side. So here's the follow-up. Um, this Tara Palm, Paul Mary had on the author Whipple and asked, um, asked him whether Obama did tell Clooney to write the op-ed and Whipple has story about Obama's former chief of staff, Bill Daley, and what he confessed to Whipple about whether Obama was really behind the George Clooney op-ed, right? Do you follow me? So this was Obama's former chief of staff speaking to the author of the book who was on this podcast. And here is how that went.

Did you ever get down to the bottom of whether Obama did, in fact, tell George Clooney to publish that op-ed? I don't think anybody knows for sure. I asked his chief of staff, his second chief of staff, Bill Daley, what he thought. And Daley said, I said, do you think he gave Clooney a green light? And Daley said, I don't think he would have given him a red light. Mm-hmm. So he wouldn't have stopped it is basically what he's saying. Obviously, I mean, that's an implicit admission by the guy, Obama's former chief of staff.

Okay. So it just shows how thin-skinned this Hollywood A-lister is. And then this morning show producer who's trying to be like, I told him to F himself. I told him to F off. And then I told him, we'll fix it tomorrow. Please don't be mad at us. Please don't George Clooney can't be mad at me. Okay. Very chummy relationship by the way, right? Like I thought we were friends. I thought I could trust you. Well, you know what? That was your first mistake because you shouldn't trust cable news producers. They're only there to do one thing, put points on

the board, not, not befriend Hollywood celebrities. Okay. There's more, more. In that Whipple book, he details how, like the meltdown around the presidential debate where Joe Biden imploded. And he gets into great detail about how bad it was. He spoke with Biden's former chief of staff, who said, we were terrified. I expected a disaster. He couldn't make it through either of the debate preps. He wasn't sure. He didn't seem to be aware of the fact that he was president. He thought he was president of NATO. Yeah. And yet they sent him off on stage. And apparently, Joe Biden's sister, Valerie Biden, had a complete meltdown after seeing him on stage that night, blaming everyone around him. Probably not Jill, Dr. Jill, but everyone else.

And here's a bit from that in that podcast. Same podcast. So 24. 30 a.m. that evening, one of Joe Biden's best friends picked up his phone and saw that Valerie was on the line. She was distraught. She was in tears and she was furious and she could barely contain herself. She said, what did they do to my brother at Camp David was her opening line. And she, again, couldn't go on much more than that. She was so distraught. She clearly was lashing out and blaming people other than Joe Biden, namely his debate team.

And she called back the next morning, again, called Biden's friend, said, how could they have done this? How could he have arrived just minutes before the debate? How could they not have given him decent makeup? You know, how did he wind up looking like Dorian Gray? And indeed he did. So what do you think? I think it's interesting. All these people are coming out now

because there's a couple of books, as I mentioned, trying to do like the deconstruction of what happened with the debate and Biden's presidency, et cetera. Is this a save your own ass effort or what is this? I think, I mean, I think there's this power struggle and no one knows who's going to, who's going to be in charge of the democratic party. I think the Biden stuff, I mean, as we were going through these details, it's, it really was shocking. I mean, I was shocked

watching that debate. I, and I had been criticizing, I've been saying, oh, this man has dementia or whatever, but I didn't realize it was like dementia, dementia. I mean, that was way worse than I thought. And then you can't help at that point, but then think about everybody associated with him. And there's a lot of anger. I think that there's probably even more anger on the Democrat side. So I think these people are all positioning themselves to seem sort of like not the bad guy here. They want to come out and be associated with whoever the new fount of power is going to be, but it's not going to be anybody associated with Biden. And I think I think roughly it's that. Yeah, that's that makes sense. There was a young woman who worked in the White House under Biden who was on CNN. She's a no, she was a campaign aide named Ashley Allison. She went on CNN on Wednesday.

Listen to this woman. It's not 25. Ashley, do you feel lied to? Yeah, I do. I think I think it I hadn't been around the president before that debate. And I worked for Joe Biden. And if the people around him knew that he was not capable, it is unacceptable to me that they allowed him to go onto that stage. I deserve better as a voter, not even as a Democrat, as a voter, and as an American. I do.

This is ridiculous. We all knew. I mean, we knew he was in bad shape. I agree with you. We didn't know it was DEFCON 1. But we knew it was like two or three. We knew he was bad. I mean, we were calling for a primary before.

There were some Democrats who were like, hey, should we think about this? Should we maybe run some other people? But i do i think that there's like a positioning now to say you know i was also misled i was like the new york times on covid we were misled we who who could have done this right who is responsible for this that's just for fingerprints yeah and that's good they're gonna jockey around and figure it out i mean isn't the new book it's jake jake tapper is one of the guys yeah it's just like's just like, it's, I'm going to reserve judgment until I read that book comes out. I am excited to see what he has to say about it,

but it's a tough pill to swallow. I'll give you a prediction. He's going to say he was all over the mental acuity problem and he'll probably have some examples. I think the other, the other guy, the other writer on that, I think. Yeah. Alex Thompson. Alex was, I think he has more credibility. He would have been fine. Nobody would have, like, that guy's ability to cast this stone is unquestioned because he was pretty tough even on the Kamala thing. He was tough all along. He was like a normal reporter should be. Jake's co-partnership on it complicates it.

And for as many times as he may have mildly pointed it out, they didn't have the story. The left wasn't interested in the story. It's like I asked the New York Times when I sat down with them last week or whatever, it aired last week. Where was Peter Baker? Why wasn't, you know, where was your intrepid White House reporter figuring out that neurologists had visited the White House more than 10 times in a year? Well, I think at that point they were just pot committed. They were like, this guy's running against Trump. Trump is Hitler in their mind. And so it doesn't matter. We have to run him. And I think that that's really what the story would have been had he not stepped down and he ran. It would have been that way all the way until the election, even after they have a debate. I think the other piece of it is the left is losing its mind over Trump right now. They're so angry at what he's doing. It's like all their

pet favorite causes, you know, being attacked one by one. And so it's like all their pet favorite causes you know being attacked one by one and so it's like how do we get in this position yeah who who let the infirm guy get all the way to that june debate and they can't blame him right they can't blame he has dementia they should they should be talking about dr jill dr jill she's a medical oh wait no she's not um but she she knew better than anybody and she shoved him weekend at bernie style out onto that stage you think it was her you think that she's blame her she's not the only one but she's the number one person to blame it's disgusting i would never want this done to me by my spouse and i would never do this to my spouse never that

you're supposed to be looking out for them in sickness and in health and be able to step away from power, which she couldn't. Okay. Where was I going after that? There's so much to get to today. I guess we'll go to Donald Trump and terrorists because the Trump agenda, they're very upset about, yes, terrorists and DEI and all of that. This is something something we talked about this a little bit before we got to air. I think we both have the same view on it, which is you tell you say what you're. You can't make me care about tariffs. You cannot make me mad about them. It's not going to happen.

You can scream. You can yell. You're getting it from all sides right now. You're getting this sort of just classically presenting globalists. You're getting Democrats. Obviously, you're getting more libertarian leaning Republicans who wanted sort of anti woke stuff, but not this. And they're all disincentivized to gin up as much hysteria as possible. But it has been 10 years of this now.

And and it just started. It's the beginning of Trump's term. He has a lot of there's a lot of reason for him to kick up a bunch of chaos and create a bunch of leverage and begin some kind of negotiations that I don't know really anything about at this point. And it's okay to just sit down and be like, let's see how it goes. Like, I think that's fine to just take it day by day. I don't know why we have to go to, you know, DEFCON one, as you were saying before. I don't, I agree. It's like, let's just take a chill pill while we can still afford them. Calm down. Just sim the mer, as Bill Hemmer used to say, sim the mer, calm down just sim the mer as bill hemmer used to say sim the mer calm down um they won't but it is interesting to me because trump always says i ran on this and he is doing only stuff he ran on really

everything he's doing is a promise made promise kept yeah this one in particular has been a lifelong issue for trump this clip has been circulating on social media i saw it on x a couple of times and it was back when we still liked Oprah in 1988, when she was still somewhat self-deprecating and likable. Not her billionaire actress self, like, what? With Meghan Markle. What? They wanted to know how dark your baby was going to, what? We don't like that version. However, fat, fun Oprah was great. Thin, bitter, too rich to relate to Oprah is not great. So Oprah had Trump on in 1988 when he was, by my math, 41 years old. Wow. And listen to this exchange.

What would you do differently, Donald? I'd make our allies, forgetting about the enemies, the enemies you can't talk to so easily. I'd make our allies pay their fair share. We're a debtor nation. Something's going to happen over the next number of years with this country, because you can't keep going on losing $200 billion, and yet we let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets and everything. It's not free trade. If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it, Oprah. Just forget about it. It's almost impossible. They don't have laws against it. They just make it impossible. They come over here, they sell their cars,

their VCRs, they knock the hell out of our companies. And hey, I have tremendous respect for the Japanese people. I mean, you can respect somebody that's beating the hell out of you, but they are beating the hell out of this country. Kuwait, they live like kings. The poorest person in Kuwait, they live like kings. And yet they're not paying. We make it possible for them to sell their oil. Why aren't they paying us 25% of what they're making? It's a joke. This sounds like political presidential talk to me. And I know people have talked to you about whether or not you want to run. Would you ever? Probably not. But I do get tired of seeing the country ripped off. Why would you not? I just don't think I really have the inclination to do it. I love what I'm doing. I really like it. Also, it doesn't pay as well. No, it doesn't. But, you know, I just probably

wouldn't do it, Oprah. I probably wouldn't. But I do get tired of seeing what's happening with this country. And if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally because I really am tired of seeing what's happening with this country, how we're really making other people live like kings, and we're not. People are tired of seeing the United States ripped off. And I can't promise you everything, but I can tell you one thing. This country would make one hell of a lot of money from those people that for 25 years have taken advantage. It wouldn't be the way it's been. And you know what's interesting about that clip, among other things? That was 1988 before we decided to really open the floodgates to trade with China.

Yep. And then, of course, by the time he ran in 15, all he was talking about was China. Yeah. Well, he was right. In Silicon Valley, around in 2015, 2016, that was the one thing at that time that you were allowed to talk about. Because you remember, like, Peter was run out of town. You could not talk about Trump at that time.

But you could talk about China. Everybody was already keyed into China. And that was one where it was this thing that you would hear, you know, I don't agree with them on everything, but China, which was very interesting at that time. That was, it was like, he was super, super early to it. And I was just thinking while we were watching that clip, you're right. That was just before the China stuff happened. China just retaliated or they said they were going to retaliate. Yeah. They said, but as of coming to air, they hadn't announced what exactly they're doing. I saw a bunch of things, but the one that stood out the most was they're going after

rare earth metals or they're saying they're going to, what's interesting about that is that is a strategy they've been on for, for decades. Okay. So they're subsidizing their mining facilities and more importantly, their processing facilities. While we have been regulating our processing facilities, our EPA makes it almost impossible to process things over here. People think that rare earth metals means they're like super rare. They're all over. We have them in Texas, in California, in Alaska. We just found a huge store of them in Maine. We can't process them. And this trade stuff actually, like if all, ignore all the other tariffs. There's one thing with China. It really does matter because now

it's being used as a weapon against us because we allowed them to subsidize their industries. And because we didn't tariff in response, because we regulated our own out, they can now hurt us in this way. So yeah, I think on this stuff, he's correct. Yeah. Just getting this in China has responded. China's finance ministry said it will match his plan for 34% tariffs on goods from China with its own 34% tariff on imports from the United States. I mean, literally like we almost send them nothing. That's like, okay, but Trump's not wrong. We import from China so much more than they import from us. They're like, screw you. We don't want to depend on you at all. Here's the second thing. Separately,

China's ministry of commerce said it was adding 11 American companies to its list of unreliable entities, essentially barring them from doing business in China or with Chinese companies. I mean, isn't this good? I anchored a presidential debate at which we were pressing every single candidate up there about whether their companies had done business with China, why they did business with China. Because if you do business with a Chinese company, you're doing business with the CCP. Xi Jinping. Yes, you have to. That's how it works. That's why when we talk about TikTok and we're like, this is a Chinese company, you're run by the CCP. That's how it works when you are doing business in a communist country. And it just, you know, it reminds me like there can all the other tariffs aside again, and I think you almost do have to

decouple them because we're just in the beginning of the negotiations there, but on China for them to be like, you know, we're retaliating in this unprecedented active trade war. Do you know how many tech companies are banned in China? It's like Google, YouTube, Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, like the whole industry, not just tariffed. It's an embargo. They have been waging trade war against the United States, either obviously, or in the case of like the rare earth metal strategy sort of quietly for decades while we've thought like, oh, we're just playing along. And now one person says this is unfair and they're like grasping their pearls. It's like, uh, like when an Islamist blow something up and then everyone says, Hey, like, it seems like there's a problem with Islamism. And they're like, that's, that's, you know, that's violent rhetoric. It's like, well, what about the violence? Then that's

kind of how I feel with the China trade stuff. It's just ridiculous that I have to sit here and take it seriously. I'm excited to see what Trump can do. And I understand people are in, they're feeling uncertain because they rely on their 401ks. You got retirees who are on a fixed income. I get all of that. But I think we just have to hold, just hold the line, hold the line. That's what Trump is asking. I believe that he will do something to watch out for the most vulnerable.

Like last time he did that when certain farmers got hit on his trade and his tariffs in Trump 1.0, I mean, now it was government quote handouts. But if he's going to take away, he's going to have to be in a position to replenish just to get us through the hard period if it gets that bad. Not into government handouts, but my point is like if we's going to take away, he's going to have to be in a position to replenish just to get us through the hard period. If it gets that bad, not into government handouts. But my point is like, if we're going to actively hurt our own farmers, they may need help just to get them through the bridge,

whatever. We'll see where it goes. But I believe he's not just going to let Americans suffer. The whole point of doing this is to make America and Americans prosper. Right. It's to reshore manufacturing is what he says. I think there's like are we doing trade deals or are we reshoring american manufacturing i don't know they're not

they're not antithetical but like i don't know they're the same strategy i'm willing to just sort of wait though and then on the on the you just mentioned something you know you're not into government handouts i agree but this is the complicated piece of the puzzle is that China really is. And so if you're competing on a global stage, you know, and you have China massively subsidizing industry and blocking American industry from competing, what do you do? Like, it's not a fair, it's not like, oh, be a capitalist. Europe is doing the same. Europe, massive, massive fines on American companies. Like that's not a capitalist system. So what is the correct way to navigate if your competitor is massively subsidized by one of the wealthiest countries in the world?

And it's like, I think that I don't think the protectionism stuff is so crazy when that's the terrain. It's just like, I think it's a different set of rules. Well, we have a big, beautiful body of people from whom to buy and sell goods right here in the United States. So, I mean, that's one of his goals. He's not cutting off all trade. He doesn't want to cut off all trade with all foreign countries, but he's playing some hardball. And I heard an assessment on this morning's The Daily from their European correspondent suggesting, look, it may actually end with Europe before it even begins. They'll come to Trump. They'll strike a deal. The Europeans are feckless and have no power and no backbone. I'm sorry, but it's true. It's a lovely place to visit. But I think they will come hat in hand and try to work something

out with him. And Mexico and Canada didn't get this particular round of sanctions or tariffs. They got an earlier round and actually are already changing their behavior. So it's Asia. You know, it's Asia really that we have to watch. And not even all of it. I saw Vietnam also made a bunch of, they've, they changed a bunch of their tariffs around. I don't know. Anticipating this. Yeah. Like who knows what this one is. But they were making a point about Vietnam and these other places, which is when Trump dropped the tariffs on China first time around, China outsourced its manufacturing plants

to countries like Vietnam. They do that in Mexico too. So that they wouldn't be hit by the tariffs we put on China. So they've been doing an end around Trump. And that's why he did a sweeping like, now it doesn't matter if you moved it to Vietnam, we're getting them too. Yeah, I think it's really bad in Mexico

because we have especially great trade deals with Mexico. And so that, yeah, it's like that. I think, listen, I don't, I don't know, again, can't make me care about tariffs. I'm going to just like chill out and see how it goes. I'm caring mildly based on this conversation, but like, that's it mildly. But like, we'll see. I think it's fine to say we'll see. So speaking of the Trump agenda that the left is melting down over tariffs, yes, DEI, gender, you know, you name it. We could spend all day. Coincidentally, reemerges Kamala Harris,

who decided to pop up this week at the Leading Women Defined Summit. What a terrible name for a summit. The Leading Women Defined Summit in California, and had this to say, SOT26. Each day in these last few months in our country. And it understandably creates a great sense of fear. So she's... Because, you know, there were many things that we knew would happen.

We knew. Many things. I'm not here to say I told you so. Kamala Harris, dumb as ever. I mean, she looks drunk to me. She always looks drunk. I mean, I don't want to throw around any crazy charges here, but that's not coherent. Doesn't she always? The thing that's so irritating about her is the way she talks.

She's really sharing something important. I think it's just the wrong context. If she just could have a Bravo reality television show, or she talks about wanting a restaurant in Napa Valley, and she had this whole, that sounds great. I'm here for it. Do that. I would go.

I think she'd be really good at it. I think she's just not good at this. I think this is not the thing for her. I don't know who told her to do this. I feel like there's a person inside of her just who is really fun. And like, I would get drunk with who's dying to get out. And I'm just like, let this woman live her life. Like, why do you she's going to run for governor now?

Like, why are you making her do that? Well, she has until what, June to decide if she's going to throw a hat into that ring or keep her hat out of that ring and potentially just go for the presidential contest next time around. It will be fun to watch. Here's one more from her again, always trying to sound like she's got all the answers. Here she is in SOT 27. Fear has a way of being contagious. When one person has fear, it has a way of spreading to those around them and spreading. And we are witnessing that, no doubt. But I say this also, my dear friends, courage is also contagious. Courage is also contagious.

Courage is also contagious. What is happening is wrong. The courage to say that there is a way that we must chart to get through this. Understanding our power in the democracy we still have if we hold on to it oh my god courage is contagious nothing's being said that okay she said um what's wrong we have to be able to say what's wrong or that this is not right or whatever it is it It's like super vague thing. You're right. Nothing's being said. It reminded me of Cory Booker, his 25 hour, the sort of last stand in Washington where all of the coverage is super glowing. It's like, finally someone is fighting. Someone is standing up against the thing. And there are no particulars about what you're actually fighting for. What are you talking about? You're not saying anything.

Why did you stand there, sir? Why? And that's, I mean, Kamala, why am I I? I'm like I'm like defending Kamala right now. I'm like, because I do think I'm like I'm really rooting for her. But but and she's not in Congress or whatever. But but Corey reminds me of her and they're doing the same thing, which is I don't think they believe in anything. And I don't think they know what they're supposed to say. They just have to sort of peacock strength or something. And, uh, and it's, it's honestly dangerous because what's going to happen is someone like AOC is going to, is going to gain a lot more popularity because she's, I know what she believes in. It's communism. And she says it very plainly and openly. Um, and that's very popular for like the Luigi Mangione left. Yeah. Oh my God. Exactly. Right. Well, I, I don't think she's trying to project strength. I think she's trying to project inspo. I really think she wants to be 1988 Oprah and she thinks she's got the nuggets and that when she delivers them, we're all really going to swoon. And indeed the,

the crowds in front of her try to right out of politeness or just because they've been told by the Democrats, they need to love her. But no one who's watching this on TV feels moved. She's not an inspirational figure. She very soon will fade away. I mean, maybe she'll run for governor of California and win because they're lunatics out there. But there's no way she's going to be president. Yeah, she couldn't lose as a Democrat,

which is why it's interesting. If they're willing to give it to her in California and she runs as a Democrat, I think it's very likely that she'll be the governor. What about the fact that New York City is about to elect Andrew Cuomo as its mayor? So it looks. That seems less crazy to me than Kamala as governor.

But I acknowledge that it's also crazy. I don't like, I get it because there's a paucity of options for New York City mayor who are running. There's no, like there haven't been a ton who've thrown their hat into the ring. And Mayor Adams, while he just lost the indictment against him, thanks to Trump, by the way, with prejudice, the judge insisted that it be dismissed with prejudice. He decided to switch parties and rise as an independent, but he, they're not going to

reelect him. You know, the cozying up that was necessary for him to do with Trump to get the charges dropped is why he can't get reelected as mayor. I think they would reelect a crook, but they're not going to reelect somebody who's cozy with Trump. Right. And so Andrew Cuomo now is 38%, which is what you need. I mean, that's all you need is this divided field to get the damn nomination. And then, you know, I don't remember like the last time we had a Republican, truly Republican mayor, it was, I think Bloomberg had already declared himself an independent when he ran and run. So it was Giuliani with 9-11. It was 25 years ago. So I just, I can't get over the fact that the city is thinking about returning the guy who did what he did to them on COVID. He's, he did it. It was his policies. He doesn't apologize for them. He's not sorry. He's the one who ordered COVID positive patients into all the nursing homes

so that the most vulnerable and elderly amongst us were almost certain to die. And some 15,000 of them did between nine and 15,000, depending on the count. And they're, they're on track to reelect this maniac. Yeah. I think we've just memory holds COVID. I think it's just, it's just a classic trauma response. The whole country wants to forget it. There's no reckoning. You know, it's like this never comes up. Um, did you get vaccinated? I did get vaccinated. Yeah. Yeah. Does it bum you out when you see all these videos with people being like, you're going to die soon from the vaccination? Yeah. I don't know what I think about anything anymore, which is the problem of COVID. That's the great, that's the actual legacy of COVID. We don't talk about it, but we all have evolved because of it. And I don't trust

anyone now. Yeah. To the point where I actually don't know that getting the vaccine was, I don't know how I feel about that. Oh no, I wish I didn't do it. And that's why I'm even reluctant to say it. It's just, that's the legacy. But it didn't make me anti-any vaccine. I told the audience, I got the shingles vaccine. Then I'm very pro that because shingles seems like a hideous condition. And you just get two shots six months apart and then you don't get shingles. And I had the chicken pox when I was little. So you can get painful shingles. No, it's just new things.

I don't want to experiment with new things. I would like other people who want to experiment can experiment. And I'll learn from that. And then I'll decide. But this was a massive experiment that we gave to the entire. I don't want to really speak on this because I'm not a, I don't know. I'm not even a based biologist. I'm not a biologist at all. I'm going to leave that to them. I just know that I don't trust the people who told me I had to do it. And, um, and I have questions,

but I think that's why someone like Cuomo can, can get up there and have a chance because people just don't want to face what happened during COVID because it was too crazy. I mean, locking up playground in New York city, locking up playgrounds kids inside for a year. Um, maybe it wasn't as bad in New York as San Francisco. I don't remember. No, it was, it was just as bad. It was insane. I think it was just, it was just too big. And then to face it is to face what, how you behave during COVID. How many of those people who are voting for him were crazy COVID people who were yelling at people in the street who didn't have their mask on I mean that would happen to me and I got yelled at in New York by some lunatic with a mask that read vote yeah I wonder who they were voting for

yeah I mean outside outside you're not wearing a mask yeah I was outside to get it together but there was a mandate that you were supposed to wear a mask even outside if you weren't able to socially distance I can't remember the particulars of it, but it was absurd. Yeah, I think you're right. We've memory holed COVID. Although I will say some good news on that front this week. Fauci's wife just got fired from the NIH by the Bobby Kennedy crew. So yay, good, goodbye.

She was making almost 300,000 bucks. Do you think that there's a chance? I know that Fauci got pardoned, but now that we have all these books coming up about biden's dementia the cognitive decline um there's the question and it seems increasingly legitimate legitimate trump kicked it in uh into the public sphere that maybe you know he wasn't signing these pardons how real do you think that is the fact that like trump is going to try to undo could he undo it and could fauci i don't think so there's no requirement that a pardon even be in writing and and biden's on the air on camera defending them okay so i don't think there's much there even though i wish

there were because i do think anthony my opinion is anthony fauci started the covid pandemic he funded that gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab. We know that they were studying bat coronaviruses to try to make them more dangerous. What are the odds that that research we funded had absolutely nothing to do with the actual virus? There's been no proof of it, but we haven't looked. I'm well beyond that at this. I think that it was, I mean, I don't want to say it was done on purpose by China, but like Trump was very popular at the end of his term before COVID happened. Very, very popular. The stock market was ripping.

People would not even really, there was no more anti-Trump like derangement. At that point, it was just kind of people had resigned themselves to it. He was going to win. And then there was a pandemic and he lost. And who was being hurt the most by his trade policies? China was being hurt the most by his trade policies. I don't, I mean, I'm just asking. No, being hurt the most by his trade policies. I don't. Yeah. I mean, I'm just asking. No, that's why people call it a pandemic. But I mean, come on. Like,

it just is a little bit too. What? Who would say it's beyond the Chinese? Who would say that? It's definitely not. It's definitely not. It would be smart. It would be within. There's a great book, The Hundred Year Marathon, that talks about the Chinese strategy against America. And then actually, you know, we've been under this kind of secret war with China forever and we just didn't realize it because Westerners think of war in a different way. They're super charismatic. And it's like that Jon Snow, you know,

with a sword facing people. It's like, that's how we think about war and courage and greatness. And the Chinese prize intelligence and strategy and having to, being able to defeat an army without ever firing a bullet. Like these are the stories that you hear about in China. And this is well within that. It's a very smart strategy rather than brute force. Oh, my God. And careless in terms of, you know,

absence of heart or empathy, even for their own people. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's also communism. What a shock. Exactly right. Okay. Speaking of heartless, Kara Swisher, we have an update on Kara Swisher, who we both had thoughts about. Love. One of my muses. Yeah. So she came to middling fame as a tech journalist. I mean, let's be honest. Most people have no idea who she is, um, as a tech journalist. And I told the audience earlier this week, this story, I know you've seen it, about how she and I were friendly, not necessarily friends, but friendly. And then she just did something so despicable around the death of my sister, while we were still friendly. It wasn't like there'd been any

frost between us. She was such an incredible asshole that I completely changed my opinion of her. And I told that story for the first time because she had once again been attacking me. And, um, she responded to it on threads by saying, um, I guess MK discovered I'm an open lesbian. That was her takeaway. What? Of course I knew she was an open lesbian from the moment I met her. By the way, Kara, you're not hiding it. No, it was very clear. I didn't care. Like, I don't know what that was her takeaway. She's she discovered I'm an open lesbian. And then she went on with the even more despicable Don Lemon. She's one of the people, apparently, who watches those four viewers, his YouTube show and, uh, had another comment

because he asked her about it. And here it is. I think I am uncomfortable about the whole thing because I think, you know, I'm like, ugh, should we be jocular? We're starting on the White House correspondence dinner when things are this serious. That's one to, you know, if I run into some people, I feel like there's going to be a beef and then it'll be... You know what I mean? You could be at my back, the two of us. Megan Kelly recently insulted me, as she does to you quite often, by the way, so you're used to it.

But I insulted her right back now. I know, but I don't even speak to her because I think she's flirting with me. That's what I think is happening here. But that's what my wife said. Stop flirting with my wife. Because the things she said were, she takes the balls of tech people. She goes for the jugular. I'm like, Oh, tell me more. Okay. So she, she's suggesting that I have some sort of a romantic affinity for her. Kara, I'm sorry to break your heart. It's a no,

it's a hard no. And if I ever were to embark on a crossover tour on my sexuality, which I haven't in 54 years, it would clearly not be you. It would be like a Jillian Michaels type, like the lipstick lesbian, not you, who looks more like a man, which is, yes, I guess what I'm into, men, but actual men with penises like my husband. This is a sick person. So just to set the stage again, what an incredible fucker. We were friendly. I liked her. I did was nothing but nice to her. She fucking used the death of my sister as this excuse to like she crapped on Abby when she said she can't make your podcast because something personal happened. She decided to say, oh, she's afraid of me. And when Abby had to reveal it was because I'd had a death in the family, she didn't say, she didn't reach out to me and say, I'm so sorry. She just said, oh, well,

I was only joking about her not wanting to be here. Sorry. That, and her response to my telling the story is, oh, she finally found out I'm a lesbian and she's attracted to me. There's something wrong with this person. Well, she's a narcissist. I mean, that's what she's known for in tech is her deranged narcissism. Like the way that she was talking publicly about your podcast or about your, the network that you're doing was, um, you know, I told Megan about podcasts and it was very, very sort of like, I knew nothing about podcasts. I mean, she's not the first, this is not the first time she's done this. I mean, she has this, this, uh, there's this almost position she takes where like she

invented podcasts and it's, it's bizarre. I think that she covered business for so long. I think she really wanted to be one of the business guys and she never was in her media company failed. This is what she had, the red chair that she was in. That was from the recode days. Um, you know, she really wants to cling to this idea that it was this really important thing and maybe it was briefly, but I see her now as, um, she's just another talking head. And how is she viewed in the tech industry with an eye roll? And like, she's sort of a buffoon.

Should I tell you my Kara Swisher? Yeah, I first met Kara. So I met Kara at Peter Thiel's book party. So I still am, but was working for Peter at the time. It was over 10 years ago now. And I'm introduced to her from a mutual friend. She's super short. That's the first thing I know. It's like, she's very small and she has, we're inside, she has sunglasses on and, um, and we talk for whatever, about whatever for, for a moment or two. Um, she looks at me, she's like, you're really smart. And this was, this was great. You're one of the good ones. Um,

we should get coffee. And I was like, oh, okay, cool. Yeah, sure. I'm like young, bright eyed, bushy tailed. Like she is someone who's writing about tech. I'm like, that's interesting. Sure. Kara. Um, do you want my email? And she's like, I'll find you. She walked out. That was the last I ever heard of her until, um, years later I was writing and, uh, she attacked me online, but said, but he was, he's a good writer though. Um, and I loved that. I felt good about that. She probably won't even remember said, but he was, he's a good writer though. And I loved that. I felt good about that. She probably won't even remember that, but I will. Cause I'm a fan.

I mean, she's a very small person, honestly. Like there's something wrong with her because you don't, you don't behave like that. Like, but don't you need a villain? Like she, she, she gives us so many. Yeah. But she's like, she's like a fun one. I mean, she's just easy to beat back against. I mean, she's always saying the dumbest things ever. Um, I find her, I enjoy it. Yeah. Well, listen, I don't think a lot about Kara Swisher,

but she comes for me and how about Don Lemon? Like, and I attacked her back. Okay, guy, I know your 10 little lemon heads really enjoyed it. Like jealous, you're killing it. And they know that it's undeserved and you know, you have the wrong politics. jealous, you're killing it. And they know that. And it's undeserved. And, you know, you have the wrong politics. Um, they're all struggling in the media stuff. It's kind of interesting. You, and I think anyone who's, who's, who's sort of not on the sort of consensus liberal side of things, it came up in a very difficult environment. It was hard to, first of all, put out an opinion. You were always being attacked. So it was hard to first of all put out an opinion you were always being attacked so it was like training under 10x gravity or something when you were giving your opinions and then to have any kind of media anything you had to build it from scratch and um they're used to

the machine just sort of feeding them yes now they're outside of that and they're struggling to gain the audience kara has a bigger audience than i think Don is really struggling. And, um, and I think that they look at you and they're like, you know, what does she have that I don't have? And it's like, well, a career doing this. How much time do you have? Yeah, exactly. And they, they don't even, that's their real problem is they don't even understand what they don't have. So the, um, the Chuck Todd podcast, it's the Todd cast. He just left Meet the Press and NBC and launched a podcast and got this long, glowing profile in The New York Times, among other places that promote him. And even after that, what's the latest number, Debbie? He has a following after again, glowing in The New York Times, a following of 470 subscribers.

Oh, wow. Not 470, a following of 470 subscribers. Oh, wow. Not 470,000, not 4,700. It's so strange, because not all of them are like, like some of them do reasonably well, right? It's like some of them- Look, I'm sure he'll improve. Oh, he's up to 518.

That's my staff and me who were checking it out this morning. We, of course, you know, you start slow and then you build over time, but that's unbelievable. He hosted the meet the press for how many years? And he, he just left. It's not like, you know, when I started my podcast, I'd been off the air for almost three years, two, two plus years. Like he just left MSNBC and the Sunday show and nothing. There are two kinds of people in these machines. He is someone who is, it's like, he's operating on borrowed magic. He's at an

institution and he's benefiting from the brand of that institution. And then you have, um, or you had a person like maybe Glenn Greenwald, who, when he left his company and started his sub stack, he removed all the reason everyone was reading. That's so true. And so all of these places, they, these huge institutions, they, they have people like this who are, um, it's like the power law. Everyone is actually tuning in for this or that person. And if they leave the whole machine is threatened. And those people have never had an easier time now plugging into sort of new, even things like you're a writer, you have sub stack, you can just start right away building a business. Uh, they're going to have a really hard time. All these, these, these huge giants.

Yeah. Yeah. It's a difference between being a platform player, you know, like Don Lemon, it's like only people ever reason anybody ever watched him is because he was on CNN and they had on CNN. And then I'm afraid that same is true for Chuck Todd, a platform player and, and being somebody who has a genuine, powerful connection with their audience. There are a couple of people on Fox news who I think could still do it. Um, I definitely Gutfeld could do it. Jesse waters could do it. But I mean, for the vast majority of news talent, they're platform players. And when they come out into the sharky oceans, they find out it's a lot harder, you know, to, to make it than it looks. looks. And, you know, something I was going to say right now under Trump. Yes. Now the social media For the past five years, they have been censoring everybody right of center on all of our opinions. Only Elon, even Twitter was horrible until Elon, only Elon Musk in the time of war chose

the right side and stood up for free speech. And honestly, it's because of him in large part and all of us who are out there saying the things, even when you couldn't say the things, that we preserved the right to say the things. So like, I'm thrilled that now these other tech companies are being like, okay, you can say the things now,

but I will always look at them as cowards. Right. And it's like, you have it for now. That could change tomorrow. I mean, who knows what's going to happen politically over the next few years. So you have to build up as much as you can now and build up as much cultural power as you can and just get as many email addresses as you can and build your own little castle because you just don't know what's going to happen with the platform. On that, that reminds me, I, I, I need, I do need to remind my audience

to send in your email. We never sell email lists. You don't have to worry about that, but we are trying to get an email list of our subscribers, just in case this happens to us. You, if you would like to do that, please do it. Just go to megankelly.com and you'll see there how to do it. Um, but yeah, cause for that reason, belts and suspenders, like you don't, you never know what big tech could do, what the next administration could bring. But I'm just saying, it's like, you're right. People like those two have been out there with the benefit of, you know, liberally controlled outlets everywhere. It's been ubiquitous around them. And this is why the Snow White story, for example, has been so interesting, right? Like, it's cracking. We've infiltrated even Disney now now we're able to punish the wokest people at an

institution like that with our dollars and our voices in a way we could not have six years ago yeah the snow white thing is phenomenal someone told me uh just before i came on that they they got rid of um they canceled the tangled one yeah yeah yeah like the next live action which is disappointing to me because i was really looking forward to them announcing that it was going to be sort of like a bald Rapunzel. And they were going to do like an like have like an alopecia moment or something. And it's like this is like it was just inevitable. They would have found a way. Yeah. I mean, it's the Snow White thing is a perfect storm. Right. It's I mean, it's you had this obnoxious starring lady. You had the dwarf drama drama which went back and forth you had in both ways you had it being it was like i don't know bigoted against dwarves for having dwarves and then it was it

was bigoted against dwarves for not was the following right backlash that's a can't buy i mean it just never it was it was it was uh it was endless but i think yeah it's like disney's gonna have to figure it out now they have to navigate culture and maybe they just never really knew what culture was because of the platform censorship. Now you can see it. And it says it's very just obvious that people are infuriated by this. They're sharing the story with each other. They don't want it. And so what are you going to make for them, if anything? Now they have to deal with us. It's like there have been a couple of really important moments in getting to this point. And yes, Elon buying X was a huge one. I think conservatives holding the line on Bud Light was another huge one. You know, they got that message loud and

clear. Eventually this Disney thing is important too. It's not as big because we are, we won. Trump has been elected. We're still fighting the woke wars aren't over, but we got our president elected and you know, the DEIs executive orders and so on. But that one was easy because she was so alienating and she just annoyed reasonable people all over the country and probably all over the ideological spectrum. And they've suffered. Yay. Yeah. I don't, I mean, what do you think it, where do you, I guess, where do you think it goes from here? I think we're going to get tired of all the winning, like Trump says. I'm looking forward to getting tired of all the winning right now. I'm not tired. I'm really enjoying it. And I think our biggest problem is to get these judges out of the way so we can let the wins unfold. And that's why the Supreme Court needs to do its job. And that's where we started the era and that's where we end it. Mike, thank you. Thank you for having me.

A pleasure. Mike Solana, everybody. Hope to see you again soon. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.