The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump's Abortion Strategy, and Allegations Against Russell Brand, with David Sacks, Will Witt, and Savanah Hernandez | Ep. 629

Episode Date: September 18, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by David Sacks, co-host of the All-In Podcast, to talk about Trump’s comments on abortion during an NBC interview and pushback he's receiving from the right, what's behind his compromise strategy on the issue, how these issues could impact the election, NBC getting blowback for daring to “platform” Trump, their attempt to justify it on-air, Trump succeeding in hostile interviews, if the left and media will push out Biden from running again, the truth about the impeachment inquiry into Biden and Democrats denying evidence, the issue of Ukraine and how that will play in the election, and more. Then Will Witt, author of "Do Not Comply," and Savanah Hernandez, reporter for Turning Point USA, join to discuss the explosive sexual assault allegations against Russell Brand, how the #MeToo movement has become politicized, the knee-jerk reaction by some on the right to defend Brand without knowing the details,the allegations of a years-long affair between Gov. Kristi Noem and former Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski, hypocrisy from politicians who claim family values but don't practice them, whether the Lauren Boebert video is a big deal, a Democratic Virginia state candidate's public sex acts online, the Senate lowering the dress code so John Fetterman can now wear shorts and a hoodie, and more.Sacks: https://www.craftventures.comWitt: bit.ly/donotcomplyHernandez: https://twitter.com/sav_says_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, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, and happy Monday. The presidential frontrunners on both sides taking incoming. Plus, in just a bit, we're going to get to the Russell Brand story that exploded over the weekend. But we begin with Joe Biden and Donald Trump. A new poll has President Biden down 15 points versus Trump when it comes to independence, while the seemingly coordinated shots against the president continue from the mainstream press. It's getting very interesting. What are they up to? Have they realized he can't win? Is that where they are? Is that why we

continue to see hit piece after hit piece from a press that has been nothing but adoring toward this president? Meantime, Trump is being hammered from the right on COVID, thanks to the interview he and I did on abortion, thanks to an interview he and I did, on abortion, thanks to an interview he gave to Meet the Press over the weekend, and on other issues, including the trans thing. Millions of Americans earn and use credit card rewards. A few big box retailers want to take those rewards away. That's according to the Electronics Payments Coalition, a sponsor of today's episode. Rewards you may use on groceries and school supplies, cash back to save on gas and grow small businesses, and travel miles to make memories.

Well, the so-called Credit Card Competition Act would eliminate credit card rewards. No more travel miles and no more cash back. Visit handsoffmyrewards.com to learn more. And if you want to help them, tell your legislator to stand up to the retail giants and to support consumers and small businesses. Joining me now, David Sachs. He's the co-founder of Kraft Ventures and co-host of the All In podcast. David, welcome back to the show. Good to be here, Megan. Thank you. Okay, so the flack coming Donald Trump's way is coming from the right, from conservatives who are sort of building a steam now about his comments lately on social issues. We'll play what he said to me in just a second on a couple of the issues, but I'll start with the most recent news he made when he sat down with Kristen Welker, who's the new moderator of Meet the Press. Chuck Todd's out. She's in. And she asked him about abortion and tried to sort of tee it up as, you know, isn't it terrible what some states are doing, banning abortion or setting

these six week limits? And they got into a lengthy exchange. We're going to talk about a couple pieces of it. But here's the first one where his substantive comments on where he'd like the line to be and what he would do as president have gotten him some pushback. If a federal ban landed on your desk, if you were reelected, would you sign it at 15? Are you talking about a complete ban? A ban at 15 weeks? Well, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now. Would you sign that? I would I would sit down with both sides and negotiate something and we'll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years.

I'm not going to say I would or I wouldn't. I mean, DeSantis is willing to sign a five week and six week ban. Would you support that? I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we'll come up with a number. But at the same time, Democrats won't be able to go out in six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. Both sides are going to come together and both sides, both sides. And this is a big statement. Both sides will come together. And for the first time in 52 years, you'll have an issue that we can put behind us at the federal level. It could be state or it could be federal. I don't frankly care.

David, this reminds me of it reminds me of this comedian who we used to go to see. He's great. He's at the Comedy Center. His name is Dove Davidson. And the guy used to say, I don't know what it is about Trump. You know, I'd listen to him and I'm like, yeah, OK. But he says, we're going to get rid of Obamacare. And what are you going to replace it with? Something amazing. And I just don't like the way I feel after I'm done listening to it. Why do I feel so bad every time I walk away? This is Trump. Like, it's just everyone's going to be happy. I mean, somehow he's going to find a deal. Everyone's going to be happy on abortion, which is an impossibility. But the right, the Santas, more conservatives who have been pushing for these more restrictive

abortion limits and certainly do like the idea of a federal ban, very unhappy with that answer. What do you make of what he's doing? Well, I think Trump is being cagey here for a reason. I think he's starting to pivot towards the general. And I think he recognizes that the politics of abortion have changed since the Dobbs decision. We've now had referenda in six states basically testing this question of of the popularity of restricting abortion access. It's been they've had referenda in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Wisconsin, and Ohio. In all of them, the anti-abortion side has lost. In one form or another, the electorates of all those states, four of which are pretty deep red

states, two of which are purple states, the Republicans are going to need if Trump or whoever the nominee is is going to get elected in 24. So this question has now been tested. And I think that Trump realizes that the Republicans are going to have to moderate their position somewhat or have to defend a position in the general that's fairly unpopular. So I tend to think that Trump is being cagey here because his political instincts are pretty good on this. I think he he doesn't want to attach himself to a position that's going to become a liability in the general. To me, it's so simple. He should just say it's for years the Republicans wanted it left to the states. I'm the guy you can thank for now having it left to the states. That's where it should stay. We shouldn't have a federal ban because guess what? If Republicans are able to ban it at the

federal level, then Democrats are able to make it legal across the board at the federal level. The federal legislation should not be a thing because even the most pro-life Republicans should be very fearful about what the Democrats could do if they were to have enough votes in the House and the Senate and control the White House. I don't get why it has to be anything more than that. Just say, I think it should be handled at the states. That's how the system was set up. And here's what I would like to see, but I'm not going to interfere with what California wants to do. I guess that's not an acceptable answer. Well, I think you're right, Megan, that for 50 years, the Republican position on abortion was that it was a matter that should be left to the states. And that's why Roe v. Wade needs to be

overturned. But the second that happened and the Republicans got their wish in Dobbs, it seemed like many of them shifted their position to now wanting the federal government to regulate it and to restrict abortion and not leave it to the states. I think this is an area that is rife for Democratic attacks if the Republicans now take this position that abortion should be federalized and banned, again, at the federal level. So I agree with you. I think the right answer for Republicans here is to say that this is not a one size fits all issue, that every state is going to be a little bit different. And ultimately, it's up to the states to decide this. But even within that context, I'll just note that several of these red states that have looked at this question now have voted against the idea of banning or significantly restricting abortion.

So I think even at the state level, the Republicans are going to have to kind of update their messaging on this, or they're going to keep losing elections. In Michigan, which is a purple state, the Republicans got swept across the board there because of the salience of this issue. And I think when Trump says things like the Republican Party is inarticulate on this issue, I think that's what he's talking about. He's basically saying that we need to figure out how to talk about this or we're going to lose a lot of elections. You know, it's kind of interesting because we've had Republicans elected to the White House before. Obviously, Trump was not the first ones who are genuinely conservative, unlike Trump, who is a populist and really spent most of his life as a Democrat.

And they've been they've won. You know, Ronald Reagan was pro-life. He won. George W. Bush was a pro-life. He won his dad. Same deal. We could go down the list. And they they would absolutely have favored a ban, a federal ban, any kind of ban on abortion.

They wanted it outlawed. They're very pro-life. But Roe was in place. And so you could run openly saying that. And I don't think it really rattled most pro-life Republicans. There are pro-choice Republicans, and there are some, or pro-choice Democrats, because they had Roe. So it was like,

it's fine. You can have that as your personal position. And I know you're going to do things around the edges that I might not like, but the fundamental right is not going to go away. Well, now it's gone. Now Roe, which was a terrible decision, was rightfully overturned. And now it is back at issue. And so you're raising a good point that you do, as the Republican candidate, find yourself maybe in a bit of a different position in saying where you stand on this than all those other guys I just mentioned. Yeah. I mean, so Andrew Breitbart once said that politics is downstream of culture. And the reality is that Republicans have not convinced the culture or the country on this issue. And you look at opinion polling, it's about a 60-40 country in favor of not unlimited abortion, but having abortion be

available. And I just think that if Republicans get too far ahead of the politics of this without convincing the public, they're simply going to lose a lot of elections. I mean, I think that's the reality of it. I think the politics of this have changed since Dobbs. Like you're saying, it was more of a theoretical issue before Dobbs. When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, Republicans could basically take a more direct pro-life position. You could argue that it actually benefited them because the 40-ish percent of the country that identified as pro-life was more motivated than the 60% who identified as pro-choice. But I think now that's changed. And I think the pro-choice side is very motivated because they see it as a real issue now. It is a real issue at the state

level. So I do think the Republicans are going to have to update at least their messaging, if not their position on this, if they want to win elections. And again, I just think that Trump's instincts on this are pretty good. And I'll just note that whenever Trump opposes GOP groupthink, because he has a history of doing not just on abortion now, but he did this on immigration in 2016. He did this on Paul Ryan's entitlement cuts. Remember this? Way back in 2016, saying the Republicans should absolutely not go there. We'll get slaughtered if we try to cut Social Security or Medicare. He said that's a really stupid idea on China trade, opposing free trade and the GOP. He has a history of opposing GOP groupthink. And in every case, he's been proven right. And just on the politics of it, I think he has a strong intuitive level understanding

of where the country is on these issues. And I think he'll be proven right about this one as well. This is a very interesting discussion. I was on with Glenn Beck earlier saying, I think Trump has always been a little bit more liberal on social issues because he has been a Democrat most of his life. He's, he's from New York city. Everyone here is socially liberal. I mean, that's just how New York is a very, very small pocket of people who are socially conservative. And Trump was not among them for most of his life. You know, he was on Howard Stern years ago talking about partial birth abortion and not going, not like not condemning it in, in, in clear terms. Um, oh, he's changed now. I believe he's changed to some extent on some of these issues, but my point is, you know, I think his sensibilities are a little bit more, uh, in the center, but I will say this, um, the American public,

this is where they are as of, well, I, the latest polls I have are from April. Okay. Wall Street Journal, national poll, April, 2023. Do you favor or oppose banning all abortions after six weeks with the rape, incest and life exceptions? So the six week ban that it was enacted, let's say in Florida, um, 53% oppose making it that limited 41% support making it that limited. 41% support making it that limited. When you get into the parties, Republicans overwhelmingly favor it. 68% of Republicans do favor a six-week ban with those exceptions. So maybe that cost Trump with the Republican primary voters, but he's so far ahead. You're probably right. He's making a calculated decision. He can, he can spare it. You know, it's, it's fine. It might take a little hit, but he can spare it, uh, and play more towards the general. Then you look a little bit more, uh, NPR, PBS,

NewsHour, Marist poll, same timeframe, April, 2023. Uh, do you, which one of these statements comes closest to your opinion on abortion? Uh, let's see any time within six months, only 34% said that though, 58% of Democrats said so. And only 27% of independents said up to six months is okay. At most within the first three months, 66% said, yes, that describes me. And that includes, um, 42% of Democrats, 86% of Republicans and 73% of independence. So saying it's okay within the first three months is an acceptable position across all three groups. That's basically what he said. I mean, if you listen to the full exchange, he kept going on and say, these Democrats are insane who are pushing the six,

seventh, eighth, ninth months, um,, time frame. And I think we're sort of going to land around 15 weeks. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, so if you look at the way that this issue shook out in Europe, for example, the way that most countries in Europe deal with it is that abortion is broadly legal in the first, call it 12 to 15 weeks. In the second trimester, there are restrictions, but you could call it exceptions, exceptions, rape, incest, life for the mother, things like that. And then in the third trimester, it's basically illegal, except for the most extreme exceptions. I think that probably we're headed for a regime like that in

the United States. I think the United States is a more religious country than the most of the European countries. So I think it could be a little bit stricter. But broadly speaking, I think that is where Western populations kind of shake out on this issue. And I think the big change since Dobbs is that I think that when this issue was preempted by the Supreme Court, you know, everybody talked in terms of rights. You were either pro-life or pro-choice. And when you frame the issue that way in terms of rights, you tend to take a more absolutist stance. But when the issue now is dealt with by legislatures, it stops being about these abstractions and it starts being about very tangible things like the number of weeks. I think Trump is basically right here when he said

that, look, this all comes down to the number of weeks and we need to figure out a compromise on this. We need to figure out a consensus. And then we're going to largely put this issue behind us. I don't think it's going to be quite that simple. I don't know how easy it's going to be to find a consensus. And there might be a different consensus in different states. But I do think that this issue, again, is going to stop being about sort of absolutisms, about legal abstractions, and it's going to start being about messy compromises in terms of number of weeks. Meanwhile, we have spent a moment on the dishonesty of the reporter questioning Trump about abortion. I mean, it was glaring to anybody who pays attention to

this who's not completely driven by an agenda. So Kristen Welker tries to cross examine Trump on what the Democrats stance is and has been. He pushes back correctly. But watch this exchange. The Democrats that say after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, seven months, and even after birth, you're allowed to terminate the baby. I'm saying that I just have to. Democrats are not saying that. Of course, they do. You have a Virginia governor, previous governor, who said after the baby is born, you will make a determination. And if you want, you will kill that baby. The baby is now born.

Democrats writ large are not talking about that. Only 1% of late term abortions happen and always in this state. They are the radical people. I said with Hillary Clinton, when we had the debate, I made a statement, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month. You're allowed to do that and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. Again, no one is arguing for that. That's not a part of anyone's platform, Mr. President. The Democrats are able to kill the baby after birth. Let me

talk to you. Nobody wants that. Democrats don't want that. 100% untrue. That is not true that Democrats don't want that. There's a long list of Democrats who would love to see abortion legalized all the way through the ninth month. Ron DeSantis' team put this out a couple of weeks ago after this came up in the press. Watch, just look, here's some on cam. Do you support any restrictions on abortion? I don't. I've always believed- Even in the third trimester? Do you think there should be any limitation on abortions? No, I do not. Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth,

she has physical signs that she is about to give a birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? My bill would allow that, yes. Do you believe that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment of birth? Look, I think that that happens very, very rarely. But at the end of the day, I believe that the decision over abortion belongs to a woman and a physician. My question was about any limits to abortion at any point, you know, late term, anything. You got to leave it up to the to the woman.

Up till now, my understanding is there wasn't a limit on when in pregnancy a woman could receive an abortion. Have you set any limit? There are no limits. There are no limits. And just to add to that, David, National Review did a fact check of this recently. And here's what they said. Several Democratic senators, including John Fetterman, Bernie Sanders, Ben Cardin, openly admit that they oppose any legal limits on abortion. You heard two of them in that butted stop montage at any point in pregnancy, at any point, which is the position of a majority of Democrat voters. Colorado explicitly allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any

reason whatsoever. The Atlantic recently profiled a Colorado abortionist who admitted that most of the abortions he performs later than 21 weeks target the physically healthy babies of physically healthy mothers. Most of his third term abortions are of physically healthy babies to physically healthy mothers. So it's not for the life of the mother. The baby's fine. There's no catastrophic physical deformity or life chances. Many more blue states, Maryland is a good example, effectively have the same policy as Colorado because of broad exceptions allowing late term abortions for mental health of the mother. That's the catch-all exception that completely allows abortions all the way through. Delivery. In 2022, every Democrat in

Congress, except for two, voted for a federal bill that would create a national right to post viability abortions whenever a lone health care provider determines it is necessary, again, to protect the mother's mental health. So that's all the way up to the end of the ninth month of pregnancy, as long as you can get one health care provider to say the mother's mental health really does justify it. So the reporter is full of it. This is happening in a lot of these blue states. And this actually is why a lot of Republicans are like, we got to have a federal ban. Again, we've already talked about that. But the dishonesty of the press makes itself apparent virtually every day, David. Yeah, I mean, I think that both Trump

and the DeSantis campaign are right to want to frame the issue this way. I mean, just broadly speaking, the polling on this shows that about half the country is somewhere in the middle on this. They don't want to see abortion being unlimited to the ninth month. But on the other hand, they don't want to ban either. About, call it 20 to 30% of the country favors either the total pro-life or total pro-choice position. So the side that's going to win on this is the one that's able to convince that vast center of the country that they're on their side. And that's really the trick here is to move to the center first in a way that gets the rest of the country on board. So again, I think that- Is that possible with Trump? Do we think that's possible with

Trump? Well, I think that's what he was trying to do in that interview. I mean, again, he was being... Yes, but do you think... Is Trump... Are people open-minded to Trump? I mean, I will say, as I said in the lead, the latest polls show him up 15 over Biden with independents. You win the majority of Republicans,

and then you win 15 points with independents. You win the presidency. Well, this is the conundrum of Trump, I think, is that on the one hand, he's got more personal baggage or legal baggage than any other candidate. On the other hand, I think he's still showing that he's got the best political instincts, probably in the Republican Party, for example, on this highly contentious issue. And he's done it before, like on immigration, on trade, on Bush's forever wars, on Paul Ryan's entitlement cuts. Again, whenever Trump bucks the GOP groupthink on an issue, he's been proven correct about it. So I tend to think his political instincts on this are correct. I think they're very good. And if politics comes down to issues,

then I think it serves Trump. On the other hand, again, he's got all this personal baggage, got all this drama around him. There's sort of this cloud of chaos that follows him. And, you know, at the end of the day, I don't know which side of that voters are going to come out on. I'm going to get to his other social issues that are in the news right now. But first, I've got to spend a moment on the backlash to meet the press for, quote, platforming Donald Trump. I went through this when I was at NBC for, quote, platforming Alex Jones. It was absurd, like as if you can only interview Mother Teresa. That's it. That's OK. There was a complete meltdown. The left calling for a boycott of meet the Press, of Kristen Welker, saying she sold her soul and

no one will ever watch her again. And NBC, in typical cowardly tail between the legs, I don't use the P word, but it's P word fashion, decides to provide cover for her, David, by not just having her, like a grownup, go out there on the air and say, this is why I aired it. This is why we interviewed President Trump. You know, this is why we thought it made sense. They bring on Peter Baker of The New York Times, you see, because the lefties will listen to The New York Times providing Kristen Welker with absolution. And here's how that went. We have gotten criticism for just sitting down with former President Trump.

He is the former president. He's facing four indictments as journalists. Just set the scene, the backdrop, why there is still news value, value for the public to hear from him. Well, this is a huge challenge for American journalism, of course, right? It cannot be that a person can run for president of the United States, be a frontrunner in his party and possibly win without ever being challenged by a tough independent interviewer. And that's, I think, an important part of our system. Now, obviously, the challenge for us, because he is just going

to spout out one thing after another, and fact-checking in real time is a real hard thing. But what you've done here is edit it and make sure people understand what's real and what's not. Oh, my Lord. First of all, she's not independent, not not even close. She works for NBC News. This is a leftist interviewer. But platforming should be a no brainer. The guy is probably going to be the GOP nominee for president, David. Yeah, that's right. I mean, the same thing happened when CNN did that town hall with with Caitlin Collins moderating. I mean, they basically invite Trump into the lion's den. You make no mistake. It's not just the moderator who's up against Trump. They've got the entire

studio and all the producers in the earpiece feeding her lines to basically, you know, try and get Trump. And, you know, the thing about Trump is that he just seems uniquely good at dealing with these types of situations. I mean, the more hostile the interviewer, the better he does. And so when their best laid plans don't work out, then they start wringing their hands and saying, why did we bring him on? It basically redounded to his benefit. This is the second time that's happened. That's their nightmare scenario. Yeah. I mean, remember, they were talking about firing Caitlin Collins for that town hall because supposedly she didn't do enough job getting Trump. I mean, the, they were talking about firing Caitlin Collins for that town hall because supposedly she didn't do enough job getting Trump.

I mean, the same things happened here. There's just something about Trump. He is preternaturally good about dealing with these hostile interviewers. This is best format. And I think that in your interview with him, that the more you know, those segments where you challenged him, I thought that those were the best, most interesting segments. And then in interview, you know, other interviews I've seen where the interview just kind of lets him talk, he kind of rambles. He's just not as sharp and concise. So I think he's just uniquely good at these formats. And and then, you know, again, when it goes horribly awry, the liberal media

starts wringing their hands and wondering why they did it. Right. And I'm like, OK, you could keep him underground for the next year and a half. You know what that's going to lead to? Victory. Victory. I mean, it's not going to help them to only allow Trump to go out there at his rallies and talk to mostly friendly interviewers like it's it's not going to help them either way, because he's very camera friendly. He drives ratings. People love the entertainment of Trump, even if they don't much like him or want to vote for him. In any event, yeah, you can feel the panic. It's the media's job. It's the media's job to challenge these candidates. I mean,

the real question here is not why they're having Trump on the show. It's why they are not interviewing Biden. Where is Biden? Why are they letting him hide? Are they going to let him run another basement campaign? I guess this time it will be done from the Rose Garden. But still, I mean, the question is not why are they interviewing Trump? It's why aren't they interviewing Biden? Well, they requested Biden and he said no. And, you know, I mean, we have not requested Biden because we know the answer is no. They won't talk to us at all. It's just absurd. So you've got to I mean, it's got to be somebody like an NBC or The New York Times. Somebody's got to get in his face and throw hard questions at him or we're never president

basement is never going to surface. So, you know, kudos to Trump for doing it with what he knows is in her case, adversarial media. Now he's also taking hits, um, by team DeSantis and some of the more conservative media for some of the answers he gave me in our interview, which we aired last Thursday in particular on COVID and on the trans issue. Since we're on social issues, we'll stay with, we'll start with the trans issue. Since we're on social issues, we'll start with the trans issue. Let's play the soundbite. Can a man become a woman? In my opinion, you have a man, you have a woman. I think part of it is birth. Can the man give birth? No, no. Although they'll come up with some answer to that also.

Someday I heard just the other day they have a way that now the man can give birth. No, I would say I'll continue my stance on that. Already, DeSantis has got an attack ad out on that. He's been very, very clear. No is the answer. And I have to say, I agree with DeSantis. The answer is no. It's pretty clear. It's pretty, pretty obvious. I don't know why Trump answered it the way he did. He did say he favors bans on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. So good. He did say he was anti-trans people serving in the military. I mean, we've seen that turn into drag queen shows. So I would say again, good. And he did like he he said now he sees the issue of bathrooms,

locker rooms, prisons and all that. He sees that differently than he did in 2016. And he's against men claiming that they're trans appearing in those women's spaces. But on that critical question, he hedged a little, David. So what do you make of it? It's hard to say. I mean, I think that I think Trump here is uncomfortable, clearly, with kind of being hardcore on this issue. You know, he is willing to be hardcore on other issues. This one, he's he's

temporizing a little bit. And I, I think, I mean, at the end of the day, I think he basically gave the answer that was acceptable to the Republican base. But you're right that he he doesn't want to come across as being, you know, too, too hardcore on this particular issue. You know, it might. Well, you know, I think it may be that he doesn't want to be accused of being intolerant. It may be the fact that he, like you said, he was friends with. I know. I mean, maybe this is a kinder, gentler Trump. You know, it may be the fact that he's friends with Caitlyn Jenner. I mean, he talks about how he was friends with Bruce Jenner and then became Caitlyn.

He said that. Very attractive man. Yeah. You know, so it could be on that level. I think that I thought that was interesting. You know, one of the things he said in the context of both trans and COVID is that this was a very new issue at the time that we were dealing with it. I gave him. But, you know, today in 2023, it's very clear. I mean, it's very clear we have a serious problem on our hands. I mean, I really hope we hear him evolve to a much stronger answer on that. I hope the vast majority of Republicans are where I am on this issue. And I mean, maybe he doesn't care, but

I think he's with us. I think he's going to vote the way we want him to vote. But I would like him to get stronger on this because we need strong leadership on this, which to push back against the, you know, the, the nutcase activists who are trying to shove these men in women's prisons. And they're winding up raped by these lifetime sex offenders who two seconds ago were living as men. And then they say they're women. so they can get, I mean, it's just absurd. Anyway, he did give the right answer on that. Just not sort of enthusiastically. One questioned whether his heart was in it. Okay, then the COVID stuff. The DeSantis team is having a field day with his answers on COVID. Here's a bit of why. You actually gave him a presidential

commendation before he left office. Wouldn't you like a do-over on that? I don't know who gave him the commendation. I really don't know who gave him the commendation. Presidential commendation. I know. Somebody probably handed him a commendation. But Ron DeSantis was under a lot of pressure, especially given the population, the age of a lot of Florida's citizens.

I'm not trying to blame anybody. But he should say, I closed it down. Eventually we opened it, but I closed it down. But I gave him the right to keep it open. If he wanted to, I let the governors make the determination as to whether or not to close it down. Operation Warp Speed, though, that was on the vaccines. They were rushed through.

They have helped but also hurt a lot of people. And your White House actually supported mask mandates. So wouldn't you like a do-over on any of that? Look, when this came in, nobody knew what the hell it was. It's some friends of mine that are Democrat. I think they voted for me, but they're Democrat. Very smart people, tough people. They say, you know, I don't understand one thing.

Why don't you talk more about the vaccine? It was one of the greatest things you've ever done. They said, you might have saved 100 million people, 50 million people. Why aren't you talking about it? I'm not talking about it. I never got, I think, the credit that I deserve. Now, this is an issue where there's a very clear divide between Trump and DeSantis. DeSantis was an anti-lockdown, anti-mandate

when it came to the vax or the masks warrior. Yes, he shut down Florida for a brief period. And while Trump in his interview with me said that he never shut anything down, there's all sorts of clips around the internet with Trump saying, I shut it down, I shut it down, I shut it down. So he took credit for it. He also took credit for Fauci. He ran ads showing himself with Fauci. You know, that's it's up to Ron DeSantis to fact check him on Ron DeSantis' record. You know, I'm not there to defend Ron DeSantis, but it's very clear these two do not have the same record when it comes to COVID. And the DeSantis team clearly sees an opportunity here, David, to exploit that difference.

Well, I agree with the DeSantis camp on this. I mean, I think DeSantis did an excellent job on COVID. He figured out the correct answer on all these policies before anybody else did. He ultimately bucked the Trump administration. And DeSantis is correct that Trump should have fired Fauci. He certainly should have given him a commendation. So I think the DeSantis is correct that Trump should have fired Fauci. He certainly shouldn't have given him a commendation. So I think the DeSantis camp has a lot of good points to make on this. In terms of Trump's answers to you, Megan, I guess, what's he going to say? I mean, he doesn't really have a great answer on any of these points. I think his answer on the commendation for Fauci was basically to say, I didn't do it. Somebody else did it. I don't know who. It's not a great answer, but there's no better answer than that. And then I think his answer on the commendation for Fauci was basically to say, I didn't do it. Somebody else did it. I don't know who. It's not a great answer, but there's no better answer than that.

And then I think his answer saying, we didn't know what the hell it was. What he's basically saying is, look, cut me some slack. We're dealing with this really new issue. At the end of the day, I think that most of the Republican base knows that Trump could have done a better job on COVID, that DeSantis did do a better job on COVID. And the question is whether they're going to cut him the slack that Trump is asking for. launch on what was then Twitter spaces now X seemed like you were supportive of him or is it just supportive of any Republican? Well, I'm definitely not supportive of any Republican. I'm supportive of DeSantis. I'm actually supportive of Vivek now as well. Look what happened. I brought you two together. I said, give it time. And it worked. Yes. No, I've come around on Vivek. We've had a little bit of a love-hate relationship.

It started with hate, with the debate that we did on your show. I then began to watch his social media posts and sort of begrudgingly admired his social media game. And then he kind of flipped me into the love column with his position on Ukraine. So I think Vivek is great now. And I think it's too soon. I'm taking full credit for this. I'm taking 100 percent of credit. Go back and check the record. I brought them together.

I said you'll learn to love. I've kind of gone the other way, but it's not that I don't like Vivek. It's that I'm kind of pissed off at him right now for a couple of things. But he can win me back. I'm still open pissed off at him right now for a couple of things, but he can win me back. I'm still open-minded. Keep going. Well, so for me at the end of the day, look, I think it's too soon to be shutting off debate and alternatives within the Republican Party. We're still four months away from the first vote in the primary. And for me, the most important issue is ultimately the candidate's position on Ukraine.

Are you going to continue escalating this war until we take the risk of being in war three? Are you going to deescalate the war and find an opportunity for peace? To me, that is the litmus test this year. I think that the differences between Republican candidates on that issue dwarf the differences on all of these other issues. The differences between Republican candidates, even the more establishment ones on domestic issues, they're relatively, again, relatively small. But the differences on this war are huge. Pence, Christie, Haley, they want to escalate it. Their only criticism of Biden is that he hasn't done enough fast enough. I mean, again, Biden's position is

we're going to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes. And that's not enough for these neocon Republicans. And then on the other side of it, you've got Trump, DeSantis and Vivek all to one degree or another saying that we need to escalate this and find peace. That to me is the dividing line between an acceptable Republican and an unacceptable Republican. Look, I think my perfect candidate would combine DeSantis' executive abilities, Vivek's social media game, and Trump's television skills. That would be the perfect Republican candidate. That sounds like you. You should run. Not exactly. But in any event, you don't get that kind of choice in practice. So for me, I think, you know, I'm willing to support anyone, any Republican who at the end of the day is acceptable on this question of really war three.

I would vote for you in a New York minute. Stand by. We're going to come back with how we have more evidence now of the Dems starting to abandon Joe Biden. Getting very interesting. I mentioned it a couple of times here that we now have a poll showing Trump up 15 among independent likely voters, which is what we are supposed to be paying attention to. This is a CBS News poll released on Sunday, 4,000 plus U.S. adults, which is a pretty decent size sample. And then you've got similar results from a Harris X poll last week, independents backing Trump over Biden. More narrowly there, 38 to 36, 25% saying they're undecided, but 15 points up is huge. This is the New York Times. David has another piece out today entitled Democrat Top Democrats. Bullishness on Biden 2024 collides with voters worries.

And they reference James Carville saying Biden's got a problem. The voters don't want this. And that's in poll after poll after poll. You can't look at what you look at and not feel some apprehension here. And they cite Democratic voters like James Collier saying he would like Mr. Biden to clear the way for a new generation that could energize the party's base, saying he's a little, wait, not a little, he's a lot old. And I'm hoping he would, in his own mind, think, I need to sit this out and let someone else do this. This is on top of what we discussed on Friday. CNN doing a fact check, an in-depth fact check on all of his lies.

We've seen other pieces now. We saw David Ignatius at the Washington Post saying neither he nor Harris should run. So there seems to be some momentum building behind the get him out of here. Do you think there's any hope of that? I think Democrats are doing a gut check right now on whether he's really their candidate. I mean, I think he does have huge liabilities. It's really unclear that he can make it all the way through a vigorous campaign. I mean, clearly, they're not going to run the type of campaign where he does a lot of media appearances or campaign appearances. I guess the question is

whether they can do a Rose Garden campaign where it's basically the basement strategy all over again, except they trot them out to the microphones, call it once a week to denounce Trump. I think, again, they're doing this gut check because Biden is weak. And I think that for Biden to win, he's got to fade a few pretty big risks over the next year. I think one of them is an economic recession. There's still a significant chance that we won't have a soft landing. The second one is the Ukraine war is going very badly. The counteroffensive has failed. The losses are catastrophic. I think there's a significant chance that this war goes south in a big way over the next year. And then, of course, you've got all

the corruption scandal. If anything more comes out there, it could be very damaging. So I think there are a lot of risks to a Biden candidacy. But at the end of the day, I think that Democrats would probably just unite around him because there's not a clear alternative. And, you know, it's a funny thing. I mean, the vast majority of the American electorate say they don't want a Biden Trump rematch. And yet it's probably what we're going to get. It's unthinkable and yet somehow inevitable at the same time. The line of there's no evidence, there's no evidence, there's no evidence has clearly gone out to the mainstream media, which marches according to orders. I mean, it's crazy how they just are so lazy. They don't, I mean, I realize it gets, trust me, my eyes glaze over

when I'm neck deep in Victor Shoken, the prosecutor, and what date the investigation into Burisma and the head of it started and who weighed in and what did the European Union say? But I do it. I do it for my audience because I'm in news and this is the business we've chosen. Different story over on ABC where on Sunday, Jonathan Karl hosted Representative Nancy Mace, who was there happy to educate the guy if only he would listen. Watch this. Was this premature going all the way with an impeachment inquiry? I don't believe so. The facts are everywhere. There are text messages, there are emails, there are witnesses, there are whistleblowers, there are meetings,

there are phone calls, there are dinners. We're talking about a significant sum of money. We are talking about bribery. And in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 4, that is the basis for impeachment. There's no evidence connected. It was the fourth estate. It was the media and journalists when Nixon was going down that helped do that investigation, helped bring down the president when he broke the law. And you guys want to deny that there's evidence. It's everywhere. And the bank records will prove it out. All right, we will see. I haven't seen much yet.

I haven't seen much yet and absolutely no interest in actually taking a look because they're all against this impeachment. They're writing about how wrong it is and how there's no evidence. Yeah, I mean, they keep redefining what no evidence means. I mean, remember that Biden himself first said

that he had no involvement and no knowledge of Hunter Biden's business dealings. Then we find out from Devin Archer's testimony, sworn testimony, that Biden was the brand. I mean, he called in to 20 of these client meetings to let them know that Hunter had access. We also know that back in 2014, when he was vice president, Biden approved this Maidan coup or revolution, however you want to frame it, that deposed the democratically elected government of Ukraine. That's what started all of our problems there. And three months after he did that, Hunter Biden was added to the board of Burisma.

I mean, that is a pretty outrageous conflict of interest. And if you go back, I've looked at this going back to 2008. When Obama added Biden to the ticket in 2008, there were questions even back then about the connection between Joe and Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden had worked for credit card companies as a consultant when Joe was the floor manager in the Senate of credit card legislation. And these concerns were sort of brushed off back then. But if you're Joe Biden, you're vice president, and you're in charge of the Ukraine portfolio for the Obama administration, and you've already been questioned about the conflicts of

interest with Hunter, why in the world would you allow Hunter to take that board seat on Burisma? In other words, Joe didn't discourage his son from avoiding the conflict of interest. The Biden family ran towards that conflict of interest. And then you have the admission around Shokin, which is that Biden used his leverage to get the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired. Now, what was Biden's basis for that? He says that he did that because this prosecutor was corrupt. But the only thing that changed when Shoken was fired is that the investigation into Burisma stopped. So the whole thing seems very shady to me. There's a ton of smoke here. And I think it is the kind of thing that should be looked into, preferably by the media. But the media is not really doing it. So

the Republicans are doing it. It's amazing because there was a plan to approve this aid to Ukraine that had been settled upon. It had been settled upon by state, by treasury, by the Obama Biden administration. And the person who seems to have changed the plan late in the game was Joe Biden, inexplicably and to the surprise of people within the State Department who had already approved the aid and said they've done enough to fight corruption to deserve it. And he was the one who said no after speaking with his son. OK, they never discussed business. Oh, sure. OK. I mean, I guess we have to have it on tape for the Democrats to not smell any smoke here whatsoever. Well, why did Joe Biden change

it single handedly? And what was it that changed his opinion? Right, exactly. And why was he corresponding with his son under pseudonyms and aliases like the name Robert Peters? I mean, is that the way you normally talk to your child about matters that have nothing to do with business or corruption? With respect to the Shokin case, the question that reporters should be asking Biden if they wanted to do their job is, you said at a talk at the Council of Foreign Relations that you got this guy fired because of corruption. Who told you that he was corrupt? What exactly did you think corruption meant in that context? Because the only thing that changed

after you got him fired was that they stopped investigating Burisma. So there's a real disconnect there. If Biden wanted to pursue corruption in Ukraine, why wouldn't he have encouraged the Burisma investigation? So these are the types of questions the media should be asking Biden, but they never do. I mean, if you just look through the history, and John Solomon's done amazing reporting on this, you've got Hunter joining the board of Burisma in April, 2014, uh, in February of 2015. So this is about a year before he gets fired. Shoken is elevated to the office of the prosecutor general during an ongoing international investigation focused on corruption, uh, surrounding Burisma. So Burisma was already

being investigated as of February, 2015, even though some Dems now deny that it was under, underway September of 15, the Interagency Policy Committee, a task force created to advise the Obama White House on whether Ukraine was cleaned up enough on the corruption front to warrant more aid, assured them that Prosecutor Shokin had made sufficient progress to warrant the guarantee of $1 billion. Okay, that was September of 15, November of 15. Vice President Biden called then Ukrainian president to reiterate that the U.S. is willing to provide that one billion dollar loan. November of 15, sometime in late 2015, starts the pressure. Burisma's

corporate secretary pushing Hunter Biden, deliver help, get it, get him off of our back, get him off the back of our founders, Lochevsky. And in late 2015, the removal of this prosecutor who was looking into Burisma suddenly became a condition of the $1 billion loan guarantee. So said Vice President Biden. There are questions to be answered and no one's asking him who has access. David, great to see you. Thanks, Megan. We'll be right back with our Gen Z panel. And now we have an excellent Gen Z panel to discuss some of the biggest stories in media and politics today, including the new Russell Brand allegations that broke over the weekend

and the alleged affair between South Dakota Governor and Republican darling Kristi Noem and former Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski. Joining us now, Savannah Hernandez, reporter for Turning Point USA and writer for The Post Millennial, and Will Witt, editor-in-chief of The Florida Standard and author of the brand new book, Do Not Comply, Taking Power Back from America's Corrupt Elite. Welcome to the show, both of you. Great to have you here. I'm curious because I don't, Turning Point is a little bit more supportive of Trump. And I know, Will, you've been supportive of DeSantis. Love to get your quick take, both of you guys on in the wake of my Trump interview and Kristen Welker's Trump interview and the

considerable DeSantis pushback, how you guys are seeing the race and the candidates right now. Will, I'll start with you as more of a DeSantis guy. Yeah, well, I talked about this yesterday online. And for me, I've always been a very pro-life person when it's come to the conservative movement. And now so being baptized Christians about two years ago, being pro-life is even more so important to me. And it's kind of like the old adage, you know, a man could gain the world, but what does he get if he loses his soul in the process? And, you know, we can talk about, yeah, we do a 15-week ban or a six-week ban and we'll win elections by doing this. We'll have kind of this big tent conservatism. But I found Trump's comments on it abhorrent.

I mean, he couldn't even say that he would support a 15-week ban. You know, and who came up with the standard for a 15-week ban? You know, these children, they have heartbeats in the womb. They are being developed. These are not clumps of cells. These are children. And so for me, I cannot sacrifice my integrity to say, oh, I want to win an election more than, you know, stand for the sanctity of life.

And so I found Trump's comments on that pretty disheartening. So, you know, not there hasn't been one Republican candidate who's come out really and said, you know, zero tolerance for abortion, maybe Mike Pence. But according to Trump, he's flip flopping on this. So it's not like any of them are zero tolerance for abortion like I would like. But I just I think we need to expect better from our candidates when it comes to this and not be looking at this big tent type of conservatism. What do you think, Savannah? Yeah, thank you so much for having me, by the way, Megan. It's an honor to be here. And, you know, it's funny because you mentioned Turning Point USA. You mentioned them being really supportive of Donald Trump. But one of the things I have appreciated about that organization

is that they have allowed me to have my own political views. And I've always been a supporter of Donald Trump. But I also disagree with a lot of his politics. And his comments regarding abortion are some of those that I do disagree with. Now, I do a lot of reporting on the homeless and drug crisis surrounding America. And I think that the reason why the drug crisis has gotten so out of hand

and why we have people that are rotting in the streets that are essentially left to their addictions is because we don't have any respect for the sanctity of human life. And I think that does start in the womb. So I don't agree at all with Donald Trump's statements. Granted, I do think that he is still the candidate who has the most energy behind him, especially with all of the indictments he's being faced with. I still do think he has a lot of that energy. And he does speak for a lot of Americans. DeSantis just doesn't have the charisma. I'm going to be honest, Will, I know you like him. I'm sorry to say it. But I do think that when it comes to the charisma needed, the energy needed,

the fight needed for 2024, and for where our country is currently at, Donald Trump does bring that. So again, don't agree with the comments at all. And it's something that we should call out. And I don't think that we should be electing politicians because they are perfect people, because no man is perfect. But And one of them was, um, I'm, I'm very good friends with the president of Mexico. He's a socialist, but you can't have everything like Jesus, references that just sort of make you laugh. Anyway. Um, we'll see he's, he's crushing it right now. And his numbers are only going in one direction. And we'll see whether any of these interviews change that at all. Um, I really want to get into, I mean, it's like an R-rated back half hour today because the number of scandals that I want to go over with you two, I didn't mean to

make this like love line with Adam Carolla and, you know, Drew, Dr. Drew, but I do think there's kind of a thread through all the scandals that we're about to discuss. And while I generally try to avoid this stuff because it just feels unseemly and I don't I have no wish to probe people's personal problems or personal lives if they don't cross into my name, my lane of news, they've crossed into my lane of news. So we begin with somebody who I really like and have admired as a governor, and that's Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Now, I had heard the rumors about her and Corey Lewandowski, who is a Trump staffer, who is he's got a sketchy history to be charitable to Corey. She's like he's the one who shoved down Michelle Fields, who worked for Breitbart. That's

what led to Ben Shapiro leaving Breitbart. Remember when Ben Shapiro worked for Breitbart back in 2015? He's got a long and sordid history with women. If you just do a simple Google search and you'll see it. He married a nine 11 widow, and now he's alleged to be having a longstanding affair with governor gnome. I didn't cover it when American break a greatness broke it because it was one publication and they denied it. Well, now the daily mail has done a deep dive on this alleged relationship. And I will just say this, the Daily Mail doesn't, they don't get these things wrong. In my experience, I can't think of one they've gotten wrong. It's not like the National Enquirer or the Star, you know, like if the Daily Mail gives you the Daily Mail affair treatment, you're probably having an affair. I'm

sorry. That's just, that's my experience in reading the publication for a long, long time. They are as sort of tabloidy as some people believe they are. They really are fact-based, and they don't like getting sued. And I don't think that they would print this unless they thought they were bulletproof on it. And they begin their piece, exclusive, married South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski have been having a years-long clandestine affair by saying neither denied the affair when asked by Daily Mail. At most, all they got was a no response from Lewandowski and someone who works for Nome coming out and saying, oh, it's no accident that you would come after her right now,

right after she backed Trump. All right. I don't like when people say that shit. Don't use your politics. Did you do it or didn't you? Somebody comes and asks me, did you cheat on Doug? My answer's no, I didn't cheat on Doug. There will be no proof. There'll be no text messages. There'll be no pictures. There'll be nothing to prove that I cheated on Doug because guess what? I did not cheat on Doug. That's the answer. You don't have a third party come out and say, oh, they're just attacking me because I'm pro-Trump. So I am disheartened by the whole thing, especially because I had Kristi Noem on the show when she was pushing her book. And I, I felt bad for her because of the, these rumors. I did not believe the rumors. I believed her book. I believed her whole story about her love affair with her husband,

who she met as a young woman and married. It was like, they're only the only ones they'd ever been with. And here's the exchange we had when she came on my show. There was this absurd rumor about you allegedly having an affair with a Trump staffer years ago. And it was just out of nowhere. But that was from the right. Whenever there's a powerful woman, you can take it to the bank. There's going to be an attack on her. And they say you're either it's either nuts or sluts. You're crazy or you're a slut yeah absolutely creating scandals out of nothing that don't even exist and now they've gone after my husband and myself and it's it's it's difficult i'd say it's probably hardest on the family when someone's

serving in this job but i think it also makes you stronger we honestly don't even read the press that much anymore well shit because the Daily Mail goes on for paragraphs about the evidence. It's amassed of the private flights they've taken together, the public canoodling they've done together, the GOP events they've attended together while they were holding hands. He had his hands on the small of her back. They looked like they were in an open relationship with one another. These are all Republicans saying it's an open secret in Republican circles. They've seen them together a million times. They've been taking private trips together and so on for a long, long for somebody who's risen to fame based on her family values platform, her romance with her husband. And on the other hand, you got Lewandowski, who I'm sorry, I'm going to be honest, I can't stand, literally threatened me if I showed up at the second presidential debate when I worked at Fox, threatened me to the executive vice president

of Fox News. If she shows up, I'm not responsible for what will happen to her. Well, I showed up and I was just fine. But that's the band she's chosen allegedly had to have this affair with Savannah. Sorry for the long and rambling wind up. What do you make of it? Oh, OK. So I'm usually not a cultural commentator. So this is a really interesting story to me. And I like to look at things from a realistic perspective. I myself am also a Christian woman. So I want to look at this from the Christian perspective of, OK, who do we want representing America? Who do we want

representing our values? Even further, like you just played, Kristi Noem came on your own show and refuted these allegations, said, yeah, you know, they're coming after me because I'm a woman in power. So on the one hand, I want to say that that should be condemned. It is a bad thing. On the other hand, I understand how politics works and people show you what they want you to see. At the end of the day, even in conservative politics, because I've been in this industry for a while now, the majority of the people in this industry are not living out the morals and ideals and values that they are promoting, if I'm being honest. And, you know, I hate to have to be honest about that, but it is a

reality. So if we're looking for that perfect candidate, and again, I'll use Donald Trump as an example. Let's not forget his background. Let's not forget that he was, you know, I don't want to call him a womanizer here, but we know he liked the ladies. We've seen his background. We've seen how he used to be with women. We've heard the tapes ourselves. So if you're looking for that perfect politician, you're never going to find it. You know, we're going to be talking about a multitude of scandals here. And I think more than anything, this is just a reflection of our culture, our values. We don't marriage or we don't value the family unit anymore. And I think that we're seeing that in our politicians. So on the one hand, I want to say, you know, if you don't want this type of person representing America, if we want to reinstill those values, we need to elect leaders who actually reflect what they say.

But on the other hand, I don't know if we necessarily have people willing to be in politics that exists like that. And that is a hard truth, unfortunately. Well, I mean, she's raising good points. It's like, OK, so is her alleged affair? She's on the shortlist for VP, according to most people. She's he's pushing her. Lewandowski is pushing her as Trump's potential VP. If Trump's had affairs, if Trump's you know, he's like there's all sorts of, you know, reports about Trump and his experience with women. People are aware if it's not a deal breaker for him, should it be a deal breaker for her? Is there a sexist double standard? Whether you like it or not, is there one? It's difficult to say, you know, first of all, who knows? It seems pretty likely these things

are true. But I think what's important here is that republicanism, conservatism has become a marketing tool for people. And so they know that they can gain notoriety, become famous by saying I'm a republican. They can latch on to the MAGA movement. I mean, now you've got all these people who are not conservative whatsoever, who don't really have Republican values, really don't believe in it, but they know that they can make a name for themselves by making fake, stupid videos online, posting the latest conservative memes, whatever it is, and joining into this movement that we have. And again, like I was talking about in the first segment, we now have this big tent conservatism. Instead of saying, these are the things that we really stand for, and there's not a lot of compromise with this, but this is what we really stand for,

and allowing everyone to kind of be a part of it, and everyone say, oh, I'm this new super MAGA person, we lose kind of what we've been set out to try and gain in the first place. And this seems like a perfect example of that. Someone who knows that they could gain some sort of notoriety, some sort of fame by hopping onto this movement of being a conservative, but doesn't really actually believe it. And I think that no matter you're Donald Trump or Rhonda Santus or, or, or Kristi Noem or me or you, whatever, whoever it is, if we are going to say we are conservatives, we have to align ourselves with the conservative values because otherwise no one's going to trust us. Why is it that so many young people my age look at politics and say, politics sucks. Politics is stupid. I'm not going to go and vote. They do

it because they can't trust anything the politicians say because we've elevated them to this place of famous people instead of public servants. We need to be looking at these people as public servants and not these celebrities we've heralded them as. I don't, I feel like I would, if this is true, I would like it if she would come out and say, I had trouble in my marriage. Uh, it happens. I'm embarrassed. I made the wrong decision. I'm going to seek my husband's forgiveness and I hope I'll get yours too. That, that would do it for me. I, people have trouble in their marriages. 50% of them end in divorce for a reason, you know, they, they make mistakes, but she is sort of out there in her book and on her book tour. And I can attest to this personally, touting her romance with her husband and what a wonderful marriage they have. And, you know,

if this is bullshit, then we've all been lied to, you know, that, and that does bring it into the political field. And it's annoying because I'm the one who said they do this to powerful women. I'm the one who said they call you a nut or a slut. And I feel foolish because it appears this was true. And she was only too happy to go along with my giving her the benefit of the doubt, because if the Daily Mail report is true, she was doing it then she'd been doing it before then. And she continued to do it after then open-minded to them coming out and saying, we're suing the daily mail for defamation, which is what I would do if they printed this about me in my marriage. Right. But we'll see. Uh, so anyway, there's that. Okay. That brings me to Russell Brand.

This story was everywhere. What, I mean, could you avoid this story over the past two, three days, the anticipation of the story, then the finally dropping of this story over the past two, three days? The anticipation of the story, then the finally dropping of the story, then the next iteration of the story. He got ahead of the story. For those who have been living under a rock for the past 72 hours, he was accused of rape, sexual assault and professional misconduct in the sexual lane by several women, at least four, none of whom is given their name. They've used pseudonyms to speak out to UK publications, uh, channel four dispatches, uh, the times of London and forgive me, there was another, uh, that's not coming to mind right now. This, the Sunday times, there we go.

And, um, it goes back, it dates back mostly to 2013 and before. And Russell Brand tried to get ahead of it, because they went to him for comment eight days before they aired the piece, saying, here are all the accusations. They've been working on it for years, according to the reporters. And he tried to get ahead of it with the following denial. We'll play a little bit of what he said. I've received two extremely disturbing letters, or a letter and an email, one from a mainstream media TV company, one from a newspaper listing a litany of extremely

egregious and aggressive attacks. Amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute. These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies. And as I've written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous. Now, during that time of promiscuity, the relationships I had were absolutely always consensual. I was always transparent about that then, almost too transparent. And to see that transparency metastasized into something criminal that I absolutely deny makes me question, is there another agenda at play? Particularly when we've seen coordinated media attacks before. Okay. The first woman to come forward that is cited in the piece is Alice. These are pseudonyms.

Alice says she was 16. She's now in her thirties. So it was some 14 years ago, I guess. She said she was 16. He was 30 and then 31 while they had a three month affair. She was with him over the course of the birthday, 16 and 30 or 31. Um, Alice says he found her on the street in Leicester square over there in the UK that he stopped her on the street in Leicester Square over there in the UK, that he stopped her on the street, grabbed her shopping bags, pulled out a red dress she had just purchased and said, you're wearing this on our first date. That he knew she was 16, that he dated her. He asked if she was a virgin. She said yes, that he became sexually aroused by it, that he did take her virginity, that he bathed her, that he kept referring to her as the child,

that he would send, I think he was working for the BBC at the time, BBC2, he would send corporate cars to go pick her up at her high school and bring her to him where they had sex repeatedly. This young woman's mother allegedly objected to the affair, but nonetheless dropped Alice off at Russell Brand's apartment over and over. Mom, that's a fail, fail that you get an F on your motherhood. But it doesn't excuse the decision making going on between the pair themselves. 16 is legally OK in the UK for consensual sex at the age of consent. And she has got some very disturbing stories. Okay. Alice, um, claims for example, uh, that there was a sexual assault that was not consensual here. Is this, uh, the actual Alice or is this

the actor playing Alice guys in this soundbite that we're going to air? Okay, because what they did in some of the cases was hire actresses to repeat the exact testimonials of the actual accusers. Just not sure. I can't remember whether this is actual Alice or the actor playing Alice. Either way, they're Alice's words. Here's her allegations, Sat25. I was sat up in the bed up against the headboard and he forced his penis down my throat and I couldn't breathe. It was just choking me and I couldn't breathe. I was pushing him away, pushing him away and he wasn't, he wasn't backing off at all. And so I ended up having to punch him really hard in the stomach to get him off. And then he like, finally, then he like moved, fell backwards. And I was crying. And he said, Oh, I only want to see your mascara run anyway.

Okay. We believe that's the actual Alice, uh, with her voice disguised now, just as an addendum, according to the reporting, she claims that in this incident, she lay on the side of the bed after the attack, alleging he climbed on top of her, held open her mouth and drooled into it. I was gagging and trying to fight him off me, but he's lying on top of me. So I can't, my limbs are trapped underneath him. And I just thought, why are you doing this? It can't even be any sexual gratification in this. And then he held my mouth shut and made me swallow it. So I was just gagging

and crying. Can I just tell you guys, I realized that the knee jerk instinct now by so many is Russell Brand is wrongly accused. These women are all liars. I'm sorry. This is extremely detailed. And in the case of the other woman, there's an actual set of medical records after she went to a rape crisis center the day of the alleged encounter, plus apologetic begging for forgiveness text from Russell Brand. Could you please, for a second, stay open minded to the possibility that the women are telling the truth? We don't need to so overcorrect from the Me Too movement that every woman gets completely disregarded and called a liar when she finds the guts to come forward and make an allegation. They may be telling the truth. It's worth investigating. We don't need to knee jerk condemn him and we don't need to knee jerk

condemn them. I'm just pissed because what I've seen is like a rash of guys coming out to be like, it's bullshit. You don't know whether it's bullshit or not. Did you read the report of this woman? Did you read the rape, the alleged rape details? Did you read the text message that she has from Russell Brand begging for forgiveness? There's at least enough for us to want more facts. That's it. I'm sorry. That's my take on it. You guys are younger and probably more conservative than I am. Maybe you see it more differently than I do. Welcoming other points of view. Will, I'll start with you. Well, I think you were exactly right there when you said, look for the facts. And I think you have Russell Brand coming out and saying, this didn't happen. You have all these women with,

like you said, these very detailed testimonies. And I would like to see something actually happen that proves whether or not he is innocent or guilty. I find it very difficult, especially, I think we've all been rubbed a little raw by the Me Too movement and all this kind of stuff, Aziz Ansari, people like that. And we're all like, well, is this really true or not? And also Russell Brand was someone who was saying things that didn't really align with what the mainstream culture wants. So we're all kind of just, what are we supposed to do here? Do we believe it or not? And so I think what really we should be doing, most of us, and again, this is a very private matter with Russell Brand. Yes, he's a public figure, but I hope that he can figure it out legally and make sure that if

he's guilty, he's held accountable. And if he's innocent, he's not. But I think that we as consumers of media and responsible people need to say, okay, let's wait and let's make a rational decision when we can actually have something that gets proven to make sure that we are deciding with the facts actually given to us. I would like to hear his specific denials. I really would, because so far he gave the broad brush. He was provided with all the details. He doesn't have the names, I guess. I don't think anybody has the names other than the reporters.

But he would know whether or not he had sex for three months with a 16 year old girl. So I would love to hear a more point by point denial. I don't think we're going to get that until criminal charges have been ruled out, which I think they haven't been. I'm not sure that there was a report that the police were looking into this. Savannah, what is your take on it? I always love to look at these things from a journalistic perspective, and I like to look at both sides. I like to hear from both parties, you know, like you're saying. And I think the Amber Heard Johnny Depp, you know, trial was a good example of this. Everyone immediately jumped on Amber Heard's side.

And then it was found out that, hey, although Johnny Depp as well was not an angel in that relationship, neither was Amber Heard. And we do have to remember that while Russell Brand might have used his celebrity status to take advantage of, again, there's no excuse for taking advantage of a 16 year old girl. There are women as well that would take advantage of, you know, that celebrity status. There are women who do chase celebrities and there are other women who as well will come out and lie about men, especially when they don't agree with their politics. So for me, I look at this as a timing issue as well. I think it's interesting that now that Russell Brand has become extremely popular on an alternative media site that he's now speaking out about various issues, such as COVID-19, he's being

very invested in American politics and just pushing back against that narrative that, again, a lot of the mainstream media is consistently pushing us towards in regards to politics. Now this is happening. So the timing of it is interesting to me. However, I'm not also going to come out and say, oh, these women are lying. They're false, because like you said, both sides of the story should be looked at. Unfortunately, because of the repercussions of the Me Too movement, we don't immediately believe all women when they come forward with these rape charges. We shouldn't believe all women. We shouldn't. We should not immediately. The women do not deserve any sort of a presumption in their favor, period. The Me Too movement proved that. But what we also don't need is to overcorrect the problems of the Me Too movement and go back to, okay, so now

they're all liars. They don't even get an open-minded hearing on their claims, especially when you have this many coming forward. It's bullshit that this has become a conservative liberal thing that now conservatives knee jerk defend any man accused and liberals knee jerk believe any woman who makes the accusations. It's wrong. Keep an open mind and a judge on a case by case basis. Just because most of us believe Amber Heard made up her allegations doesn't mean that every woman does. I mean, you tell me how there is a text message exchange with a woman who's got a very detailed story. Her name is Nadia. She talks about what he did, how he shoved

her against the wall. He was allegedly trying to get her to have a threesome. She refused. She claims he shoved her against the wall of his apartment. He's a lot bigger than she was. He got a glazed look in his eye. That is what yet a sec, what another accuser said as well and raped her without a condom. And she said he then blocked the door and wasn't letting her go. He said, are you okay? I said, I'm not okay. You need to get away from me. He's like, calm down, calm down. She managed to run out. She jumped in her car, 3.29 AM. They've got the text messages. He sent her a text message. I'm sorry. That was crazy and selfish. I hope you can forgive me. I know that you're a lovely person, X. He tried phoning her at 3.51 AM. The call went unanswered. There's a long text message exchange that exchange that has been printed. She wrote in response to him that he had taken advantage of her, that he had scared

the shit out of her. She wrote in the text, do you know how scary you are when that glazed look comes over you? When a girl says no, it means no. Do I have to go and get myself tested? He replied he was very sorry and wrote, you don't need to get tested. I will make this up to you somehow with, he meant love, he wrote live, and kindness, not my original idea, which was more sex. You've been lovely to me and I'm embarrassed by my behavior. Sorry. And on and on it went. That night, she went to a rape treatment center at UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center that same day. She shared a full copy of her treatment records, which she provided, and she had given them, her underwear, other samples as evidence, which were frozen. An officer from the LAPD was alerted by the center, but she chose not to make a police report saying she did not think her words would mean anything up against his. The notes also

state she was worried that if her assailant's name was somehow released, then her name would get dragged through the mud. She had therapy at the clinic for five months. During that therapy, records show she was contemplating criminal or civil proceedings before ultimately deciding against it. However, she wrote Brand a letter in which she confronted him. Do you know what you put me through, my body through? You scared the shit out of me. I thought in any situation I would be strong enough to fight someone off. You completely broke me down. Another woman claiming she fought. She had to fight. She had to scream to get him off. I mean, who he met in AA. There are multiple detailed accounts. This is not Christine Blasey Ford. So people need to take a moment and look at the allegations. Because if this guy was screwing a 16-year-old and doing what she alleged he did, shoving himself down her throat

and then spitting in her mouth, I don't give a shit that he's pushing back on COVID or Ukraine or anything. We can find better people to inspire us. And you two know that. You two know that. I mean, will you admire Ron DeSantis in any world? You think there's going to be an allegation like this about him? Do you think anybody will come out and say, yes, I realize they're like, oh, he came on to some girl in the high school years ago. There's zero chance that we're going to have six women, four women come forward and say in great detail, he raped me. I went to a rape crisis center. Here's the text exchange. It's not, there are still good men in politics and in the world. There are. Yeah. It makes it hard to believe with things like this, you know, and of course you hear

things like this and it makes you very, I guess you could say cynical for the world around you. And you feel terrible that there aren't really any role models who you can look up to that's going to really be the people who are supposed to be heroes. We had this trend right now about why are young men thinking about ancient Rome so much? And I did a whole piece on this because ancient Rome and medieval history and World War II, this was a time filled with great men, filled with great civilizations where men were doing heroic things for God and heroism. And now we have this culture of men who, what are they doing? Who are the role models for young men to be looking up to right now in America or in the West at all? It's why they're so focused on things in the past because they really don't have anything that they're looking towards.

If we inspire people with better role models, with better values, with our elected officials, with our athletes, with our celebrities, with our musicians, with all sorts of people like this, then we can really start to make some positive changes and maybe make an issue like this, not so diabolically divided between Republicans and Democrats, if we can actually have people who are good role models to show us the way. But as of now, it's very easy to get cynical and think that there isn't really anything like that. I don't want to lose our souls in defense of our politics. I, Savannah, I look at my husband. He's a wonderful, good man. No one will ever come forward to say this kind of thing about him. They won't. It would, they, everyone would know it'd be too

far afield. I think about my friend Janice Dean and her firefighter husband, one of the heroes on 9-11, his entire fire company was killed. This is a good man who makes an honest living. No one's going to do this to him because it would be too far afield to even try. I'm not saying that there are no women who make false accusations. Again, I do believe we saw that in the Amber Heard case. But I'm very, very concerned about how we're making it a politics thing now. Like you're not a conservative if you believe now, like you're not a conservative if you believe a woman or you're not a liberal if you don't. Yes, I agree with that completely. And

again, the fact that there is evidence for this case, because when these allegations come out, especially when it is geared towards politicians, I'm like, OK, what's the background on this? But we did see the research. You just laid it all out for us. And it's not like these are just blanket claims that are happening from anonymous people. Like this woman went to this treatment center. It was clear that she had to get treatment. It was clear that she had to get therapy for this. So there is evidence to back up these claims. And like you said, it shouldn't be a political thing. And that is something that I wanted to say too, because I am a woman in politics. And to be quite honest with you, being in conservatism, if you speak out at all in any way, shape or form against men, because there are bad men in the

world. I understand that men have had their masculinity attacked, and that's not right. But also we have cultivated a culture on the right where if you speak out against men in any way, shape or form, and you don't immediately believe them, especially in a situation like this, then you as the woman are told that, you know, you're a radical feminist and that you should be completely disregarded. So this is something that I also too am dealing with and have dealt with behind the scenes. It's honestly why I stray away from cultural commentary, because I just I don't like being berated by men for saying, hey, well, there actually is evidence to back this up. So again, like I said, I still stand by my claims that I think the timing of when this is coming out is interesting. But simultaneously, the fact

that there is evidence to back it up is substantial. And if you look at it from just purely a journalistic standpoint here, you can't refute that you can't just completely sideswipe that. And just because Russell Brand may have the correct politics doesn't excuse what he did. Just like, again, you know, with Donald Trump, it's like, I'm not going to sit here and say that, oh, Donald Trump didn't really mean that about abortion in six weeks in the 15 week ban, because I like him. No, we need to understand, too, that, you know, while politicians aren't going to be perfect, like we do need to have some type of moral or values in society. And we need to protect women. And when I say that, I mean that in the sense of we need strong men who are good leaders with good values that are willing to protect women by understanding that, you know,

we are not as strong as men, that we are inherently and biologically different. And a strong man should want to protect women and create and cultivate a safe society for all women and children. I really it can't be that it's just like a conservative thing now to disbelieve all women. It it cannot be. I will fight that to my dying day. And the other thing is he's been canceled by virtually everyone now. He's kind of uncancelable because he has a very popular YouTube show. And that's good. That's fine. I'm not saying he should not have the ability to offer his social commentary and that his fans shouldn't have access to him. But I would like to see more of a pause before the knee jerk cancellation. Give him a chance

to take it. Like, I understand why he didn't get detailed on his initial denial. He may be looking at some serious legal problems. But like the knee jerk cancellations are a little hasty, too. Let's let's give him a chance to digest this. Let's not ruin the man's life. Let's actually find out whether anybody here has a motive to lie or got fired by him and is bitter. All that should probably come out and we should be open minded to their biases, too. You know, that's that's where we have to go. I know we have to take a quick break, but I do want to their biases too. You know, it's, that's, that's where

we have to go. I know we have to take a quick break, but I do want to get to this story before we do it. Lauren Boebert, I'm going to say something different about her. A representative out of Colorado, very tight race. She almost lost. She's, you know, they describe her as far right. She got caught in a movie theater or it was a, some sort of a show. What is it? A play? Anyway, a musical. And, uh, she and her boyfriend were groping each other.

We have the tape. Here it is. Yeah, just video. So there they are. It's pretty aggressive. He's fondling the breasts. She's fondling the crotch. She's being like roundly.

Cause she got thrown out of this thing because she was, I guess, vaping, which then she publicly denied. But then they had tape of it, which I think is how we got them looking at the tape of her because she denied she had done it. She got thrown out. I mean, it's pretty aggressive. I wouldn't these two were doing that next to me. And I had a kid there. I would say, hey, get a room. But I have to say, past that, I'm really not that into it. She has the hots for the boyfriend. I don't really care about this one. I'm trying to care. I'm not like a huge Lauren Boebert defender, but they were kind of racy in a public place. They had the hots for each other. They should have taken it to a private room. This one bothers me less. Am I, I don't know, am I misjudging it? What do you guys think? Well, I think what matters most

to me is that apparently afterwards when she walked out, she said, or was getting kicked out of the show, whatever it may be, she said, do you know who I am? And to me, that's, that's the worst thing about it is that she would have that sort of hubris to come on and say, do you know who I am? I'm this, this big congresswoman. And you know, this is, to come on and say, do you know who I am? I'm this big congresswoman. And this is- Wait, maybe, Will, she was saying, do you know who I am? Oh, thank God. Nevermind. I'm Marjorie Taylor Greene. Bye. Yeah, exactly. That probably might be the case. But there's this level of narcissism these politicians have with something like this, that they can't be held accountable. They're some A-list celebrity actor or something, and they can do no wrong. That's just,

that's nonsense. That's nonsense. We pay their salaries. We elect them into office. They are essentially our employees. They need to start acting like it and not being these pompous assholes who think they can just get away with this stuff. What do you think, Savannah? You know, I was kind of of the same vein here where I was struggling to care about it. To be quite honest with you, I saw this video and I was like, OK, are her boobs real or fake? That's really what I want to know here, because they look huge in this video. I just that was my honest takeaway here. But I think at the end of the day, what it comes down to is Colorado, right? That's their elected representative.

Do they is that who they want representing them on a political? I guess if you look at the political aspect of this, are they happy with how she's representing them? And is she representing their voices or are they going to look at this and say, OK, yeah, kind of racy. We don't want to be represented in that way. We don't like that. I think that's kind of what needs to be taken into consideration here. And it's up to the voters at that point. But to me, it's like, OK, yeah, she's an adult. A thousand percent. I wouldn't have done that in a theater. No. Yeah, it's like, I don't want you're in a moron kid. Yeah, exactly. I'm like, this is kind of teenage behavior. But also, you know, Warren Boebert going

through a divorce, politicians as well, still humans to they have their own lives, they're going to make mistakes. And I hope she learns from this one, maybe not to be so racy in public, we'll see what ends up happening. But I think it goes down to the voters and what they decide. Get a room. Get a room. It's fine. You're hot for your boyfriend. Good for you, sister. Take it to behind doors. We don't need to look at it. We don't want to be a part of it. Of course, I think Russell Brand is not a conservative. I'm not sure we can just I don't know how you describe his politics. Certainly, Kristi Noem is Laura Boebert is. But the woman in Virginia running for assembly who's a hot mess and is putting her sex acts online for money is a Democrat.

She's all Democrat and she's getting defended by other Democrats. That's where we will pick it up after this quick, quick break. More with Savannah Will in a minute. I want to first talk about Susanna Gibson. I mean, now this is the lowest of the low. This, this is a problem. This woman is a candidate for the Virginia State House who solicited money from people reading from the Daily Wire report, people online for her to perform sex acts on video with her husband. Daily Wire reporting this may online for her to perform sex acts on video with her husband. Daily Wire reporting this may have violated Virginia's prostitution law, but she doesn't seem to find it a problem. She's claiming this was an illegal invasion of her privacy,

even though she's the one who posted the video of herself and her husband doing the deed. My God, you're disgusting. You're a pig. Okay. I'm sorry. You're a pig. And now she's claiming the victim that her privacy has been invaded. Even the New York Times called this a leak, even though the news outlets reporting on it were only informing readers of the conduct, not linking to her videos. And it's not just her. The leader of the Virginia Senate, a Democrat named Louis Lucas, said her behavior was all the more reason to give her money. They want like open up this time for being a politician, not for being a slut. I'm sorry. This is disgusting. I'm stunned. And by the way, the Associated Press had the story. They were tipped off to the pornographic content on September 5th.

They chose not to do anything with it. They went to her. They told her about the video. And then she appeared to have taken down the video in the days after the AP alerted her that it had been discovered. So then finally, after it broke, thanks to others, the AP finally covered it. I mean, that's that's our media today. If that were a Republican, it would have been a very different way of handling it, Savannah.

Absolutely. And I think we can see this with the fact that this kind of came out simultaneously with the Boebert story. And look at the reporting between the two. Boebert has been called. People have called for her to resign. They're like, she's unfit for office, this and that. But then you have a literal prostitute here. And they're like, Oh, you guys know, it's fine. You

know, basically, being a politician is like being a prostitute anyway. So you guys should just give her more money anyway. It's fine. It's fine. So it's just hilarious to me to see more than anything the media hypocrisy in this. And again, like I was talking about earlier, is this who we want representing American values? I really do wish the average American would understand how we are looked at on an international stage. That was such a big media talking point during the Trump years, right, that we were an international laughingstock because of who our president was. Well, now we have Joe Biden in office who can't even string together a sentence. And then we're also looking at potentially electing officials who knowingly put out pornography and instead of taking responsibility for it,

maybe saying, hey, yeah, that probably wasn't the right thing to do. I regret making that decision instead doubles down on being the victim. It's just the perfect encapsulation of American politics and the victim mentality that we consistently see in this country. And, you know, this this entire state is going to suffer if they elect this woman, because just the mentality alone is a reflection of how she will run her state. She's disgusting. I mean, Lauren Boebert was turned on by her boyfriend in a theater and behaved kind of inappropriately. Kristi Noem accused at worst of having an extramarital affair. It's not like, you know, she hurt her family.

That's her obligation to her family. It's not like she was stealing from the public coffers or something, you know, truly, like, fireable. This woman is running for office after having prostituted herself out on the internet for money, Will.

And we're supposed to just say, oh, live and let live. That's fine. In your book, in your book,'re supposed to just say, oh, live and let live. That's fine. In your book, in your book, chapter one, A Brave New World, you write a society dominated by sin and perversion where there is no moral compass because morality is relegated to a relic of the past is what we are dealing with right now, that there needs to be a correction against this trend. Yeah, that's a good line by me. I got to say, it's pretty spot on looking at all these stories that just happened. I mean, look, but this is what happens. Nietzsche, I think, said it best

when he said, God is dead and we have killed him. What happens when you have a post-Christian world in the West? You have leftism become religion because humanity, people are inherently religious, whether that's climate gods from thousands of years ago to Judaism, Islam, Christianity, whatever it is, people will look towards some sort of religion. If we kill Christianity in the West, people will look towards leftism. And so when you are a member of this religion, like this lady is, this lady putting these acts online and doing all this, you're a member of this religion. Or the lady. I guess that's a little bit too nice. I mean, we use that term loosely.

Yeah, yeah. So I was like, oh, is she trans or something? Okay. The woman, the female person who did this, obviously is a cult of this leftism, part of this religion of leftism. And so because of that, she can do no wrong. These leftist outlets won't say anything wrong about Joe Biden. And Hunter Biden is basically protected from his wrongdoing and only one out of the 12

charges and all this. So the left will protect its own, whereas conservatives are so busy, worried about fighting and who's more conservative here, who's more conservative and fighting against each other. This is why the left wins, because they will always have the back of the people who support the church of leftism. I mean, this is this brings us back to our earlier discussion, because the Republicans, the conservatives used to be, you know, for better or for worse, the party that was more associated with moral values, like family values, and they would get

shit for being too, you know, highbrow for being too judgmental for lecturing others on how they're supposed to live. And I remember Roger Ailes used to say, you know, conservatives are worried about this. They don't want to be called a hypocrite, but at least they're trying. At least they're trying. This is what I'm worried about, you know, that Savannah, that the answer is not to just abandon all principle and morals and be like them. You know, who wants to be like this woman in Virginia? You know, and that's not to say anybody's without sin, right? Like everybody is with sin and we're all going to fall down on the job. We that's not to say anybody's without sin, right? Everybody is with sin, and we're all going to fall down on the job. We're all going to do things we're embarrassed of. That doesn't mean you can't look at this conduct or the conduct that we've been discussing and say,

that's wrong. I don't want it. I don't like it, and I wouldn't vote for it. And in this situation, this woman's not even yet elected. They have a chance to stop her. Exactly. There's no more shame in our society. And like you just talked about, too, it is a major issue. Instead of this politician coming forward and again, apologizing for this, saying that it was indeed inappropriate. We as a society double down and say, no, she's the victim. We need to be covering for her because this was an attack on her privacy. No, she made these public herself. And this, again, goes back to the degradation of our

morals and our values, where now we're not even trying. We're completely throwing them out the window. And it's really just heartbreaking to see. You know, I was reading another story, too, about how because of the way John Fetterman dresses now, the way that they dress in the Senate. Well, you don't have to wear a suit and tie. Now, a lot of people might read that story and be like, oh, yeah, okay, whatever. Yeah, why is it important? It is important because we are the United States of America.

We are supposed to be a world superpower. Not only that, but we should have, you know, just some type of pride in our country, some type of pride in our leaders and our politicians, some type of morals or values. When you have a health secretary pretending to be a woman and just absolutely degrading what it even means to be a woman, it just goes to show that we don't care about our country anymore. We have an entire generation that's been raised to hate our country. And that's why we're in such a decline

right now. So again, even the fact that this woman is running and the fact that she's being protected just goes to show where our society is at, where culture is at, that, yes, we are a God, the society. If you look at the statistics of the amount of people going to church from generation to generation, we are in one of the generations, Gen Z, that goes to church the least of all. And we see that reflected every single day. And it's heartbreaking. You know, well, I remember when I was growing up, my dad, who is an English scholar, an education scholar, would say, he'd say the fancy words at dinner. And I'd always say, speak English. Can't understand you.

And he would always say, Megan, I will not lower my vocabulary to meet yours. You must raise yours to meet mine. And we have lowered the standard in the Senate to meet that of John Fetterman. That's what we've done. Instead of stopping the shorts and the hoodie, we've embraced it. Now they're all going to look like schleps when they're in there doing the people's business. It's disgraceful. Yeah, we have a lazy and weak culture where people think that these kind of things are OK. Instead of having any sort of pride in yourself or pride in the way you look, it's just, oh, it doesn't really matter.

Nothing really matters. Everything's subjective. The only thing that really matters, again, is being a part of this church of leftism. If you have the right, quote unquote, right ideas, according to these people, you can do anything. It does not matter what you do as long as you believe in the Black Lives Matter stuff,

believe that you can have an abortion, quote unquote, abortion after birth, believe that someone is a woman when they're really a man, climate change, all these things. As long as you believe in all this stuff, you can do anything you want and be as lazy and mediocre and miserable and ugly and terrible as possible because that's what they want. They don't want a world of beautiful things and beautiful people. Just to be frank, they don't want that. They want this ugly, dumbed down world where it's easy to control people because they're lazy and look for the easy mint of life. Well, this is why, just to put a period on the Russell Brand discussion,

people are reluctant to go down this lane because even if you believe everything that's been alleged against him, why is he getting targeted? Why aren't we doing the deep dive on the more left-leaning Hollywood actors or people out there with their platforms, right? Guys hosting more left-wing shows. Why aren't we doing that? I mean, I think people, I don't think he's wrong that he became a lot more interesting to these reporters because of his politics, which is what makes a lot of us say, I don't care. But that's why I land in like, he shouldn't be canceled. You know, like if he has legal problems, it should play out in a legal forum, but he shouldn't be canceled. If the consumer wants

to keep listening to Russell Brand, they should absolutely have that opportunity. There's a comedian out there right now, Hasan Minhaj, who's rumored to be potentially taking over on The Daily Show, who's got a long list of lies. My God, he's never stopped lying about his fake grievances on race and so on. They were completely exposed by The New Yorker in a spectacular way. The left doesn't care. He's getting a total pass. No problem. He's a serial fabulist making up terrible stories about cops in our country to make himself look like a victim. Where's the deep dive on him? Thank you, New Yorker, for doing it. But I'm just saying in too often, in too many instances, the left gets the pass

and nobody does the deep dive and the Russell Brands of the world get the scrutiny. So in any event, it's all frustrating. I do want to urge people to support Will, buy his book. It's called Do Not Comply. It comes out tomorrow.

And you're such a young and interesting, innovative thinker, Will. And Savannah, it's so nice to meet you. Please come back. Thank you so much. God bless you, Megan. All the best to you too. I want to tell you that tomorrow we have a big guest on.

No, it's not Lauren Boebert. It's Doug Brunt. We're excited to have Doug Brunt on the show. He's got a brand new book out tomorrow and we'll spend the full day with him. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.