The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump's Massive Bronx Rally, and Nathan Wade's New Lies, with Jesse Kelly, Andy McCarthy, and Phil Holloway | Ep. 801

Episode Date: May 24, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by legal experts Andy McCarthy and Phil Holloway to discuss the judge in Trump's NYC trial withholding jury instructions from the public, jurors being exposed to outside influence during the Memorial Day weekend while they're not sequestered, the political pressure on the jurors and the judge to get a conviction, the way the prosecution is spinning the case and influencing the public and jury, how the prosecution still has not revealed the actual crime in the case, if the Trump defense should have rested after they established Michael Cohen was a liar on the stand, Nathan Wade continuing to lie about what really happened with Fani Willis, his ex-wife's legal team giving an exclusive statement about Wade's lies, Joy Reid's embarrassing interview with Wade, and more. Then Jesse Kelly, host of TheFirstTV's "I'm Right," joins to discuss the massive turnout at the Trump rally in Bronx, whether events like this will actually affect the 2024 results, Democrats opening the border and focusing on illegal immigrants over black and Hispanic Americans, Walmart unveiling its Pride Month merchandise, major corporations favoring profits over customers, NBC's new "Queer Planet" doc about LGBT animals, Sen. Ted Cruz vs. Biden judicial nominee over male sex offender allowed to move into a women's prison, Cruz and Megyn's work ethic, and more.McCarthy- https://www.nationalreview.com/author/andrew-c-mccarthy/Holloway- https://www.youtube.com/@PhilipHollowayKelly- https://www.jessekellyshow.com/Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday. While I have you, I'm going to start the news in one second, but I want to tell you that this week we taped a show for Monday, which is Memorial Day. And as we do every year, we sat down with a veteran and talked about his experience and who he is and his thoughts on life and our politics and our country and so on. And this week it was Sean Ryan, who has a very successful podcast of his own, who's a former Navy SEAL, former CIA contractor. And I have not been able to stop thinking about Sean Ryan since I sat down with him. I, it's not like he was in tears and we had this, you know, it wasn't that it was just him. Um, all I want to tell you is I know you'll

be busy on Memorial day, but if you get some time, download it and listen to it. Or if you come back on Tuesday morning and you know, you're looking for some content because most people will be off on Monday and they will not have pre-taped a show for you. Download it. Uh, he is a special guy. I just listened to it and check it out for yourself and would love to hear your thoughts after you do. You can email them to me, Megan at Megan Kelly dot com. OK. Former President Donald Trump, he held a campaign rally in the Bronx last night. As you know, he's had to stick around the New York area because of this trial.

And it was pretty extraordinary. We'll get to why and the pictures of it in just a bit. But we were expecting by now, this is Friday, of course, to have received critical information from Judge Mershon in President Trump's business records trial. Earlier this week, the judge indicated he would release jury instructions by Thursday night. That's last night. Jury instructions are the guidelines given by the judge to the jury about the law they are going to have to apply to reach a decision in the case. And ideally, we'd like to see the verdict form too. How is it going to be laid out? What are the choices going to be for the jury? The way those things are crafted determines how the case is decided, folks. There's nothing more important. But even though the judge promised that these would be

released last night, as of now, crickets. So what does that mean? Ahead of closing arguments on Tuesday. Joining me now, two of our favorite legal all-stars, Andy McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. attorney and a National Review contributing editor, and Phil Holloway, legal analyst and host of Inside the Law, YouTube show. Andy, Phil, welcome back to you both. So why wouldn't these, I'll start with you on it, Phil, be made public? Why aren't we entitled to see the jury instructions? This is our courtroom.

This judge works for us. And this proceeding is public. This isn't a secret what the jury is going to be instructed. Why don't we get to see it? Well, great to be with you again, as always, Megan. Look, you only think he works for us. He works for his own interests. Apparently, the jury charges, as you mentioned, are very critical because this is the instructions the jury will have with them in the jury room when they're trying to figure out what in the world, I can't even figure out exactly what the state's theory of the case is. But this man, and I'm speaking of Merchan here, he has shown every step of the way, in my view,

that he's literally standing on the scales, tipping it in favor of Alvin Bragg. I don't expect that he's going to release the jury charges. He doesn't have to. He has to give them to the parties, of course, and they can suggest last minute revisions and edits. But unless we get it from any of the lawyers on the case, I am not going to hold my breath waiting on Mershon to allow any more sunshine to get into this case. Sunshine being the best disinfectant because the whole thing reeks right now. He's going to keep this as non-transparent as he possibly can so that the public is going to be left in the dark, I'm afraid. What could be more important, Andy, right? This is

it. The whole case comes down to how he instructs the jury. And as I said, the verdict form that walks them through exactly what they're going to have to answer. Well, nothing could be more important, Megan, but I think he's not releasing it for a reason that's both obvious and alarming, it seems to me. And that is because his refusal to release it underscores how ridiculous it is to have the evidence in a case close on Tuesday and then send the jury home until the following Tuesday to marinate for a week in the publicity. And what he would say to anyone who made that argument is that, no, no, no, I've instructed them. They're not to look at publicity in connection with the case.

If he didn't think that was an illusory instruction, he would just release the jury charge. But he knows that when he releases the jury charge, it's going to generate a great deal of commentary and controversy about what's gone on in this case. As we know, because we've we've tracked this so closely, Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, elected Democrat in Manhattan, has been very cagey from the very beginning. He didn't want to put the so-called other crime that elevates this into a felony in the indictment. The judge hasn't made him do that. He's been cagey to this day about planting his feet about what the theory is, and he's still allowed to be cagey and the judge is helping him. So if they put the charge out, we're all going to know what the you know, he's finally going to have to plant his feet and say this is the other crime. And there's going to be an explosion of publicity about that. And the judge knows that, you know, he sent the jury home with instructions. But you really think that all 18 jurors,

the 12 jurors and six alternates, nobody is going to be exposed to publicity about the jury charge and the and finally getting the government's theory of the case. I just think he's showing that he knows very well that it was idiotic, that it was in terms of like how you manage a trial. It was ridiculous to send a jury home for a week. How about that, Phil? These the jury, a lot of our viewers have written in saying, why isn't the jury sequestered at this point? They're going home for one of the biggest weekends of the year for holidays, for seeing family, ideally for remembering our veterans, too. But Memorial Day weekend tends to be very busy and very social.

And so the odds of these jurors, all of whom live in Manhattan, not bumping into dozens of people who say, guilty, right? Don't forget. Don't forget us next week. Do the right thing. Only democracy is riding on this. I mean, they're going to run into several of those people. Well, I understand that there's the holiday weekend and that sort of thing, but it's preposterous to wait an entire week between when every side rested and to come back for closing arguments. It's just, to me, it makes no real sense. There's got to be a way to have managed this trial logistically so that this would not happen. You know they're going to be watching the news. And of course, if he were to release those jury charges, people like me and Andy and you and others in the media would be able

to pick it apart. And I'm sure we would be able to expose it for what it is. It's my understanding that he may not even make them agree on what the so-called other crime is. I guess you can pick from a smorgasbord of other crimes, whichever one you think might fit if you're on the jury. But in any event, over this long weekend, these people are exposed not only to the media, but they're exposed to their family, their friends, their co-workers, and everybody knows they're on the Trump trial. And we all know that jurors oftentimes don't listen to the judge's instructions. They do talk about the case. They do listen to what their friends and their family say. And look, if you were in a Trump-hating office building, let's say, and you're exposed to your co-workers, you're going to feel immense pressure, social pressure to conform and do what your co-workers and your peers might want you to do because everybody else there sort of hates Trump. And this is the problem that I've

had all along with this case where the jury's not being sequestered. Of course, it's expensive, it costs money. But look, this is what justice requires. The criminal justice system, if it's not fundamentally fair, it's not a justice system, it's simply a system. Substantive due process means fundamental fairness, and every step of the way, this judge has gone out of his way to make this an unfair trial. Think about, compare and contrast what happened with the witness Costello, Bob Costello, and he's just in rapid fire sustaining objections without asking what the basis for the objection even is, or giving the other side a chance to respond. Contrast that with Stormy Daniels and all of the salacious information that he let come in

most of the time over objection. And so you can just see instance after instance after instance. And this thing with the jury charges is just the latest instance of extreme judicial bias. I think it's just unconscionable the way this judge is behaving. So we're going to get to Costello and how they wrapped up this case in a second. But I do want to, I was going to, I was going to save this because we have a discussion about Fannie Willis coming up in just a bit. She's on a media tour. So is Nathan Wade. I'm actually dying to get Phil's take on this, but I'm going to play it for you, Andy, because we pulled this soundbite from The View and Sunny Hostin is a former federal prosecutor.

And every once in a while, she'll say something that makes sense because she has some knowledge of the law, though she's so hard partisan, it just clouds everything. But listen to this particular soundbite. They're reacting to the media tour of Fannie in particular, I think here, there. She's angry. She's angry at her over the risks of having this affair with Nathan Wade. And I'm going to tie it together with the Trump

New York trial at the end. But just listen to the soundbite. My father told me when I first started out in the business community that, listen, an office romance is professional suicide. I think that this was one of the biggest unforced errors almost in our nation's history. You do not have an office affair when our very democracy is on the line and you can do something to prevent it from going over the edge. It was a stupid, stupid thing to do. But you know, love is funny or lust is funny. Both are funny because you, you, you can't always predict it. And then you're thinking, and you suddenly are in it and you think, oh my God, I don't want to be here. Can you fall in love after you saved democracy though? So there, look at the, look at the consternation at Fannie and Nathan for having

an extramarital affair in his case, because they needed to save democracy. Think about how these people and others like them around Manhattan, around the country are going to react if any single juror is the holdout. And you and I both know the overwhelming odds are that all 18 of these jurors and the alternates are Democrats and probably active Democrats and probably read the New York Times every day. And probably most of the people they know and hang out with are Democrats that this is the kind of pressure, right? You're there to save democracy. That's what these trials are about. Well, first off, the view can can spare me and their two viewers the talk and the hyperbole about democracy being on the line. I mean, that's just outright propaganda. Fannie Willis, if you believe Robin Yerdy,

who testified at the disqualification hearing, that affair started back as early as 2019 before she even took office. So if you look at this in the bigger context, if that's true, she and Nathan Wade were already an item. And by the time she took office or was elected, I guess, in the transition period, he was running her transition team, according to testimony we heard yesterday. So he's been part and parcel of all of this from the very beginning. Of course, she's going to bring him into it because. Yeah, but I'm not trying to get a comment on Fannie. We're going to do that in a minute.

I'm like this. Let me bring it to you, Andy. You see my point, right? That that you Sonny Hostin inadvertently there just lays out the whole stakes of these criminal prosecutions in the eyes of Democrats. And the same judgment that applies to Nathan and Fannie for putting it at risk is going to apply to any juror who doesn't do the quote right thing and find this guy guilty so he can be stopped. Yeah, well, look, I'm glad you're not asking me to recuse myself because I met my wife of 31 years when we were both prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office. But, you know, look, you can't I've taken the last couple of days megan to actually read the transcript um uh and i've i actually wish i had had more time to do it earlier but

um they're trying they're they're pushing the envelope in various ways that you would never do in a normal case, because the ethos of this whole thing is that they're on a higher mission, that this is about removing this obstacle, this threat to democracy. And this is like across the board, people who are normally or in my experience with them or reading about them or commenting on them have always seemed to be sensible or at least borderline sensible in the past. All of that prudence and caution has gone out the window in order to get this done. I think that we were talking a second about the jury leaving for a week. I think part of the reason is they want the reason that he gave him a week off is they want Trump convicted. And it's it's simply well known that when there are when there are scheduling problems in a trial and jurors are inconvenienced,

they generally don't hold that against the defendant because the defendant is not a voluntary participant in the proceedings. In this case, they would hold that against the prosecutors and they would hold it against the judge who was taken every Wednesday off in the trial. The jury would realize they wouldn't need to be sequestered and sitting over Memorial Day if it hadn't been for the way the prosecutors and the judge organized this case. So he gave him a week off because if you don't give them a week off and they get angry, that may be the kind of thing that would cut to Trump's benefit. And nothing in this case is allowed to cut to Trump's benefit. I actually think that the enormous hole in the case is that the other crime, I think we should assume, is a federal campaign finance violation. No matter

which theory you cut, that's where they're going, right? So in going through the evidence, I don't think there's a shred of evidence that Trump was even thinking about the campaign finance laws until the Federal Election Commission sent a letter to Michael Cohen in February of 2018, which is long after all the acts that have been alleged as crimes in the case took place. So there's no evidence they were even thinking about this. And Merchan knows that the again, that Cohn had pled guilty, that Pecker had entered this arrangement with the Justice Department, that AMI, Pecker's company, had paid a fine to the Federal Election Commission. And each time the prosecutors refer to it as the crime they committed with Trump and the crime that Trump directed them to permit. Now, Merchan knows, as well as the three of us do, that that is not admissible evidence. It's utterly improper evidence. And he let it in on the pretext that it was necessary for the jury to weigh

the credibility of Cohen and Pecker, which is preposterous because they're government witnesses. The government has no interest in impeaching their own witnesses and testing the credibility of their own witnesses. That's the benefit of the defense. And the defense didn't want that information in because it's obviously galactically prejudicial against Trump. And let me let me ask you something. So is exactly the jury confusion that that we have in the case. It's working. That's working because you may have seen I interviewed Bill Maher earlier this week, and I think he's an honest broker. You know, he's he's a liberal, of course, and he doesn't like Trump at all, but he's not a dishonest guy. But he was

confused about it. He said in the interview, Michael Cohen went to jail for three years for a campaign finance violation. And I said, no, he didn't. And no, he didn't, Bill. He did not. That was tacked on at the end on top of these other crimes he was pleading guilty to that were already sending him to prison, like the taxi medallion and the tax. So but my point is that if the Bill Mars of the world believe that who I think even though he hates Trump, I think he's searching for actual info, though clearly in the wrong places sometimes that they believe. And I'll bet you the jury believes Michael Cohen went to jail for three years for this this so-called underlying crime he committed, quote,

with Trump. Yeah, look, the due process protections that they are bulldozing to get this guy. Those are due process protections, and if they could take them out against Trump, they can take them out against anyone, and that's what ought to have people upset. Look, I don't care if Trump commits a serious crime. It's fine by me if he gets convicted. What I'm jacked up about with respect to this thing is it's a due process travesty. They are making up a crime and they're politicizing the system to get their political enemies. And if people think that Trump is their only political enemy and that this is all sui generis and they would only do it against Trump and never against anyone else, you're out of your mind. So, Phil, the way this is going is the prosecution is going to argue, you know, everybody has the closing arguments on Tuesday, that

the Access Hollywood tape came out in October of 16. There was a total freak out and panic on the campaign that that's when Stormy came forward and threatened to go public with their alleged affair that Trump had't have this get out, pay her off $130,000. That's why Michael Cohen took out the home loan and paid her the $130,000. And that it was agreed per handwritten notes by Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump organization, who was not called to testify by anyone who's sitting in Rikers right now, that Cohen would be repaid in the amounts that we've all gone over, $130,000 times two, so that they could take out the taxes of it. Then the $50,000 he allegedly reimbursed this group, Redfinch, which did polling on Trump, which we'll get to in a minute. We've talked about this before, but it was a lie. And he defrauded Trump out of some 60 grand, we'll explain in a second. And then some other

monies in there. And that this was all agreed by Trump, by Allen Weisselberg, by Cohen. Trump blessed it and they understood that it was going to be repaid under a quote retainer agreement with Michael Cohen as his lawyer in 2017 through 18, even though Trump knew very well Michael Cohen wasn't going to be doing much legal work, if any, for him over that time. This wasn't retainer for legal expenses or services. It was a reimbursement. We have Trump tweets that say it was a reimbursement. He uses that word. And so I'm giving you all the things that the jury is going to be sold in the prosecution's closing. And so Trump knew he ordered the payment. He understood how it was going to be documented.

He understood it was going to be falsely documented. And he also understood that this was to help his campaign. That was his main goal, to help his campaign, because women were going to hate this news and information about him. And somehow that makes it a campaign finance violation, notwithstanding what we all know about campaign finance violations at this point. It doesn't matter what was in his head. Only matters the nature of the payment guarantee that will not appear in any jury instruction. They're going to show the jury. I mean, I just pulled them for fun. Trump checks that say retainer with Donald Trump's

signature on them. They say retainer, and they're going to say that was a lie. It wasn't a retainer. It was reimbursement. They're going to show the jury the Allen Weisselberg handwritten notes that show the monies laid out. And that's the entirety of the case. There it is. Chicken scratch. Weisselberg shows the plus 50 paid to Redfinch. And it's got the all the numbers laid out there for Cohen and what he would get. That's their case. And if the jury believes Michael Cohen, that Trump blessed it, that he had a phone call with Trump, that Trump was at that Weisselberg meeting and that they got explicit about how this is going to go down. They have enough to convict based on the way this jury instruction is likely going to be fed to them with wrong descriptions of the law. Am I wrong? No, I think you're right. And see,

it doesn't matter because Trump, first off, it's OK for a political candidate to do things to help their campaign. It's OK for a campaign to do things to influence an election. That's what that's what campaigns do. You know, Andy's point about this case being a due process travesty is very, very well taken. What you just went through, Megan, shows clearly why the jury really needed to hear from a campaign finance expert. And we know that, of course, the judge has his thumb on the scale in favor of Alvin Bragg and, of course, would have curtailed this man's testimony to the point that it would have been absolutely useless. That in and of itself, I think, is reversible error. You've got to let a criminal defendant put on a defense, and you've got to let expert witnesses give opinion testimony when they know more about a

subject than the layperson on the jury knows. So the judge was wrong about all of that. He's going to be wrong in how he sets up his jury instructions, no doubt. And at the end of the day, when Donald Trump wrote a check to Michael Cohen or Michael Cohen's law firm for purposes of, even if it was to reimburse him to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Those are legal expenses. And when you're a bookkeeper at the Trump organization or whatever, and you've got a dropdown menu for how do you categorize these things, you just put it in there in whatever way makes the most sense. And it doesn't mean that it's a falsified business record. You can parse these things

every way from Sunday, but at the end of the day, Donald Trump, even if he made a campaign contribution, he's allowed to do that without limitations, I understand. But Michael Cohen's not. There's a cap on what Cohen could have donated to Trump. That's how they're getting to it. Yeah, well, you know, so that may be. But at the end of the day, if they're if they're trying to say that that Cohen made a campaign contribution that was illegal, that's on Cohen. Trump, if the money is coming from him and it's meant to be a campaign contribution, it and that he was trying to conceal it. Right. Because all they have to show is that he was trying to falsify business records in order to conceal an underlying crime. But the other crime is the one that they've alleged is causing these other violations. So the way they're going to hook this into the case, more than likely, is this New York election law statute that makes it a crime to conspire by unlawful conduct to affect

the outcome of an election or influence an election. So what they're going to say is that it's a conspiracy to defeat the campaign finance laws. And even though Trump and I expect the defense is going to highlight this because they haven't, you know, the judge hasn't left them with much. They're going to try to say that, you know, look, Trump is the candidate. It doesn't make any difference. You know, he doesn't have any ceiling. But what they'll come back, the prosecutors will come back with, and this will be borne out, I'm sure, by the jury instructions that we're not allowed to see, is that it's alleged that Trump caused Pecker to violate the campaign finance laws in connection

with the McDougal nondisclosure agreement and that he caused Cohen. Cohen, by the way, has already pled guilty to causing Pecker to do it in the federal case. And what they're going to say is that Trump caused both of them to violate their caps. And the one other thing I want to add, Megan, because I think I got this wrong when we were talking with Dave last week, I was puzzled about the checks because I think I got this wrong when we were talking with Dave last week. I was puzzled about the checks because I saw pictures of the checks and the checks don't say retainer on them. They just they don't say anything. And I realize now, having read the transcript, that the checks came

with a stub. You know, Dave and I were in different places and it's the stub that says retainer. So he's right about that. Just to show it up that you can see it the check is at the bottom with donald trump's name and it doesn't say retainer but the stubs do the retainer retainer yep keep yeah well the the all right so just just not for nothing guys but here we are two actual trials the trial lawyers i'm looking at there i have also tried cases but i but not in the realm of you two. And we still don't know what the hell, what this case is about. The jury's about to get the case. And we still don't know what's the underlying crime.

What exactly was the proof of it? What must he prove? How will the jury verdict form read? How will the instructions read? It's going to be so confusing for these lay people sitting in the jury box to try to figure any of it out, especially without having heard from Brad Smith, the election law expert. But I'll tell you this. I heard on another podcast, it was by the Washington Post, something I thought was interesting. And the commentator, a Washington Post analyst said, well, Trump's got a chance because juror

number two said he reads Truth Social for his news. And that made my ears perk up because if true, that actually is quite big. Anybody who goes to Truth Social for their news is hardcore MAGA. So I pulled that juror's profile and it is as follows. Juror number two is a married man who works in investment banking. He has an MBA in finance. He described himself as someone who quote, reads basically everything and said that while he doesn't hold any strong beliefs or opinions, he does follow the news and sees Trump's truth social posts via Twitter. He told the court that he had not read any of Trump's books, but had seen quotes from The Art of the Deal. Now, gentlemen, if this is Trump's last best hope to stop a guilty verdict, I don't like his chances, Bill.

We all see Trump's truth social posts on Twitter. If you get your news from Twitter, you see them there because everyone who is pro-Trump will repost them, and also people who are anti-Trump will repost them. If that's his last best hope, I'm concerned. Well, look, I've said all along that I think that this case may very well come down to one or two or maybe three individuals who can at least understand that they have not had any proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They might dislike Trump. They may hate him. They may think, yeah, well, maybe he should be in prison. But if they're intellectually honest and they leave their bias at the door of the courtroom like they're instructed to do, then we might actually get to a hung jury. And I think that might be the best thing.

Look, I mean, when he won like 12 percent of the vote there, if you take 12% of this jury, and if that 12% maintains their position throughout the deliberations, then it will be a hung jury. But I'm afraid of the judge, however, sending them back time and time and time again, if they come out and they say, we've got questions, or we're stuck, we can't, we can't unanimously reach a verdict, he's going to tell them to go back, and it's normal to do that once or twice or maybe even three times before you give them the so-called dynamite charge. But these people are done. They're tired of this case. They want to get over with. So if the judge keeps saying go back, go back, keep working, keep working, keep working, at some point he's going to bully them into reaching a decision. So if you only have one or two individuals that are holding

out for not guilty, at some point, the judge is going to wear them down by making them continue to deliberate. And so that could actually push them over into a conviction. The judge has so, so, so much control over this at this point, considering the bias that he's shown, it doesn't bode well for Trump. On the Trump side, Andy. Yeah, go ahead. I am not as down having grown up in the city. I'm not as down on Manhattan juries as you guys seem to be. I don't think that it's completely rigged against Trump. I think if you think that 18 people like randomly picked in Manhattan, they all have to, you know, be activist Democrats.

You can't say that at one breath. You'd have to say then that you didn't think Trump could draw 18 people at Kratona Park in the Bronx last night. And anybody who saw that rally has to know that there's, you know, Trump doesn't, I'm not, I'm not trying to suggest that New York is great for Trump, but, you know, the idea that it's a, it's a total clean sweep against him and that, you know, he couldn't conceivably get favorable jurors on the, on that jury. I'm not buying it until I see it. I just I just don't think it's so. And I actually think the dynamic that we you know, look, there's an anti-Trump dynamic here. There's no doubt about it. But the other thing going on in New York is, you know, we have people assault police officers on the street and they're back out on the street in an hour. We have real criminals who don't get prosecuted. We have Bragg time and again taking felonies and either pleading them down to misdemeanors

or not prosecuting the cases at all. These people are committing crimes on the streets that these jurors have to go home to. And every day they come to court, the only safe place to be in Manhattan is that courthouse because that's where the cops are. And what they're seeing is they don't have police protection where they want to have it. And they see at Bragg's prosecution table the resources being poured into this between the number of prosecutors, the number of investigators, the number in crime beginning in 2019 and the heights that it's at compared to how it was, say, you know, 2015, 2016. That's what people are angry about in New York. And I think, you know, I'm not convinced that there aren't going to be three or four people, if not more, on that jury who are angry about that. It's amazing.

I mean, it did go 87 percent for Joe Biden in 2020. But as you point out, things on the ground in Manhattan have gotten far, far worse since 2020. So there is a chance that even people who pulled the lever for Biden back then are more open minded to Trump. There's a there's crime all over New York. There's a bigger criminal in the courtroom right now. And his name is Michael Cohen than than Donald Trump even arguably is. And this came out on the cross-examination. We talked with our audience about it before, but just getting the transcripts now of what happened when he admit that he admitted that he stole from Trump. Here's a bit of what, what was said. Um, okay. It was brought up during direct

examination. The prosecutor Hoffinger said, did you pay Redfinch, this company who he was supposed to get to rig some polls for Trump and also create a women for Cohen hashtag on Twitter. Okay. Uh, she says, did you pay Redfinch less than 50,000? Because he sought 50,000 reimbursement from Trump. Cohen, I did. Hoffinger, then why did you ask them for 50,000 back? Cohen, because I didn't feel like Trump got what he paid for. Hoffinger, were you going to keep the rest for yourself? Cohen, that's what I ended up doing. So she fronted it, but not effectively enough because when Todd Blanche got up there, I mean, he just ripped him a new one. He got up there and said, so you stole from the Trump organization, Cohen? Yes, sir. Blanche, you didn't just steal the 30,000 because he actually only billed Redfinch 20 grand, but he asked Trump for 50 grand reimbursement.

So he was getting 30,000 in his own pocket. And Blanche is saying, you didn't just steal that 30 because it was grossed up thinking that you had outlaid 50 grand to this, to this company. They paid you back a hundred grand and really you'd only outlaid 20. So if they wanted to make you whole, they should have paid you back a hundred grand and really you'd only outlaid 20. So if they wanted to make you whole, they should have paid you back 40, which means you, you stole more than just the 30,000. You stole 60,000 from Donald Trump. Isn't that true? Yes. And they go on to say, hold on. Okay. You stole right. And then did you ever have to plead guilty to

larceny? Asked Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer. No, sir, Cohen says. I mean, he brought it home absolutely perfectly. And the jury was left with, in the final impressions of Cohen seeing, not only did he obviously lie about, I think was obvious, calling Trump through his bodyguard to allegedly get his approval of the Stormy payment. That was made clear by the defense. In texts, it really did not seem like the prosecution had seen from Cohen to Keith Schiller, the bodyguard, was about Cohen's harassment problem with a 14-year-old boy. He was texting him, I've got this problem. I need to speak with you.

Where are you? And then he called him for 90 seconds. And now he wants that jury to believe that was so he could talk to Trump and tell him all about the Stormy lie, the Stormy payment. And it seems like an obvious lie. They've got multiple other lies by Cohen where he was just caught red-handed. And according to those inside the courtroom, he looked dumbfounded when confronted with his text to Keith Schiller. It did not seem to those in observance inside the room that either he or the prosecution knew those texts

were coming, putting the lie to his magic 90-second phone call to Trump. And while he's got Trump on tape agreeing to the Karen McDougal payment, he does not have Trump on tape agreeing to the Stormy Daniel payment. The prosecution didn't call in Weisselberg to back Cohen up. It comes down to Michael Cohen. And Michael Cohen is not a credible witness in any way, shape or form. Andy, I heard you saying on your podcast on National Review with Rich, they should have just ended there. Just end with your star witness. The other side, star witness admitting he committed larceny. Don't call a single additional witness as the defense. Let that be the jury's last impression before they go home for a week.

Yeah, Megan, you know, I think two things. I think this is where you really wish you could be in the courtroom and see how things are hitting the jury. Because I have to say, I feel like I was unfair to Susan Hoffinger. I think it is. And I don't I hate to say that because I think, you know, going through the whole transcript, I think what they're doing here is so dishonest the way they're putting in this inadmissible evidence. They know it's wrong. The judge knows it's wrong and they're doing it anyway. podcast my podcast i kind of said uh that kind of said i did say uh because i was relying on the reporting that this was a sensational bombshell of a revelation that came at the end of the cross examination and that uh blanche had really hit a home run and i was i'm going with that based on the reporting which suggested to me that the jury had first heard about this during Cross. And then it turned out, as you just pointed out, it's not, I don't think she did a

great job fronting it, but she got all the underlying facts out. And I was assuming that this made a great impact on the jury because it was the first time they were hearing it. So I now have to say to myself, if it wasn't the first time they were hearing it and maybe that, you know, the people who were reporting this particular, the people who were sympathetic to Trump who were reporting it, maybe they were making it into a bigger bombshell than it actually played in the courtroom. I just don't know because I didn't get to see the jury. And I must say, I thought Costello was going to be a better witness. I think it's unfortunate he got into the fracas that he got into with the judge.

Called by Team Trump. Well, the thing I liked about Costello or the conception of Costello as a witness is that the government's witnesses were uniformly unsavory. The main witnesses I'm talking about, you know, Stormy, Pecker, Cohen. And I thought, you know, here's Bob Castello, who's a likable guy and who has made a very nice 50 year career for himself talking to New York juries and that I thought he would make a much better impression. But I just think he got into it with the judge. And I don't think it was all his fault, as the reporting suggests. But look, it's the judge's courtroom and you can't be

disrespectful to the judge. That's just a bad look, no matter what you're getting disrespectful over. And the thing that I thought he'd bring to the table as a big asset, I'm not sure it worked out that way. Plus, it got into all this stuff about Giuliani, which I don't think that really helped the defense at the end. So I guess as you're looking at it, your point is correct that, you know, they should have stopped right there. And then they had beaten up Cohen. They want to look at the jury in the eye at the end and say, we didn't put on a case because after that case that the prosecution put on, we didn't have to do anything. Their own case shows that they have no case. But, you know, can't unring the bell at this point. No. And I mean, we'll show you here's here's a bit of Costello on Fox last week. He had testified before the grand jury. So Trump was familiar with

Costello in his story. He represented Michael Cohen for a time. He'd before he'd been the I think the chief assistant D.A. and he was the chief assistant. He was what was he the chief assistant U.S. attorney, deputy chief of the criminal division, which is like the number two job in the criminal division. It was a long time ago, like 77 to 86, around there. But fine, he knows the office. He's a very well-respected, sober, smart guy. And he was representing Cohen for a period of time. And that's when Cohen made all sorts of admissions about all the stuff he did not have on Donald Trump.

He was saying to him, hey, now might be a good time to consider using it if you've got it. And Cohen kept telling him over and over, I got nothing. I got nothing. And so he testified to that in front of the grand jury. Didn't help Trump. He went before Congress two weeks ago while Cohen was on the stand. Didn't help Trump. And he went on Fox and Friends or Fox and Trump liked him and I think insisted that they call him. Here's a flavor for how Bob Costello has been sounding and why the Trump team probably thought it was going to be useful to put him in front of the jury. Here's Fox. How I can get out of this because he saw these enormous legal problems coming his way. They were so bad in his mind that he was willing to kill himself.

And so I kept on going back and suggesting to him, listen, Michael, if you have something truthful on Donald Trump, now is the time to cooperate. And he kept on saying over and over again, 10 to 20 times, I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Donald Trump. I even said to him, Michael, think about this. Isn't it easier to cooperate against Donald Trump if you have truthful information than it is to kill yourself? Well, the answer is obvious. That was his moment in time. If he had something truthful to say, I'm willing to cooperate. But he didn't take that. He kept on saying, I have nothing on Donald Trump. So as you know, Andy, that's not how it went when he actually took the stand and testified in court. There was a tension. You guys should

listen to Andy's podcast because he goes through the whole history of, you know, tension between federal prosecutors and state prosecutors and sort of the dynamics leading into this moment. Judge Mershon would likely have had a chip on his shoulder about this big federal prosecutor coming in, you know, like he's the he's the tough guy. And then there was a misunderstanding potentially about him, an objection being sustained and Costello not listening. But Mershon's a soft talker. But but really what happened after that is Costello was angry and showed it. And the thing is, Andy, the jury, in all likelihood, likes the judge. And they probably like the judge a lot more than they like Bob Costello, who they don't know. That's that's probably right. And just one other thing

about Costello, which which I think is part of what got him so hot, Megan, you you point out that he testified in the grand jury, but it didn't help Trump. And I think Costello's theory about that is he gave the prosecutors a meeting, which he didn't have to do, before he went into the grand jury. And he gave them, like he says, between 200 and 300 documents that backed up what he was saying about Cohn, you know, emails, messages and all that stuff. And then he says when he went into the grand jury, the prosecutors intentionally didn't ask him the questions that would have elicited the information that he had given them in

his in their office the day before and that they cherry picked like two or three documents out of the three hundred that he gave them. So he thought that they gave the grand jury a completely skewed and dishonest depiction of what he would have been able to say. But this should point out to people that the prosecutors run the grand jury. There's no judge. There's no anything. The prosecutor decides what the grand jury. There's no judge. There's no anything, you know, prosecutor decides what the grand jury hears. And unless the grand jury rebels and they say they want to hear, you know, more evidence and more information, they're going to get whatever version of events the prosecutor decides to give them. So the last impression the jury had, Phil,

was of Costello alienating the judge for Team Trump on really the one witness they called. They called one like junior lawyer. Instead of Michael Cohen admitting he'd committed larceny, he wasn't prosecuted. And by the way, I forgot to read arguably the most interesting part of that cross where Cohen in trying to explain why he stole $60,000 from Trump said as follows, I was angered because of the reduction in my bonus. And so I just felt it was almost like self-help. It went on from there. It was self-help, Phil. How many times have you tried that with your clients?

Well, it doesn't, well, I mean, if I tried it, I'd be in prison. But same reason. But listen, I would have in hindsight, obviously, which is 2020. I don't think anybody really could have foreseen that the judge was going to look. I see it a little differently. I put most of this kerfuffle on Judge Mershon and his particular bias, because I also watched that Fox interview. I played it on my show and I think Costello comes across really, really well. He's polished. He's articulate. He does, but he was scoffing at the judge's rulings openly. Well, I mean, I get that point, but I put most of it on the judge. The judge shouldn't have

been making those stupid, ridiculous, illegal rulings in the first place. Feels in favor of the scoffing. But no, look, he knew, Costello knew that Michael Cohen had lied to this jury. And so normally that's the kind of thing, if you've got a witness that knows another witness like Michael Cohen, not only that he's a general liar, but he's lied in this specific case, of course, as a defense lawyer, you're going to want to bring that. But if they had been able to foresee that the prosecutor would have been making objections and the judge was not going to even require them to give a basis for their objection or let the other side even respond, that he was simply going to say sustain, sustain, sustain before not have called it. But I think at the time they made the right decision, of course, with the 2020 vision of hindsight, it was probably correct to have done what Andy suggested and just end on the note of having torn a new one for Michael Cohen

based on his thefts and everything else. Yeah. Honestly, it's like, so you're the biggest felon in this courtroom. You who committed larceny, who stole $60,000 from the victim, Mr. Trump over there. And you did it for self-help. No further questions. That's it. Goodbye. You're done. You have a happy Memorial Day. It didn't end that way, but Cohen has been bloodied up and bruised pretty badly in this case. And there's, that's the big question. Does the jury disregard all of that and say, well, I believed him on the core things? And does the jury then say the core things have been proven within the confines of the law I'm being given? Andy, thank you for being here.

Phil sticks around and we're going to take up the latest on Nathan and Fannie and Joy Reid. It's unbelievable. We have got to talk about Nathan Wade, the Randy prosecutor down in Fulton County, Atlanta, who decided to have an affair with his co-prosecutor on the case, Fannie Willis, and his rehabilitation tour on the media. Only too happy to help MSNBC's Joy Reid just the other night. Now, to folks who have not been closely following this case, those poor folks would have walked away very confused after this interview and maybe even feeling sorry for Nathan Wade and for Fannie Willis, given how Joy Reid framed this scandal. I mean, story. The reason there's no trial date in Georgia is because a lawyer for one

of the defendants, Mike Roman, who worked for the Trump campaign, found a novel way to stall it. One that didn't involve the criminally accused Donald Trump, but did involve, actually devolved into a salacious sideshow about a black woman's personal life. It was an attempt to have DA Fonny Willis removed because of an alleged improper romantic relationship with a special prosecutor she'd hired, Nathan Wade. And just like that, the focus shifted from Donald Trump trying to overturn his loss to the judgment and character of Fonny Willis over a consensual workplace romance.

OK, for those of you keeping track at home, it is not OK to talk about a black woman's personal life, but it's fine to have testimony about whether a former president white man was wearing a condom when he allegedly banged a porn star. Got it. Joy Reid's rules. We're just playing by them. Not surprisingly, time and time again, Joy Reid failed to call out Nathan Wade when his narrative did not add up. You were brought into the case. You came in November 1st and this was after, you know, the there was the investigation. There's a special grand jury that then gets impaneled in May of 2022. At the time that you were brought on to the case, from then through the time of the grand jury, before you were brought on, did you have a personal relationship with or personal intimate relationship with D.A. Willis? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Our relationship was professional.

Our relationship grew organically over time. It was something that was not deliberate or intentional. I made the statement earlier that workplace romances are as American as apple pie, right? That was not to make light of the situation. Apple pie, just a red blooded American man who couldn't keep his hands off Fannie Willis. Absolutely no romantic relationship, he says. Absolutely none. Prior to the grand jury being impaneled in May of 2022. That's what he just said.

That'll come as news to the old version of Nathan Wade, who testified under oath at the hearing to have him and Fannie disqualified from the Trump prosecution in Atlanta when he said that old Nathan Wade, that his affair started at least two months prior to May of 2022. When did your romantic relationship with Miss Willis begin? 2022. When? In 2022? Early 2022. So you were appointed in November of 2021? Yes, ma'am. And your relationship started early. What's early? January? February? Around March. Around March. Even his lover, DA Fannie Willis, put the date months earlier than Nathan Wade is now telling Joy Reid. In November of 2021, I hired him.

I do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. Because I don't know a date and time. I'm saying sometime between February and April of 2022 and very early April of 2022. Because I know that trip that I discussed with you was like the first week of 2022, that the relationship had become romantic. Okay. The point is he's still lying. They lie because they know they've done wrong. And he continues to lie. And a decent, I mean, even a journalist at all, you don't even have to be decent. Just do your basic job. Journalist would know to ask these questions and would have her facts ready, madam. Of course, all of these dates are lies. They're obvious lies because we know from their

many texts and overnight visits, hello, long before he was hired in 2021, that these two were having an affair while Nathan Wade was still married, well before she even hired him. They're just allowed to spew their lies with impunity on MSNBC. There was little to no pushback when he skirted questions, no pushback on well-documented lies in his divorce documents under oath. And adding insult to injury, Joy Reid and Mr. Wade decided the judge's order, decrying, and I quote, the odor of mendacity that Wade and Willis's testimony left in the court was really code because it was actually about race. He didn't have to add it. He could have simply said, I find for the district attorney, she can remain on the case. But he added some additional comments about the odor of mendacity and other things. Do you think that was unneeded?

I don't think that it was necessary. I think many legal analysts and experts have said that, you know, that that entire piece of his order was, I think, just to prove a point. Judges have a tough job. Sometimes personal feelings come out. An odor of mendacity, in all fairness, could be, could come from a lack of understanding. We could have cultural differences. I may not understand why a certain culture does a certain thing. So it could be suspicious to me. Right. So we'll give him that benefit. Cultural differences, lack of understanding. It was personal. That's why Judge Scott McAfee said the stench of lying was in his court after they testified. Like he didn't

understand, I guess, how black people cheat on their wives and lie about it under oath. Is that his point? Is that a black thing, sir, that this poor judge just didn't understand? What are you saying? He didn't get how black men go and hang out at Porsche dealerships from midnight to 5 a.m. when they're closed and most definitely are not at the home of their extramarital affair partner, who they then text as soon as they return home. Was it poor Judge McAfee's personal feelings about you that made him assume those things? Was it cultural differences that left Judge McAfee thinking maybe Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis were the liars, those two,

and not Robin Yurte, who said they started their affair years before. In 2019, she said it started years before they admitted on the stand and that she'd seen it with her own eyes and been told about it personally by Fannie Willis, who was then her best friend. Wait, she's black, too, by the way. Did Robin Yurte not understand these cultural differences to which you refer, Mr. Wade? How offensive. You lied, sir. You lied under oath. We all saw it. You should have been disbarred. And there is nothing about our culture that makes a white judge incapable of detecting the odor of mendacity when it's staring him in the face and nose in his own courtroom. And you know it. That would have been a nice

follow-up, Joy Reid, but you didn't do it. But Nathan Wade is always the victim, folks. You see, he's always the victim, even as he was asked about abandoning his spousal and child support obligations. I'm keeping up with all my responsibilities, contrary to what people believe. I have not shirked any responsibilities. I've paid spousal support. I don't have minor children, so there's no reason to pay any child support. I am doing everything that I'm supposed to do and still dealing with the threats that are coming daily. Oh, the threats. Poor me. And yet legal filings in his divorce case say quite the opposite. We actually reached out to Joycelyn Wade's legal team. Joy Reed, you should have done that after this appearance.

And let's just say they do not agree with Nathan Wade's version of the events, telling us in part in an exclusive statement, quote, Mr. Wade continues his campaign of deceit in the media. The evidence will show unequivocally that he is not meeting his court-ordered financial obligations to his wife. And Joycelyn is also adamant in speaking with us that they did not have an agreement to divorce when their youngest graduated high school, as Nathan Wade claimed to Joy Reid. In other words, he was cheating. He was cheating when he bedded Fannie Willis, his work partner. Hello. Joycelyn's legal team telling us that's, quote, yet another lie Nathan Wade persists in telling. Phil Holloway is back with

me now. Phil, do you believe the nerve of this guy? Well, you know, the odor of describing that testimony as having the odor of mendacity was, I think, very generous on Judge McAfee's part. It's a lot kinder than saying, you know, I think these people lied in my courtroom under oath. I think they committed perjury. So I guess if you want to be really specific about it, I guess that's what Mr. Wade wanted the judge to have said in lieu of the odor of mendacity. But Joy Reid, by the way, you know, Joy Reid needs to be educated and made aware that when Ashley Merchant raised this issue, she is doing what the law requires her to do, which is to be a zealous advocate for her client. If she uncovers information that the prosecutor on the case has acted improperly and in a way that could result in her disqualification. She has no choice ethically,

but to raise that issue. Speaking of the divorce and all the pleadings there, I can't wait for the hearing that's coming up, I think maybe next month, because look, Judge Henry Thompson, who's handling that divorce case, I've known him for 25 years, very laid back, very practical man. But he's, look, how many times can you be asked and made aware, actually, if you're a judge, that somebody is not following your orders before you have to do something more drastic. And so it's apparent from the pleadings that Mr. Wade is not taking care of his obligations, particularly with respect to health care costs that are incurred by Joycelyn Wade.

And she now alleges she spent all the money going to see the world with Fannie Willis. And she still says she being Joycelyn Wade and her lawyer, she says the money is still coming in. She alleges in a recent filing that he's not been truthful with the court in Cobb County with Judge Thompson in the context of his legal pleading. So you talk about the odor of bandacity. The odor is apparently drifting over the county lines because Joycelyn Wade says he's lying once again in his pleadings up there. No, it's drifting all the way up here to Connecticut. It's beyond just counties.

Here's Joy Reid on really, because Fannie Willis was also there. She, of course, went to MSNBC for her media rehab tour. And take a listen to Joy Reid's take on this. Watch. It's not 12. Team MAGA could not prove an actual conflict of interest since there was none. But because America is always America, the victory for DA Fannie Willis also came with a scolding for a professional Black woman about her judgment. Judge McAfee called a speech she gave in January at Bethel AME Church accusing her critics of racism legally improper, adding that the effect was to cast racial aspersions.

Meanwhile, defendant Donald Trump has launched numerous openly racist attacks on Fannie Willis without admonition. In fact, Judge McAfee actually suggested a possible gag order against Fannie Willis, who I will remind you has faced a torrent of racist abuse and threats for prosecuting Trump. Wow. You see, because America is America, it came with a scolding. The black woman had to be scolded by this judge who threatened to gag her, where it's really Donald Trump spewing all of the racist threats. That's her take on the world. Joy Reid needs to understand that it's about Fannie Willis and the choices and the decisions that she's made. She's the one who decided to go into the well of that church to make racial aspersions about the defendants in

the case. You're not supposed, if you're a prosecutor, you are not supposed to be making derogatory comments in the sphere of sort of the general public or court of public opinion, particularly when you're making those comments in the well of a church that's right in the heart of where the jury will be taken from. This is Fulton County. You're going to get the juror. She's speaking to the potential jurors. That's why it's more than just an actual or even a perceived conflict of interest. It's improper for the prosecutor to make these extrajudicial statements that way and to refer to the defendant's counsel as lying and being racist. It's absolutely 100% improper. The judge has given the Georgia Court

of Appeals everything that it needs in terms of the recipe to disqualify Fannie Willis. I am still scratching my head. I don't understand why he did not at that point, but I'm convinced that the Court of Appeals most likely will. That's my prediction. And Joy Reid needs to educate herself and understand that prosecutors have a different obligation than a criminal defendant, certainly, and they have a different obligation from other lawyers. They have a special obligation to do justice, whatever that requires, and it doesn't necessarily, well, it never includes going into the well of a church and telling the jury pool that someone that you're actively prosecuting is a racist and

casting those kind of aspersions. It's improper. It's against the rules of ethics. Fannie Willis knows it's against the rules of ethics. I guess Joy Reid is the only one that doesn't. Now we've seen Fannie Willis file an appeal on Judge McAfee's dismissal of the six counts against Donald Trump. He dismissed them saying he didn't plead these counts against him for encouraging somebody to violate their oath of office, particularly enough. He didn't really plead him with enough specificity to give the defendants notice of what it is they're being charged with. She's really just filing this because the Court of Appeals has already taken the appeal of McAfee's refusal to disqualify her. So when do these appeals get heard, Phil? And what's the

earliest we could find out whether Fannie's remaining on this case once and for all? Well, they're submitting briefs in the very near future. You've got a number of the defendants, for some reason that I can't understand, not all the defendants joined in this motion. So the ones who did join in this motion, they're going to be submitting their briefs in the coming weeks. And then the responsive pleadings, of course, by the prosecutor, I think it's going to probably be August, Megan, when we're going to hear oral arguments. And then they've got actually a long period of time that they can wait to issue a ruling. My prediction is that it's going to be sometime in the October-ish timeframe that we may get a ruling on this. It takes two of the three

judges on the panel of the Court of Appeals to reverse Judge McAfee. But remember, whoever loses can then ask the Georgia Board of excuse me, the Georgia Supreme Court to to take up the issue there. So there's we're not done with the appeals, no matter how they they rule this fall. And is the case proceeding? You and I were not sure whether they would stop the trial against Trump while she is still, Fannie, in jeopardy. Is it proceeding right now? Do we know? As of right now, it's not. And of course, you have the election. Willis and, of course, Judge McAfee both were involved in the election that just took place this week on the 21st. McAfee won. Willis won her primary. McAfee's in for four more years of his own now at this point. I think that he he's not doing a whole lot. He's going to wait and see what the Court of Appeals does,

because if he starts hearing pretrial motions and conducting other litigation related to this case, and it turns out that Willis is not supposed to be the prosecutor on it, then it will all have been for nothing, and it will have been a big waste of time. I do think he's going to issue some rulings based on hearings that he's already had. It's my understanding there's a slew of them ready to be handed down, so we'll be looking for those things to see what they are. We don't know, but we'll see in the next days or even weeks how he's going to rule on some of the other pretrial motions that he heard before the case was docketed at the Court of Appeals. One of the things Nathan Wade said the other night on MSNBC

was that he does not think this case gets tried before the election. And from what you just told me, doesn't sound like they'll be able to try it even before the next president is sworn in. So that's that's a big loss for her. She should have he should have kept it in his pants and she should have upheld her duty to be an ethical person. And when asked about it, should have thought about that same thing. Phil, always a pleasure, my friend. Great to see you. Happy to be here, Megan. Happy Memorial Day. Thank you. You too. Phil Holloway, everybody. We love him. Up next, Jesse Kelly's here. And oh, we have a lot to get through with Jesse. This is going to be a fun half an hour. Stay with me. I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open,

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

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

Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Last night, former President Donald Trump held a rally in the Bronx. And to AOC's dismay, it brought major turnout. That plus Pride Month starts next week. Oh, my God, it never ends. What is Walmart doing? Not the right thing. Here to discuss it, Jesse Kelly, host of the Jesse Kelly Show and I'm right on the first TV. Jesse, my friend, great to see you again.

Oh, it's always a pleasure, Megan. After all, it's Memorial Day weekend. Great weekend. Yes. Thank you for your service on that front, my friend. There's a lot to get to. So Trump goes to the Bronx. AOC is publicly rejoicing at the massive storm we got yesterday morning here in the Northeast and in New York, where it was lightning and it was thunder and it was just a complete downpour. And she was saying God is good on Twitter. And then like a phoenix, the sun rose from the ashes, the clouds parted, the rain stopped, and all the people crowded in in the Bronx, New York to see Donald Trump. Then she had the nerve, AOC, to say, well, I can't wait to hear from my fellow Bronxites about how they really feel about Donald Trump. And here is some of that. Did you ever expect Donald Trump to come to the South?

Not really. No, never. Nobody else, I think, had done this. I think it's a good thing. I think I definitely am surprised. I don't think I would have expected him to come to the Bronx. I didn't expect it, to be honest, right here at Fortuna Park in the South Bronx. But us people, we love Trump. I don't know of any president that's ever come to the Bronx. Period. Did you ever expect him to come here? No, not at all.

Not at all. And I'm so excited. No, we never expected him to come here. But it's not like they say, not everybody dislikes him. We love him here. We're glad he showed up. So it wasn't a good day for AOC. And then when asked about her in particular, it went even more south. Stop 45. AOC says if you're not a Democrat, you don't belong here in the Bronx. What do you say?

I disagree with that. I don't think she should be here in the Bronx. I actually don't know any Democrats here in the Bronx. What do you say? I disagree with that. I don't think she should be here in the Bronx. I actually don't know any Democrats living in the Bronx. Look, AOC, look at the tremendous support for Mr. Donald J. Trump. You need to tell her that she needs to stay out of the Bronx because look at all the people around. Everybody's here for Trump. I am a Democrat. And I belong here.

And who are you voting for? Donald J. Trump. What has AOC done for the Bronx? She you voting for? Donald J. Trump. What has AOC done for the Bronx? She's done nothing for the Bronx. Nothing. Nothing's changed. Nothing's gotten any better.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Let her come to the Bronx and let her come among us people that struggle. She doesn't even know what struggle is. Credit to Fox News for that second soundbite. Sarah Hernandez with Turning Point Action for the first one. Your thoughts, Jesse? Well, I have a couple of thoughts, Megan.

And one, I'm happy and everyone will probably enjoy it. And the second thought is everyone will probably hate what I'm about to say. So let's start with the good stuff. So it's like normal. Yeah, it's pretty much, pretty much. Look, it's a good thing that Trump, because he's stuck in New York because of this ridiculous trial crap, it's a good thing that he's making the most of it and getting people excited. And these kind of things do get people excited and rallies and crowds and stuff like that. That stuff, it is good. It's wonderful. And it's wonderful to see someone like that visit an area like the Bronx where most presidential candidates will never even go.

However, this stuff doesn even go. However, this stuff doesn't translate into power, Megan. This is the problem I have with so much of the voting public right now. There are rallies and there are chants and there's cheers and there's great video and I love Trump and whatnot, but it does not translate into power and power is what actually matters. We can interview a thousand people on the streets in the Bronx to talk about how much they love Trump and how much they hate AOC. AOC sails to reelection every single time and Donald Trump will not win the Bronx in the upcoming presidential election.

He won't win New York either. So I'm glad there's momentum and I'm glad it's exciting. But these people, how do you vote? Do you vote? Do you go to the polls? Do you work for campaigns at all? Have you run for office, school board, local election? Are you involved in any way? Showing up to a Trump rally for 15 minutes, having a couple beers with a couple patriots and talking on the camera about how much you hate AOC does not save the country. Looks great. Sounds great. Doesn't save the country. It's not power. It's not a bad point, but man, it is a buzzkill. There's, of course, because it's Trump, a debate about what the crowd size was. Somebody on the campaign said there were 25,000 people there today. The NYPD is estimating it was between eight and 10,000. That's either way a shit ton

of people. That's a lot of people for a Republican in the Bronx. I mean, I do see it as a glimmer of hope, just that people's minds are changing. And, you know, a lot, a lot of minorities showed up, black and brown faces. It's just, I'm just going to say I haven't seen anything like this in New York. This is the state I grew up in and spent 50 years of my life in. I haven't seen anything like this. I do think there's a it's it's a harbinger of something, Jesse. I agree, Megan, that it is a harbinger of something. And I've been I've been really paying attention to this a lot recently about about what's happening. What are we seeing with each party with beyond the presidential race? What's the 30,000 foot view thing? And I think

what's happening right now is we're having a big party realignment on both sides where the Democrats are figuring out who they are, who they want to be. Republicans are figuring out who they are, who they want to be. And more importantly, the voters are figuring out where they belong. And some voters on each side are deciding they don't like traditionally where they've been and considering a move, maybe not necessarily to the other party. Every disenfranchised Democrat's not going to start registering GOP, but maybe they leave the Democrat Party. We're seeing a big party realignment happening.

And this America First movement on the right is a good thing and will bring in new people. That's for sure. But, you know, there is if I want to be King Cynic again, Megan, this is why the border is open as well. You see, you pointed out how many black and brown people were at this rally, and you're seeing a lot more of that. Hey, we're mad about this. We're mad about that. But maybe just maybe the Democrats, while they're figuring out who they want to be, maybe they're figuring out that they don't have to pretend to give a crap about black people anymore because they just imported about 10 to 12 million illegals who are going to vote Democrat for the rest of their lives and then keep vote Democrat after they're dead.

They're all going to do that. 10 million turns into 50 million. They'll all be American citizens. They'll all vote Democrat forever. They keep stashing all these illegals in these black neighborhoods in the big cities because those are the poor neighborhoods and you always stuff the illegals in the poor parts of town. The black people keep getting mad about it. I don't know that the urban black voter has fully accepted and understood yet that they're being replaced. You can show up at these town halls and scream and yell that I'm mad at Eric Adams and Brandon Johnson in Chicago sucks and I'm super mad about it. Maybe they don't give

a crap because maybe you just got replaced. It's amazing that the numbers down at the border right now and Fox's Bill Mellugian went down there, did a report on how there wasn't a single one. They were flooding across the border. It wasn't a single one from Mexico. It was guys from the Middle East, all of fighting age. I know people think this is a conspiracy theory. Bill Malujan is a straight news reporter who is actually documenting this and actually picked up the passports of these guys as they had crossed. In fact, we've got we've got some of that and saw it. I think it's 51 watch. Where are you guys from? What country? Pakistan. Pakistan. India. India. Yeah. Turkey. Okay. India. India. Where are you guys from? Turkey. Turkey. Turkey. Where are you guys from? China. China. Ecuador. Where are you guys from? India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. India. Iran. Iran. Iran. Iran. Why'd you come?

No freedom. No freedom? Yes, in Iran. And here's a follow up for you, Jesse. He asked them, how easy was it for you to get in? Look at this, top 52. Did you have to pay a cartel? Yes. How much? Around $10,000. $10,000? Yes. In fact, the American people is right, completely true. Who come into this country, they don't know.

Okay, I'm good, but how if they not good? How they killer, psychopath, else? No guarantee of that. Why, like, no security check? No background check? No security. No security check, no background check. You security. No security check. No background check. You're worrying about who's crossing the border?

Yes, yes. Of course, maybe because I'm like, people are not normal. My God, Jesse. Megan, honestly, it's the story on the planet, and it's been the story on the planet for 20, 30 years, probably the last half century. Leaders of Western civilizations, it's not just America, but Western civilizations replacing their own citizens. And people watching this, listen to the great Megyn Kelly show, need to understand why you're being replaced.

It's not just the votes. It's not that they want someone picking the fields of the strawberries and things like that. The people who lead Western civilization now, these evil leaders we have, not just Joe Biden, the Mitch McConnell's of the world, the elites on both sides. They are so unbelievably aggravated with the citizens, the actual citizens of the country. Why? Because the citizens love their country. I love America. You love America, Megan. I want America taken care of. I want America prosperous. I want the American people to do well. I want what's pretty easy thing to do. If you're mad about me and me loving my freedoms, I want to be able to say what I want. I want to be able to own guns and eat a double cheeseburger at my leisure. Well, you just replace me. If they open the borders, you tell the entire planet that the borders are open and you flood the country with a bunch of dirt balls. And sure, they're going to

murder and rape a bunch of people. And they have and they will continue to do so. But they will vote Democrat until they die. And all their children, remember, will be American citizens. This is not an accident. I cannot stress this point enough to people. You see this from so many normal people. And I understand what they go through.

You know, they have good hearts. They couldn't fathom being that evil. So you'll you'll hear things like, wow, Joe Biden really screwed up on the border. Well, they really stumbled on the border. I can't believe how bad they've messed up on the border. Messed up? What? Joe Biden's been insanely successful with his border plan. He has done his border plan through the letter. They threw open the border so much that we're actually emptying Venezuelan prisons and flying people directly from Venezuela into the United States of America without even having to troop them through Mexico. The taxpayer is paying for Venezuelan illegals

to fly into the country and reside near you and I. It's not an accident. It's not a stumble or a bumble. They didn't trip and stub their toe and open up the border. They opened it up on purpose because they're trying to replace the American citizen who's angry about what they're doing. And they've been very successful. One of the things that helps your argument is that he could he could change border policy like that. He could issue the same executive orders that Donald Trump had in place today. And he knows that this issue has become huge, even for Democrats.

And we're just, what, five, six months out from an election. So why wouldn't he do that right now? Why wouldn't he up against these massive poll deficits, at least in the swing states? It's relatively massive. Nevada, he's back by 10, and Trump's over him by 10 in this state that's gone blue and blue over and over anyway. Why wouldn't he do it now? He's got to have an ideological reason for not doing it.

Well, again, we're more talking about the dirty communists surrounding that old cadaver. Joe Biden isn't actually doing this. But look, this is something you've talked about before, Megan. I mean, gosh, you know all this stuff. The Cloward-Piven strategy is from what, the 60s, maybe the 70s. The Cloward-Piven strategy has always understood, this is for those who don't know, an idea that the communist professors came up with, the Cloward-Piven strategy, how do we destroy America? They wanted to burn it down so they could rebuild it into some communist hellhole like communists always do. And mass unchecked immigration was always a central part of that because it doesn't matter how big and powerful a country is. You fill it up with millions of

people with no loyalty to it. They blood suck the system, drive health care money, school money, everything, housing market. It's wrecking the housing market. You can collapse a nation of any size or strength. Joe Biden, the reason he won't back off of this, and this is, like you pointed out, this might be the issue that loses in the election. Even if Joe Biden loses the election, okay, so after four years, he embarrassed himself a thousand times, he can't talk, screwed everything up, inflation's bad. The normal American would look and say Joe Biden was a failed president. But if Joe Biden successfully imports 15 million illegals, who will then turn into, like I said, 50, 60 million votes for eternity for Democrats, Joe Biden at the end of his four year term will be the most successful Democrat president in the history of the United States of America,

because he will have ensured a permanent Democrat majority. And that's if some mass deportation doesn't happen. Now, picking up on your cadaver remark, there was a soundbite yesterday. I have to say, like, you know, it's like kind of easy to startle the elderly. You shouldn't do it. You shouldn't. It's not nice, but it's kind of too easy. And including in the case of our president, here he is as the press is shouting questions at him. A joint press conference with the president of Kenya. Watch this. Oh.

If you're listening, I beg you to go to YouTube and watch this part of the show. Oh, my gosh. You know, we talk about a lot of things, Megan, but isn't it? Isn't it just kind of it's not that I like Joe Biden, but isn't it kind of mean what the people around him allow? I mean, honestly, everyone has known somebody with let's just call it dementia. That's what we all assume he has. And it's an awful thing. It's an awful thing.

Anyone who's experienced it, it's an awful thing. And you need rest. You really need rest. You need a calm environment. They focus on the paint job for people who have dementia. You need calm music. You need rest. You need a care environment.

Instead, he's in the most high stress environment humanly possible where people are shouting at him at all times. And so he just he always has this look on his face just like that, Megan, where he just where a cat just jumped on his back or something. And I set aside my dislike for the man. And I just marvel that his wife won't step in and stop all this. It must be good being first lady. Yeah, it's crazy. Stand by. Let's watch it once more. It's not good.

It's bad. It's bad. All right. Wait, just because we're having a laugh, I'm going to take a left field turn here and say, have you seen the Wheel of Fortune clip that's making the rounds? No. Oh, I've got a gift for you, my friend. I woke up to this on my phone.

I played it for Doug. And the two of us, we got to laughing. You know how like some things get funnier the more you think about them and the more you watch them? This was one of those. It's funny the first time too, though. Here, this just happened on Wheel of Fortune.

Let's play it tamaris right in the butt no no blake this is the best yeah that's that's it right in the butt that's it you know i sympathize a little bit megan because i can't do like people's minds work differently and mine's very slow anyways everyone can tell mine just doesn't work that well and i can't do i've never been able to do wheel of fortune and my wife's amazing at it she'll look at something like that and she'll just be able to she'll just do it and i you could have that whole thing done but one letter and i wouldn't be able to get it so i sympathize because that's totally something that would come out of my mouth on national

television and man you know because wheel of fortune is famous for its for its anal sex references that's that's a thing oh gosh i love the woman next to him what oh my god i'm dying yeah i you know i'm really secretly a 12 year old boy at heart. So I live for that crap. OK, wait, I've got to get to so many things. Let's talk about Walmart. It's doubling down. Target has decided to go full LGBTQ, all the letters at only half of its stores this year in Pride Month because it got such pushback, but you're still going to be seeing the Tuckett bathing suit in half of the targets of America. It's baloney. So what does Walmart do with this huge opportunity to say, we're not going to do that? You know, we support our gay customers, but they don't have to come to Walmart for this stuff. Note, they're going a different way. Here is their announcement via Instagram of their Pride Always collection, 54. Queer people have magic that we can share. We're lucky enough to be in the Walmart Pride collection this year.

Total dream come true. It's not every day that I see my products in a Walmart. It's important to me to share my art. No one can make the art that you make. No one can say the things the way you say them. There's a lot of opportunity to uplift with a bit of playfulness and imperfection. The world needs to hear what you have to say and your story. Do we, do we have to hear it at Walmart? Queer people have magic, Jesse. They're going to include a, like a day planner that has beyond gender and queer magic

printed all over it. So you can look forward to discussing that with your children while you're just trying to pick up some summer shorts. Yeah, look, this infection in the corporate world of all this cultural Marxist filth, Megan, it's the second most damaging thing they ever took over after the education system. Of course, it was the education system

that led them to taking over the corporate world. And what's terrible about it is now we have we exist in this system where all the elites I'm talking about, you know, Fortune 500 companies in the government, they've all partnered with each other against the consumer. They've all decided that they're if they just support each other, you know, they always have to be there for each other because these stupid consumers and their values, they're going to get angry at them from time to time. And so what happens is this creates confusion in people where someone like Walmart will do something stupid like this because Walmart's a family place. I mean, my goodness, Megan, I invented white trash, right?

I grew up in Walmart. I still go to Walmart all the time. I mean, I won't be now. But look, I am who I am. I can't help it. And it's a family place. So people look at something like that and they say, why would Walmart do this? They're going to get boycotted. Don't they know people will be angry? They're not worried about people being angry. They understand they have to check several boxes to stay in the

club. And now if you want to stay in the club, you have to talk about how man-made climate change is destroying everything. White people are evil and everything has to be gay. And as long as you check all those boxes, then even if the consumer, that pesky consumer gets mad about your tucking shorts or chest binders, sick freak stuff you put out there in the show or in the store, you don't have to stress that because you will always have access to capital because you're part of the club. Government will be there. These major financial institutions will be there to bail you out. So they don't have to worry about Megyn Kelly. They don't have to worry about Jesse Kelly, although they'll scoff at us because why? Merrill Lynch will be there to bail you out if you need them. Yeah. Meanwhile, you're right. Like the middle class families, working class families are using Walmart, a lot of them as their main grocery store. They're just trying to pick up dinner for the night. They support Pride Month by showing us how gay all the animals are.

The animals are gay and transgender and queer. This is just for you. It was posted by NWokeness on X. Watch. It's their trailer. Apparazzi really are everywhere. Everything you were taught as a kid is wrong. You make me wanna dance!

Gay penguins, bisexual lions, sex-changing clownfish. This is a queer planet. Queerness has always existed. It's only in humans that we have such a stigma about it. The idea of just having two fixed sexes is clearly out of style. Mother nature is pretty open-minded. Sex is not just for reproduction. It's clear that no matter where you look on our planet,

nature is full of queer surprises. To be honest, we should all probably get laid a little more than we do. Oh, yeah. It's got animal porn. probably get laid a little more than we do. It's got animal porn. It's showing animals that clearly, like, have just gotten off with the euphoric look on their faces. It's showing, I guess, purported male lions doing it to other male lions or trying to. It's called Queer Planet.

And you heard it. They are positing that just two sexes is clearly out of style, Jesse. It's so gross. And isn't it weird? Doesn't it make you feel old, Megan? Not that I would ever, of course, call you old, but I'm 42 and it makes me feel like I'm 92 and that when I was a kid, I'm not ancient, right? When I was a kid, my folks could, and they did if it was a Friday night and they had people over, they'll kick me and my cousins if we weren't allowed outside anymore downstairs. And you would just turn on ABC, NBC on Friday night and you'd watch Family Matters or Her Full House or something like that.

And it would be some sitcom with a family there teaching values and right and wrong. Megan, we don't have cable in my house anymore. You can't let your kids watch freaking commercials now, let alone the actual shows. It's like it happened five in five minutes on us. Overnight, everything just turned to crap. It makes me feel ancient. Does it make you feel old? Yeah. And it makes me feel disgusted. First of all, I feel like the lions have been wrongfully impugned in this documentary. How do we know the male lion is gay? Maybe he just mistook the other male lion for a female. I mean, my Strudwick would hump just about anything,

and everyone's spayed and neutered in my animal planet, in my house. He doesn't know what he's doing. I think he's been wrongfully accused. I want confirmation. As soon as he can dance well, we'll know. But until then, the jury's still out. I don't want to see this crap all over my stores and my television and everywhere I go for the next month. But it's about to unfold, as you know, in earnest.

Well, let's be honest, Megan, as we go into Pride Month, everyone needs to understand what's actually happening here. Propaganda works. There's been a million polls that have been put out on this of the number of people identifying as LGBTQ. I don't even know how many stupid frigging letters they've added to this thing by now. But if you go by generation and the younger you get, the numbers are eye popping. You know, the older generation, it's something like one, two percent. You get down to the younger generation today. It's 20, 25 percent Why? Are 20, 25% of people all of a sudden somewhere on the rainbow spectrum? Of course they're not. Propaganda works.

Propaganda is very effective. And the purpose behind the propaganda, especially the LGBTQ stuff and the feminist stuff, is to destroy the actual foundation of Western society, and that's the nuclear family. It's not Western society. I shouldn't have said that. It's every society in history. The Romans talked about this. The Greeks, I mean, you name it.

A man marrying a woman, making a bunch of babies, and raising them is really the foundation of every single society. You have guys like Caesar Augustus, not exactly some born-again Christian, lamenting the immorality of Rome. Why? He understood he needed families, strong families to build a strong Rome. This is an attack on the family. You turn a woman into a feminist, no man wants to date her. She'll be alone forever.

He'll hate women. She'll hate men. They don't get married. They don't make babies. You tell some 18-year-old he's trans, he cuts his penis off. Two years later, he regrets it, but now he's stuck like that for life and he's never going to be a dad or a husband. It's just it's it's it comes. I dang near got choked up, Megan. She had had her breasts removed and had gone through

all these things. And she was talking about how what she went through at 15 years old and now she'll never breastfeed. And you could just tell like it ached at her and my heart broke for her. I mean, I did so many stupid things at 15. What if you'd done something permanent like that that would affect the rest of your life? It's awful. It's abuse. It's really, really wrong. So on the trans front, there was big news from the Senate Judiciary Committee this week where Joe Biden has now managed to confirm some 200 federal judges. And Ted Cruz got up in the grill of this one magistrate judge. That's sort of a lower level federal judge who was up for the full district judge. Her name is Sarah Netburn,

Southern District of New York, very prestigious jurisdiction. She's going to get confirmed because the Dems control the Senate. And this woman had ordered a male posing as a female to leave the male prison and move to the female prison. By the way, just FYI, thanks to Biden's DOJ, misgendering is expressly forbidden with these prisoners. Taxpayers have to subsidize cosmetic surgeries, hormones, and even bras for men. And there are approximately 1980 transgender offenders in federal prison, half of whom are in for sex offenders, including this guy who raped a little boy, a nine year old boy and a 17 year old girl. And her justification was, well, there's no history of sexual assault while he was in the male's prison. Well, it's because his target victims weren't in there.

You just moved him to the female prison. I've got to play Ted Cruz. Watch this. A minute ago, you said that when this man decided that he was a she, you said this individual was, quote, I wrote it down, sober and entirely a female. That phrase struck me as remarkable. Did this individual have male genitalia? Sorry, what I meant to say was hormonally a female. Okay phrase struck me as remarkable. Did this individual have male genitalia? Sorry, what I meant to say was hormonally a female. Okay, but that's not entirely. Did this individual have male genitalia? Yes. So you took a six foot two serial rapist,

serial child rapist with male genitalia. And he said, you know, I'd like to be in a women's prison. And your answer was, that sounds great to me. Do they have a right not to have a six foot two man who is a serial rapist put in as their cellmate? Do those women have a right to that? Every person who's incarcerated has the right to be safe in their space. But now the women are not safe because because of her, this guy's been moved into the female prisons. They are not safe in what we've done to women and children in this society breaks my heart, Megan. I probably shouldn't wrap it up like this, but I should know I should let you know

that last night, actually, on my radio show, I should let you know that last night, actually on my radio show, I was talking about you specifically and Ted Cruz. I lumped you both together. And I told everyone, cause we were playing some of your Bill Maher thing. And I told everyone, I said, look, you can love or hate Megan Kelly, Ted Cruz. I'm friends with both of them. I love them both, but you don't ever think that you're more prepared than they are because they're going to make you look really, really, really stupid if you do. And for some reason, people continue to make this mistake with you and they make this mistake with Ted Cruz. You're not going to be more prepared than Ted Cruz is when you walk into something. And if you act like you are, he's going to make you look really, really, really bad.

I've seen him do it so many times. And you actually. It's amazing. Now, this same man posing as a woman says he now lives in fear of being attacked by the women. He's upset he's being housed with the worst of the worst female offenders and that that the women have, quote, made it clear he's not welcome. Oh, my God. We've lost our ever loving minds. Thank God for people like Jesse Kelly who still know the truth and speak it. Good to see you, my friend. You too, Megan. You're the best. And thanks to all of you for joining me today and all week. Don't forget Sean Ryan on Monday. God bless our soldiers, especially those who have fallen and the families who have made the

ultimate sacrifice. Please keep them in mind this Memorial Day weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.