The Megyn Kelly Show - Yet Another Trump Indictment, And Why People Don't Trust Institutions, with the Ruthless Hosts, Dave Aronberg, and Mike Davis | Ep. 608

Episode Date: August 15, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins the show addressing the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump, this time related to running a "criminal conspiracy" in Georgia. Then lawyers Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis join the show to talk about the Georgia indictment of Trump and 18 others, the details of the "RICO" case, who Georgia DA Fani Willis is, the comparisons to Jack Smith’s case, whether the trial can happen before the 2024 election, options for appeal and potentially overturning a conviction, and more. And then Comfortably Smug, Josh Holmes, Michael Duncan, and John Ashbrook, host of the Ruthless podcast, join to discuss whether the indictments help or hurt Trump politically, Rachel Maddow's embarrassing interview of Hillary Clinton, what will happen in next week's GOP debate without Trump, the importance of Iowa, what that crazy plane lady cursing about the "not real" person was talking about, people in America who believe in lizard people, how institutions have deservedly lost the trust of Americans, the ways people end up going down rabbit holes due to this lack of trust, and more.Aronberg: https://www.youtube.com/@FloridaLawManDavis: https://mikedavis.substack.comRuthless: https://www.youtube.com/@RuthlessPodcastFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Donald Trump indicted again. Just like the last one, this one is about him contesting the results of the 2020 election, and it is largely based on a Georgia state law against racketeering, a law typically used to target mobsters. Prosecutor Fannie Willis alleges that Trump's comments, public and private, that he had actually won Georgia's electoral votes, that ballots were fraudulently cast for Joe Biden, that election officials had allegedly manipulated votes in favor of Joe Biden and more, were all part of a criminal scheme by Trump and

his cronies to steal the election. She also zeroes in on Trump's efforts to get Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a proposal devised by Trump's attorneys to swing the election in his favor after the vote. The plan, laid out in a memo written by attorney John Eastman and another lawyer, both of whom are now indicted, suggests that Team Trump could get Mike Pence to disregard the electoral votes in several swing states and to instead recognize so-called fake or alternate slates of electors from such states that would then cast their electoral votes for Trump instead of Biden. The rationale being that the actual votes coming out of those states were allegedly not to be trusted and therefore the real winner,

Trump, was entitled to the support of the electors. This is also part of Jack Smith's January 6th indictment that came down earlier this month. As expected, Willis casts certain phone calls as criminal as well, including one on January 2nd, 2021, in which Trump spoke to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, along with eight others who were on the call,

and said the following. What are we going to do here, folks only need 11000 votes. Tell us. I need 11000 votes. Give me a break. Though this is the sentence that has made news for two years as alleged proof positive that Trump was behaving criminally, it's not anywhere close to the focus. I don't even think it's mentioned in Fannie Willis's indictment. This is that because if you read the whole thing, if you listen to the whole transcript between Trump and these nine others on the phone call, you can hear that he's basically saying what the reason he chose 11000 and change is because that's how much he lost Georgia by. And he's saying there was huge fraud in this vote.

It's not true, but it's what he was saying. So he was saying you don't have to do this exhaustive representation, this exhaustive look or investigation into all the votes. Once I get to 11,750 or whatever it was, we're good. But he wasn't saying go make up votes. He was saying there's been massive voter fraud. You only have to look until you find me the number that would put me over the top and then I will stop contesting. And she thinks that was a crime. She thinks the follow up comments

on that call, which she does zero in on, were a crime, including this comment. We won very substantially, Georgia. You even see it by rally size, frankly. We have at least two or three, anywhere from 250 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn't been checked. We think that if you check the signatures, a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County, you'll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people with that who have been forged. And we are quite sure that's going to happen. OK, he's saying we think this is our opinion. You should check. It's a crime, according to her.

These are just a few examples of the behavior. Fannie Willis, an elected Democrat prosecutor, says amounted to a criminal attempt to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In all, there are 13 counts against Trump, including violation of the Georgia. This is a state case. Remember, it's important and we'll get to why of the Georgia Rico statute. That's the racketeering count, as well as solicitation of violation of an oath by a public officer and several alleged conspiracies, including to commit the impersonation of a public officer,

to commit forgery, to commit false statements, and to commit filing false documents. All those revolve around the facts that I just laid out for you from the indictment. 18 others have also been indicted. 18 men and women who assisted Trump in these efforts, lawyers, alternate electors, people who arranged phone calls for Trump to state election officials in swing states other than Georgia, a publicist. I could go on. They're all accused of assisting Trump in this alleged corrupt conspiracy and also face their own allegations of misconduct, including the unlawful breach of

election equipment in Georgia and elsewhere. This is based on Trump's allies pursuant to a plan allegedly hatched by Rudy Giuliani to access the voting machines and voter data after the election. They were allowed into a facility in a Trump friendly Georgia county to do this, to kick the tires of the Dominion voting machines by Trump-friendly election supervisors, one of whom is also now indicted. Now, the case has been assigned to Judge Scott, I don't know if it's McAfee or McAfee, but he was appointed to the bench six months ago by Georgia's Republican governor, Brian Kemp. The prosecutor, Fannie Willis, said last night she hopes to try this thing within the next six months, notwithstanding the fact that it apparently took

her two and a half years to prepare her case. Prep time for me, but not for thee, it would appear. Listen. I am giving the defendants the opportunity to voluntarily surrender no later than noon on Friday, the 25th day of August, 2023. I don't have any desire to be first or last. I want to try him and be respectful for our sovereign states. We do want to move this case along. And so we will be asking for a proposed order that occurs a trial date within the next six months. Do I intend to try the 19 defendants in this indictment together? Yes. Good luck with that. Joining me now to discuss it all are all-star indictment lawyers Mike Davis, who is the founder and president of the Article 3 Project,

which defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law. And also with us is Dave Ehrenberg. He's the state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located. You can find Mike on Fox News. You can find Dave on MSNBC. But the only place to find them together is right here. Welcome back, guys. Great to have you. Thanks for having us. So I got to say, I wasn't particularly surprised by the charges brought by Willis in this case, Mike. I was surprised at the 18 others who also got indicted. But what what's your take on what she's alleging is criminal behavior in this indictment? I've read this through this indictment a couple times, and it's loud,

it's long, and it's lawless. And the problem with her indictment, the fundamental problem with this indictment is she's essentially, she's bringing a mob statute, a RICO statute, that you use to take out the mob to take out your political enemies. And the fundamental flaw with her entire complaint, and frankly, the same fundamental flaw with Jack Smith's January 6th complaint, is they are not alleging that President Trump incited the riot on January 6th. They're not alleging any force, any violence, any threats of force or violence. And they're not alleging actual fraud. They're not alleging that Donald Trump had Rudy Giuliani tie up the real electors and put them in Rudy's trunk and then gave these fake electors fake IDs to go in and pretend like they were the real electors. What happens here is what happens

in prior elections is you contest elections through the Electoral Count Act of 1887, and you twist arms politically, which is allowed by the First Amendment. And part of that includes putting up an alternate slate of electors in case you prevail legally and politically, your people are in place if you win those legal and political challenges so you can win the election. And it might be an ugly process. It's not pretty, but it might be unseemly, but it's not a felony. It's not illegal to contest elections in America. It's only illegal to contest elections in third world

Marxist hellholes like Zimbabwe and now Washington, D.C. and Atlanta and New York. Before I bring in Dave, a follow up for you, Mike. It's true that the so-called fake electors or alternate slates of electors were never, you know, no one showed up in Washington saying Georgia votes for Donald Trump. You know, no one was fooled. It didn't actually. But she's alleging conspiracy to conspiracy to get these sort of fake electors out there and steal the vote from Georgians, which, you know, by itself would suggest, OK, it doesn't actually have to be completed. It's the act of planning. And then you need at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, which she has because she says that

they came up with the names and they created the slate. So why do we care as a legal matter that no one was actually fooled? Well, Megan and both Megan and Dave, you both know that as lawyers, that in order to have a conspiracy, you have to be doing something illegal. You have to plan with others to do something illegal. It's not illegal to challenge elections. It's actually permitted by the Electoral Count Act of 1887, and it's permitted by the First Amendment. So you'd have to show that they can. You'd have to show here that President Trump conspired to tie up the real electors and put him in Rudy Giuliani's trunk of his car versus you. You conspired to put forward an alternate slate of electors, which you're allowed to do under the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

We talked about this the last time, Dave, that this was done. It was done by Jack Kennedy decades ago saying, I don't think that we've come to the right conclusion in Hawaii. I'm going to submit my own alternate slate of electors giving me Hawaii's electoral votes because I believe I actually won Hawaii. And he succeeded in doing that. And I guess it was a good thing that he had his, quote, fake slate of electors or alternate slate ready to go. But it didn't turn out that way for Trump. And, you know, he didn't prove electoral fraud that would have gotten him the state of Georgia or any other state. But just the mere act of conspiring was conspiring is a scary word. But to Mike's point, it's not you. The three

of us are conspiring to do a good podcast right now. It's like just getting together and discussing your plan to do something is OK unless that what you're going to do is illegal. And so this is what we're trying to get to. Why is it illegal just to have an alternate slate of electors? Why is it illegal to say, I think I won? Why is it illegal to say, I think if you go back and check the rolls, you're going to find fraudulent votes. I want you to go back and do that. Why is all that illegal? Well, first off, it's good to be back with you, Megan, and with my friend, Mike. It is not illegal to have alternate electors, electors that are there in case the actual electors are rejected. In fact, in two of the seven states, they said, we are doing this just in case you don't accept the

original electors. And in those two states, I think it's Pennsylvania and New Mexico, it is not a crime. But the problem is in the other five states, including Georgia and including Michigan, these folks were not the true electors and represented themselves as the true electors. They even went so far in Michigan as to say, we met on this date inside the Capitol. And then they had the seal of Michigan, which was forged. And so that's a crime. It's a crime in Georgia, too. Forgery is a crime. And making false statements to government officials is a crime. And that's where they got them. Now, as far as whether Trump was involved. Before you leave that point, and then what did they do? So they got

together and they said, we're the real electors and we'd say Donald Trump won. And then what happened? Like to whom did they say that? How did that become public and notorious? You know, if they just sat in somebody's bedroom and said, yeah, I mean, the three of us could be like, we're the real electors and we're voting for RFKJ, whatever. What happened after they got together and said, we're the real ones? They sent the fake document to Washington, D.C. to be counted. And that's the problem. It was given to Mike Pence and he rejected it. But the hope was that he would have two slates and then that would give him a reason to send it back to the states. It was all part of

a scheme to try to influence Mike Pence to send it back to the states when that would have been improper because first, there was no election fraud that was documented. And number two, the electors were not alternate electors, but they're trying to make it seem like they're the real ones. And that's the problem here. And then on top of all that, the comments that made to Mike Pence, you know, that you're too honest and all that stuff, that's at the federal level. Here, Megan, this is where I think this case is stronger than Jack Smith's case, because when it comes to enforcing election laws, it's really a state function more than a federal function. And that's why you correctly said and Mike said that some of the laws that Jack Smith

were using may get some pushback in the courts, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States. But here at the state level, it's different. They're using forgery. They're using improper influence of an election official conspiracy to commit election fraud. These are state crimes much easier to prove at the state level. And then you have RICO, which we can get into also, which is a prosecutor's best friend and a bane to the existence of defense lawyers. I agree with everything you just said on the back end there. I mean, he's right about all that, Mike, right? It's state elections are normally handled by state law. And it's one of the reasons the Jack Smith indictment on J6 is so weird and off point and such a reach.

So yes, they are normally governed by state law and Rico is a defendant's worst nightmare. And this Fannie Willis loves to use Rico, the racketeering law that usually gets a mobster. So you can get the mob boss and you can get the hitman and you can get the dime store drop guy. You know, you can get them all under this sort of racketeering and corrupt influence statute. But he's right about the law and that this should be an easier go for her. But she still has to show, I mean, the mob boss, you know, shaking down the 7-Eleven worker to pay you protection money is very clearly a crime. So it does matter to your point earlier. What is the alleged conspiracy here doing that's unlawful? I see the point on the fake electors. OK, maybe sending the fake electors there and then representing that they're the real ones. Maybe we're closer. But like Trump just on the phone call saying, check the signatures,

you're going to find hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes. How is that? That's Stacey Abrams 2.0. Well, first, I would say that actually, if you look at the Constitution, at the elections clause of the Constitution, the states have, both of you are absolutely right, the states have a lot of leeway to set their own election laws for federal elections, unless Congress acts. And Congress acted here with the Electoral Count Act of 1887. So that is the supreme law of the land. That trumps any of these state laws. And so if you look at the process and procedures for certifying an election before Congress on January 6th, that's controlled by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. So I would say that point. And so

I actually think that this is a laughable case down in Georgia because it is ignoring that and it's trying to criminalize the political process. Electoral Count Act of 1887 by using a novel, I wouldn't say bizarre, but to be kind, I'll say a novel legal theory here by Fannie Willis, charging a RICO violation and, you know, an organized crime conspiracy to go after your political opponents, the leading presidential candidate and 18 of his lawyers and advisors, because you don't like their legal theory, right? That's not how it works in America up until now. It used to not be a crime to challenge elections. It used to not be a crime to even bring novel, even wacky legal theories. You know what's weird, Dave, is if you take a look at the nitty gritty of this thing, you got Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, who was granted federal immunity to

cooperate in the Jack Smith investigation, not indicted in that case, indicted in this case. And as far as I can tell, his alleged crime is he called somebody to say, hey, can you give me the number of some local official in Pennsylvania where Trump was doing similar stuff, trying to contest the vote there? I mean, he was reaching out to somebody for a phone number. How is that a crime? This is nuts. It smacks of overreach. Well, conspiracy laws are broad. If you engage in an illegal conspiracy, in this case, it's to interfere with election officials. In this case, it's to commit election fraud. Then all you have to be part of the agreement. And then one member of the conspiracy has to commit an overt act,

and then you're all done. And racketeering is even broader than that, where you can bring in the boss, in this case, Donald Trump, and you can get him even if he's not the one who ordered something to happen, even if he's unaware of some of the actions of people who are there for the common enterprise, he could be brought in. And that's why the RICO laws frustrate so many defense lawyers. And on Mark Meadows, I thought it was really interesting that they included him in the indictment because of what you said. He was given immunity, apparently, at the federal level. And I think that's going to create some issues with his prosecution at the state level unless he was hiding stuff from Jack Smith. And then he's got some real problems.

But it shows you the breadth of this indictment that they included Mark Meadows and included names in their 19 defendants that we've never even heard before. And so this is yeah, this is different than what Jack Smith did. Jack Smith had a limited, modest indictment. He just went after charges he thought he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And he was built for speed. He wants this to be done before the election. I agree with you. I don't think this can be done all at once. And I don't think it can be done before the election because Fannie Willis decided to take a blowtorch to it. And look, it's a powerful case. But I think this is going to take a while. And Mike, I want to ask you. So you've already gotten I mean, I mentioned Stacey Abrams in my question a minute ago. Stacey Abrams just went

back just to look at it for fun. After she lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race, she refused to concede to Brian Kemp, who is the sitting governor of Georgia, and said, we had this little election back in 2018. The following year, she said this, despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative statement to make. We won. several occasions. She claimed she had won and she was proud that she hadn't conceded. She was saying that the Republicans had suppressed the black vote and that didn't get indicted. She did not get indicted. And that reminds me of another election denier. I mean, you could go through the list because there are all these memes online showing all

the Democrats who have denied elections, in particular, Donald Trump's win. Chief among them, Hillary Clinton. How many times did she say he was not a legitimate president, that she actually won the 2016 election? And then you had this exchange last night. Rachel Maddow has her on. And do we have the sound bite you guys with that I just asked for? Where Rachel Maddow tosses to Hillary, listen to how she sets it up and to the quick Hillary response. It's unbelievable. If we no longer believe that our will is effectuated

through the system, if bad actors tell us falsely that every election is stolen and that the only way an election is trustworthy is if they come and come out on top of it, then something it's tells you something not just about that person or that moment. It maybe wounds us as a democracy and in a way that is hard to repair. Well, I think, you know, the truth matters. So like the lack of self-awareness in that Rachel Maddow question, Mike, right? How can we possibly have these elections where someone's challenging them out all the time and questioning truth? This I'm going to my head is going to explode. It goes to what we're discussing. Hillary Clinton is an election denier. Stacey Abrams is an election

denier. Joe Lieberman is an election denier. Al Gore is an election denier. We could go down the list of the candidates who have lost, who have spent months and years saying it's not true. I won. Only Donald Trump gets his behavior and questions criminalized. Yeah, I would say if there is a God, he will make sure that Joe Biden steps aside for 2024 and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton again for the Democrat presidential nominee. She is her statements are just they're just mind blowing that she doesn't sit there and 2016. She actually falsely alleged that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal her election, which led to the Mueller probe and three years of hell for President Trump and his top aides that hobbled his presidency. It's just so rich that Rachel Maddow would have the biggest election denier of all time, Hillary Clinton, on her show.

Dave, that soundbite ends after Rachel Maddow goes on about, you know, you can't have people denying elections all the time just because they lost. It ends with Hillary Clinton saying the truth matters. The truth. Oh, my God. That's what I have to say to her. What are you saying? So many lies, so much dishonesty coming at me like I can't. I'm overwhelmed. This is why people are so angry about this nonsense, Dave. You know, you get it. I know you're a Democrat. You're a prosecutor. But the absurdity, right, that she totally got away with all the same stuff, including scrubbing the server, defying a subpoena. And now we have to listen to her on Rachel Maddow trying to lecture us as she good to be back. Sorry about that. I think that was Mike somehow pulled the plug on my computer. I know how you did that, Mike. I'm tired. I'm tired of you beating me up on air. So I pulled the plug. Well, you know, what was interesting about that interview last night, Megan and Mike, was that it was scheduled way in advance.

It was just a coincidence that she was on the night of the indictment. And look, I understand where you're coming from on this. But keep in mind, Jack Smith is the one who said this. This is not about words, but actions. And so in this case, it's different than Hillary Clinton saying the election was stolen or anything like that. This is about their fake electors. This is about illegally pressuring Ruby Freeman, who's an election worker, for being part of fraud, which led to death threats against her. This is about illegally pressuring Ruby Freeman, who's an election worker, for being part of fraud, which led to death threats against her. This is the unlawful accessing of voting machines, breaking into computers. I mean, and then there's the obstruction on the cover of the perjury.

So this is more than just Democrats saying, hey, we don't like the results of the election. These are actions that are crimes in the state of Georgia. Mike, the thing with Ruby Freeman, she was alleged by Team Trump and I think maybe Trump himself as being a ne'er do well when it came to the manipulation of votes. And she's got a defamation lawsuit going right now against Rudy Giuliani, in which he admitted that he said false things. But that's, in my view, how the law handles misstatements about an individual that are defamatory. Like you don't Rico it and sue 19 or indict 19 people and try to criminalize it. And while, OK, the fake electors thing is an unusual thing, as I point out, it's been done before, maybe not in this exact way, but it's been done before by presidential candidates.

So what are we down to? The false accessing of voter data that the local official opened the door, invited them in and allowed them access. How is that a crime for those who were invited in and provided the access who were trying to like, by the way, those people were not named Donald Trump. Like if you go through it piece by piece, there are real defenses to all this stuff, Mike. But that's why Fannie Willis is like, let me give you 40 different acts and say they're all maybe individually they're problematic or maybe not. But if you look at the totality, what you have is a stinky election crime. stew and then she just threw it all over the wall and called it her indictment. We have to be precise here on the conspiracy. What conspiracy? Everyone has to agree to an unlawful end. What is the unlawful end that they're all agreeing to accomplish here? And that's the problem with this to steal the election. That's what Fannie would say. So, okay. So what specifically is it? What

specifically are they agreeing to do? Because I don't think stealing an election is is in the Georgia criminal statute. What's the specific crime that they're alleged to have conspired to accomplish? And that that is the problem. What did what did what did they all agree that they were going to go do that was illegal. Yeah, I mean, we covered it like she's going to say you subverted the voting, the will of the people that they cast votes in the same way that Republicans would be outraged if Joe Biden tried this nonsense, were he to lose in 2024, the people of Georgia should be outraged that their vote was almost subverted thanks to this scheme that was not backed up by actual proof in court. But let's talk about the logistics of it for a minute, Dave. So she we just there's another case, a big criminal case. That's before the chief judge right now in Georgia.

And again, this is state court. It was filed in May of 2020. And it's a RICO case. It's a criminal RICO case like this one filed in May of 2022. And they began picking a jury on January 2nd of this year. So that's eight months ago. They're still picking a jury eight months later. And this is a case in which 17 defendants have been named very similar on its face to this one. You got 17 defense, you got criminal Rico, and they began picking the jury eight months ago, still haven't even finished that. There's no way this case gets tried in six months. Oh, I completely agree with you. I think that was

just aspirational, as they like to say, especially because you have 19 defendants, you have 41 counts. Now, keep in mind that case that she had against the teachers, which was a RICO case, that trial took eight months. So there's no way they're getting this done in the next six months. And I don't think there's a chance they can get this done before the 2024 election. The only chance is if they somehow separate Donald Trump. But, you know, Jack Smith did that on purpose and he's going to get his trial sooner than later. But she indicted 19 people. So don't expect this to go anytime soon. Now, the thing that she has on her side, though, is time.

Unlike Jack Smith, the indictment that she has is pardon proof. She does not have to worry about a future Department of Justice just dumping this case because they have no control over state cases and the future president cannot pardon anyone here and the governor of Georgia cannot pardon anyone for these crimes. And so she has a luxury of time on her side and she's going to need it because this is a complex case that's going to take a while. This one to me, Mike, I mean, the Jack Smith stuff does feel like election interference to me, but this one feels more like I want Donald Trump in jail. He's going to jail thanks to me, Ms. Willis. I mean, the odds are good, I think, that she will get a conviction in Georgia. I don't know. I guess Georgia is a little bit more purple. It's not like

a blue, entirely blue district like Washington, D.C. But I feel like she's she's got a good chance. And if she does convict him, there's a mandatory five year sentence on the RICO count alone. So how do you see Trump's chances here? I mean, it's obvious you have a Democrat prosecutor. You're going to have a Democrat jury. It's not going to be as bad as D.C. or New York with a Democrat prosecutor, Democrat judge, Democrat jury. But if they can get past the legal challenges of this case, then I think that there's a very good chance that the jury is going to find him guilty and the judge will convict him.

The problem is that the legal challenges, I think President Trump should file a motion to dismiss this case and bring up two different legal arguments that I think are compelling. Number one is presidential immunity. The enforcement of federal election laws. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is certainly within the outer bounds of his duties as the president of the United States. And if you look at the case law, you can't bring civil cases against a president for exercising his official duties at the outer bounds. So why could you bring criminal cases against the president for exercising his official duties at the outer bounds? And then if it's not within his official capacity, and by the way, if you can, on presidential immunity, that's immediately appealable. You can get interlocutory appeal, including all the way to the Supreme Court of

the United States. Alternatively, you could say if he's acting within his personal capacity, you can say that there's a First Amendment problem here. You can get these charges dismissed on First Amendment grounds. Which would not be immediately appealable. That would have to wait until post-conviction. What do you make of that, Dave? Yeah, I don't think that either of those arguments will work in court. But one thing that could is that he's going to try to remove this case to federal court. I think he has a better chance at that. I still don't think it's likely, but he could argue that these are federal issues involving the time when he was president,

because he was president when most of this stuff occurred. And so he's going to try to remove it to federal court where there would be no cameras cameras in the courtroom and he could get a judge that was appointed by him. So I think that's more likely. I have to disagree with my friend Mike that the Supreme Court would uphold presidential immunity or First Amendment rights to overcome this sprawling, sweeping indictment. One thing that Fannie Willis is counting on, Megan, is that she counts on the fact that several of these defendants will flip. And that way won't be a 19 person trial, but many fewer. Donald Trump does not have the ability to wave pardons around to try to get people to stay on his side. So you have some of these lower level defendants that may want to cut a deal with Fannie Willis. And the first one in will be the first one to win. Can I ask you a question about that? Can I ask you a question about that? Like,

when you say flip, so that's, I get this. I saw the three godfathers. I understand what, like, if you flip, you know, you're a rat and you turn and you say, yes, the godfather orders all the hits. It's all him. But this seems like, what does flipping look like? You know, there's not some mystery that we need to get to the bottom of. Don't we kind of know? We know. Like, Trump didn't believe he lost the election. Trump said he didn't lose.

Trump, we have phone calls and the recordings of them. Like, I don't really understand what flip means or would do in this case. Well, I also saw all three godfathers. The first two were outstanding. The third was so disappointing. But that's another time. What flipping means here is like Mark Meadows, for example, he was in the room when it happens. He could actually talk about Trump's intent, his mindset. And that could go a long way if he takes a stand. Now, Jack Smith apparently has cut a deal with Mark Meadows already. But that's different than state court. And so I am

really perplexed and interested to see what is the status of Mark Meadows. I got to admit, I did not expect him to be indicted here because his lawyers, I think, would not have copped to a deal with federal prosecutors knowing they would also be subject to prosecution at the state level. So this is going to be really interesting. He could be the linchpin to this state case. Mark Meadows, Mike, needed to get the Hunter Biden lawyers who are very good at making sure when you get immunity, it's immunity for everything. You will not be left hanging for a second indictment. They made damn good sure of that. Thanks to that good judge in

Delaware, no one got away with it. But okay, so I'll ask you this parting thoughts, Mike, on now that we have four four indictments. How do you see this affecting Trump's electoral chances and his likelihood of remaining a free man for the remainder of his life? He's 77 now. So I've been saying this for the last year. This Democrat lawfare is going to help Trump politically. And we saw all that with Alvin Bragg's indictment of Trump for the non-crime of a businessman settling a nuisance claim that helped President Trump win the Republican primary.

I think Jack Smith's indictment of President Trump for the non-crime of a former president having his presidential records and the office of former president, which is allowed by the Presidential Records Act, put Trump in very close contention with Biden for the general election. I think Jack Smith's second indictment for the non-crime of objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in the First Amendment, helped Trump win the election. And I actually think Fannie Willis's indictment here on similar grounds for January 6th is going to help President Trump win the presidency comfortably by like two or three percentage

points. And it comes down to this. The American people are not going to let Democrat prosecutors and Democrat judges and Democrat juries and Democrat hellholes decide the next president of the United States. They're going to resent that. It's going to backfire. We're already seeing that in the polls. Okay. A quick question.

A follow up for you, Mike. There's been some talk of like, where are the Republicans? Why aren't they fighting back? Quote unquote. Why isn't the House GOP doing more? You know, because they do have some nuclear level tools in their arsenal that they haven't yet not yet deployed. Do you know what I mean? And do you think that they should deploy them? I always say that the D.C. swamp is the only place on the planet where the reptiles lack backbones. And that includes House Republicans. And they have they control the House of Representatives.

They control oversight. They should they have impeachment. They could open an impeachment inquiry on President Biden for his corruption. Merrick Garland and Attorney General Merrick Garland for his cover up. They have the power of the purse. They should pass two appropriation writers in the next appropriations process or shut down the goddamn government because we don't have a government worth saving if we're going to throw in prison our political enemies. It's the end of the republic. And those appropriation writers, number one, no federal funds may be used for the prosecution of a major presidential candidate honored before November 5th, 2024. That means pause these

unprecedented prosecutions, let the American people decide the election. They can wait till after the election. They waited 30 months to bring these. They can wait till after the election. And number two, any jurisdiction that prosecutes a major presidential candidate on or before November 5th, 2024, loses all federal funds. It's the nuclear option. It's the kill switch. We cannot have this election interference. This is how the Roman Republic fell. This is crossing the Rubicon. When you start prosecuting presidential rivals, that's the end of our country, because I guarantee you this. When Trump is back in the White House and I'm his acting attorney general for my three week reign of terror, I promise you I'm going to be indicting President Biden's ass and Hunter Biden's ass and all these Democrats. I will indict them. I will fire people. I will have my Trump pardon. And then I'll come back on Megan and laugh about it. I bet you didn't get that asked on MSNBC. Definitely not. Well, Megan, if Mike becomes the acting attorney general, I will send you both postcards from Guantanamo. No, I will spare you, Dave. I kind of like you. You're the one Democrat who I like. I'll spare you. I'll take you off this too. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. It's been a pleasure. Mike, you as well. Guys, thank you. Appreciate it as always. Thank you. All right. Up next, we're going to get to the politics of all this a bit more

when the guys, the fellas from Ruthless join us for the rest of the show. Don't go away. Former President Trump facing his fourth criminal indictment this year and now promising to hold a news conference on Monday where he says he will refute the charges being leveled against him and prove there were electoral problems in Georgia and fraud and so on and so forth. So he's not backing down one bit on the allegations that have gotten him in so much trouble. That also happens to be the same week Republicans are set to hold their first presidential primary debate. Joining me now to discuss it all, Josh Holmes, comfortably smug, Michael Duncan and John Ashbrook together. They are the fellas from Ruthless. Hey, guys, great to have you back. Hey, Megan. Great to be here.

Good to be back. What a day. My God. I like, OK, I'm just going to kick it off with this. I know you guys have seen some of this. There was one abutted soundbite that went on for 30 minutes last night. I watched almost the whole thing. But just can I just show this the montage montage we have it labeled Sat 9 of the Democrats doing the very thing Donald Trump is facing these indictments for. One thing that Trump is fearful of when it comes to his being president is that finally we will see how illegitimate his victory actually was. I have an objection. I object to the 15 votes from the state of North Carolina. I object because people are horrified. He's an illegitimate president. John Lewis is completely

right. There is a cloud of illegitimacy around the election of Donald Trump. There actually is a cloud of illegitimacy. So that legitimacy is in question. Yes. So that was a very tainted election. And in that sense, it's illegitimate. He actually won the last presidential election, folks. They stole the last presidential election. And Al Gore won that election. I think he won it anyway. Actually, I think I carried Florida. Al Gore won the election nationwide and also in Florida, but the Supreme Court ruled the other way. Al Gore got more votes, but not enough to stay out of the Supreme Court where President Bush was elected five to four. Bush versus Gore. A court took away a presidency. The RNC put that together. We could have kept going. I mean,

no one got indicted. Nobody. And I think it's even more germane to bring up the fact that Stacey Abrams has been able to fundraise hundreds of millions of dollars claiming that the election was stolen and that she is to this day the rightful governor of Georgia. And I don't think any case has been brought up against her. It's very clear that this is a political witch hunt. Well, OK, I think we're all going to have a little different takes on on some of this. I think rhetorically you're absolutely right. I mean, this is there. They have been absurd, absurd. They are absurd. It's completely ridiculous what Democrats have done, what they try to hold out as two systems of justice and only prosecuting the Republican side. I think there's no question about it that if a conviction is obtained in either Georgia or this federal case dealing

with this particular issue, it will wind its way to the United States Supreme Court at some point. The reason for that is because the underlying crime here, whether we're dealing with the RICO statute in Georgia or the charges that Jack Smith brought, is in question. And there is a very real question about whether electors, which are specifically outlined in the Constitution of the United States, is a political apparatus or it's not. I think George is clearly arguing here that the appointment of electors constitutes an official action by the state, an official action by the United States to elect a president of the United States. And therefore, it is a conspiracy to try to undermine an official action. There's a lot of precedent on the other side of that too. And I think ultimately this is going to wind itself into a ball here that is not

going to be resolved anytime soon. And I think Jack Smith, if you go back and you read the indictment at a DC on January 6th stuff, in that indictment, I think he he kind of looks ahead to that legal argument that, you know, all of these are political actions. And he says in there, you know, Donald Trump had every right to use his First Amendment to contest the election, even to lie. Right. And there's precedent on on on that being political speech. But the actions that are mentioned, whether it's the alternative slate of electors or what have you, both in the D.C. indictment and this one now out of Georgia, are what they see as it's where it separates from the rhetoric, if you will. Yeah. And Mike Davis, you had him on earlier. He obviously was making his case about why this whole thing could be invalidated in Georgia. I mean, we know that the prosecutor is incredibly political, launched her own campaign website last Thursday, has been disqualified by a judge

on another case for being political. We know that this has been a very political process from start to finish. And what caught my attention this morning was not someone who typically aligns with Republicans in any way, shape or form. It's Ruth Marcus, who's a columnist at The Washington Post. And this morning she wrote that she has substantial misgivings about this case in Georgia. She walks through her whole reasoning why. But it caught my attention. I didn't expect Ruth Marcus to say that. Chris Christie has sort of thrown cold water on this case in Georgia. I think his argument was basically that these charges have already been filed on a federal level. So it's kind of doubling up. But just a couple of examples of people who I didn't expect to come out and throw cold water on the Georgia

case and have this morning. It's I mean, it's to me, it's just so wrong because they are trying to criminalize speech. Him saying, I think there's been fraud. You're going to go back, check the rolls and you're going to find voters who weren't properly registered. You're going to find dead people voting. We hear that every election. I'm not saying he didn't take it to the nth degree. He did. He took it to a place we haven't seen before. But in general, what we seem to be doing is criminalizing election denialism, which the Democrats have gotten away with now for

decades. I mean, we went back to Al Gore in that soundbite we just played you. And yet, when you have one of the chief election deniers sitting there with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night, they had exchanges like this one. I got another one up my sleeve. Audience here, listen to soundbite seven. Do you feel satisfaction in that you warned the country essentially that he was going to try to end democracy? I don't feel any satisfaction. I feel great, you know, just just great, profound sadness that we have a former president who has been indicted for so many charges that went right to the heart of whether or not our democracy would survive. The only satisfaction may be that the system is working.

Oh, my God. Yeah. I mean, I think the system she's talking about is that Democrats are allowed to persecute their political opponents. We're seeing that every day. So she has to be pretty happy. Yeah. I mean, I think the system she's talking about is that Democrats are allowed to persecute their political opponents. We're seeing that every day. So she has to be pretty happy. Yeah. That's exactly as anticipated. Anybody in modern history in America that's undermined democracy more than the than Hillary Clinton. I mean, just everything she did to weaponize the intelligence agencies against Donald Trump on Russiagate is I mean, that alone, that alone, I think, has permanently changed our country and made everybody skeptical of these charges. Honestly, I can tell you that was a disgusting display by both women on the set.

I would vote for Ron DeSantis over Joe Biden any day of the week. I've made that clear. OK, I tell you what my bias is. When I sat across from Ron DeSantis, I pressed him. I pressed him on the weaknesses in his arguments, things that he said that were inconsistent, positions he had that would fall apart potentially if you really, you know, drilled down. And he stood his own. That's what a journalist does. That's what your obligation is as a member of the media. You failed, Rachel Maddow. You failed. I don't care how much they give you, $30 million a year.

You're not worth 30 cents. That was an embarrassment. You fell down on the job. You embarrassed yourself and your network. And you exceeded the entire discussion to a dishonest broker who set us down this disgusting path that we're now on,

where everybody denies. Everybody's the real president shame on you both okay i love it i love it gets all work don't you it's gonna be fun today not that hard too better okay love you guys stand by we have much much more to get to including the lizard people the woman on the plane um and the guys in Iowa. And then again, at the presidential debate, Ruthless has taken off. They're everywhere. We're going to talk to them about the latest poll out of New Hampshire. It's getting kind of interesting. All right. Stand by the Ruthless program hosts. Stay with us.

OK, guys, as unpleasant as it is to be mired in indictment hell instead of talking about real issues affecting the American people, that's where we are. So we have to talk about, you know, what this means for presidential politics. You heard Mike Davis say he thinks and the polling would support him so far that all of these indictments only drive the support for Trump up, not down. He thinks that will hold true in the general as well. That's a much bigger question mark. And I know, I mean, I've been listening. I've listened to a ton of conservative podcasts and so on. And there's been a real debate on like even Trump supporters getting a little worried, like it's like I'm scared because all the money is going to have to go toward his legal fees and all of his attention is going to have to go to the criminal cases where he must sit.

You're not allowed to skip those those trials and so on and not toward advertisements and rallies and get out the vote efforts. And can you really win an election with a guy who's this laden down with such legal baggage, whether you believe it's just or not? Well, I think the Democrats are hoping you can't. It's pretty clear that, you know, they like having a situation where their opposition can be mired in legal problems. And the thing is, is that once they have something that they see works, they just keep the same model going. You know, after Hillary loses,

they say, OK, this is Russian disinformation. We're going to tell everyone this is an illegitimate issue. It's Russian disinformation. What happens in 2020? Same playbook. Oh, Hunter Biden's laptop,

Russian disinformation. So until you finally draw a line in the sand and stop their advance, they're going to just do the same thing over and over again. I mean, what does that mean? Does it do you agree with Mike Davis? Like defund DOJ, defund Jack Smith, indict Joe Biden, you know, fire with fire.

I think the DOJ definitely needs to be cleaned up. It's extremely clear, as we've seen, that there's a lot of people in there who are political operatives rather than trying to serve their country. And I think separately, Biden should be indicted. I think that the House Republicans are doing a great job investigating it, and I hope they're allowed to get to the bottom of it. But when things like a special prosecutor is put in place to try to stop them, it's really clear that there is a system in place to protect those in power. And those people have been there since Trump first arrived and they were threatened by his presence and they want to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. They want to be able to tell

who's going to win the next election, who's going to be the next candidate and keep this system and gravy train going for him. I think, I mean, that argument clearly works with your Republican primary electorate. You see with all these indictments, Donald Trump's poll numbers continue to go up, but I haven't seen any evidence that helps him in a general election as, as your earlier guests alluded. I mean, if you look at most of those polls, you know, Trump's doing really well against Biden right now. But in the crosstabs, you know, the people that aren't supporting Joe Biden aren't people who are open for business for the Republican Party. It's it's younger voters. It's black voters who are just probably disappointed with what the Biden administration has done thus far. But ultimately, at the end of the day, they're going to pull the lever for Joe Biden. Let's be

honest. I don't think it's particularly. Yeah, I don't think it's particularly difficult to understand. I mean, we've seen this play out now over six years. This is not just a small sample size. It's it's Donald Trump and your fears of Donald Trump in the center of the electorate and how that affects and impacts statewide elections in competitive states. And we've seen in 2018 and 2020 and in 2022, one consistent refrain here, which is your center right and center left of the electorate in states across this country that determine the outcome of a general presidential election are not comfortable with the kind of stuff that we're talking about right this moment. Now, conversely, he is getting stronger and stronger in a primary,

which is difficult news for Republican voters to hear if they want to compete in a general. But I'll tell you why it is, I think. And this is my theory of the case. I think what's happened with the Department of Justice and the failure to have any sort of justice on the Democratic side, whether it's Hunter Biden, whether it's the links to Joe Biden, the lack of curiosity about what seems like pretty rank corruption here, and the appointment of special prosecutors that look an awful lot like you're just trying to obstruct a House investigation is what's buoying Donald Trump because Republican voters do not have another outlet to have justice here. They do not have a something that lets air out of this balloon. The only way to protest what's going on in a very apparent two systems of justice is to support the

one guy on your side who is the victim of their injustice. And so that is why he is sort of forever insulated within a Republican primary electorate. I don't know if the water ultimately gets too heavy for people to carry. You mentioned like the financing of this whole thing. That is not an insignificant deal. That is a very significant deal. Republicans are outspent any damn way. I mean, no matter what, Democrats are going to spend more money than Republicans. So now take all the Republican donations and toss it into a legal fund. And then you basically just sit there and give courtroom press conferences and call it a presidential campaign. And that's basically what people are left with. is a huge problem because another reason why I think Trump is so strong right now is because I think he's actually running the strongest campaign of any of these primary candidates around the country. They're so much better organized than they've ever been. They are doing every technical thing that you're supposed to be doing and even the stuff that's not seen. I mean, I think that I think that the people they're running against would acknowledge that they're surprised by how well organized this Trump campaign actually is.

And when you start to underfund that effort, you start to really take away from his strength. I mean, the reality is all of these indictments suck for him. Right. All of this bad news is really, really bad for him. In a perfect world, if you could go back to right after the election in 2020, Donald Trump says, I'll be back instead of I didn't lose. And if he had done that and if he had spent this last three years just making fun of Joe Biden on Twitter, I mean, we all know it would be the funniest, most entertaining material that the guys ever had. He would have unified the Republican Party by this point. He wouldn't have primary opposition and he would be heading into a potential landslide victory over Joe Biden with a bigger mandate than he had in 2017. So I think his actions right after the 2020 election will

prove to be the biggest headache that he could have ever created for himself. You know, it's one of these situations, guys, where it's like, I don't think the things that Trump is being accused of doing are criminal, with the exception of the Mar-a-Lago case. There's there's an argument that that behavior was was criminal. But that one is just nullified for me by the Hillary Clinton precedent. You didn't go after her. She did exactly the same thing. I mean, it was as exact as you could get in a criminal case and they didn't prosecute her. And so you're done that. No, you cannot do it. So they didn't go after her. They shouldn't be going after him. And the other things are free speech. And I don't think that they're criminal. However. How can the Republican Party, even the Trump lovers, not factor in

how this is going to go for the next year and a half? You know, how can you not as much as you might love Trump, don't you have to factor in? Oh, my God, we're going to spend the next year and a half mired in January 6th talk. The most alienating thing there is to independent voters. We got a preview of that. We got a preview preview that in 2022, Megan. I mean, you look at all the statewide candidates who were mired the most in defending Donald Trump on the 2020 election and quote unquote election denialism. Right. The media

loves to pair it. Those candidates went down in flames. Right. And they tanked with with the suburban voters. And it's not debatable either. I mean, this is the thing that I always find so remarkable about, you know, I can understand defending Donald Trump and I can understand defending him against injustice and unjust charges in two systems of justice. What I do not ever understand is how we can sort of wish cast out a different set of facts where the center of the electorate are all of a sudden very comfortable with the post 2020 behavior. They're not. It's cemented in stone. We have now an election that showed exactly what Michael was just talking about, how people feel about that.

You can't undo that. That bell doesn't unring. And they will come. But let me let me ask you a follow up on that, Holmes, because I think what people who back Donald Trump would say is, OK, right. We didn't win them over. We didn't win them over in 20. We didn't win them over in 22. But they didn't really have all the time of watching Joe Biden under their belts at those critical points. And now he's just been so disappointing and now is late, is covered himself in these ethics allegations that seem to have a lot of teeth. And so those people are gettable in a way they weren't gettable before. Boy, I just it seems a lot again, it seems like wish casting. Look, Joe Biden was not a formidable presidential candidate in 2020. Everybody sort of like in retrospect talks about how he was perceived as this model. He didn't even What inspired the turnout that voted for him was Donald Trump.

And I think that piece of it remains. And look, don't take my word for it. Look what happened in 2020. Look what happened in 2022. Look at where the polls are now. Look where the intensity is within the Republican and Democratic parties. And look at ultimately where those center of the electorate independents ultimately land on this question. I'm not sure that any of that piece

is changeable with this sort of ubiquitous, absolutely everywhere discussion that we're having about the thing that they found most distasteful about Donald Trump. If it was about his presidential record, by the way, if it was about his presidential record, as I think Ashbrook indicated, he would win in a landslide. We'd be talking about Reagan Mondale type numbers. It's not going to be about that. It's going to be about what we are now talking about with this case. And minds have been made up on that. So how much of the fact that he's running away with that right now on the GOP side, guys, has to do with. OK, yes, we factored in the indictments and all that, but.

It was it would look very different after DeSantis won sweeping the sweeping victory in Florida and before the indictments and they were close. You know, they weren't that close, but they were within 10, 15 points, Trump and DeSantis. So how much of this situation has to do with the fact that DeSantis hasn't taken off? You know, he hasn't. It's just like there's not a second really strong comer. You know, it's not like people like Vivek, but he's not. I mean, come on. It's not going to happen.

He's not going to overtake Donald Trump. And like they loved DeSantis, but like the blooms come off the rose a bit and they might like Nikki Haley, but she's not really generating much buzz. And in fact, her numbers are now going down in the latest polls. Tim Scott's not even on the latest New Hampshire numbers. He's not even registering. So it's like how much of this problem the GOP is in has to do with the fact that they don't have the strong underdog here to save the day coming up the ranks. I think this first debate is going to be critical. I kind of agree with that.

For actually having a candidate that can have a breakout moment, because as of right now, you know, the most you could think that, you know, an average American would see is maybe some cursory news footage of a candidate walking around at a state fair. Or if they are in Iowa or New Hampshire, then they're seeing or South Carolina, they're seeing ads. Outside of that, most Americans haven't really tuned in. You know, the kids have been on summer break. They've got a lot of other stuff they've been worrying about.

Once a debate starts, that really focuses a lot of people's attention. And especially if Donald Trump decides not to show up, then he allows all these candidates to have free reign and try to have a breakout moment. I wonder, you know, I last I heard it didn't look good and people around Trump were saying even behind the scenes, he's not going. And when I spoke to him directly, I certainly did not walk away thinking he's going. And I don't think he thinks he needs to go. You know, the latest polls show him losing no steam. He's completely dominant. And you could argue it's a power move not to go. Right. Like let the minions debate the minions. Let them debate.

And and the gorilla is not going to show up until he wants to. I don't know. I'd be shocked to see Trump lose substantially in the polls if he doesn't show. I think if he does show, he's probably only going to drive his numbers up. But what do you guys think? The one thing you got to keep an eye on is Iowa. Of all these early states, it shows the most malleability. It's also a place where people demand that you come and earn their vote. And 2016, when Donald Trump lost narrowly to Ted Cruz, he worked his ass off to go earn their vote. He's flying kids around in helicopters. Why are they so needy?

They're also incredibly- Try living in New York. They pay you no attention whatsoever. Well, I mean, listen, if you make an election interesting in New York, let me know. But in terms of Iowa itself, I mean, look, it's a well-educated voting base. It's people within the state party and within government there who are pretty squared away in juxtaposition to a lot of other states in this country where the Republican Party has been a disaster. And so they look for certain things. They want to make sure that somebody comes and earns their vote. I do think, look, I kind of agree with you in that there's not going to be some shelf here where Donald Trump bottoms out. But what we've seen over the last several competitive Republican primaries or caucuses in Iowa is there are late surges from candidates that are responsive to what people are doing and seeing in Iowa. And I think leaving open the idea that you don't need to go work for it is a kind of a dangerous proposition for the

Trump campaign. Yeah, this this debate. Trump skipped a debate, Ashbrook. He skipped a debate in Iowa. I mean, I was there, didn't show up. And he's still and he lost Iowa, but he still won the nomination and then the presidency. Go ahead. Yeah, he can. He can't skip. I mean, he's not going to bottom out like like you guys have said. He's not going to bottom out. But if he doesn't show every single one of these other candidates has an opportunity in front of a national audience to to demonstrate to these Republican primary voters, some of whom are Trump supporters and have some anxiety about Trump's ability to get over the finish line in a general, they have the ability to show that they're going to stick it to the libs just as much as Trump. They have they they're going to have the back of every one of these conservative voters just as much as Trump. And if he's not there on stage with them to belittle them, make people laugh at them, then he risks an entire conversation around him and where he is not the

center of the Republican universe. And that, I think, is where things start to fall off for him. That's his superpower. And I think also, I mean, I think the state of the polling, as it currently is with Donald Trump, with what seems like an insurmountable lead, is based on two preconditions. Number one, we've never I don't think we've had in my lifetime a competitive Republican primary for president where you had a former president in the race. I mean, so he's going to get a baseline support there, even if it is maybe more surface level or they don't know what their other options are. And then you also have, I think, a lot of the candidates who have been sort of equivocating and qualifying all these statements about Donald Trump as all these indictments come around about how unfair it is to the guy that they're running against,

which seems like a very strange strategy to me if you think you're a better person to be president. But it is what it is. And I think there's a reinforcing mechanism for a Republican primary voter that every time they see his opponents talk about how unfair things are to Donald Trump, well, then they're going to support Donald Trump. So like, why are you running against Donald Trump? So, you know, you have to think during this debate, whether Donald Trump shows up or not, that those knives are going to get a little sharper, that those statements are probably going to get a little more crisp and the criticisms can be a little more direct on Donald Trump and these indictments or things he didn't accomplish in his presidency.

If I, you know, this has been DeSantis's line and some of the others to like focus on electability because obviously Trump's crushing them on the primary side. So it's like you've got to convince Republican voters that you, Ron DeSantis, or you, Chris Christie, are going to be more electable when you get to the general. You know, you love Trump, but he can't get the ball over the finish line, as you say. So what I think they need to do just as a, you know, as somebody who used to argue for a living is have facts. You need to say, you know, Trump lost Georgia by this much. Trump lost Wisconsin. Trump lost Michigan. Trump lost Arizona. These are the numbers. These are how the independents went. This is the vote that he lost. And this is then what happened. Get specific. Don't just say he cost us the House in 2020. In 2020, he lost, you know,

the narrow, the whatever margin of victory was smaller than it should have been in 2022. You need to show them why, how many votes were lost? Who was it that didn't vote for him? Who's gettable? What are they saying now in the polls that they feel about Donald Trump? What has he done? Like, get specific. That's how you win arguments. You can't have these sweeping like, well, he's Trump and Jan 6th. And, you know, he's been a drag before. That doesn't work. Right.

I mean, I think that is absolutely a compelling case. And again, if Trump isn't there to rebut it, you just give free reign for a candidate to make an argument like that. I get the feeling that the debate, it's not necessarily going to be a candidate chipping away at Donald Trump's share, but more of an opportunity for them to coalesce the folks who are not right now in polls supporting Donald Trump. Which is anywhere from 50 to 65 percent, depending on your state. I mean, there's still a massive amount of people out there. There's a huge amount of people who have not completely put

themselves in for Trump. And then like Holmes mentions, when you look at the crosst mean, there's still a massive amount of people, a huge amount of people who have not completely put themselves in for Trump. And then, like Holmes mentions, when you look at the cross tabs, it's not like every supporter for Trump isn't still shopping. And our experience when we're talking to folks in Iowa is they're still shopping in the New York Times Siena poll. Even half the people who say they're going to vote for Donald Trump are open to other candidates at this point. I mean, like, absolutely. And again, like this, this debate, if Donald Trump doesn't show up, presents such an opportunity for these candidates who we've met with all of them.

We've had all of them on the show. There are people out there waiting to get a moment to catch a spark like Doug Burgum out there whose record is insane. Who's I'm telling you right now. And I don't sleep on bird. I was telling you, I was trying to get us behind on the Burgum train.

When when the Burgum train leaves the station, I'm going to shout from to everyone who will listen. I called this first because the guy is like if you took John Wayne and Ronald Reagan and mixed them together and his record as a governor is incredible. You just got a great compelling story. We found out about your love affair for the Burgermeister Meister Burger. Hello, anyone know that reference? My kids always complain when Christmas comes, I only let them watch shows from the 1970s and 60s.

Santa Claus is coming to town. Anyway, Doug Burgum went on with the fellas. And this is not in Iowa. I know you spoke with them then too, but this is a little earlier. It was back, it was last month in July. And here's if you are like me and you've spent absolutely no time listening to or paying any attention to Doug Burgum. Here you go. Governor of. North Dakota. There you go. North Dakota. Here he is.

When Catherine and I decided to take the leap and jump into the governor's race in 2016, the, you know, there was a, we were down 69, 10 in the poll. And I told Catherine, you know, she was like, wow, I'm not, I'm not sure I want to be first lady. And I said, don't worry, we don't have a chance. It's only five months to the primary. But we uh you know we we ran a campaign and said look we're not running and i'll never be right here i will never be a senator or congressman i'm not some people want to put on a jersey red and blue duke it out lob bombs great but i'm an operating guy all i've ever done is you know built build operations and and executed and serve customers and and try to defy the odds.

Yes. I mean, you've defied the odds all the way through your career. Okay. John Wayne is strong. I'll tell you what. I mean, I don't think we've released the content yet, but you should hear his method for killing rattlesnakes when he comes across them. This guy is.

Oh, my God. He rocks out. He's a legit. Yeah. Yes. This guy has ranch. He's had buffaloes on his ranch that he's had to kill.

He's killed rattlesnakes. Dude, he went from being a chimney sweep to selling a software company in North Dakota for $1.1 billion to Microsoft. Wow. Wow.

That's how he got on the debate stage. He knows how to make money. Hell of a life story. He also made us eat rattlesnake, Megan. So we haven't released this yet, but wait till you see this. He made us eat rattlesnake megan so like we haven't released this yet but wait till you see this he like made us eat it he didn't didn't just tell us how to kill the fellas

when i went to iowa i stayed in like a very tiny little hotel room i did have a little hot tub in my room i will say it was a nice room but it was freezing we're freezing our asses off and we got in and got out the fellas are eating rattlesnake and it must be said shotgunning beers may i run the soundbite soundbite 24 oh boy yeah what is going on here wait a minute wait a minute see Megan I need to correct the record let me correct the record first these were not beers

these were high noons these were not beers that's even worse that's way worse they were all out of Zima no okay there were no beers in cans no beers in cans I said to dunk and i said

okay let's go let's cheers it and let's roll he just starts i was like okay fine i guess he's not even gonna cheers me then he left over half of it still in the can i mean that is i look at him spilling it on stage play the video again all of this is fake this is like half full he's so i want to make sure i got every last drop yeah i cleared mine it was stolen you stole the win you did 100 you can you can go back and I want to make sure I got every last drop. Yeah, I cleared mine. It was a stolen victory. It was stolen. You stole the win. You did.

100%. You can go back and look at that at like the Zapruder film. If you would like to, Megan. Yeah, I mean, I think I got a head start because I moved my face closer to the can. It's spilling. You see it from his can. It spills everywhere. It's empty. I saw that and I was like, well, I'm going to make sure

I got every last one. Well, I think there's a lot of eyewitnesses in the first row who dispute your account there, Smug, but that's fine. If you would like to challenge me again at the Ruthless pre-show at the debate in Milwaukee, I'm happy to do it again. Oh boy. Done. And you know what? We'll use pills in our glasses

so everyone will be able to look at the liquid. No, you shot them in cans and we turn them upside down. Okay. It's a Coors original. We're going to drink beer. He's trying to rig it. All right. Wait, there wasn't all the fun, though, wasn't there?

There was a little basketball going on there. Duncan, I think you partook in that, right? I did. What was that? Was that like a competition amongst you? Can we see the video? Let's see. Do we not put it?

Do we not put up? Here we go. Of course, we're just going to show. Look at the bank shot. Watch this. Megan, what is this? Do we not put up? There we go. Of course, we're just going to show. Look at the bank shot. Watch this. Megan, what is this? Like the Dunkin' Highlight show? It's like the one thing you've got done here.

Megan and I. I don't know, Holmes. Why aren't you on here? You know, that's money in the bank. Because I was throwing heat down at the batting cage, lighting up the speedometer. Because he missed the shot. So, I mean, you got to show the guy who makes the shot.

What can I say? I'm from Indiana. You've seen the film Hoosiers. It's in our blood. You know, we just make shots. But you didn't break the plate. We threw baseballs at a lineup of plates. You didn't break the plate. I was the only one who broke the plate. This is a multifaceted

team of talent. Yeah, right. You had Holmes over here throwing fast balls. He, like, broke the speedometer that they had to keep out of it. Look, I was nailing the plates. And he went to the town. Money in the bank. OK, so I want to add this to my I'm going to have to have the team come back and add this in later.

But my husband, Doug, and our friends, we all went out last weekend and they dragged us to this bar here at the Jersey Shore that everybody loves. It's got all these man games. And we tried to get out of it. The two of us wives were like, you guys just go, you guys just go. And then after a lot of protesting by our husbands, I'm like, maybe we'll just go for one beer. She was like, what? You caved. She's like, you broke the code and you caved without even talking to me. So we went and we played some darts away. And I'm going to lay this video in, but can I tell you, I did the thing where you punch the big punching bag, you know, like, and it gives you a rating. And fellas, I got an almost 600 on this thing.

Meanwhile, some of these guys were getting two, 300. Now, now my husband got very high and so did our friend, Matt. They were like pushing 800, but I'm telling were getting two, three hundred. Now, now my husband got very high and so did our friend Matt. They were like pushing eight hundred. But I'm telling you, there was some power behind. I think I could hang in the ruthless Olympic program you got going on. It is long. It has long been known that Megyn Kelly can pack a punch. I'm glad it is now documented evidence.

Yeah. OK. One thing I cannot do is figure out what's happening with the lady on the American Airlines plane. This is not pressing news of the day, but we must discuss it. I can't get this lady out of my head. I don't know what's happening with her,

but I have theories. And so does the internet. Okay, so for the people not paying attention, the lady was on the plane. It was an American Airlines plane and she had a meltdown to the point where they had to bring the lady was on the plane. It was an American Airlines plane, and she had a meltdown to the point where they had to bring the plane back to the airport. They had to deplane everybody. Everyone had to go through security again because she was making all sorts of comments

about how you're going to die if you stay on this plane. And the Internet lost its mind because of what she was saying the danger was on the plane. Now, of course, the Daily Mail has tracked her down. We know who she is. She's done a mea culpa weird video where she's rebranded herself and clearly used about 40,000 TikTok filters because she looks totally different. And I think I know what's happening, but I want to talk to the fellas about it. Let's look at the original freakout from July 2nd that got everybody talking. not real. If you smell this plane and you can f***ing die with it or not, I'm not going to. And shout out to the cameraman for like

panning to the... The audience got the whole shot. So true. One time, several years ago, Smug was mistakenly put in coach class and he had a very similar response to that ladies i feel like maybe that's the underlying i feel unsafe i saw that video before but i forgot

how much she sounds like mickey mouse in that video it's like a voice is very high yeah yeah well look i think i think she's a hero i think she's a hero. I think she's a hero. I mean, she spoke up. And to my knowledge, nobody died on that flight. Bingo. She if she had not raised awareness, who knows what might have happened? Who knows the number of lives saved? Well, so then the Internet was like, what does she mean that MF is not real? And they the sleuths on board the plane kept going back and showing this one guy in a green

hoodie sweatshirt, who I guess was like next to her on her original seat or near her on the original seat. And then people went with she was accusing him of being a lizard person. Now, she does not heard saying that on the plane. But this is a thing like people believe that lizard people are walking amongst us and that you never know and that on this in the same vein that people have been like taken over so you know we could have duncan there or we could have like the new invention of duncan who is like a shapeshifter who just took over duncan's body and the real duncan is no more never to be seen again people yeah i'm still draining hoops and i was just gonna say that the lizard duncan has the ability to put clips in showing him doing no wrong on the second that's right we should all be taken over so okay so that's everybody's like what when she's like

he's that motherfucker's not real and i want to get off the plane we're not safe clearly she's having a mental breakdown of some kind. And then they find her. OK, now look, first of all, just look and listen to the difference now that she puts out her own. I think she works in PR and she PR her own apology video where she does not address anything about the lizard marketing, whatever. She does not address the lizard allegation or the mf for not real this

is how she sounds first and foremost i want to she looks like a million bucks take full accountability for my actions they were completely unacceptable personal responsibility distressed or not i should have been i should have been in control of my emotions and that was not the case my use of profanity was completely unnecessary and sort of in line with those who bear on that especially those that had children aboard oh my god okay tiffany gomez which is her name apparently your use of profanity is not the issue sweetheart that is not what got people talking ain't it that ain't it and this is what i so now she's trying to rehabilitate herself and she's actually saying she's going to create a space like in the mental

wellness field for her to help like what how what are you gonna help no you haven't even done a mea culpa on what the hell was going on on that plane. You're lucky you didn't get arrested. And this leads me to where I really wanted to go with you guys. Yes. My hairstylist is amazing at recommending good TV. And she sent this to me and it is from 2022. It's on Amazon Prime. And it's called The Devil You Know, Season 2. Season 2. And it's all about this cult is the word they use in the show. But this group of people that was following this radio host named Sherry Schreiner, who was broadcasting out of the middle of nowhere in what looked like a trailer.

No money, no real follow, like no, no, like marketing or anything, but had, I guess, tens of thousands of followers who hung on her every word. At least two people died, according to the documentary. One by suicide. One was shot by his girlfriend at his own request. But she's now in jail all because of this woman's powerful message. And she was a lizard person. Believer. Here is I pull my team, pull a little bit from the documentary, the piece on Amazon Prime. Here's this woman, Sherry Schreiner. I'm going to play soundbite 26 and then 25 for you both.

Take a listen. You know, celebrities, they don't want to go along. And what happens is they end up getting switched out, whether it's just totally replaced. And you know who features that is Lady Gaga. I'm sure you all saw her as a man last night at the MTV Awards. Everybody stand up! This is a real thing?

They can do that. Yeah, those are people. They can change their hair color by thought, even though I don't think she has hair because she's bald and wears a wig. Okay, stand by. Stand by. Stand by. One more.

27. I think the particular one that Kelly started with was someone who was showing how Lady Gaga was a reptilian. I have always liked ShapeShift. Or maybe Taylor Swift is another very popular target to break down her videos and show where her eyes look reptilian that was her entry and one imagines that in the comments section she saw something like no here is the real truth about their intelligence. What's happening? Again,

raising awareness. If people don't know, who knows what might happen? I mean, that makes me think. That's what I think was happening on board that plane. She didn't say lizard, but why did she think the guy was not real? This is more widespread than you'd know. And there was a guy, David Ick, who sort of came up with this originally. And he had all these followers who believed shapeshifters, lizard people, aliens among us who are inhabiting our body. I've never seen one in real life. Like I have a freak out on a plane about a guy in a green sweatshirt. But now now like all these people online are like, oh, you know, go, Tiffany. Yeah, you go, girl. And she's going to be our leader, I guess, in the mental health space. It's a no. OK, it's a no. But I will. Here's where I'm going to bring it all together. OK, I believe I said this last week that the deterioration in trust in all of our institutions, whether it's the DOJ or the FBI, the White House, the media, you know, CIA, FBI,

all of this is related. The less people believe in our institutions, the things that bind us together that used to be a given for us as Americans, the more they look to alternative sources of information, whether it's Reddit or this woman, Sherry Schreiner, who died a couple years ago or, you know, some QAnon, whatever, some lizard person. And this is our future. Like, if we can't rebuild that core togetherness and like belief in these institutions, you're going to get more and more American Airlines jets that have to return to the tarmac or that, you know, whatever, more and more instances of people losing their tether on reality.

100%. The more you see these institutions, you know, just coming apart and the trust people have in them, it's exactly what the lizard people have been working toward. So when you search for the alternate things, they're going to look to the lizard people. What you've been working. Yeah. Why do you think Smug wears sunglasses in there? Yeah.

He's just, he's trying to hide his lizard eyes. It's those lizard lion lizard eyes yeah that's going on and megan you know you're like casting all this shade i wonder about your lizardness what what made me so interested in this story hmm this exchange has just been clipped and it will be saved for the next sherry or whatever no she's no longer with us but maybe she just shape-shifted into something else. Here, here's here a couple more. Sherry Schreiner, this is a woman's a lunatic, obviously no longer with us.

God rest her. Bit of wisdom for you. Let's play soundbite 25 and then play 28 right after. Take a listen. Everything I've ever said, I've been talking about this stuff for 20 years. Right now, out of every four humans, only one is real. You know, crows that walk around with horns on their heads and tails sticking out of their ears, they look like us. We are at critical mass.

The reptilians have been dominating Earth for the last hundreds of years, thousands. These aliens, they pose as humans so they can destroy the humans on Earth. Wow. One in four gentlemen. Raise your hand. Who is it? That's the thing. I'm looking around here.

No, we've already identified. No, but you know what? I think like tying this back in, Megan, you're right. I mean, there is a modern sort of straight line of logical thinking. There's a lot about our politics today that's no less absolutely ridiculous. Like you can't believe you're lying eyes on so many things that we're dealing with. And like facts, established facts are no longer established. Just depends on your information flow and your cylinder of people who influence you one way or another. And of course, that becomes partisan over time. It's how you end up with like, you know, partisan justice, as we're seeing with DOJ. It's how you, you know, you deal with this sort of like lingering idea that elections

are stolen and by Venezuelan voting machines and people like, yes, I knew Hugo Chavez, despite the fact that he was dead eight years ago, had something to do with it. I mean, it's it's like it's scary at some level because people used to trust institutions to help them make sense of the world. And when the world stops making sense and those institutions can't be trusted, like you said, Megan, that's where they go to alternative sources of information that definitely don't make sense, but they make more sense than not knowing. And people don't like not knowing. And that's what made this whole clip with this woman on this plane so interesting, because people were like,

man, what did she take an Ambien? You know, she just is she drunk like people wanted to know people were like they want to know everything about her, you know. And so I think it's that desire to make sense of the world that leads people to lots of weird places. She lives in a million dollar house down in Dallas, by the way. She's got a good job. I mean, just goes to show you like you never know. And if she is having a mental health issue, I hope she does better. I hope she gets help. But she's not alone. You know, and honestly, we're we opened the show today talking about Donald Trump on January 6th. We had a woman on the show. She was amazing. It was one of my favorite interviews that we've done since we

launched the program. Her name is Lindsey Graham happened to be. And she walked us through how she wound up at the Capitol on January 6th, how she had been a business owner. She had been building a business in which she owned gyms and hair salons, and she was making it. And she was a new mother. She had a newborn at home and COVID shut that shit down. She lost everything. All the debt was up and all the revenues were gone, evaporated. And she had the stress and depression, all the stuff that comes from oftentimes when you have a new baby. And she went in a downward spiral trying to get news and information, real news, and made the

mistake of trying CNN, which was a hot mess. And before she knew it, she was on Reddit a lot and became one of those people who really believed that magically on this certain date, Donald Trump was going to be the president again and like got sucked down the rabbit hole. You guys, it can happen. It can happen to normal, successful people who, you know, you you may spend your day interacting with and you have no idea. Right. So this shit matters. What this lunatic running the thing in Georgia did yesterday matters. What Jack Smith is doing matters. What the Alvin Bragg did met there. They are hashtag part of the problem. It's not just about partisan politics. It's about us. It's about our kids. It's about our country. It's about our future. It's about the as I said, the tether that binds when, when nothing else binds, there were certain things we could always

count on with the Supreme court was another one that's been completely delegitimized by these partisans on the left. What they're doing is reckless. The whole question about it. But I think also it extends to our media space is just one of the things that we've come to appreciate you and your career, regardless of whether you've been at Fox News or NBC, you're now doing your own thing on this show. It's that people listen. There's millions of people out there listening to this right now who trust Megyn Kelly and her point of view. And you've always had a commitment, regardless of who's offended by it or not, to purvey the information as it's given to you. And that's the responsibility we feel on Ruthless too. I mean, look, it would have

been very, very easy for us at certain points over the last couple of years to go along with the prevailing wisdom on the right about what was happening to them that wasn't true. And many of our competitors in the space, and you know who they are, I don't need to say their names, didn't think they needed to do that. And they thought that just continuing to turn the dial all the way to 10 got them better ratings, which it did. But it also left a population that had a absolute vacancy of real information that allowed them to make decisions on everything from politics to how they live their lives. I think it's a damn shame. And I think more people in our line of work ought to take that commitment extremely seriously. And also, I'd be remiss if I didn't add the fact that a lot of these institutions aren't exactly victims in this process.

Many of them are part of the undermining. When you had, you know, the CDC saying that, oh, well, you know, you can catch COVID if you go to your family member's funeral, but not if you're protesting for BLM. Right. That's completely fine. Or you had the World Health Organization send out a tweet saying that COVID cannot be transmitted human to human to cover for China, who was their major investor at the time. So I think a lot of this comes from the institutions.

I mean, like Duncan says, people are confused by this situation. That's my point. I'm not blaming the people who distrust CDC and DOJ and FBI. They're right. They're right to distrust them. I'm blaming the institutions. What they've, they've crossed, you know, we say, we use that term, they crossed the're right. They're right to distrust them. I'm blaming the institutions.

What they've they've you know, we say we use that term. They cross the Rubicon. They have crossed it. And we're over here like the duck with the feet under the water, furiously saying what happened? How do we get out of this crazy mess? Why are we dealing with foreign indictments and the possibility of defunding DOJ and impeaching a president, you know, just to fight fire with fire. This is where we are. How do we get here? But yes, it's the institutions that got us here. And I have to say that the Democrats running them. Bingo. Yeah. In addition to getting us here, one of the other worst things that these institutions do is they don't recognize their problems they've created in the past. So there are plenty of opportunities every single day for a little bit of humility from the CDC, from NIH, from, I mean, honestly, from the FBI.

I mean, people are really concerned about two systems of justice. How about you, how about you acknowledge that? You know, like half of this country is very concerned about that. I had a conversation, I won't use the guy's name, but I have a conversation with a scientist who's very high up in public health. And he acknowledged to me, he was like, we have a lot of shortcomings. We created a lot of problems in the past with the way that we messaged COVID. I mean, you know, he went in a little bit deeper and I was like, you just, if you just tell people that, you know, just, just let people know that you recognize that, that you made mistakes. And here's what we're going to try to do to real trust back in.

We know it's going to take a long time, but at least acknowledge it. And I think that it it just makes it so much worse when they act like Randy Weingarten, for example, who bent over backwards to keep all of our kids out of school for an extended period of time. Kids go back to school and now she's like, what are you talking about? I wanted them to be in the classroom. I'm working for her to be in the class. She is such a liar, you know, and like people are fed that stuff every single day. It just compounds the original problem. And it's just there's no humility from the power. It's like it's like Hillary Clinton in that bite,

literally sitting there saying truth matters. I really just think truth matters. Stop it. Just stop it. Okay. Go back to Chappaqua and enjoy your nice home and your walks in the woods with your weird marriage. Okay.

Don't lecture the rest of us on truth. All right. Stand by. Stand by. We got more with the rest of us on truth. All right, stand by, stand by. We got more with the Ruthless gang straight ahead. Do you not understand that if Donald Trump wins, nothing else matters because it's over? The morning show might not exist and he will cancel the show.

I mean, you need to think that, excuse me, that extreme. It's over. Freedom is over if Donald Trump gets gets elected it's that simple well in that case let's definitely vote for donald trump they're gonna cancel morning show i didn't know that was on the ballot oh man i haven't heard him mention that it's amazing. I really I really hope we can get that on the official RNC platform in 2020. It's the lunacy. I mean, like he's serious. He's not we're laughing, but he actually believes Donald Trump will personally make sure Morning Joe gets canceled. Meanwhile, Trump, more than any other candidate, more than Joe Biden, would cross

party lines to go on with lefty TV hosts. And he doesn't care. He'll go wherever the cameras are. And the cameras, I should mention before we go, are going to be on the guys from Ruthless, the fellas at the debate next week. So you guys are like, I don't want to call you the warm up act. That may be insulting. But what are you?

How would you describe what you're doing next week? Yeah, I mean, look, we're doing a big college game day like setting out in front of the debate to sort of preview, get the crowd hyped and get everybody sort of focused on what's going to be a really big night. We're super excited to be there. Something brand new in politics. Right. And I love that they've entrusted us to do it. And as per your instruction, Duncan, I will be having a shotgun rematch. So, I mean, it's going to be a party. Everyone's going to be having a good time. And, you know, we're going to work on getting a candidate to beat Joe Biden and get this country back on track. And we're not just working on that. I'm also really trying to get us a whole hog to smoke right there next to the stage.

I want to bring a little bit of a party atmosphere there. And I think it'll make for a for a good like hog cam. You don't have a roving cameraman at the hog sure this would be fantastic watch out and all i can think of is um streaming live on rumble okay that's good to know all i can think of is that scene in animal house where um the one guy borrows his brother's car and they take the car out and they completely trash the car and the guy who loaned it to them can't believe it. And then I think it's Butowski goes,

you fucked up. You trusted us. That could be you guys. At the end of the talk with Ronald McDaniel. Yep, that's right. We will apologize at the appropriate time. Well, I, for one, am looking forward to watching that, guys. I look forward to watching that.

And we'll see about the debate. Much more interesting if Trump actually shows up. That's one of the big question marks between now and then. Thanks for being here, fellas. You are the best, Megan. Thanks for having us. We'll do it again soon. And we'll be back tomorrow with much, much more.

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