The Megyn Kelly Show - 20230803_biden-corruption-in-plain-sight-and-residents-fed-

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Aug. 3, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:36:48

20230803_biden-corruption-in-plain-sight-and-residents-fed-

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Hunter Biden Corruption Debate 00:15:12
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	This time in D.C. CNN and MSNBC are in wall-to-wall coverage.
	Does anyone else have indictment fatigue?
	It's disgusting what they're doing, but I mean, they are analyzing this thing.
	And of course, every conclusion is he's guilty.
	Jack Smith has got him dead to rights.
	This is the whole narrative that they are pushing on their viewers.
	And they're wrong.
	They're wrong.
	And they're going to find out they're wrong once this case goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Meantime, there are other big stories happening this week, like, oh, Hunter Biden's business partner Devin Archer's explosive testimony before Congress and now interview on cam with Tucker Carlson about potential Biden corruption.
	Funny how that works, how that's getting totally ignored, right?
	As they're all in on Trump and what an alleged criminal he is.
	Joining me now, Andrew Clavin, host of the Andrew Clavin Show and a best-selling author and screenwriter.
	Andrew, welcome back to the show.
	So, this is how I see it.
	Trump right now is winning the nomination process.
	He's winning far and away, 40 points ahead.
	Joe Biden is trying to have him jailed.
	That is Biden's Justice Department, make no mistake about it.
	Jack Smith answers to Merrick Garland, who answers to Joe Biden.
	Biden's trying to have Trump jailed.
	Biden's corruption as vice president, sitting vice president, is starting to come out.
	He's being exposed.
	And frankly, the folly of the first Trump impeachment is being exposed day by day because you recall that that's what Trump was trying to call attention to the Biden corruption in Ukraine and whether there would be a real investigation into that before we started giving them more money.
	That's the landscape right now.
	The media has only one story, and that is back to damn January 6th, which we've already fully investigated not once, but twice with a second impeachment and full congressional hearings, including prime time exposés that we were subjected to.
	This is a political issue.
	It's not a federal crime.
	No matter what Jack Smith tries to tell us, he's got a compliant media.
	And all this happens as we have a New York Times poll showing Trump is far and away the leader when it comes to getting this nomination on the GOP side.
	He's extremely strong with every group, and yet he's tied with Joe Biden in a general election.
	Both men remain extremely unpopular, Trump for all the various reasons, and Biden because of his age and his economy.
	So the Democrats, I'm sure, would love to sub out Biden and sub in a new person.
	Right now, they're stuck with him.
	He's vulnerable because of those reasons.
	And they are doing everything in their power, they and their media allies, to focus everyone again on January 6th, in particular the riot, which really has nothing to do with the Jack Smith indictment, though he tried to shoehorn it in for color.
	What do you make of it all?
	Well, I'm finding it fascinating.
	I mean, I've spent most of my career as a writer of crime stories and inventing villains and inventing corrupt schemes.
	And corruption has always been really fascinating to me, the way it not just moves through the human spirit, but the way it moves through human systems.
	And there comes a point when a system becomes so corrupt that the corruption becomes purposely blatant because the corruption itself becomes an instrument of power.
	And that's where we are with the DOJ.
	Ever since Hunter Biden's sweetheart deal collapsed in court when the judge realized that they had shoehorned in an immunity clause in a place where she wasn't supposed to see it and couldn't do anything about it once it was in place.
	The question of whether Biden's DOJ is corrupt is no longer a question.
	It is actually an established fact.
	We now see that they have slowwalked Hunter Biden's crimes so that the Statute of Limitations have run out where they position indictments of Donald Trump to come right after any time Biden's corruption is exposed, it's followed by an indictment or piling on more charges onto an indictment.
	They're acting openly political.
	And the message is essentially, we're doing this not because it's right, not because it's important.
	We're doing this because we can.
	That's the message they're sending to the public.
	And when they're surrounded by a news media that has also become ideologically corrupt and is willing to cover up Biden's malfeasance and his lifelong corruption and focus only on Donald Trump's faults and the indictments as if they were true, where this latest indictment is utterly ridiculous, we have the problem that the people, the good people, the straight people who are watching this, really can't believe their eyes.
	They can't believe they're seeing what they're seeing.
	And the only people who are stating clearly just how corrupt the Biden administration and the DOJ has become are the same people who come up with kind of kooky conspiracy theories.
	So the same guys who think that Barack Obama just strangled his chef because he didn't like the avocado toast are the people saying, oh my God, you know, this DOJ is utterly, utterly corrupt.
	And that's a problem because now ordinary people are saying, well, is this a, you know, is this a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory?
	It's not true that, I don't think, that Obama strangled his chef, but it is true that the DOJ is absolutely corrupt.
	This is even true of people that I deeply respect and admire, guys like Tucker Carlson, who's doing great work and just got an exclusive interview with Devin Archer that's terrific and it's on Twitter.
	But Tucker has also come out and said that we now know for sure that the government is hiding spacecraft with alien bodies in it.
	And so when you do that, and then you go and say, oh yeah, and here's Devin Archer, and he has actually established pretty clearly and pretty much beyond argument that Biden and his son have been colluding in corruption and in influence peddling, it muddies the waters.
	I mean, it's part of the information crisis that the internet has created that we have such a gusher of information coming from so many different sources that it's really hard to pin down the truth.
	From this moment, from the moment Biden's sweetheart deal collapsed, the DOJ's corruption and the fact that the DOJ is handling one set of charges one way and another set of charges another way is just an established fact.
	And at this point, the only thing we can hope for is that the public basically reacts by throwing the bums out.
	Because you're right.
	Donald Trump is very popular with the Republican base, but he is incredibly unpopular with the middle of the voters who basically establish the results of an election.
	And Biden, I'm not even convinced that Biden is going to be the candidate anymore.
	I don't see how he can possibly go on.
	So this is a really interesting point.
	It's a real moment of change when our government is now established at the highest level to be corrupt and to be acting corruptly and to have thrown out the rule of law for political purposes as if we were in South America rather than North America.
	And the question is, will the voters have someone they can select and are willing to select to make that stop?
	It's a dangerous moment.
	Against all this, we get news that Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom are going to do a debate hosted by Hannity, a two-hour debate that I presume will air on Fox News.
	And that's fascinating, right?
	Because these guys are obviously on deck in case the leaders fall, in case Trump's in jail and can't run, in case Biden, God forbid, dies or is just incapacitated or realizes he can no longer do the job and gets ousted by his party.
	These are the two guys who are realistically on deck.
	It's not RFKJ.
	It's certainly not Mary Ann Williamson over on the Dem side.
	And on the Republican side, though the voters prefer Trump to DeSantis, DeSantis is an acceptable alternative.
	He's got some 65% or approval rating amongst Republicans.
	They like him.
	It's not like they can't stand DeSantis.
	They just prefer Trump.
	So if Trump, for some reason, isn't going to do it.
	Now you have the two also rans about to go head to head in what I think will be a really fascinating exchange.
	I think it's a very smart move by both of them to sort of remind their respective electorates, I'm here and I stand for all the things you love, but I'm young and I'm vibrant and I may have political baggage of the kind any politician has.
	Hey, here's how I governed Florida.
	I don't like it.
	Here's how I governed California.
	I don't like it.
	That's normal.
	But I don't have all the other baggage like I'm corrupt and so is my son.
	I may have sold the vice presidency.
	And Trump, you know, we could go down the list of the number of things he's done or been accused of.
	You know, beyond this, this is the debate I feel we should be having.
	Here are two people in exemplary states, states that are perfect examples of the results of their policies.
	California is a mess.
	I just got back from there.
	The place is riddled with crime, riddled with homelessness.
	Nothing works.
	Everybody's leaving and they're going to Florida.
	So this is a great moment for the governor of Florida and the governor of California to be arguing with one another.
	I know people don't want to hear anymore about the lockdowns and about COVID and Dr. Fauci.
	People have lost interest in that.
	But their history and how they got through that is a history of oppression in California and a history of growing freedom in Florida.
	I mean, Florida is a place that I can barely stand because of the heat.
	Everybody I know has moved to Florida and they love it.
	They just absolutely adore it.
	So that is, if we care about the country, if we care about the future of the country, that's the real debate we should be having.
	And I just want to add, too, that DeSantis had a really rough launch to his campaign.
	I called it out the minute it happened.
	I said, this guy is not doing well on the national stage.
	He's turned a corner.
	Now, he hasn't gone down the new street yet, but he's actually turned a corner.
	He looks a lot different than he did starting out.
	And he is beginning to make his case a lot more smoothly and a lot more clearly.
	And he's beginning to realize that he has got to stop talking to the choir and he's got to go start going on with George Stephanopoulos and the other leftists and show what he is when he is confronted with the left, because that's what people really love about him.
	They love two things about him.
	They love one, that he's a cultural warrior.
	And two, he's a genuinely competent governor.
	He actually puts things back together when they fall apart.
	And he's smart.
	He's a veteran and he's all the things you should be to be a politician like that.
	And as you say, he's young.
	I am so tired of being governed by people in their 70s and 80s.
	I joke about this, but it's true.
	As an old guy, I can tell you that if you live your life well, you start to have a sort of sense of the big picture and you start to realize life is tragic and you start to have a lot of compassion for people that maybe you didn't have before.
	You shouldn't be president anymore.
	You should basically be a philosopher at that point.
	And if you don't have that attitude, you're probably not that good of a person.
	It's terrifying.
	Look at Dianne Feinstein, age 90.
	She's forgotten how to vote.
	I mean, she's been in the Senate for what, 50 years?
	She's forgotten that you just have to say I. Say I. There was a report out today, I think at the New York Times.
	Her daughter, I think it is, has power of attorney for her.
	So you've got a legal decision maker in her life that is not named Dianne Feinstein, and yet she's still working actively in the Senate.
	Oh my God.
	Not to mention what we saw with Mitch McConnell last week and what's happening with the sitting president who is not acknowledging any of his cognitive decline and yet running again.
	And the Dems don't seem all that interested in talking to Gavin Newsom right now.
	So it is terrifying what's happening with, with all due respect to the aged among us who are holding it together, like our pal Alan Dershowitz, who's just a freak of nature.
	He's the exception, not the rule.
	It's not that an old person can't be vital and awake and alert.
	It is simply that if you were reading this in a history textbook 100 years from now, you'd be looking at the fall of the Republic.
	You'd be saying, this is what a republic looks like just before it crumbles, these desiccated, querulous old men wandering around barely knowing what they are without the moral force to push forward our traditions and our policies without any kind of new vision.
	When is the last time anybody who has been in the leadership has put forward something actually new that will preserve our traditions into the coming generation?
	That's what I want to hear.
	I want to hear young people telling me, you know, when I say young, I'm talking about 40, 50, you know, people in the prime of life who can see the future a little bit.
	You know, Biden can't even see him two feet in front of him without falling down.
	He hardly sees the future.
	And at this point, Trump, you know, I voted for him twice.
	I'll vote for him again if I have to.
	But he's really just doing the Trump routine at this point.
	He is not actually putting forward any policies and showing how they can be enacted in a realistic way.
	And he didn't do it before.
	And this is something that DeSantis has right about him.
	It's not personal.
	It's just that he did not build the wall.
	He didn't do the things that he said.
	And he did turn the country over to bureaucrats when COVID hit.
	And I think that that is the argument against him.
	You know, one of the things DeSantis is doing is he's got this, forgive me if I don't get this perfectly right, but he's got this incentive program for teachers in Florida where he gives them essentially a stipend to go learn more about civics and American history and stuff involving the Federalist Papers.
	Like it's great.
	He's actually trying to change the way teachers see America and our history by offering them incentives to study this with on the taxpayer dime.
	This is amazing because it's not just saying to the teachers, you can't teach critical race theory.
	Don't divide the children based on race.
	Don't force pronouns on the children.
	It's saying, you should go take a look at the beauty of America.
	You should learn a little bit about American history, the real American history, not Nicole Hannah-Jones version of it.
	And then you can be exposed to the children.
	I love this.
	This is a clever way of kind of undoing some of the indoctrination that the National Education, that the teachers union, you know, at the federal level is trying to push on these people.
	You know, Megan, I never wanted to be a person who was on camera.
	Writers tend to be hermits.
	We tend to be very private people.
	And the only reason I did it was when I returned after living abroad for seven years, I returned to America.
	I realized that we had lost the culture and that the people who cared about liberty, who cared about religion, who cared about American traditions and history, knew nothing about the culture.
	They had think tanks about policy.
	They had think tanks about law.
	They had think tanks about urban development.
	They had no think tanks about the arts, about culture, about the way people actually communicate.
	That has changed since when I started talking about this, people looked at me like I was crazy, and that's like over 20 years ago.
	Now we get it.
	Now the right understands.
	And when I say the culture, I don't just mean movies and books and plays.
	I also mean Dylan Mulvaney putting Dylan Mulvaney on a Bud Light can.
	I also mean what people are being taught in college.
Winning the Culture War 00:04:26
	When I see old-fashioned conservatives like the Wall Street Journal hitting DeSantis on the fact that he's fighting a culture war, The culture war was already on.
	It was just only one side was waging war.
	And we were sitting here stupidly saying you've got to win that, you know, that congressional district in Ohio and pouring money into some, you know, some small race without any thought of how people live, what our children learn, and how people behave and act.
	And so instead, we have a right wing that has been shut down, has been demonized, has been called racist and sexist.
	And so when they hear a clown like Nick Fuentes, who is a Jew-hating fascist, a little giggly creep, when they hear him, he sounds like he's speaking something bold and something brave because everybody else has been silenced from saying anything.
	When they hear an Andrew Tate, who's a pimp and a woman abuser, say this is masculinity, it's because, and they listen to that.
	It's because they're so tired of being told that manhood is toxic that Tate sounds like he's making some kind of sense when actually he's just talking criminality.
	This is the moment to fight these wars.
	DeSantis has got to just ignore the Wall Street Journal, all the conservatives who are saying, oh, please, please don't fight the culture war.
	Just talk to us about policy.
	No, that's the war we're in.
	That's the war we're losing.
	And that's the war we've been losing for 50 years.
	And now it's just starting to turn around.
	I can see the cracks in the ice.
	I'm really hopeful.
	I don't know if I will live to see the rebirth of American culture, but hopefully I'll see the promised land from afar because I actually now, everything has changed in the last few years.
	And people understand that we are in a culture war and we have been losing it and we don't have to lose it because the majority is on our side.
	Yes, it's a battle for the soul of America.
	When people say the culture wars aren't important, I think, do you have children?
	Do you have any idea what's being done to them?
	You know, some of my friends like in the Midwest, they haven't had this lunacy wash over them yet.
	So they actually are like genuinely unaware of how severe the problem's gotten in places like California and New York and the bluest of the blue states.
	And for those of us who are living it firsthand, it's a five-alarm fire.
	Thank God for people like Ron DeSantis who are willing to take it on and expose these people.
	And I believe Trump will too.
	I also believe like Trump hasn't been as vocal on things like the trans thing, though he's going to get asked about it and we'll get it all cleared up about where he stands on it now, eight years after his original positions.
	But the culture war must be fought.
	And I really feel like people who don't think it's a thing must not have young children because if you have young children, you're deeply worried about this.
	This is another thing.
	It has highlighted the role that mothers play.
	It is so important.
	There's a movement going on.
	It's just beginning.
	The only person covering it, I cover it on my show all the time, a movement of women who are essentially liberal.
	They're basically on the left, who have suddenly realized that feminism promised them liberation, but in fact has eliminated them as women, as females, and are suddenly saying, you know what?
	I'm not a conservative, but.
	I'm not a conservative, but I like having children.
	I like being a mom.
	I like care.
	I care very deeply about my children.
	And these are intellectual women who are writing about this and declaring a new kind of feminism, a feminism that does not exclude or attack femininity, which feminism has done for the last 30 years.
	And I think this is the most important thing happening in the country because the way the women go, men kind of go along with them.
	They want men like women.
	This is the thing.
	The left has managed to make it sound like we all hate each other.
	But in fact, men loving women is kind of the central joy of life.
	It's the central mortal joy of life.
	And so they've problematized it, but it's actually the core of our society.
	And femininity enhances homemaking.
	It enhances child rearing, family building, and religion.
	And all of those things are breaks against authoritarian state power.
	And so the authoritarian state hates femininity.
	They hate moms.
	There's a reason that Merrick Garland is investigating parents as if they're terrorists.
	They have always hated this.
	And the idea that women should not be in traditional female positions has nothing to do with whether they also work.
	It has nothing to do with all the other things that they can do with their life.
	But the idea that they should not be moms, they should not be in traditional female positions is an attack.
	It's an authoritarian attack on the bulwark of freedom.
	And I just think that that is turning around too.
	It's a very hopeful sign.
	A lot of what's happening in our politics is very dark.
The Rigged Election Path 00:15:26
	A lot of the corruption is very dark.
	But beneath that, I'm really starting to see a kind of cultural spring coming up through the intellectual frost that has been blocking it for all this time.
	It's actually an optimistic moment if you can see through the darkness.
	I want to talk about all of this.
	I've got there's so many examples that I wanted to raise with you of the lunacy on the left on some of these issues.
	But before we get to that, before we move off of the hard news piece, I do want to talk about Devin Archer for a minute.
	Devin Archer, I can't say it any better than Jonathan Turley.
	You know, he's a law professor at George Washington University.
	He's a very fair guy.
	He sent out a tweet thread, so I'm just going to read it rather than paraphrase it so people can understand.
	This is a summary of what he's read in the Devin Archer transcript, you know, because he gave testimony behind closed doors on Monday to Congress.
	It wasn't on CAM, but it was transcribed.
	And here's, and Jonathan, they just released it today, the transcription.
	So here's a couple of highlights.
	He writes, the Devin Archer transcript is out.
	Archer said the Ukrainians wanted Hunter Biden to help relieve pressure from the prosecutors looking into corruption.
	You remember that?
	In particular, Burisma was under investigation and they knew that it was going to start to get ugly for them and they wanted relief from that investigation.
	They wanted the Bidens to take the heat off.
	Biden later insisted on the firing of the prosecutor.
	Just to put some meat on those bones, specifically what Devin Archer said, this is my own research here, was that the Ukrainians wanted Hunter to help relieve the pressure from Shokin, that's the prosecutor, and that they asked Hunter to make a phone call.
	This is what Devin Archer said, asked Hunter to make a phone call to DC to help them, Burisma, this Ukrainian board, this Ukrainian oligarch, with said pressure.
	That was in December 2015 at a Burisma board meeting that happened in Dubai.
	Hunter was there.
	Devin Archer was there.
	The Burisma CEO was there.
	And they turned to Hunter and said, please call DC, help get this pressure off of us.
	Three months later, three to four months later, March 2016, that prosecutor was fired.
	Yes, it had the support of the international community, but it was Joe Biden who made it happen.
	That's the truth.
	And you could say, oh, okay, he had absolutely no personal motive on it.
	He hadn't, you know, he had no idea that Hunter and Burisma wanted this guy fired.
	But according to Devin Archer, he did have an idea.
	He was on the phone with them.
	And according to that FBI Form 1023, he was specifically told that the stakes of this relationship were fire this guy Shokin.
	Now, Devin Archer said he did not know about any $5 million bribe either to Hunter or to Joe as alleged in that FBI form.
	But he did say, picking back up on the Churley texts, quote, there was a discussion of $142,000 purchase of a luxury car for Hunter as part of his payments, as well as various wire transfers.
	Devin Archer said the Biden brand was Joe Biden and that that's what was being sold.
	It was clear that they were not looking for Hunter, meaning his expertise.
	Burisma owner Zlichewski reportedly said Hunter was stupid and his dog was smarter.
	Devin Archer appears with Tucker and talks about the many, many calls, at least 20, that Joe Biden had while Hunter was in the midst of these business meetings.
	And here he is on camera now describing that.
	It's Sat one.
	I think I could definitively say at particular dinners or meetings, he knew there were business associates and he, you know, we, or if I was there, I was a business associate too.
	To be, you know, completely clear on the calls, I don't know if it was an orchestrated call-in or not.
	It certainly was powerful, though, because, you know, if you're sitting with a foreign business person and you hear the vice president's voice, that's prize enough.
	I mean, that's pretty impactful stuff.
	That's it, exactly.
	Right?
	That's it exactly, Andrew.
	Unlike what Dan Goldman says, which is it was just niceties.
	It was just about the weather, and there's nothing to see there.
	Yeah, Dan Goldman is now my favorite politician because he's just hilarious.
	He's so corrupt that he actually is a walking joke.
	So dishonest.
	But let's not forget this.
	Not only did Joe Biden brag about getting the prosecutor fired because he said he was corrupt, but he got him fired by threatening to withhold American aid.
	So he was using your and my money that's supposed to be put into building countries, helping countries, whatever we want to do with it, whatever serves our interests.
	And he used it to get this guy fired.
	So if you look at the timeline, the timeline is absolutely incredible.
	Barack Obama, who, by the way, I really dislike him as a political figure, but I always thought he's not money corrupt.
	He's an ideologue.
	He actually is like the old Maoists.
	He's actually honest in that way because he's actually trying to accomplish a political goal.
	He puts Joe Biden, his vice president, in charge of corruption in Ukraine and dealing with the corruption in Ukraine.
	And Hunter Biden then starts to get these jobs with Barisma and starts to work with Ukrainians.
	So Joe Biden says to us, I never talked business with my son.
	And my thought now is, why not?
	Why didn't you say, son, I'm in charge of dealing with corruption in Ukraine?
	Don't take that job.
	Don't be there.
	There is a kind of a weird iron grip of extortion and blackmail between father and son here, where there's no way Joe Biden can abandon his son because his son has the goods on him and they are coming out.
	And let's also not forget that the minute that form was released showing or at least accusing, alleging that there was a bribe, a $10 million bribe offered to these clowns, it was the next day that the federal indictments against Trump started coming down.
	So every time malfeasance by the Bidens is exposed, it's followed in a single day by an indictment.
	Again and again, it's happened now three times.
	So this is all this chain.
	If you just look at the timeline, the timing, the way things happen, the corruption is so blatant and so arrogant that I can only think, and this is what I do believe, that they are using this corruption to tell the American people, watch yourself, because we will do this because we can.
	We do not have to, you know, we don't do this for the rule of law.
	We're not doing this for fun.
	We're doing this to let you know we can do this.
	It is an instrument.
	Corruption itself is an instrument of power.
	And it's so obvious.
	And if, of course, we had an honest press, this would be surely the biggest scandal since Watergate.
	I mean, the cover-up of this guy, this desiccated old man who has been corrupt since the beginning.
	I mean, he's never been an honest guy.
	The corruption, the level of influence peddling is just astounding.
	Yeah, and it's starting to come out.
	And the more that comes out, the more he indicts Donald Trump.
	He and his Democrat cronies.
	I know.
	Joe Biden is so corrupt that Donald Trump is going to have to spend all his money fighting indictments.
	That's basically the same thing.
	Well, that's what's alarming.
	So we were talking about this yesterday.
	That's what's really alarming for the Republicans right now, who I get it.
	They love Trump and they want Trump.
	But Trump is going to have to spend the vast majority of his time and his money over the next 18 months fighting these incredible criminal threats to his freedom.
	And, you know, and I understand it.
	People want him to fight and they don't mind if their money goes to support some of that.
	But every dollar spent on the Trump criminal trials is another dollar that's not spent, you know, getting the get out the vote effort going for Republicans and making sure people are registered and making sure the right advertisements are being made and submitted against Joe Biden and the Democrats and so on.
	Like it's, it is going to be a cascade that distracts not just Trump, but all of his supporters and the Republicans who will not be focused as much on the election, but on all of this.
	And, you know, it may actually work on Trump to get him out of the race in the following way.
	If you've ever had a sick friend, you know, when people are sick, they become fascinated by their own symptoms and they can't talk about anything else.
	And that happens to people when they have legal problems, too.
	And I'm hearing from people who go to some of Trump's rallies that he goes off on these riffs about his legal problems and the audience starts to lose interest because they're not there for Trump.
	They're there for what Trump can do for them.
	That's the way we go to politicians, we go to politicians for what they can do for us.
	And Trump is becoming like the old comedian Lenny Bruce who stopped doing comedy routines and just started reading transcripts from his trials.
	And that is happening to Trump already because Trump is a narcissist and he is mostly interested in Donald Trump.
	And I think that...
	They kind of all are, though, in his defense.
	No, they are.
	It's true.
	But he's kind of so he's an extravagant guy in every way, in good ways and bad ways.
	And so he's an extravagant narcissist.
	The thing about it is, though, you're absolutely right about this.
	Trump loses popularity when he pays attention to himself.
	That's what happened during COVID when he would talk about the press being unfair to him when people's grandmothers were dying alone in isolation.
	So this is kind of having that effect on him.
	If Trump had a little bit more elegance, maybe a little bit more commitment to the country, he might step down.
	And I just don't think that's going to happen.
	Now he can't.
	Now he can't because he needs to win.
	He needs to win and he needs to pull this DOJ off of those two federal investigations.
	And he'll just have to fight it out, you know, bare-knuckled in New York and Georgia, where he's about to be indicted again, we believe.
	So, I mean, if I were Trump, I wouldn't step aside right now.
	I mean, my own personal hide is on the line because of my political past, and I would make sure that I protected it with my political future.
	I mean, look, he could also have all this happen if a DeSantis win happens.
	But if a Biden reelection happens, he is effed.
	That's just the truth of it.
	He's got to be a little scared about all this.
	He's got to be.
	And, you know, I think a DeSantis, I think DeSantis could beat Joe Biden in his sleep.
	I think that Joe Biden doesn't have a chance against any really competent and youthful and energetic opponent.
	Really, it's not that Donald Trump can't win.
	It's that he's the only person who really has a big chance of losing.
	And that's, you know, I'm not saying he can't win, and he's an amazing guy.
	But like, you know, my own feeling about this, and I have no personal animus toward Donald Trump whatsoever.
	Like I said, I voted for him twice.
	I feel the guy was a godsend.
	I feel he turned the Republican Party around.
	He opened up the path to a real American future.
	Nobody else could have done it.
	Nobody else had the force of personality and the force of will.
	He's just not enough of a political operative to take us down the path that he opened up.
	And, you know, again, I hate to throw a guy under the bus, but after all, the president is there for the country.
	He's not there for himself.
	And so as much as I feel for Donald Trump and as offended as I am by how he's being treated and how he's always been treated from the very beginning of his political career, I really do think it's time for new blood and a new path, a new vision to take us down the path that Donald Trump opened up.
	And I wish he saw it that way, but obviously he never will.
	And as you said, His connection with the working class and his willingness to stand up for them and to understand their problems is another reason he's so beloved, you know, at a time when nobody else was doing that, especially the Republican Party.
	I mean, he's completely bent the Republican Party to his will on that.
	And that's a good thing.
	You know, they were completely being ignored.
	That's one of the reasons why they love him and his numbers are so high.
	But they're high with everybody now.
	They're not just high with the working class.
	They're high with, you know, college educated and non-college educated men and women.
	He's made amazing inroads with Hispanics now who are just about equally divided, Dems versus Republicans.
	That was never the case before.
	Even getting some of the black vote now and black support for Joe Biden is flat.
	That was one of the things that we saw in the New York Times poll.
	They're not into Joe Biden either.
	It doesn't matter what James Cliveborn says, that they see that he's not exciting and they see what's happening in their wallets and they're not feeling it.
	All of this stuff is swirling in the atmosphere right now.
	And the Democrats know it.
	They know it.
	And so with their own.
	They're trying to kneecap the guy.
	All right, wait, stand by, Andrew, because we're going to squeeze in a quick break and we'll come back.
	And there's a few things we need to get to on the crime front that you mentioned and on the Bud Light front, unbelievable development today.
	Stand by.
	So Andrew Trump just sending out a message on his social media.
	I need one more indictment to ensure my election.
	It's not wrong.
	The funniest president since Lincoln.
	Trump is the funniest president.
	Definitely.
	That's one of the reasons why people love him.
	It's like they want to be entertained a bit.
	And, you know, they're sick of like, you know, boring, stiff, half-their presidents like Biden.
	And then he tweets out the following, truths out, whatever, truth social.
	I am now going to Washington, D.C., where he's going to be arraigned, you know, in hours, to be arrested for having challenged a corrupt, rigged, and stolen election.
	It is a great honor because I am being arrested for you.
	Make America great again.
	You know what's interesting about this is there was just a poll released by CNN today that shows 69%, 69% of Republicans and Republican leaners say Joe Biden's win was not legitimate.
	I mean, the vast majority of Republicans do not believe that Joe Biden is a legitimate president, that his win was legitimate.
	And so they're not going to get upset about January 6th.
	They understand why Trump protested and was mad and did the things he did.
	I know that that's not the way the Democrats feel.
	I know it's not the way the left-leaning independents feel, but the polls also reflect there's almost zero upset on the GOP side about any of the things Trump has been accused of in connection with any of these three indictments and that none of the Republicans, maybe like two of them, Mike Pence is one, think he actually committed a crime.
	They're just not bothered by anything involving Trump.
	And that explains his just steadfast support in the polls.
	Now, listen to this, a little twist here.
	When asked, who do you have more confidence in when it comes to dealing with the major issues facing the country, President Biden or House Republicans, Republicans in Congress?
	The GOP is winning 54 to 45.
	Now, that's a pretty substantial margin.
	It's not surprising.
	I thought it'd be more evenly divided straight along party lines, but they've got to have most of the independents in there.
	Shockingly, Kevin McCarthy is doing an excellent job and Comer is doing a good job and Jordan is doing a good job and they're actually making their case and they're doing it cautiously.
	They're not overstepping the line.
	They're not bloviating and exaggerating.
	And, you know, the other poll, by the way, showed that 65% of Americans, not just Republicans, believe that January 6th was instigated by federal agents.
	So I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure how powerful the February, the January 6th narrative is.
	I have for a long time felt, look, I don't feel people should go charging into the Capitol.
	I think that was a bad thing.
	But it has been the Reichstag fire.
	You know, it's been like this thing that has been blown up.
	You know, the Reichstag fire was a real thing when socialists burned the Reichstag in Germany, but Hitler turned it into this cause celeb and used it to destroy people's freedom.
	I'm not calling the Democrats Hitlers.
	I'm just saying they're acting in exactly the same way.
	They have basically said this is the worst thing that's ever happened since the Civil War.
	And no, it wasn't.
Democrats Acting Like Hitlers 00:08:45
	It was, you know, a dumb, it was a stupid thing to do.
	But if, in fact, it was instigated by federal agents, which does seem to me fairly likely, and if, in fact, you know, the election doesn't have to have been stolen to be rigged.
	It was rigged beyond a shadow of a doubt.
	You know, just shutting down the Hunter Biden laptop story was rigging the election.
	Changing the rules against the state's constitutions was rigging the election.
	It's a shame that Trump didn't have the lawyers to fight that while it was happening.
	But still, he's not to blame for the malfeasance of the left.
	And it was egregious.
	It was gross what they did.
	And so the idea that the election was stolen by Venusians messing with the voting machines, that may be absurd, but the idea that it was rigged from the start and that the way Trump was treated by the media was part of that rigging, all of it, the Russian collusion, the indictment over the impeachment over Ukraine, which we now see Trump was completely in the right.
	And this latest indictment, he's basically being indicted for saying stuff.
	That is what he's being indicted for.
	And the prosecutor virtually said that.
	He said these things and it wasn't true.
	If you indicted politicians for saying things that weren't true, they'd all be in prison, which might be an improvement, but still, it would be totally.
	There's a line in the indictment in which Jack Smith is accusing Trump of committing a crime because he, quote, gave false hope to the protesters who were demonstrating on January 6th.
	That's not a crime, Jack.
	Sorry to break it to you, but that's not a crime.
	It's absolutely absurd.
	All right, let's move on because there are a couple other things.
	You mentioned Bud Light earlier, and I am with you on that whole thing, and I'm enjoying watching them suffer.
	I'm not going to lie.
	Now we've heard, we knew anecdotally that the sales were down.
	You know, we'd been hearing about distributors struggling and bar owners saying they can't sell it.
	And then we'd heard, oh, it's down 23%.
	It's down 28% this quarter.
	Just the month ending July 15th, the Bud Light sales were down 26.5%.
	Turns out from April to June, the second quarter, they lost almost $400 million in sales.
	$390 million.
	And Anheuser-Busch correctly said it was because of Bud Light, that they blamed the volume decline in Bud Light.
	You know, people saying it's done and it's not coming back.
	That these bartenders and people who deal in the liquor industry saying it's over.
	It's not rehabilitatable.
	And yet, look at this.
	Joe Rogan on the wrong side on this one, popping open a Bud Light, dismissing the whole controversy.
	This is the second time he's done this.
	Watch this.
	And we're drinking Bud Lights, ladies and gentlemen.
	Sorry, guys.
	Sorry.
	We're fucked.
	There's nothing wrong with it.
	People, cheer, sir.
	People are so silly.
	We were just talking about how silly it is.
	One person made a really stupid decision.
	Now everybody's decided that Bud Light is the enemy.
	Not getting it.
	He's totally.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah.
	This is, as I said before, this is one of the cracks in the ice I'm seeing in the culture.
	The fact that the right has, you know, the right, the conservatives, they're like wrangling cats.
	Everyone has a different philosophy.
	Everyone has a different leader.
	They never get together on anything.
	And they never take action because they are natural pessimists.
	So they always think it's over.
	The country's finished.
	There's no coming back.
	Just give me my Bud Light and shut up.
	No, this time they spotted this.
	They've spotted this transgender movement as an attack on femininity, an attack on femaleness, which is exactly what it is.
	It's an attempt to destroy the very existence of women, the very fact that women are a thing and men and women are different.
	And there are, in fact, no people, there are only men and women.
	There are only two kinds of people.
	They spotted it and they spotted it on their beer.
	This is the beer of the working class guy.
	This is the beer that you kick back when you kick back and have a beer.
	It used to be a Bud Light.
	It was the number one beer in America.
	It's now not even in the top 10.
	It's important.
	These little signs, and they are little signs, but they're important of a shift in perception on the right.
	This movie, The Sound of Freedom, which just made over $100 million and was not distributed by Hollywood.
	It was distributed in a new system.
	That's a major sign that shows that people are willing to turn up for good entertainment that doesn't toe the party line.
	And the fact that it maneuvered the left in The Guardian and Rolling Stone and all these left-wing papers are defending child molesting and child sex slavery.
	It's an amazing, amazing thing.
	They are being called out into the light.
	Listen, the other side of this, I started out when we started out talking, I started out talking about when corruption becomes blatant because it becomes an instrument of power.
	The opposite side of that is we still live in a country where people have political power and they can strike and economic power and they can strike back.
	And so when these arrogant corrupts come out, basically saying to the people, just keep your mouth shut because we can do this stuff whether it's constitutional or not, the people have a tendency to strike back and say, oh, yeah, hit the road, Jack.
	And that has happened a number of times in this country.
	The country is not gone yet, and it can happen again.
	And I think I'm really hoping it will happen again.
	And if I seem like I've been hard on Donald Trump, it's because I love this country.
	I want it to go forward and I'm worried about him.
	I'm worried about him as a political instrument.
	But perhaps he's fooled us before.
	He can fool us again.
	And I hope he does.
	You know, I just think that this is the moment to strike back because the people are awake.
	The people are awake.
	And it's not just right-wingers.
	It's also people who are kind of, you know, in the middle or middle left.
	I hear it.
	I talk to those people.
	They're saying, yeah, this has gone too far.
	This is not true.
	I don't want my kids taught this stuff.
	It's a big change, and it really is happening, but it's got to be nailed down politically as well as culturally.
	It's, it's, you know, if Bud Light actually were sorry about its one person sending one beer can to Dylan Mulvaney, we would have heard that.
	That's not what we've heard.
	The guy has never apologized.
	He's never owned up to it.
	The CEO of Anheuser-Busch, the CEO, he's not sorry at all.
	He's only sorry that it turned into a controversy for him.
	He doesn't get it and it's too late to save his brand.
	And most of us wouldn't be caught dead having a Bud Light now for very good reason.
	It endorses a whole set of values that we do not support.
	Notwithstanding what Neil deGrasse Tyson was saying on Twitter this week, I've got to play the soundbite.
	He's lost his mind.
	Here he is.
	Apparently, the XXXY chromosomes are insufficient because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.
	Either the one you're assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever it is.
	Suppose no matter my chromosomes, today I feel 80% female, 20% male.
	I'm going to put on makeup.
	I'm going to do that.
	Tomorrow I might feel 80% male.
	I'll remove the makeup and I'll wear a muscle shirt.
	Why do you care?
	What business is it of yours?
	I got dollars to donuts.
	He's cross-dressing at night.
	That's a little too defensive of this.
	This line, why do you care?
	It is exactly the cry of people who have been caught.
	They have been fighting this culture war alone and they've been invading and invading and invading.
	We're doing nothing.
	We sit around going, ah, it's just Bud Light.
	I'm not going to boycott Bud Light.
	It's just a movie.
	It's just a guy who wants to dress up as a woman.
	Now we're awake, and now it's why do you care so much?
	Why do you care so much?
	I'm not the guy knocking people off YouTube for saying men can't become women.
	I'm not the guy who cancels people and fires people and won't treat one patient couldn't be treated for cancer because they will not admit that men can become women because they can't.
	They're the ones who care.
	They're the ones who want to push this down our throats.
	And when we fight back, it's suddenly why do we care?
	Listen, Richard Dawkins, a man I strongly disagree with on the subject of God, but is no doubt a good scientist.
	He said really interesting things on my friend's trigonometry podcast.
	I saw that.
	He said, yeah, he said, you know, one of the problems with the human mind is it's too often binary.
	And I completely agree with that.
	It doesn't have nuance.
	It thinks there's black and white.
	It thinks there's only right and wrong instead of all these gray areas.
	But Dawkins went on to say the one area where the binary function is complete is in genetics, is in our sex lives.
	Men are men, women are women.
	We make generalities about them.
	There are obviously exceptions about them.
	But they wouldn't even be saying, these people wouldn't even be saying my gender is different if there weren't identifiable female traits.
	When you say a trait is female, the only reason you're saying that is because it shows up a lot more often in women.
Beyond Black and White Thinking 00:03:06
	That's the reason you're saying it.
	So it makes no sense to then say, oh, well, if I feel this thing that often shows up in women, I'm suddenly become a woman.
	It is completely nonsense.
	I just finished this interesting book called From Transgenderism to Transhumanism by a Transgender Person.
	And it's really, it's a stupid book, but it's a really interesting book because the thesis of the book is that each person is so completely unique that you can't identify them at all.
	And therefore, we actually don't even have any kind of identity except our own identity.
	If that were true, you know, we couldn't make generalities, we couldn't think, we couldn't reason.
	This idea of this is the idea of liberty turned into an idol.
	You know, this is how this is how democracies fall.
	This is what Plato said, basically.
	They take the freedom, and the freedom itself becomes an idol instead of the moral atmosphere in which freedom thrives.
	It's crazy, and you can only hope the common sense of the American people, which does vanish from time to time, it does disappear in fads and crazes and things like that.
	You can only hope the moral sense of the American people will return as it has so often in the past.
	I do see it, Megan.
	I do see it happening.
	And I think it's a very, very hopeful change in the midst of the darkness of our government's corruption.
	I mean, maybe this is a weird thing to say, but I was heartened by that video out of Stockton, California, we believe it's out of Stockton, where the 7-Eleven guys are getting robbed.
	And they wound up beating the hell out of the guy.
	Here it is.
	I mean, if this had happened like a month after George Floyd, the 7-Eleven workers would have been arrested.
	Now, the entire internet is on their side.
	Here's what happened.
	I know you can do that.
	I know you can do that, man.
	I know you can do it, man.
	Don't do that.
	Don't do that, man.
	Don't do that.
	And here comes the beatdown.
	Oh, it hurts, doesn't it?
	No one feels bad for you.
	No!
	Oh dear!
	Come out!
	Oh, come on.
	He was fine, by the way, Andrew.
	But when it was done, he was like, Hey, can I get a soda?
	The 7-Eleven workers are like, Are you insane?
	And the guys who were beaten were Muslims, weren't they?
	Yeah, I was there Sikhs.
	There were Sikhs.
	Okay, that's that is dirty.
	But I think it is interesting that religious people are the people who are sort of looking at one another and saying, Maybe it's all of us together against them.
	I think that is.
	I love that guy.
	He unleashed, unloaded a can of whoop ass on that thief.
	And that's the way you treat people.
	I mean, that is the way you treat.
	It is, we have watched in California while people have looted actual looting, which usually gets shot for, while people just stand by and look and they come in and they sweep stuff off the counters and they walk out and no one's allowed to do anything about it.
	The cops don't call when you come.
	Everybody in California, all my friends in California tell me this, you call the police and they say, we're not coming.
	We can't do anything about it.
	So, yeah, eventually people will fight back.
Proving Defamation Standards 00:15:23
	And I do see that happening.
	Well, the promising thing, too, is that even the NAACP just wrote a letter in Oakland saying, this is BS.
	We need cops.
	We're against D-Fund the police.
	We need tough on crime prosecutors.
	And guess what?
	They're here today to tell us all about that letter they wrote.
	So that's exciting.
	They're coming up a little later in the show.
	Andrew Clavin, what a pleasure.
	Great to see you.
	Great to see you, Megan.
	Thanks for having me.
	All right.
	Look forward to the next time.
	Don't forget, folks, you can watch the Megan Kelly Show live on SiriusXM Triumph Channel 111.
	Listen, every weekday at Noonese, you can watch the full video show and clips by subscribing to our YouTube channel.
	That's youtube.com/slash Megan Kelly.
	And if you prefer an audio podcast, you can follow and download wherever you get your podcasts for free.
	Former President Donald Trump is expected in federal court in Washington, D.C., late this afternoon, 4 p.m. to be specific, for his arraignment following his third criminal indictment this year.
	For those of you keeping track, the first one was in New York State Court.
	The second one involved the Mar-a-Lago documents and was brought down in Florida federal court.
	And this is the third related to January 6th, brought in a federal court in Washington, D.C., the fourth still expected out of Georgia.
	That would be a state court proceeding as well.
	Here with reaction is Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of the book, Get Trump, which I think they're using as a guide to where they should bring the next indictment, but they should have read it all the way through to the end, Alan, because it's not going to end well for them, or so you say.
	So what's your reaction to this latest indictment?
	Well, I think there's a principle that every American should subscribe to.
	When an Attorney General of the United States, who was appointed by the incumbent president and serves at his pleasure, approves an indictment against the man running against his boss, against the president, and is the leading candidate tied in the polls 44 to 44.
	When that happens, the case ought to be ironclad.
	It ought to be so clear that people on both sides of the aisle, independents, will all, all approve it, as they did the Nixon impeachment if he hadn't resigned and prosecution if Ford hadn't pardoned him.
	This case doesn't come close to meeting that standard.
	It's a stretch of the law.
	It's based on facts that apparently don't exist.
	They're going to have to prove that Trump told somebody that he actually knew he lost the election and believed that it was a fair election.
	That didn't happen.
	And so it just doesn't meet the standard that ought to be set when you try to prevent the man who's running against the incumbent president from mounting a legitimate campaign.
	That's what happens in banana republics.
	We're not a banana republic.
	But this was a step, a step in the wrong direction.
	So how does that manifest in the case as a legal matter?
	You know, if you were representing Trump in this, what's the first thing you would do?
	First thing is I move for a change of venue out of the single district in the United States that has the most anti-Trump voters.
	That's number one.
	Number two, I move for the recusal of the judge who worked for a law firm that has had a history of corruption and conflicts of interest.
	And she herself was in the law firm when it represented Hunter Biden and Barisma.
	So those are the first things I do.
	Then I move for a dismissal of aspects of the indictment that clearly impinge on both the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.
	This is a very defensible case, but it has to be defended in front of a jury of Trump's peers, not a jury in which 90-something percent of the jury veneer probably voted against him, and very, very, very few support him.
	So it's going to be uptill in the trial court if it stays in the District of Columbia, but then there's an appellate court, and then there's ultimately the Supreme Court.
	The biggest case that's going to help them, interestingly enough, is New York Times versus Sullivan.
	New York Times versus Sullivan, I was a law clerk when that case was decided.
	Basically says the First Amendment protects lies, mistakes, errors.
	You have to show that there was actual malice.
	The New York Times printed an ad which was mistaken.
	And many, many people have been defamed, and yet the courts have said, no, you have to prove actual malice.
	And offoshiari, if you have to do that in a civil case, in a criminal case where it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump had this Hamlet moment.
	To be or not to be, I am now stepping over the line and becoming a fraud.
	I'm now saying that I believe the election was stolen when I know full well that it was a fair and valid election.
	They're not going to be able to prove that.
	I want to play you a Bill Barr sound by free speech in one second, but the odds of Trump taking the stand in any of these cases are very slim.
	So how do they get to state of mind?
	In this case, the prosecutor Jack Smith will put on evidence.
	In the indictment, he lists all the people who told Trump, you lost.
	We haven't been able to find any meaningful evidence of voter fraud.
	You lost, you lost, you lost.
	And Trump's defense seems to be, it's multifold, but one of them is, I didn't believe you.
	I believed my lawyers.
	I believe Sidney Powell.
	I believe Ruggie Giuliani.
	I believed all these other people who said, actually, we're seeing real evidence of fraud and we don't trust the system and everybody's out to get you.
	You can't trust those guys.
	They're deep state.
	But Trump's probably not going to take this stand.
	So how does he get that in?
	That's a very good question.
	If I were the defense, I would stipulate to the fact that he was told by many people that he had lost the election, including his own son-in-law.
	But then I would put on witness after witness after witness, starting with Jared Kushner, but going to many, many people who interviewed him and who will testify that he said over and over and over again that despite the overwhelming evidence that he was wrong and he was wrong, I don't agree with him, he was wrong, he actually believed that he was correct.
	He actually believed the election was stolen.
	And I've spoken to a lot of people who have interviewed him and who know him well.
	I'm not one of them.
	I just only met him a few times.
	I did defend him, obviously, against the first impeachment, but I'm not somebody who has given him legal advice beyond that.
	But people who have and people who have interviewed him all say he really believes this.
	Now, you know, some people call it the naivete or self-serving defense.
	He talked himself into it.
	He persuaded himself that he actually won the election.
	But that doesn't really matter.
	As a question of law, the real issue in the case is going to be the instruction the judge gives.
	We'll get to the judge in a minute because she is the worst possible judge to be sitting on this case when you need to have not only the reality of justice, but the appearance of justice.
	But if I'm the defense, I ask for an instruction that says, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump himself actually believed that he had lost the election and he was intentionally defrauding the public.
	The government will say, no, no, no, we need an instruction that says he should have believed, a reasonable person would have believed.
	And that's going to be the key on appeal as well when a case gets to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
	Which instruction is the proper one?
	And the Supreme Court has been moving more and more toward requiring individual specific knowledge of the wrongness, not the reasonable person test in the context of a criminal case.
	Good.
	The Supreme Court citing with the First Amendment and a wide, wide berth for people to say wrong things or things that they know are not true.
	It's not a nice thing to do, but it may change your opinion of the person, but it doesn't make you a criminal.
	I actually mentioned this yesterday with Andy McCarthy, where I was saying if you were to bring a defamation case against somebody saying they said something false about you, you'd have to prove that they knew it was false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth.
	And we were debating, like, do we think the reckless disregard of the truth standard could be used against Trump?
	And I think both of us edged on probably not, not in a criminal case.
	That's not going to be enough.
	I wish I had been on that conversation.
	I agree with you.
	Probably not enough.
	It wouldn't surprise me if the court did say the same standard applies.
	Remember that this standard is now being challenged, including by me.
	You may remember that I'm suing CNN because they doctored a tape.
	They had me say exactly the opposite of what I said.
	And the judge found that I had been defamed.
	The judge found that they knew that I hadn't said that.
	I had said nothing of the sort.
	But the judge said, well, malice, you have to prove that by clear and convincing evidence.
	And he found that I hadn't proved it by clear and convincing evidence.
	That case is now on appeal.
	And we are also challenging the notion that the plaintiff, the man defamed or the woman defamed, has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the people knew it.
	The judge in my case found that they were stupid, they were ridiculous, they should have known, they were irresponsible, but he couldn't get over that line of they actually knew.
	And that's the line that they're going to have to get over even more so in a criminal case.
	So I think this case you're having that in a civil case, and this is criminal where his freedom's on the line.
	Let me play what Bill Barr said on CNN.
	Of course, this is Trump's former attorney general on the subject of free speech, which has been what a lot of smart lawyers have said after reading this Jack Smith indictment.
	He's trying to criminalize speech, Trump's speech about the election and challenging whether he lost and so on.
	Here's Bill Barr.
	I think it's a legitimate case.
	I've said before I'm a little concerned about the slippery slope of criminalizing legitimate political activity.
	I'm also worried about bringing this case and the divisiveness that it will bring by highlighting the double standard.
	Because at the same time, this case is being brought, the department appears to have dropped the ball on the Hunter Biden investigation.
	But as a legal matter, I don't see a problem with the indictment.
	The indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right.
	He can say whatever he wants.
	He can even lie.
	He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better.
	But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy.
	All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech.
	So, you know, free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.
	What do you make of that?
	Well, he's right.
	I mean, he's right.
	Barr is a smart guy, and he's right.
	Free speech is not a license to commit fraud, but an element of fraud in the context of a criminal case is the specific knowledge that you know what you're saying is wrong.
	Look, to show you how broad and how the slippery slope, as Barr pointed out, can operate, let's look at the indictment itself.
	Under the indictment itself, this may sound like a stretch, and I'm not suggesting it could happen, but it's just illustrative.
	Under the indictment itself, Jack Smith could be himself indicted.
	He told a direct lie in this indictment.
	He purported to describe the speech that President Trump made on January 6th, and he left out the key words when President Trump said, I want you to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically.
	You know, a lie by omission under the law can be as serious as a lie by commission.
	So that's one point he could have been indicted under.
	The next point is he was indicted.
	Trump was indicted under this Ku Klux Klan statute, which obviously is inapplicable.
	If two or more persons conspired to threaten the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege supported, secured by the Constitution, what if the Supreme Court ultimately holds that Donald Trump had a complete First Amendment right to do everything and say everything he did?
	Does that mean that Jack Smith is guilty?
	Because he threatened that right by having this indictment.
	No, of course not.
	But we don't want these kinds of open-ended, slippery slope indictments that today are used against Trump tomorrow.
	They will be used by a Republican Attorney General against Democrats, just the way some Republicans today are trying improperly and unconstitutionally to impeach Joe Biden for acts that took place well before he was president.
	Both sides are willing to weaponize the justice system and the Constitution to their partisan ends.
	That's why it's so important that not only justice be done, but appear to be done.
	And that's why this judge must recuse herself.
	And this case must be moved out of the District of Columbia.
	If he's convicted by this judge in the District of Columbia, the American people won't accept it.
	Oh, of course the partisans will.
	But independents, people like me, people, I don't know, like you, people who, you know, lean one way or the other, but generally are independent and thoughtful, we won't accept the legitimacy of a verdict rendered by a DC jury and this judge against a man who is so hated both by the district, by the jurors and arguably by the judge himself.
	Julie Kelly, who's been following the January 6th cases very closely, said yesterday that many defendants have moved for a change of venue based on those very circumstances.
	Obviously, they're very pro-Trump, the people who stormed the Capitol that day, and saying, I can't get a fair trial in front of a D.C. jury.
	And in every single case, it's been denied.
	I realize Trump is different.
	That's a good argument for why it should be granted, because the judges are also very one-sided in the District of Columbia.
	And it hasn't yet gotten to the Supreme Court.
	And it will get to the Supreme Court.
	And I think we'll see a different approach there.
	Changes of venue are hard to get, and recusals are hard to get.
	But this is the case that demands it.
	He needs both.
	He needs to get rid of this judge and he needs to get it out of D.C. He's saying he wants it to go to be held in West Virginia.
	That's right.
	Or even Virginia.
	Virginia is more of a purple state.
	I recently had breakfast with the new governor of Virginia.
	Very, very bright and very articulate.
	Yeah, but Alan, if he goes to West Virginia, if he goes to Virginia, he's in federal court.
	He's in the rocket docket.
	And that's a quick, quick trial, which is the last thing he wants.
	Well, that's in Northern Virginia.
	If he goes to Southern Virginia, he might get a different situation.
	But obviously, West Virginia would be better.
	And the rocket docket creates the other problem.
Investigating Pre-Office Authority 00:11:16
	One of the reasons you don't indict a man running for president unless the case is overwhelming is it does constitute election interference.
	It may not be intended to be election interference, but when a guy is facing three, perhaps four indictments and has to be in court.
	Remember, in criminal cases, you have to be in court.
	It's not like civil cases where you can waive that right.
	He's going to be sitting in court.
	twiddling his thumbs while his opponent is out there campaigning.
	The first case is scheduled for May, right after the primaries and before the convention.
	This case would probably follow after that, and it could be in the summer during the height of the campaign season.
	That's just not right.
	These cases should be tried after the election.
	And if he loses, which he probably will, even though he's tied 44 to 44, it's unlikely he can get above the 46, 47 mark.
	There's a lot of anti-Trump sentiment.
	There's also a lot of anti-Biden sentiment.
	Look, nobody is going to win the next election, but somebody's going to lose it.
	There's not a lot of enthusiasm for either candidate, and there has to be a winner and a loser.
	But there should be no trials until this election takes place.
	The ultimate jury in America for political sins is the voter, not the jury and not the judge.
	Jack Smith's not going to agree to any of that because this does smell political for him.
	That's the reason he rushed it.
	He wanted to get in front of the Georgia prosecutor, we believe, and make sure that he was in line for a trial before she was.
	And why did he send Trump the notice on a Sunday that he could come testify in front of the jury in the next four days?
	Like he's clearly got the pedal down because he does want a trial before the election, which smacks of politics as well.
	The guy is political.
	He answers, of course, to Merrick Garland, who answers to Joe Biden and so on.
	So like we all, we can see that.
	And I don't think this judge, who clearly does not like Trump, is going to give him a change of venue to West Virginia, nor is she likely to recuse herself.
	So all of this winds up ultimately in the hands of the Supreme Court.
	But when?
	Like how this is how you became such a huge star, your appellate work.
	So how soon can he get any of this in front of SCOTUS?
	Well, what I would do is make a motion today, literally in front of the judge, even the magistrate who is having the arraignment saying, no, you can't sit on this arraignment and your judge can't sit.
	She has to be recused.
	And we have to take this case out of the district and try to get this case appealed as soon as possible.
	Interlocutory appeals are frowned upon and they are rarely granted.
	But here you have a case where the election of a president of the United States may turn on the timing.
	And I think it's possible that appellate courts might say, yeah, we're going to take this case now.
	Oh, wait, let me ask you.
	Let me ask you.
	So you could do that immediately as soon as you get an oral denial of your change of venue and change of judge motions.
	But what the conviction is the motion to dismiss the whole indictment because he hasn't failed to state a claim.
	And they haven't filed that yet.
	That can't be challenged until after a conviction.
	But there are some cases that say that dispositive motions regarding venue and recusal under some circumstances at least maybe can be appealed in an interlocutory way.
	Again, frowned on, but this case is unique in American history.
	You know, the only time anything like this has occurred was when in the 1920 election, Eugene V. Debs ran for president on the Socialist Party, got a couple of million votes from prison.
	And that's not going to happen here.
	Why did you say, I read that you said you do not think that Trump is likely to actually go to jail on any of these four cases that we're discussing.
	I mean, I don't think, I think these prosecutions are nonsense myself, but I can see a DC jury convicting him.
	I mean, I assume you're talking about on appeal, but what about like Georgia?
	What about Mar-a-Lago?
	That's a more Trump-friendly jury.
	But if he were convicted on those Mar-a-Lago cases, like that case and this case, at least on the books, has 20-year sentences, 20-year sentences on each of the charges.
	This case technically has a death sentence if somebody is injured in the course of interfering with their right or somebody is killed and somebody was a death resulting from the events of January 6th.
	That's not going to happen.
	There won't be jail in New York.
	There won't be jail in Florida.
	Florida is a paper case.
	You know, it's not the kind of case that people should and usually are imprisoned for.
	And I don't think that would happen in Georgia as well.
	The case where he could get prison time is if he's tried for this indictment, the January 6th indictment in front of a jury in D.C. and in front of this judge.
	You know, I'm defending one of the January 6th, a young law student who was waved in by the police.
	We have the videotape of his being waved in.
	And let me tell you, the loud applause that you heard from the defense team when we found out we were not in front of this judge, because this judge, who seems very sympathetic to Black Lives Matter protesters, seemed utterly unsympathetic to anybody who was involved in the Capitol demonstrations riots.
	So she has a reputation and reputation precedes her.
	And her history with the Boy Schiller firm does not serve her well in the public mind.
	I got the Boy Schiller firm qualified in the case.
	And in another case, which we cited, the federal district court in New York said Boyce Schiller had a conflict that any first year student should have recognized.
	And they have been accused of conflicts and corruption more than any other modern law firm in history, at least according to my research and in my opinion.
	So I can't imagine a worse judge in terms of the appearance of justice.
	We want, if there's a conviction here, we want all Americans to say, wow, our system of justice works.
	He was convicted by a fair jury in front of a fair judge of a real crime.
	That is not happening now.
	A very large percentage of Americans will not accept a conviction rendered by a D.C. jury and supervised by this judge brought by DA, a lawyer appointed by Merrick Garland.
	It just is not going to happen.
	That's the reality.
	Last question.
	We opened the show today talking about Devin Archer.
	The transcript of his testimony has now been released.
	He's made very clear that he had a board meeting with Burisma.
	Hunter Biden was there too, in December of 2015, at which the head of Burisma said to him, we need help from D.C. in getting these investigators off our backs.
	And then we know that Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired three to four months later in March of 16.
	This dovetails with an unconfirmed FBI report, the 1023 where a confidential informant alleged that the Bidens were each paid a $5 million bribe, something Devin Archer could not confirm, for doing exactly that, for getting Shokin fired.
	This is what Trump was asking about on that, quote, perfect phone call to the Ukrainians, to Zelensky, that turned into the first impeachment because the Democrats said you threatened to withhold aid unless they did this investigation.
	That was inappropriate.
	Now it turns out he was really onto something.
	You can dispute whether it's going to come home in the end, but you can't dispute that an investigation is necessary here.
	So as the guy who was out there and who lost all his friends in Martha's Vineyard and all that for defending Trump on the first impeachment, what's your take on the extraordinary Devin Archer developments we've had this week?
	Well, first of all, I'm having a wonderful time on Martha's Vineyard.
	I have new friends, people who don't judge me for who I defend, and I'm having a great time.
	And my wife's still being picked on a little bit too much by her old friends.
	But the Devin Archer thing is very important.
	But remember, just because a person's a whistleblower doesn't mean they're telling the truth about everything.
	The presumption of innocent applies as much to Hunter Biden as it does to President Trump.
	We have to challenge everything that was said, subject it to truth-telling mechanisms, cross-examination, which hasn't occurred, looking into the backgrounds, seeing if there's contrary evidence.
	But if it turns out to be true, it's still not an impeachable offense because it happened before he was president, but it's a serious matter that should be looked into.
	I predicted.
	I've heard you say that.
	I've heard you say that.
	Can I just ask you, though?
	And I get it.
	I get it.
	You got to do it.
	Like, you got to do the bad stuff while you're the sitting president.
	By the way, he was cross-examined.
	I mean, the Democrats had their shot at him on Monday, too.
	Yeah.
	But he, but what he was a sitting vice president when he did this stuff.
	So it's a little unusual.
	He came back to office at an even higher rank.
	No, that's true.
	Look, I was the only one who predicted that the judge would not accept this plea bargain because we didn't know what the plea bargain entailed.
	Now, I think the judge will accept the amended plea bargain, and that's too bad because I do think this should be revisited.
	We ought to see whether or not the U.S. attorney from Delaware had authority to go beyond Delaware to investigate charisma, to investigate Los Angeles, to investigate the District of Columbia.
	We have some evidence that suggests he said he hadn't gotten that authority than he said he did.
	And Gorland said he did.
	If I'm the judge, I call the two of them in front of me and say, look, let's resolve this.
	Let's not only know what you had authority to do and investigate, but what did you investigate?
	Did you investigate charisma?
	And I don't think we're going to see that.
	No, it's been very annoying because even in the statements that David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney for Delaware, has posted, he leaves those major questions unanswered.
	Like, well, did you ask the California and the D.C. U.S. attorneys to bring these charges or didn't you?
	He just wants to thread the needle on whether he had the authority without telling us whether he really did ask.
	The one amendment that I would make to what you said is you correctly pointed out that Archer was cross-examined by Democrats.
	That's not real cross-examination.
	You and I are real lawyers.
	We know how to cross-examine.
	Senators, congressmen, they don't know how to cross-examine.
	They just throw out questions.
	Mostly they take their time just talking to themselves and talking about themselves.
	I'm talking about real cross-examination of the kind that I could do and you could do and dozens of other lawyers could do.
	The adversary process doesn't exist in Congress.
	And Devin Archer is not some above-board guy.
	He's already been convicted of trying to defraud some Native American tribes.
	And now he's got an axe to grind against the Bidens.
	However, his allegations certainly do dovetail against other independent evidence from people who don't have an axe to grind.
	And again, it's worth looking into robustly.
Police Officers and Public Safety 00:09:38
	Absolutely.
	Alan Durch.
	We're so glad you're back from vacation.
	Love the Durse Show.
	And you tell your wife to call me out.
	Yeah, we had like 200,000 people watching the Durse Show last night.
	I'm back.
	It's great stuff.
	People will continue to watch it.
	Good.
	Thank you.
	I find it highly entertaining.
	You always keep it clear.
	It's like going.
	If you didn't get to go to Harvard Law School, you get to go if you listen to the Durse Show only with the best.
	And I don't grade you.
	I don't grade you.
	There are no C's or B's.
	Excellent.
	my kind of law school see you soon my friend thank you all right coming up a story you are not going to want to miss about the na cp speaking out about crime about the absence of police about defund the police and about soft on crime prosecutors in oakland california that's next we first told you last week about a stunning letter from the local oakland chapter of the na cp and a prominent pastor In it,
	they chastise the city's leadership for their failure to combat crime.
	They write, in part, it is not racist or unkind to want to be safe from crime.
	No one should live in fear in our city.
	Since January, violent crime is up 15% there over the same period last year.
	Rape is up 12%.
	Burglaries, up 41%.
	Vehicle thefts have increased 52%.
	Some blame the new soft on crime DA, who denies she's part of the problem.
	Today, we're super happy to have one of the authors of the letter with us, Bishop Bob Jackson, is co-founder and senior pastor, Axe Full Gospel Church.
	And also with us is Seneca Scott, founder of Neighbors Together Oakland and a member of the NAACP Oakland.
	Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here.
	It was, I got to tell you, it was extraordinary for me to see this because I'm just going to be honest, Seneca, when I see the NAACP, I just assume they're far left and they're pro defund the police and they would support a DA like this.
	And at least in Oakland, I got it wrong.
	I would say in Oakland, it is wrong.
	But first, I'll bishop talk about a little bit what inspired him to write the letter.
	But Megan, thank you so much for having us on this morning.
	We're very excited for the center of people.
	Oh, the pleasure is all mine.
	So, Bishop, you are one of the most well-respected, respected people in all of Oakland.
	I mean, you are an icon there.
	And this is an extraordinary thing for you to come out.
	And I'll just tell the viewers in part.
	It calls for a state of emergency in Oakland.
	It blames failed leadership, including the movement to defund the police, the DA's unwillingness to charge and prosecute people who murder, the proliferation of anti-police rhetoric, saying that all of that has created a heyday for Oakland criminals.
	So why did you feel the need to write this letter?
	Well, because it's very obvious that there was no real focus from the leaders of the city on public safety.
	And I'm here because I have a large membership at the Axe Full Gospel Church in Oakland, and our members didn't feel safe.
	They're not coming out to night services.
	The merchants that I know, their businesses are being robbed, and people are breaking into the cars while the people are trying to go and shop.
	And the whole thing has presented such an environment of danger and lawlessness that actually the citizens do not feel safe.
	So because to me, the citizens didn't have a voice.
	And if they did, no one was really listening to them about public safety being a priority.
	So coming together with Cynthia Adams, the president of the Oakland chapter, the NAACP, ACP, we wrote the letter to bring more awareness to the fact that, hey, hey, we're citizens here.
	We're taxpayers.
	We live in this city.
	We demand to have safety and feel protected in our city that we love so well.
	And we don't seem to be getting that type of treatment.
	And this is the whole reason for the letter.
	It's all centered around public safety.
	Do you feel like the defund the police movement has hurt the safety and well-being of Oakland residents?
	Well, when it comes down to defunding the police, you take $18 million from the police department, and then the citizens are called a 911 and put on hold for 35 and 45 minutes when they have a crisis going on in the city, can't get a response, can't get through the police, can't get the protection that they need from the citizens.
	And they blame it on the fact that they don't have enough money in their budget to pay for 911 people and personnel to take those complaints and whatnot and feel them out to the officers.
	And then the other part is we don't have enough police officers to police the city.
	I think we have around 700 police officers when we really need a minimum of 1,200 officers to patrol and police the city.
	So the feeling of being unprotected, the feeling of being unsafe.
	And one of the things that I was saying was that you force the citizens to pick up guns and begin to protect themselves, which is going to be a real terrible thing to have.
	It's already begun, Bishop.
	And in the last week alone, we've seen an elderly woman return fire to a home invader.
	And we're seeing an increasing number of people who are self-help and victims of crime.
	I wanted to point out one thing about FEEFUN, because I think this is the part of the nuance that is missing the national conversation, Megan.
	And that's this.
	The NAACP's convention was in Boston, as you know.
	We just got back.
	The city of Boston is very similar to Oakland.
	First generation Asian American mayor, fully progressive city council.
	They have an active FEE fund movement.
	Here's where the difference is.
	Boston has a population of 666,000 people.
	Oakland has a population of 450,000 people.
	As Bishop just said, we have slightly over 700 officers.
	Boston has over 2,200 officers.
	So Boston, if you scale it, we would be over our 1,200.
	And we could talk about defunding or putting allocating law enforcement services to places that actually do impact neighborhoods and get ahead of the violent crime.
	But when you don't have a baseline of public safety and you have elected officials who are playing politics with public safety, saying things like crime is down.
	If you look at Oakland's political discourse, we have elected officials quoting several times as we should have two weeks ago that crime's down.
	Then we get the latest reports that crime is up and everyone's befuddled.
	So we all know that crime is up.
	We're living through it.
	So I think it's time that they start listening to the neighbors, especially the elders who are expressing high amounts of distress of their personal safety and do something urgently to restore that confidence in the voters.
	Well, I know, Seneca, you tweeted out this video of gunshots and you were saying to the mayor, who I guess she's out of town right now, but you tweeted out a quiet Oakland Street erupts in gunfire.
	The Oakland mayor may want to get back from Asia soon while she still has a city to return to.
	One person shot.
	We've got the video.
	Let's show it just so that people can see what you're dealing with.
	My gosh.
	Seneca, that has the look of something you'd see in the old Wild West.
	Well, that's exactly what we think we're in, the wild, wild west, especially in the city of Oakland.
	And so a 75, we can name a lot of incidents recently that's just happened.
	We're not talking about years ago.
	We're talking about what's happening right now.
	A 75-year-old woman had a home invasion.
	They tried to kick in her front door.
	She was smart enough to grab her 357 Magnum and start shooting at them as they were trying to break in on her.
	And then they began to open fire on her home, shooting 20 to 30 bullets into this woman's house.
	I guess they thought she was going to be easy pickings, but she fooled them.
	But what I'm concerned about, and they passed out a big notice to the thieves in that area, that if you come here, we have our guns to take care of you.
	Now, what kind of a city is that when everybody's got a gun?
	If it's not Dodge City and Wyatt Herbs Day, I don't know what it is.
	So we are calling together for the police to come together, the law enforcement agencies to come together to devise a plan to work on the crime, the lawlessness that's going on too long.
	I get it where it came from, Megan.
	It came from the COVID-19 epidemic.
	And because when COVID hit, San Quentin had an outbreak of COVID and the prisoners were dying and whatnot, somebody up top passed the law to let all the prisoners out so they don't die on our dying.
	We pay for those lawsuits that their families are having because we didn't protect those inmates.
	But I don't think they came back after COVID's main thrust was over and down.
	I don't think they came back to reestablish law, the law, you know, for those criminals.
	And that's why they're able to go in the stores and just grab stuff because they don't want to lock them up.
	And it was because of the COVID epidemic.
	We're not having that right now, but it's still the same the way it was when it was in COVID, when we were in the COVID crisis.
Luxury Politics in Affluent Hills 00:10:13
	So I think that's probably the beginning, the genesis of what we're looking at right now.
	Of course, COVID coincided in May of 2020 with the death of George Floyd.
	And post that, we saw in city after city, very soft on crime DAs get elected, including in Oakland.
	And Pamela Price, she's been subjected now to the threat of a recall, similar to what we saw in San Francisco.
	She is totally, from what I've seen, unapologetic for her soft on crime policy.
	She is not putting teenagers, if you're a 17-year-old and you murder somebody, she's really not that interested in you from what I see.
	Here she is giving an interview to the local CBS in July where she's being asked about this, you know, this growing sentiment against her.
	Take a listen to her, SAT16.
	Family members of victims are saying that the decisions you have made are unfair to them, that sentences that criminals have been given are excessively lenient, and that perpetrators are favored over victims.
	What's your response to that?
	I feel definitely my heart goes out to the people who have lost loved ones in this community.
	So we at the district attorney's office are very, very committed to making sure that we're providing the best services.
	Some people are not able to actually appreciate the work that we do.
	There are people who say that we are here because they don't feel safe.
	I was elected because the people in this community didn't feel safe, unfortunately.
	We know that crime under my predecessor was, you know, pretty much exploding.
	The DA's role has really no impact on crimes.
	Do you feel safe living in Oakland?
	Yes, I do.
	I live in East Oakland even, and I know a lot of people think, oh, that's terrible.
	I feel safe.
	She feels safe.
	People don't appreciate the work that she does.
	And really, the DA has no impact on crime.
	What do you guys make of that?
	Well, it was just a joke.
	Seneca, if I can have it just a minute.
	Oh, for sure, brother.
	It was a judge going to his office downtown Oakland.
	And on his way into his office, he was mugged, robbed, made to lie on the ground while they robbed him and whatever and so forth.
	So I don't know what she's talking about.
	And now the other day, there was a man coming back to his car.
	They were in the process of robbing his car, breaking into his car.
	He pulled out his gun.
	This is on 10th and Broadway, Main Street of Oakland, in the day, broad daylight.
	He pulls out his gun and starts shooting at these guys.
	They jump in their car and start returning fire to him.
	So more than 10 bullets were shot on Broadway, the main street of Oakland and broad daylight.
	And these guys, what is that?
	Those bullets didn't have anybody's name on them.
	They could have hit anybody.
	Old people, people walking.
	Thank God it didn't hit anybody.
	But I'm just telling you that the things that are happening are not being really reported like they should.
	And the kind of crime and lawlessness that we're seeing every day.
	I'm in the community every day.
	My members live in the community every day.
	And we see it, we experience it.
	We hear the hurt.
	We hear the pain.
	Many of them want to move out.
	A lot of them are stuck and can't move out.
	And they're saying, hey, we pay the Lord.
	We pay more taxes in Oakland than any other city in Alameda County.
	But to the citizens of Oakland, we're getting less service.
	And police and law agencies are all around, but they don't seem to work together on public safety.
	And that's what our real clarion cry is.
	We need them to synergize and come together and work together with a plan on public safety.
	Make our public safe is all we're asking for.
	She doesn't seem interested in changing any of her policy, Seneca.
	I mean, to the contrary.
	And in response to your letter, she came out and said her office, we're disappointed.
	We're disappointed that a great African-American pastor and a great African-American organization would take a false narrative on such an important matter.
	We would expect more from Bishop Bob Jackson and the Oakland chapter of the NAACP.
	I don't know how much more you can expect from me.
	We do the funerals of just about every violent crime, the shootings and stuff.
	We do the funerals of those families.
	And many of those people that are being killed, those young people that are being shot are black people.
	And I'm telling you, at those funerals, you see the mothers, you see the sisters and brothers, you see the family begin to weep and cry over their loved one lying in that casket.
	I'm telling you, the crime is out of hand and it's impacting the entire city now.
	Well, no one is safe.
	I just got a phone call from one of the bishops in Oakland who went to his bank to make a deposit.
	And on his way to his car, he was robbed and two guys jumped out of a car with pistols and robbed him $125 and then took his watch.
	And it's just the grace of God, they didn't take his life.
	These were in this in broad daylight.
	So the point is, no sense in calling 911.
	You're not going to get a response.
	So I don't know what Pam Price is saying that she lives in Deep East Oakland.
	I don't know.
	But this is the...
	Well, Bishop, you know, she travels with six bodyguards.
	For what?
	So maybe she does feel safe because our taxpayer dollars are paying for her extravagant security.
	I'll add another point.
	One thing she said was collapse.
	Pam Price won with a mandate.
	And I think this is the part that is important for us to realize when people vote for luxury politics that affect neighborhoods they don't live in, the end consequence are people who play politics for public safety.
	Now, it only so happens that in a matter of very few months, that election had very severe consequences.
	So, now many people are having second thoughts, which is why I believe you have a talk of a recall.
	But that notwithstanding, I think that what we want from Pamela Price from the NAACP is an honest, good faith dialogue.
	It's hard to do that when elders are telling you and pleading with you that they don't feel safe.
	And you're going on TV saying, I feel perfectly safe when the entire city is aware that you have private security.
	So it's just ingenuous.
	We would like for her to recenter herself, remember her promises to her people that she would listen to us and make us safer and re-engage with us in a way that is meaningful for our community.
	What do you mean, Seneca?
	Can you expand on the luxury politics piece of what you just said?
	Well, luxury politics to me, because this is our policy.
	What separates Oakland from Alameda, Emmyville, Berkeley, and our surrounding cities is an invisible wall of failed policy.
	That's why the graffiti dissipates.
	The 911 times response time gets better the moment you leave the city.
	Everyone was impacted by COVID.
	Our surrounding cities have similar racial demographics and wealth disability demographics.
	So what's making Oakland descent into lawlessness, where it's like we're living in GTA with the riot mode on, it's all policy.
	If you look at our elections, the people who vote the most are white people who are affluent, who live in the hills.
	Oakland is separated between the hills and the flats by a major freeway.
	And so people who live above that freeway vote with greater frequency and they vote on things that don't impact them until now.
	Now we have an opportunity.
	And instead of pointing the finger and blaming those neighbors, it's time to have a real, a real piece, a healing conversation in Oakland that's been needed for generations about what can we do to make sure that everyone feels safe and that nothing is radical or revolutionary unless it's accessible to everyone.
	If Oakland wants to really be a revolutionary city with radical accessibility, it must make sure that all people in working class neighborhoods have the same levels of safety as people in affluent neighborhoods.
	And I wanted to just comment on that, Seneca, if I could, Megan, just for a minute.
	And that is that the fact that the 75-year-old woman that had the home invasion was only two doors from city council member Triva Reed, just two doors away from where she lived in Oakland.
	That was at the top of the hill on 106th Avenue.
	I didn't know that.
	Oh, man.
	Yeah.
	So she was able to go over and comfort the lady.
	A lot of comfort I'm sure the lady had, but the point of it is, where were the police?
	And where was the shot spotter?
	And where was the response time for 20 to 30 shots being fired at her home?
	And I mean, this is two o'clock in the morning.
	My point of saying it is, it could have been the council member's house.
	And Pamela Price, it could have been her house.
	My point of saying is these, these criminals, they're not particular about who they're robbing and who they're mugging.
	It could have been your mother.
	It could have been your 75-year-old woman.
	Come on, man.
	Well, they are particular.
	They're targeting elderly and they're targeting women.
	Yeah, but they're targeting.
	We saw an extraordinary videotape of a woman getting carjacked in connection with, I think it was a CBS local piece that showed those citizens outside lined up like trying to get on the Aerosmith ride at Disney just to go berate the DA about her policies.
	And the local, I think CBS was doing a report on it.
	And they highlighted this carjacking, which was extraordinary.
	I'll play it for the audience because you can see what these citizens are going through.
	This scary thing.
	This woman, she's driving.
	You can hear her reaction as she starts to get hijacked and then she drives away.
	It's all caught on tape on her.
	I guess she has some sort of a camera in her car, but here it is.
	Come on now, quit fucking around.
	His car cuts her off.
	He's getting out.
	No.
	Hey, she got some driving skills.
	You know, I got that video first.
	I think I was the first person.
Embracing Real Change 00:02:28
	Is that right?
	That was really scary.
	Yeah.
	And that's not in the Flatlands, by the way.
	That's also in the hills where affluent people live.
	So no one is safe in the city of Oakland.
	That's the general feeling of the population there right now.
	And so what we're saying is: hey, hey, it's time to come out of the tunnel vision.
	It's time to quit pleasing those people that put money in your campaigns or whatever else.
	And it's time to look at the whole city and public safety need to be priority one to make sure our citizens are safe.
	All right.
	Now, I can't go without asking you, Seneca.
	Your last name is Scott, and that may be familiar to a lot of folks, thanks to your relation to Coretta Scott King, who was married to MLK.
	And I've got to ask you this because I had the same reaction you did.
	Forgive me, but I got to ask you about that Martin Luther King statue that they put up as an homage to MLK and Coretta Scott King.
	And I just, I mean, I thought what you think.
	I read that you called it a masturbatory homage to your family.
	What did you make of that thing?
	You know, I was really disappointed that they cut the heads off.
	If you look a thousand years in the future, no one's going to know who that was meant to honor.
	I will say that the Embrace Boston, Embrace Ideas Foundation had me off for Juneteenth eight weeks ago, and I got to see the place and the installation myself.
	And if you look at it from other angles, it wasn't half bad.
	But overall, I'm still disappointed as is the family that Coretta's regal face was not shown.
	And the symbol of black love at its purest and most devotional, I think there was a missed opportunity there.
	However, the organization that funded it is doing tremendous work in the city of Boston, and I'm very happy to have connected with them.
	Well, it's too bad that they undermined their message with such a graphic display.
	Listen, you guys are stand-up guys.
	Thank you so much for coming on.
	Thanks for speaking out.
	Wishing all the best to you and hope you get real change.
	I know you want a state of emergency.
	Maybe this DA could get recalled and you could see some real change there in Oakland.
	We'll continue to follow it.
	All the best to you guys.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you very much, Megan.
	Thanks for having us.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Keep in touch.
	And thanks to all of you for following us this week.
	We'll be back next week.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:50 Hunter Biden Corruption Debate
00:16:03 Winning the Culture War
00:20:29 The Rigged Election Path
00:35:56 Democrats Acting Like Hitlers
00:44:42 Beyond Black and White Thinking
00:47:48 Proving Defamation Standards
01:03:11 Investigating Pre-Office Authority
01:14:27 Police Officers and Public Safety
01:24:06 Luxury Politics in Affluent Hills
01:34:19 Embracing Real Change