The Megyn Kelly Show - 20240110_hunter-bidens-shock-capitol-hill-trip-and-if-presi

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Jan. 10, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:37:24

20240110_hunter-bidens-shock-capitol-hill-trip-and-if-presi

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Strict Law Application 00:14:20
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at least.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	Oh, my goodness, do we have a lot of information to get to you today?
	This is an important one to listen to.
	The man who is challenging Joe Biden in the Democratic primary, Representative Dean Phillips, is here.
	I'm looking forward to talking to him about why he's doing this and what he thinks is wrong with President Joe Biden.
	Why is he going after him?
	Why doesn't he think Joe Biden should be the nominee and the next president?
	First, though, it's a mind-blowing legal news day involving former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden.
	When we originally booked our first segment, the plan was to focus on Trump's immunity hearing at the D.C. Court of Appeals yesterday.
	But then all hell broke loose in Georgia on that story that we brought to you.
	No one was covering this yesterday.
	The Atlanta Journal Constitution broke it.
	We picked it up.
	Now it's everywhere.
	You're welcome.
	And there's a lot more to talk about on that case, a lot more on whether Fannie Willis, the DA in Georgia, going after Trump and 18 others, and her alleged improper affair with the special prosecutor she brought in, who then took her on several alleged romantic vacations in which she benefited by enjoying the sights and sounds of Napa, among other beautiful places on his dime, potentially,
	could sink the entire Trump election interference case.
	There are legal experts now predicting the whole case will go away.
	I'm skeptical of that, but I think Fannie Willis is going away.
	We'll get to all of it.
	On top of it all, as we're preparing all that for you, a short time ago, Hunter Biden shows up unannounced on Capitol Hill, crashing a House committee hearing about holding him in contempt of Congress.
	This is a massive middle finger to everybody involved in this.
	The first son and his attorneys sauntering in, sitting down.
	Hey, we deserve to be here.
	They waived their opportunity to appear at the subpoena deposition they wanted to take of him.
	And now, when they decide whether he should be held in contempt, he saunters in like the prince.
	I'll sit here and I'll listen and let's see what you'll do about it.
	South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace called him out and probably got called out herself.
	Watch.
	First of all, my first question is: who bribed Hunter Biden to be here today?
	That's my first question.
	Second question: You are the epitome of white privilege coming into the oversight committee, spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed.
	What are you afraid of?
	You have no balls to come up here.
	Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry.
	Mr. Chairman.
	If the gentlelady wants to hear from Hunter Biden, we can hear from him right now, Mr. Chairman.
	Let's take a vote and hear from Hunter Biden.
	What are you afraid of?
	What are you afraid?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Order, order.
	Order.
	Are women allowed to speak in here or no?
	Are women allowed to speak in here?
	You keep interrupting me.
	I'll interrupt the chairman.
	I don't know that he's a lady.
	Whoa.
	Never heard anybody yell balls at a congressional hearing.
	I think it's the first.
	So the fact checkers will check it out.
	And just when you thought it could not get any more wild, Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene started talking, and Hunter got up and just walked on out.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Excuse me, Hunter.
	Apparently, you're afraid of my words.
	Are you?
	Oh.
	I'd like to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
	Order.
	Wow, that's too bad.
	You see, when you're a Biden, you get to decide when you're going to show up in front of Congress and when you're not.
	It's up to you, even if you have a subpoena, even though Trump is being prosecuted right now by Jack Smith for defying a subpoena.
	But when you're Hunter Biden, it's fine.
	And even when they hold the impeachment or the hearing, figuring out whether you should be prosecuted for blowing off your subpoena, you can just wander in and wander out at leisure.
	It's great to be a Biden.
	By the way, we believe, though, are not entirely certain that the person who said, oh, too bad is Republican Congresswoman Lisa McClain.
	Okay, after all that, CBS News then posts this video, a reporter asking why Hunter was leaving.
	Why are you choosing to leave now, Mr. Biden?
	Why not stay a while?
	I have a statement to make with the press here.
	Okay, that was Abby Lowell, Hunter's attorney, saying that he would make a statement.
	But as Abby Lowell tried to speak, they were interrupted by questions like this.
	Quiet and let me make a statement.
	Oh, boy.
	What kind of crack do you normally smoke, Mr. Biden?
	Oh, no, things took a turn.
	Oh.
	At least one reporter did try to do her job and ask Hunter while she had him, hello, this was the right thing to do.
	I think this is a Fox News reporter about his father's involvement, Hillary Vaughan, in his overseas business dealings.
	And Hunter actually responded, hello, news media.
	This is the way to do it.
	Don't waste time with stupid ass questions about what kind of crack did you smoke?
	Ask a probative, substantive question.
	You might get a real answer like we saw here.
	Watch and listen.
	Mr. Biden, why did you put your dad on speakerphone with your business partners if he had no involvement in your business?
	Do you have a dad?
	Did he call you?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But why did you need to talk to him during business meetings if he had nothing to do with your business?
	Right.
	Good job.
	That's the question.
	She's absolutely right.
	It's not that he's generally taking phone calls from his dad.
	It's why did it need to happen during your business meetings over and over?
	Smart question.
	Good job to Hillary Vaughn.
	Okay, joining me now to discuss so, so much.
	Our legal all-stars, Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III project, and Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located.
	Mike and Dave, welcome back to the show.
	Wow, we're drinking from a fire hose of news today.
	We were just going to do the Trump immunity hearing yesterday and look at all the things we have to go over.
	I'm most interested in this Fannie Willis case and we'll get to her second, but let's just spend a minute on Hunter Biden.
	Hunter Biden saunters in there, Mike, like truly the crown prince.
	Like I, I will just decide what I show up to on Capitol Hill.
	And it won't be the one that I'm subpoenaed for.
	It will just be this aftermath where you're deciding whether I should be held in contempt.
	And then I will take no questions.
	I will walk with swagger in and out.
	And honestly, like Nancy Mace is kind of onto something with the privilege situation.
	It's just, I've got to imagine there's some cringing going on over at the White House on what an forgive me, but arrogant prick he looks like in doing this.
	Yeah, I mean, I ran like 70 congressional hearings and markups when I was on the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for then Chairman Chuck Grassley.
	I've never seen anything like this.
	This is clearly obstruction of a congressional proceeding, which is a felony.
	This is clearly conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, which is a felony.
	And this is also contempt of Congress.
	Remember that Trump advisors, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, have been tried by the Biden Justice Department and convicted and are awaiting going to prison for defying a congressional subpoena, being held in contempt.
	I don't know how you describe what Hunter did as anything other than contempt and obstruction and conspiracy.
	What do you make of it, Dave?
	You're laughing because those charges that Mike just referenced are, of course, the ones that Trump has been charged with at the federal level.
	But let's speak to that, speak to whether he did violate any laws and all this, but also just the, I mean, come on, this is not a good look.
	Well, it's good to be with you, Megan and my friend Mike.
	Now, the reason why I was laughing is because, like, I can understand the argument for contempt, but when you say obstruction, all that other stuff, we have a right to attend a hearing.
	And if they wanted to hear from him, he would have testified.
	But to get to the contempt point, as a prosecutor, when you receive a subpoena, you don't get to choose the terms of your appearance.
	So as a prosecutor, yes, he could be held in contempt, but he's not going to be because it's up to DOJ.
	And DOJ did not press charges against Mark Meadows for refusing to comply with the subpoena, Dan Scavino, and Jim Jordan.
	So they're not going to do it here, especially when a guy is ready to testify, but he wants to testify in his own terms in public.
	So I get why people are upset about it, but don't expect a prosecution.
	Wait, let me just jump in on that because Trump also wanted to comply with the subpoena for documents at Mar-a-Lago, but wanted to do it on his terms.
	It's a no.
	It's a no.
	You know, and I said that to the man's face when I sat with him in September.
	And I would say the same to Hunter Biden if he were sitting across from me.
	Now, it's a no.
	You don't get to determine the terms on which you comply with the subpoena.
	You get one and you show up.
	Most normal people are afraid when they get a subpoena because there is a lot of power behind one of those things.
	So it's, you know, on your first point, Dave, there's no question he violated the law in not complying.
	He doesn't get to say, no, it has to be in front of the public as opposed to behind closed doors where they get a real opportunity to cross-examine him as in a real deposition versus the theater we watch when it's in front of Congress with the five minutes, Dem, five minute Republican thing.
	Yep, no, look, Megan, if you want to do a strict application of the law, then Hunter Biden violated the subpoena and could be prosecuted for it, just like Dan Scavino, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan and other members of Congress.
	But since DOJ hasn't prosecuted those, they can't just go ahead and prosecute Hunter Biden for the same thing these other guys.
	So before I give it back to Mike then, before I give it back to Mike, Dave, so what's the difference between Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows versus Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon on the other side who have been prosecuted for contempt of Congress for not complying?
	Well, I think the difference is that whether you're Jim Jordan with speech, speech or debate clause congressional immunity, or you're a presidential advisor with executive privilege, it's not the same as a private citizen like Hunter Biden, right?
	And so they raised.
	Wait, I just don't want to confuse things.
	I'll give everybody a chance to say what they want to say.
	But because let me just stick with Dave for one second.
	Because Dave, you're saying DOJ didn't go after this other trio, Meadows, Scavino, whoever the third was, I can't remember.
	Jordan.
	Yet.
	Okay.
	And yet they did go after Bannon and Navarro, as Mike accurately points out, for defying their subpoenas.
	So before I give it back to Mike, this one's for you, Dave.
	What's the distinction between those?
	You know, they do it all based on the individual's facts and circumstances.
	So I don't know why they didn't prosecute Scavino, Meadows.
	I guess Jordan wasn't prosecuted, but the reasons why Mike said, because he's a member of Congress.
	But I think what DOJ will do here is to say, hey, Hunter Biden did show up.
	He was ready to testify.
	And because of that, even though said only in front, I won't do a closed door deposition.
	It's not up to him.
	But because prosecutors at DOJ have proven that they will only prosecute these cases on slam dunk cases like they had against Bannon and Navarro and not against Scavino and Meadows, they're not going to prosecute this one, even though I admit, as a prosecutor, you don't get to decide the terms of your appearance.
	I agree with you on that, but don't expect DOJ to prosecute this.
	I don't, okay, as I recall, the Meadows thing, I don't remember the ban in circumstance, but I know for sure for a fact, Meadows was trying to cooperate with Congress.
	He didn't give them everything they wanted, but he was cooperating, just not to the extent they wanted.
	That to me seems like a distinguishable case from Hunter Biden, Mike, who just gave me an Italian gesture and said, if you don't do it my way, I don't show up.
	Yeah, I mean, remember that Mark Meadows was the White House chief of staff, the top aide to the president of the United States, and you had Congress seeking testimony about his conversations with the president of the United States, which is at the heart of executive privilege, right?
	So you have clear constitutional issues with the separation of powers.
	We've had executive privilege going back 250 years to George Washington, where presidents can get candid advice from their advisors without being hold in before Congress to testify about what they said to the president, because that has a chilling effect and the president won't be able to get that candidate advice.
	What did Hunter Biden do?
	Was he talking to his father about his art sales?
	Was he talking to his father about his hookers and blow?
	Was he talking to his father about his corrupt Chinese and Russian and Ukrainian foreign dealings?
	What was Hunter's advice he was giving to his father why he can't testify before Congress?
	I mean, he doesn't even, go ahead, Dave.
	Yeah, just I think you made my point when you said that Meadows did cooperate in the way he wanted to.
	Like he gave Congress something, but didn't give Congress exactly what it wanted.
	Well, Hunter Biden is showing up and saying, I will comply.
	I will testify, but it has to be in the open because I don't trust you guys to report what happens behind closed doors.
	For a prosecutor, not ideal.
	But that is why I don't think DOJ is going to prosecute him because it's similar to the Mark Meadows situation.
Getting Away With It 00:02:44
	I think it has more to do with the fact that his last name is Biden.
	I think that's obvious.
	I think this DOJ has been extremely reluctant to go after Hunter for several years now because his last name is Biden, as alleged and then later confirmed by those whistleblowers and their testimony.
	This guy gets away with murder.
	He gets away with murder.
	That's why he had, to use Nancy Mace's term, the balls to walk in there and middle finger it to the entire Congress.
	I won't sit.
	I won't give you testimony unless you do it the way I want you to do it, where we all know it's utterly meaningless.
	How many of those stupid congressional hearings have we heard where they get nothing done because it's limited to five minute increments?
	You guys are both lawyers.
	You know, nobody can ever get anything done that way unless they actually try to coordinate, which everybody's too dumb to do in Congress.
	So it's just the whole thing is just a middle finger and he knew he could get away with it.
	And so far he's getting away with it.
	But here's the last question on Hunter.
	So if they do vote to hold him in contempt, Mike, then what?
	Because isn't it, I mean, like, does the Congress get to say you're in contempt and then refer it to the DOJ?
	And then it's up to our pal Merrick Garland to determine?
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	If there's a contempt, you refer to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides whether they're going to prosecute.
	It's a very good question for Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland.
	How do you prosecute top presidential advisors, Peter Navarro, the former trade rep to the Trade director to President Trump and then Steve Bannon, one of his top outside advisors,
	who clearly enjoy executive privilege with their conversations with the president of the United States, but you don't prosecute the president's son who refuses to testify about the Biden's foreign corruption and their bribery and foreign corruption schemes.
	This is not about Hunter Biden.
	This is about Joe Biden.
	This is about whether the president of the United States is currently compromised by tens of millions of dollars in foreign bribes and other corruption from China, from Russia, from Ukraine, from Kazakhstan.
	It seems like every trouble spot around the world, Biden and his sleazebag family were on the take.
	And that's what Congress is trying to get to the bottom of, because it's not about hunters, hookers, and blow.
	It's about whether the president is compromised.
	It sounds like a song from The Wizard of Oz.
	Hunter.
	What was it?
	What was the trio?
	Hookers and blow, am I?
	All right, let's move on from those dirty antics to the dirty antics down in Atlanta, Georgia.
President Compromised 00:14:26
	This is unbelievable.
	So just for the listeners and the viewers who did not watch the show yesterday, and the segment we did on this is totally blown up online.
	So you can go check it out on youtube.com right now/slash Megan Kelly if you want to see it for all the basic facts.
	But I'll just give you the quick overview so people know.
	Fannie Willis is the DA going after Trump in Georgia.
	This is a case he does need to worry about because she doesn't like him.
	The jury pool in Atlanta is not going to like him.
	And it's a state case that Trump cannot undo, even if he or another Republican wins the presidency.
	He can't pull the DOJ off the case because that's federal and she's local.
	She's from a state.
	And he can't pardon himself or get a Republican to pardon him for a state conviction.
	So he does need to worry about Fannie Willis a lot, much more so than the other state case, which is Alvin Bragg in Manhattan.
	That's kind of a bullshit case that even if he gets convicted on it, he's probably not going to jail.
	So Fanny's a problem for Trump.
	Enter the latest defense motion on behalf of one of the other 18 or 19 defendants down there, not Trump's lawyer, but it's all to his benefit anyway.
	She represents another guy, represents another guy down there, this lawyer.
	And she finds out, this is my suspicion.
	I have no proof of this.
	She finds out somehow that Fanny's allegedly having an affair with the special prosecutor she brought in.
	This is the lawyer who found out.
	And I'm going to guess that the special prosecutor's wife possibly tipped her off because hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
	And these two appear to have been getting along, Fanny and her special prosecutor, before the official selection was made and possibly before his divorce was underway.
	Okay, so however she found out, she found out.
	One of the defense lawyers for one of the defendants finds out that Fanny may be having an affair with the special prosecutor she brought in and whom she's paid $650,000 of the taxpayers' money to, which is double what any prosecutor down there is making.
	These DAs don't make a lot of dough.
	The justices on the Supreme Court in Delaware make less than $200,000 a year.
	This guy, her alleged affair partner, has pulled in $650,000 in a year.
	And Fanny seems to be having a good time with him.
	According to the motion that was just filed on behalf of one of the other defendants, these two went to Napa together.
	They went to Florida.
	Dave, they were down by you.
	They, or Jamaica.
	I don't know.
	They're like the list is long.
	He's been whining and dining her.
	And this is while he's cashing all these checks that she has made possible.
	Now, the defense lawyer is moving to have her recused from the case, to have him recused from the case, to have the entire DA's office recused from the case, because Fanny seems to be enjoying, or at least is creating the appearance of impropriety that she's enjoying the financial fruits of an appointment she made in bringing this guy in.
	He's getting all this money and she's taking trips with it, is the allegation.
	She hasn't spoken to it yet.
	They're refusing to comment.
	They say they'll respond only through briefs because there's a legal brief now asking that everybody get booted.
	And the woman filing the motion says she's seen the now under seal divorce proceeding files between the special prosecutor and his soon-to-be ex-wife.
	And as soon as she saw them, they put them under seal.
	So this woman hasn't been able to attach them as an exhibit yet, but she's seen them.
	The lawyer has and is telling us, trust me, they've been having an affair.
	And we're all going to see these documents very soon.
	So that brings us to the news today, Mike.
	And by the way, credit to the Atlanta Journal of Constitution for reporting all this.
	That's where we learned about it.
	The news today, still from AJC, is Fannie Willis is going to get deposed in this divorce proceeding.
	The special prosecutor Wade, there's been a subpoena in his divorce case to Fanny, and it was served on Monday, hours before that filing in the Georgia RICO case.
	And now this lawyer, Ashley Merchant, who represents one of the Trump defendants, is pointing out that not only is this guy Wade allegedly having an affair with Fanny, but he's totally unqualified to be bringing this prosecution in the first place, which just puts the final stink on the whole thing, Mike, right?
	If he doesn't have the qualifications to be trying the case to begin with, then she brings him in, her alleged affair partner, showers him with all this dough.
	The two are off to Napa.
	My God, I need a clothespin.
	It stinks so bad.
	My nostrils need to be closed.
	I mean, this is right out of a VEP episode, what Fannie Willis is doing down there in Georgia.
	She brought in allegedly her boyfriend, who has zero experience with felony cases.
	She brought her boyfriend in to run a very complex, unprecedented, highly political, highly partisan RICO case against a former president of the United States who happens to be the leading presidential candidate, including, and also with 18 co-defendants, including President Trump's top aides, lawyers, supporters.
	This co-defendant, Michael Roman, submitted this 127-page motion to dismiss the indictment based upon this.
	There's also other problems besides Fannie Willis getting kickbacks from her boyfriend, allegedly, in the form of these lavish trips.
	You also have this prosecutor, if you read his bills, he bills like eight hours at a time every day with very vague descriptions.
	But one day he billed a full 24 hours.
	He billed every second of a day.
	But the vague description prepared cases for pretrial, right?
	So you work 24 hours in a row very early on in this case.
	Another thing that Nathan Wade.
	Yeah, Nathan Wade, another thing that's very problematic.
	Here's the bill, by the way, for the viewing audience on YouTube.
	You can see he does have a 24-hour invoice.
	Go ahead, Mike.
	Yeah, and he also, this is how stupid this guy is.
	This guy also billed for two meetings he had with the White House staff, one with the White House counsel For like eight hours, and then another eight-hour meeting at the White House before Fannie Willis brought this indictment against President Trump.
	So that makes it very clear that the Biden, President Biden, and his White House are lying when they said that they didn't have any communications with any of these Democrat prosecutors like Alvin Bragg and Fannie Willis before they brought these unprecedented charges against President Trump, this election interference, because Nathan Wade billed for those meetings.
	And the fact that he billed for those meetings, his meetings, his two meetings prior to Fannie Willis's indictment with the White House staff, proves that they talked about Trump's indictment.
	Because why else would Nathan Wade have billed for those meetings if they didn't talk about what he was working on?
	That's a very good question, Dave.
	Those two dates, and we've seen now his bill.
	May 23rd, 2022, November 18, 2022, before Trump was indicted by Fannie Willis.
	And it says travel to Athens, conference with White House counsel, eight hours on the May one, November interview with DC/slash White House, eight hours.
	Mike raises a good question.
	Why would he be talking to the White House and conferring with White House counsel immediately prior to Trump's indictment if there wasn't coordination with the White House on Trump's indictment?
	Well, Megan, let's look at the dates.
	The investigation in Fulton County started on January 2nd, 2021.
	That's, excuse me, that's when the call occurred.
	That's what prompted the investigation.
	The investigation actually started on February 11th, 2021.
	And so this was taking place, this investigation, a year plus prior to this meeting.
	If there was a meeting, who knows?
	This was Nathan Wade's way to bill for it.
	He says, meeting with White House counsel.
	But this investigation was going on for many months.
	And then the grand jury was meeting as of January of 2022.
	So you're talking about many months that the investigation was happening and the grand jury was meeting.
	So what when you say that the Biden administration was pulling the strings, this thing was already happening in the grand jury.
	And why did they even need to care about Fonnie Willis?
	At that point, when the first meeting took place, Jack Smith had already been appointed.
	And so this investigation at the federal level was already occurring.
	And let me tell you something as a state prosecutor.
	We state prosecutors don't want to get in the way of feds and the feds hate when we duplicate their efforts.
	The feds do not want us to do what they do because it gets in the way of immunity and other issues.
	So to think that the Biden administration is saying, yeah, go ahead and prosecute when they're already investigating.
	There's already a grand jury in place and they've already got their own federal case ready to be teed up, I think, strains credulity.
	I don't think this meeting means anything.
	Go ahead, Mike.
	Well, the Department of Justice has very strict guidelines on who within the Justice Department can meet with whom in the White House when you're dealing with criminal investigations, right?
	So if a White House staffer can't meet with the Justice Department about a criminal investigation, how the hell can that White House staffer meet with a state attorney general about a criminal investigation?
	And oh, that criminal investigation just happens to be about their boss's chief political enemy.
	This is a scandal that this Nathan Wade, on behalf of Fannie Willis, billed for time when he met with the White House twice before Fannie Willis indicted President Trump.
	Shows that there was quite clear uh, collusion between the Biden White House, not just the Biden Justice Department, the Biden White House, and this definitely puts it prosecutor.
	That's how his his, his own bill says, conferring with White House, counsel interview with DC Slash White House.
	It doesn't seem very ambiguous and we deserve some answers on it.
	But I want to go back to you Dave, on what Fannie Willis is accused of here in.
	In what world would it be appropriate for a da to be having an affair with somebody, to bring that person in as special prosecutor, to pay him six hundred and fifty thousand dollars and then to go travel the globe with him, post paying him all that money?
	Megan, i'm not going to defend the optics of this.
	Look, it looks bad clearly, but keep in mind that Funny Will and, by the way, I used to call her Fannie Willis too, and then I got an email from one of her friends saying it's Funny, not Fanny.
	So, for what it's worth, I don't care, don't care, all right.
	Well, so she um had sorry.
	Nathan Wade has been a mentor of hers for years.
	They were both judges and he was a mentor of hers when they were um, when he was a judge.
	So this has been going on for a while.
	Not necessarily any affair.
	We don't know for sure if there's a fair, but even assume there is, then what's what's she doing in his divorce proceeding files?
	If they're not having an affair?
	I'm i'm gonna even assume that there's uh, even though there was no proof.
	If there is an affair, let's discuss it that way.
	So if they are having an affair, what's the prejudice, what's the problem to the defendant?
	How are the defendants constitutional rights being deprived?
	That's why i'll tell you, i'll tell you, i'll tell you, I.
	And first of all, we don't have to prove actual harm to the defendant.
	We can just prove appearance of impropriety.
	And she's misstepped.
	As you all know, we've all taken the bar exam and passed it.
	Um, so appearance of impropriety is enough, but actual impropriety, actual prejudice, could potentially be argued here because she has a financial incentive to keep the case going.
	The more her lover alleged gets, the more he has to spend on their next trip to Napa.
	She's also being paid for it.
	For this same thing she gets paid to be a salary, no matter what he doesn't right, he doesn't get 650 000 if this case goes away.
	Well, but the thing is is, is the evidence there or not.
	I mean whether he is prosecuting the case or someone else, the evidence is the evidence and that's why the judge isn't going to dismiss.
	I guess you're on your heels.
	I never get Dave on his heels.
	He's too smart for me usually, but I got you this time.
	You're on your heels because you know this is deeply wrong, Mike.
	There's no way she's getting out of this if what this the lawyer alleges, alleges is true.
	She's toast.
	Yeah, I mean, I would say number one, if i'm ever in hot water, i'm hiring Dave because he's a very good defense attorney, as we just saw there.
	He's good.
	I mean he's very good.
	I mean he gets up there and says it with a straight face, which is hilarious.
	And number two, I would say that if these allegations are true, not only will Fannie Willis get disqualified from this case, she She faces disbarments and criminal prosecution both in Georgia and under and by the Department OF Justice, presumably not by the Biden Justice Department.
	But when Trump's back in office, she faces serious criminal liability for what she's done here, including violation of public oath, bribery, improper influence of government official, criminal conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud governments, maybe even racketeering.
	She likes that racketeering charge.
	false statements and concealment.
	There are so many potential Georgia charges alone for which you could go after Fannie Willis on this.
	And I would say that the Georgia governor, Brian Kemp, and the Georgia Attorney General, Chris Carr, they need to do their statutory duty here and open an investigation on old Fannie Willis here and her boyfriend.
Presidential Immunity Debate 00:16:30
	Here's the thing.
	She's paying him double what others in that office are making.
	And as far as we can tell, the guy's never even prosecuted a felony case before.
	It stinks.
	But again, how does it prejudice a defendant when she went to a grand jury and a grand jury of citizens from the community voted to indict and now the case is being prosecuted?
	You have a judge who is a Federalist Society member, Judge McAfee, who has refused to dismiss any of these charges and has refused to bounce the special prosecutor off the case because he didn't file the right forms or he didn't take the right.
	That was a much, that was an earlier technical objection that people, Trump's team was raising to the way in which he got appointed with the special prosecutor.
	I don't know whether that's legit or not.
	I don't care.
	This is something in a league of its own.
	That is why, Dave, you've got, this is from AJC noting the number of legal experts who have deep concerns about this.
	State Bar of Georgia's code of ethics.
	If saying, okay, let's see, it would be a clear violation of the state bar of Georgia's code of ethics, according to Andrew Fleischman, criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, quote, if you're giving money to somebody who appears to be unqualified and they are giving you some of that money back in the form of summer vacations, then you are financially benefiting from your prosecution.
	The Fulton County Code of Ethics says officials should aspire to avoid, quote, even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
	It's literally on the bar exam.
	All of us, Stephen Gillers, who here has read Stephen Gillers' book?
	Raise your hand.
	We all had to do it.
	Gillers is the, he's the legal ethics guru.
	We all had to read before we took the bar.
	You guys are around my age.
	You had to do it too.
	He's in AJC yesterday saying, this is deeply concerning.
	It very much looks like if this is true, she's crossed some serious ethical lines.
	It's done, Dave.
	It's done.
	But my point is, the case continues.
	When you say that this jeopardizes the case, these are not being jeopardized.
	That's it.
	Okay, but wait, I want to get to that.
	I want to get to it.
	So, but there is no point if what this criminal defense attorney is alleging, who's defending, she's defending Mike Roman.
	Her name is Ashley Merchant.
	She's the defense lawyer.
	If what she's alleging is true, Fannie Willis, goodbye.
	You're done and your office is done.
	That's my prediction.
	Mike agrees with me.
	Dave disagrees with me.
	And the special prosecutor Nathan Wade goes away too.
	They're all going away.
	They can spend as much time as they want in Napa if they can afford it without the state's money and the $650,000 times two, because the case is going to be ongoing.
	Somebody else is getting the case at a minimum.
	So now that brings us to the question of who and do they think this is as good a case as Fannie Willis thinks it is?
	Or is there a possibility that the case just goes away altogether?
	because that's also being suggested by a few legal experts that it's not going to get reassigned under these circumstances.
	It's going to be thrown out.
	So, Mike, do you, I know you would like to see it get thrown out, Mike, but do you think there's any realistic chance it does get thrown out?
	Yeah, I mean, I think yes, because there's so much prosecutorial misconduct here.
	And you can get cases dismissed with prejudice based upon prosecutorial misconduct.
	But let's say even they dismiss this case without prejudice for a new prosecutor to bring the charges here.
	What I keep saying this for months and months and months now.
	What exactly did Trump do that was illegal on January 6th?
	It is not illegal to object to a presidential election.
	It is not illegal.
	That's allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
	It is not illegal to twist arms politically.
	That's allowed by the First Amendment.
	It's not illegal to be a jerk in politics.
	Otherwise, every politician in D.C., besides my former boss, Chuck Grassley, would be in prison.
	It is not illegal to have contingent electors in place if you win your challenge on January 6th.
	They say fake electors like Rudy Giuliani had the real electors tied up in Trump's trunk, and then they sent in fake electors and duped everyone.
	It's not illegal what happened on January 6th.
	You have this bozo district attorney, Fannie Willis, and her supposed alleged boyfriend bringing this bogus racketeering theory to take out their political enemies, right?
	And the fact that this came out that Fannie Willis is taking kickbacks from her boyfriend allegedly just shows what a clown both of them are.
	All right.
	So, Dave, you don't think, I mean, if, do you agree that if the judge thinks Fanny Willis has crossed an ethical line, she goes, Nathan Wade goes, and her whole office goes?
	I think it is a possibility that the case, depending on what comes out, could get assigned.
	I think there's zero chance.
	I'm sorry.
	You're saying it would get reassigned to a different DA.
	Like outside the Fannie Willis office.
	Okay.
	It's a possibility.
	I think I still don't believe that, based on what we know now, that it will get removed from her because as a prosecutor, you can bring on who you want.
	And this case, if they had a relationship, if they took trips together, look, it looks bad, but I don't believe it crosses the line where she would be removed from the case.
	And if we find out more and she is eventually removed from the case, it still doesn't affect the evidence of the case, which will go forward in the trials.
	On a case like this, Dave, where they cannot afford to have anything smell.
	They can't have anything close to a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety.
	They're already under a microscope.
	What judge would allow her and him to stay on this case?
	This guy, Fleischman, this Georgia attorney, also said the following.
	And this is a good point.
	He said a couple of things.
	Number one, in this exact case, Fulton County moved to present the false electors, the people who have been accused, from sharing a lawyer, saying it would be a conflict of interest to have a shared lawyer.
	Okay.
	Then he said the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed a conviction against one guy in a different case, finding the DA had a conflict of interest in the case.
	Conflict of interest can get the DA booted.
	Her conflict of interest is she's supposed to be fighting for justice, not for a conviction.
	And instead, she's got a financial incentive to keep it rolling so she can go back to Napa.
	The wine's delicious.
	Then secondly, he pointed, third, he pointed out, we're so worried about a DA's, about her being above any sort of question about her ethics that we make only taking rightful compensation part of her oath.
	The DA, when sworn in, takes the following oath.
	Swear that I will faithfully, impartially, and without fear, favor, or affection, discharge my duties as DA and will only take law, my lawful compensation.
	So help me, God.
	That's going to be the argument that this was, in essence, a second form of compensation, that she brought in a guy who was not qualified to be her co-counsel, and that the two of them have been seeing the world together based on the taxpayer dime, which appears, frankly, to have been inflated by this guy and his 24-hour billing cycle.
	Well, remember, Megan, he didn't just come on the case after the indictment.
	He was the one who went before the grand jury.
	And the grand jurors afterwards thought he did a good job.
	Like he got high marks for what he did.
	He is someone who is.
	Have they tried felonies before?
	I don't think they know what the standard is.
	Whether they do or they don't, it's still a grand jury process.
	And that insulates it from a lot of the accusations that are here.
	This is not a political witch hunt when you have a grand jury that indicted Trump and all the others.
	Oh my God.
	I know you don't believe that.
	I am hiring Dave if I can get in trouble.
	I am.
	That's it.
	Mike, you're fired.
	I don't blame you.
	He's much better than I am.
	He's doing his best.
	No, he's doing his best.
	God love you.
	It's done.
	Megan, if I can't do it.
	Goodbye.
	I'm not going to learn how to pronounce your name because you're not going to be on the case much longer.
	Go ahead.
	Yes.
	Say one more thing.
	One more thing.
	In the AJC article that you quote, they have a split of opinion.
	So there are some Georgia lawyers who think she should be bounced and others who say, no, this is not any violation.
	So there isn't any guy who said, I'd be surprised if the allegations would sink the case.
	I mean, go back and look at Stephen Gillers.
	Stephen Gillers is no conservative right-wing hack.
	This guy, he calls him like he sees him.
	He literally wrote the book and he was all over this in the first article that broke this case yesterday.
	All right.
	We haven't gotten to Trump's immunity argument, which is the purpose of Mike and Dave Ginnon book today originally.
	And that too is very interesting because that's an effort to get rid of the January 6th federal prosecution against Trump entirely.
	I said yesterday it didn't go well for Trump's lawyer and I stand by that.
	However, one of the arguments does provide him with a serious glimmer of hope.
	And we'll pick that up right after a quick break.
	So Trump and Jack Smith, his prosecutor, went before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday via their lawyers, trying to argue on Trump's side, this whole January 6th federal prosecution should be thrown out against Trump, claiming he has immunity for the acts in question because he was a sitting president when he took them.
	My opinion, and having listened to most of it, it did not go well for Trump.
	These three judges, two are Biden, are they Biden appointees?
	Yeah, they're both two are Biden appointees and one's a George H.W. Bush appointee.
	None of them seemed inclined to rule for Trump.
	But the glimmer of hope I was referencing before the break for Trump, and tell me if you guys agree, is they did seem stuck on whether the standard for how to decide this case needs further clarification, like what acts are at issue and were they within his official duties or were they more discretionary?
	And maybe we need to kick it back down to the trial court to have a whole hearing that would illuminate us.
	And long and short of it is, Mike, that would delay the case beyond the election.
	And that's really what Trump would like.
	He thinks he's going to win if he wins.
	He, well, using you as his attorney general can end this whole thing.
	So that's in essence a kind of win for him if that's what they do.
	And they did seem kind of tempted to do that.
	What did you think?
	Well, I think that what the DC circuit should do, and I don't know if they're going to do this, but I think at a bare minimum that they need to hold that presidents of the United States, just like members of Congress under the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, just like federal judges under judicial immunity, are immune from both civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts, right?
	And so judges can't be prosecuted criminally for their official acts.
	Members of Congress can't be. prosecuted criminally for their official acts.
	That has not been decided for the president of the United States because a president has never been charged until President Biden's special counsel Jack Smith brought this indictment of a former president, two indictments of a former president, and then two Democrat DAs, Fannie Willis, who we just talked about, and Alvin Bragg in New York, also indicted President Trump.
	So now we have four indictments against a former president.
	The court is going to have to establish that a president of the United States is criminally immune from prosecution because it just would not make sense that you could be civilly immune, but you're not criminally immune.
	Do you think a president of the United States should have to worry that his successor is going to prosecute him for something he did within his official acts?
	Like, should can the Trump 47 Justice Department prosecute President Obama for the drone strike that killed two American citizens, including a 16-year-old?
	Can the Trump 47 Justice Department charge Obama with capital murder?
	I mean, that would be, that would be crazy, but that's the path we're heading down if the courts do not establish at a bare minimum that presidents of the United States are immune from criminal prosecution.
	Let me get Dave to just weigh in on that much.
	Do you agree with that much, Dave?
	I don't because what Trump did was beyond his official acts as president.
	That's okay.
	That's okay, but that's different.
	Do you agree that for the official acts?
	I mean, like, he's right.
	Trump's already threatening to go after Joe Biden if Trump wins for the Afghanistan withdrawal.
	Like, Mike's raising a decent point that like we can't have presidents worrying about doing things like drone strikes and getting prosecuted.
	Well, they do have immunity for civil cases.
	Now, as far as criminal, I think there should be some level of immunity if you make a decision, for example, like a drone strike on a foreign country, right?
	But when it's clear that it's in your official capacity, right?
	Like your official.
	I realize in this case, it's not as clear, but if it is clear, shouldn't they be immune from this nonsense?
	If it's clear, right.
	The question is, is that Trump's people are saying you get the outer limits.
	And I would say you don't get the outer limits because the outer limits is ill-defined and you can just create a huge exception to the rule there.
	So I'd only agree up to a very limited point.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So that was one of the things they were trying to figure out.
	And Trump says, I did it all in my official capacity.
	There need to be fair elections in the United States.
	And, you know, I had already lost the election.
	I wasn't still campaigning.
	So everything I did was in my official capacity.
	Dave, I'll give that one to you first.
	Right.
	Well, the Constitution is clear.
	The states handle the elections.
	The president has no role in that.
	And it is telling that even though he says, I wanted to ensure that there was no fraud, he didn't call North Carolina.
	He won North Carolina by 75,000 votes.
	He lost Michigan by 155,000 votes.
	He called Michigan.
	He only called the states where he lost to try to overturn the election.
	So what he was doing was as a candidate, not as a president who really cared about election fraud.
	What do you make of it, Mike?
	Well, I mean, here's the deal.
	Once you, Dave agrees with us, once you establish that presidents are immune criminally, any president, not just Trump, any president is immune from their official acts, then this case should get remanded back to this DC Obama judge, Tanya Shudkin, where she holds a mini trial with Biden special counsel, Jack Smith, and the Trump lawyers.
	And they have a mini trial on these immunity issues, and they figure out what they think are official acts that are immune or what they think are private acts that are not immune under presidential immunity.
	And under the case law, under civil immunity, it's the official acts and the outer perimeter of his official acts because they want to make very clear that presidents are protected.
	And they want to err on the side of protecting the president, right?
	So how about that, Dave?
	Should it be remanded for a hearing on what's official and what's not?
	No, I think based on the hearing yesterday, the argument from Trump's lawyers that you could call out SEAL Team 6 and assassinate your political opponent was so overboard that, no, I think this is an easy one.
	In this case, there is not absolute presidential immunity for the outer acts.
	That is clear.
	I think that's a limited question that they had.
	They should reject it.
	I think the Supreme Court's going to defer to them and let the trial commence in Washington, D.C. Do you think so, Mike?
	I mean, do you agree with me that these three judges are not going to rule in Trump's favor?
	The best he can hope for now is delay by kicking it back for a hearing, et cetera.
	I actually hope that they don't rule in Trump's favor because that means this case is going to get delayed beyond the election because the Supreme Court will have to take this case of the D.C. Circuit does not hold at a bare minimum that a president of the United States is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts.
	If they do not hold that, the Supreme Court is going to have to take this case.
	They're not going to rush to take this case.
	They're going to put it on a pretty regular briefing and oral argument schedule because there's no rush.
Limited Outer Acts Immunity 00:05:05
	They waited.
	Jack Smith, the Biden Justice Department waited 30 months to bring these charges.
	They time 20 seconds left, Dave.
	Will the Supreme Court take the case if D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Trump?
	I think probably not.
	I think they're going to defer, deny review, and kick it back to the DC Circuit.
	That's my prediction.
	That would be nice and clean for the Supreme Court.
	Trump will not be happy.
	Be a worse outcome for him.
	My God, great debate, you guys.
	You're the best.
	Thanks for being here up next.
	Dean Phillips, who's challenging Biden.
	Well, my next guest is U.S. Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota.
	You may know him better as the man who is challenging President Biden for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.
	He believes the president is, quote, in decline and too weak of a candidate to be running again.
	He faces an uphill battle as the DNC and Democratic heavyweights are all working against him.
	They don't want any challengers to President Biden.
	But anyone willing to challenge the status quo is someone we would like to talk to.
	So Congressman Phillips, welcome to the show.
	Thanks for being here.
	It's great to be with you, Megan.
	Thank you.
	So your story, your backstory is pretty interesting.
	As I understand it, you were raised in a successful family, and then you kind of took over the family business for a while and parleyed that.
	It was like, I think the either the liquor business or the some sort of beverage business.
	And then you're the guy behind the gelato tilanti.
	How do you pronounce it?
	I never know when I buy it in the store.
	Lency, talent with an eye.
	It's very easy to remember.
	Talent with an eye.
	That's your company.
	That's sort of what you were doing before you ran for Congress.
	Yeah, with two partners.
	But I'll tell you, but Megan, my story actually starts really differently than what you refer to, which is I lost my dad in Vietnam.
	He was a U.S. soldier, a captain in the Army, and used an ROTC scholarship to pursue education, was sent to Vietnam in 1968, right before I was born, and was killed in July of 69 in a helicopter crash, literally just three days after the U.S. landed on the moon.
	And I was lost my dad.
	I was six months old.
	My mom was 24 and widowed, and we had nowhere to go.
	So we stayed with my great grandparents for my first three years.
	And then I got really lucky, Megan.
	I was adopted by a father who married my mom, brought me into an amazing family of businesses and philanthropy, a lot of advice.
	Dear Abby and Ann Landers were my grandmother and my aunt.
	And I got lucky.
	And, you know, in a way, what I'm doing now is to pay it back.
	You know, it shouldn't just take a stroke of good luck or the zip code in which you're born to determine your outcome.
	And I think it's a responsibility of people like me who've been successful because of good fortune and hard work to pay it forward.
	All right.
	So I was going to back into the loss of your dad because that's sad.
	I didn't want to start with that.
	But I understand that you went back to the site where his helicopter went down on a congressional delegation trip.
	Can you tell us about that?
	Yeah, I first did it.
	I did a trip with a bunch of buddies, actually.
	This was not a congressional trip.
	It was on my own with some friends.
	Did a bicycle trip in Vietnam and then took that occasion, my first time in Vietnam, to actually go visit the site where my dad was killed, where he took his last breath.
	It was a helicopter crash into a mountain called Dragon Mountain in Plei Ku, Vietnam.
	The helicopter was really a cross-section of America.
	It was two Jewish guys, two black guys, an Italian guy, and then a Mexican national, David Valdez, who aspired to be an American.
	And he joined the United States Army, went to Vietnam, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen just weeks before he was killed in that crash.
	And my dear friend, the actor Woody Harrelson, joined me to go to the crash site.
	And Megan, it was one of the most powerful, meaningful, heart-touching moments of my entire life to be literally at the very site where he took his last breath.
	And in some ways, I took my first.
	It was a very inspiring experience.
	And I'll tell you, the best part of the story, I haven't even told the best part of the story.
	When I got back to the United States, the Today Show did a really nice spot about my visit.
	And it opened the door to what I wanted my whole life, which was to meet the only survivor of the crash, the co-pilot, a man named Tom Devereux, who had never been able to track down in 30 years.
	I sent one email.
	I thought it would be the final time I'd give it a shot.
	And sure enough, when I got back home, his wife answered and invited me to his 80th birthday party in Colorado Springs, which I attended this summer.
	And I got to hug the very man who survived that crash.
	I think it was a beautiful experience for him and a really meaningful one for me.
	And just another story of reconciliation that I wish our country would work on a lot more right now.
	Oh, God bless you.
	And God bless your dad and your family for their sacrifice.
	I'm sure you understand the plight of military families in a very unique and personal way as a result.
	And that piece of your story is a good thing.
	I mean, it's a good thing to have guys like you serving who get the sacrifice of not just those who serve, but the families around them.
Military Family Sacrifice 00:12:34
	Exactly, because they serve too.
	I don't think we appreciate that, Megan, how difficult it is for families when their moms or dads go overseas for deployments for months.
	You know what that's like when you're a kid and your mom or dad's away for months at a time?
	Or you can, by the way, the number of military families that are on SNAP or food stamps and need rental support, it's really appalling that we can always find the money to send young men and women to war.
	And then they come home and we fail to provide the services and support that they deserve, that they've earned.
	And it doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican, we should really enhance our esteem for not just veterans, but their families.
	Amen to that.
	Okay, let's move on to some substantive issues because I want to ask you about some news of the day and then we'll get into your candidacy and what, you know, what you're doing, right?
	Like why you're doing this.
	We just left off after an hour talking about Fannie Willis down in Georgia and the case that she's been bringing and these new allegations against her, which have many, I say, objective lawyers, lawyers who I tend to see bashing Trump.
	Even they are saying if this is true, that she's had an affair with a special prosecutor, that they've been taking trips together after he's been getting rich on the taxpayer's dime.
	She's got a serious appearance of impropriety that could result in her disqualification and should.
	What do you make of it?
	I'll tell you, Megan, this is just another symptom of a really contagious and dangerous disease, perhaps even more dangerous than COVID, which is diseases of corruption, of unethical behavior, and frankly, a disregard for the very public offices that we take an oath to the Constitution in which to serve.
	And I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican.
	There are wrongdoers on both sides of the aisle.
	And I'm just really disgusted, as I know you are too, that it appears to most Americans who've lost total faith in government, why, and for reasons why I understand.
	But when you see members of a party only defending their own, never, ever, never calling out the truth, saying the quiet part out loud about those who might be affiliated in the same party, that is a dereliction of duty.
	And I guess I've gotten myself in trouble for being honest, for calling it like I see it.
	You know, I condemned Donald Trump after January 6th.
	I was trapped in the House chamber that day.
	I was subject to that insurrection like this whole country.
	But why would I then not call BS when I see it on my side of the aisle?
	And I think that disease of silence, of staying in line, of fear, is a contagious disease on both sides.
	And I'm telling you, whether it's Senator Menendez in the Senate, whether it's this allegation in Georgia, whether it's Hunter Biden, gross activity, unethical behavior, and corruption is what it is.
	And it doesn't matter your political stripes.
	We should call it out.
	We should be consistent.
	And we should demand that people in the highest positions of power in the United States of America are honest about the truth.
	And the erosion of that, Megan, is dangerous.
	And that's why I'm trying my darndest right now to call attention to what I consider to be the obvious.
	And that is we have a culture of corruption that has to be addressed.
	It's so refreshing to hear you say it.
	You know, we used to live in a society where there were Dems like you and there were Republicans too who felt this way and could meet across the aisle and talk about, agree on just the most egregious behavior.
	And it's just been lost.
	It's been lost.
	Totally.
	Let me interrupt you, but let me tell you, I will make this claim.
	Angertainment, which I consider to be the evening cable news, would love to have believed.
	Yeah, they would love to have us believe that we are more divided than we really are.
	Of course, because it generates billions of dollars in revenue and attracts eyeballs.
	But I can tell you from personal experience, Megan, that I love my Republican brothers and sisters, the principled handful with whom I've worked out for the last five years, with whom I've been in the trenches, with whom I've created human relationships and trustful ones.
	They're really good people.
	They're also beholden to this disgusting system that forces a change in behavior, even amongst the most principled people on earth.
	And I'm telling you, I've gotten more beautiful texts from my Republican colleagues over the last number of weeks, including one yesterday from someone who would shock you because they're kind and they're generous.
	And it's not about Biden.
	It's not about politics.
	It's just saying, hope you're hanging in there, man.
	Appreciate your courage.
	I hope you're doing well.
	And by the way, after October 7th, I got more notes from my Republican colleagues just saying, hey, you're on my mind.
	You know, I'm sure this is tough for you and your community.
	And I tell you, those go a long way.
	So I don't want your viewers to think that all is lost.
	In fact, that's why I'm running for president, Megan, is to demonstrate to the country that not only can we work together, we damn well have to.
	And I celebrate that.
	And that's why I would have a bipartisan cabinet and the best and brightest, a team of rivals, because I really love learning from my conservative colleagues, of whom there are many of great capacity intellectually and otherwise.
	Does anyone stand out?
	Any nice names to offer up?
	Oh, sure.
	I can tell you, Dusty Johnson, an extraordinarily principled conservative with whom I have a great relationship and have worked very diligently on the Problem Solvers Caucus.
	Brian Stile, I think a wonderful young conservative with great intellect and great capacity to lead.
	One of my best friends in Congress was Anthony Gonzalez, of course, who was the young Republican from Ohio who has now since left Congress.
	You know, William Timmons, who led the modernization committee on which I served, I see great potential in.
	I can keep going on down the list of really good people that I've worked with directly.
	By the way, I just wish more people would make their decisions about other human beings after they've worked with them, gotten to know them a little bit.
	If we did that, we might change our opinion on a lot of people.
	And I sure have myself.
	And by the way, Chip Roy, Chip and I worked on the first bill that I had signed into law was during COVID, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act.
	Chip and I, you would never imagine the number two bipartisan member of Congress, which is me.
	Chip is probably 430 or so, but we're buddies.
	Right.
	It's pretty damn conservative.
	Yeah.
	And but that's not, that's why we like each other.
	And we've worked together on that bill.
	Donald Trump signed it into law.
	And the only reason we saved probably thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs is because he and I took the time to build a relationship.
	And by the way, Tim Burchett, I think the most funny, human, wonderful person in Congress could be none other than Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
	He brings levity when we need it.
	He is my brother and a man I have great affection for.
	And again, we don't see it the same way.
	We vote quite differently, but we sure respect each other.
	And I'm just on a mission to let people in America know, because you'd never hear it on television, that there are a lot of us that actually have really good relationships.
	And our generation is trying to rise right now so that we can end this nonsense, period.
	See, this conversation is reminding me of the one I had with another Democrat who ultimately left Congress, and that's Tulsi Gabbard, who went also, you know, very pro-military.
	She's a member of it, and went to Congress with a well-meaning intent.
	And she was more of a centrist like you are, and just was so disillusioned by what the party did to her, too, right?
	She was not on board the Hillary train and really felt like they turned on her.
	And you are not exactly on board.
	You're supportive of Joe Biden.
	You just don't think he should be reelected for, we'll get to the reasons.
	And she's just so disillusioned now.
	You know, they kind of ran her right out of Congress.
	She's like, why would I want to be here?
	And it just seems to me like that body will either just pound the soul right out of you to where you submit, you become hardly partisan and go along and do what they want, or you leave.
	Yeah.
	You got it.
	It's, I've never seen in my entire life.
	I've been affiliated with a lot of companies, institutions, organizations.
	And I got to tell you, Megan, if you tried to design the most dysfunctional, ridiculous institution from scratch imaginable, you would design the current U.S. Congress.
	Our founders would be so disgusted because by the way, they didn't set the rules.
	They anticipated future generations of Americans who would put their country first and set aside political nonsense.
	And the truth is, Democrats and Republicans for generations have set rules in Congress designed to do two things, eliminate competition and protect the power structure.
	And by the way, who do we typically elevate to positions of power in Congress?
	The people who raise the most money.
	How do you raise the most money?
	Well, by the way, anybody in politics can become famous quickly.
	You just got to be a jerk.
	And those of us who actually try to do our jobs with dignity and respect and decency and competency are watching our colleagues play by this new system of rules, which rewards idiots.
	They become very successful politically.
	They raise a ton of money.
	And we all watch that.
	And yes, it is soul-sucking.
	And I still have every intention to do what I can to make that culture work because I know it can.
	It just takes leadership.
	And that's why I'm running for president, Megan, because from the White House.
	You sound like the grandson of dear Abby and Ann Landers.
	I mean, it sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders.
	But I have to ask you, out of all the advice, my gosh, we all look to our nanas for advice.
	Was there anything that stood out?
	Is there like a couple gems that you want to share?
	I'll tell you.
	This is actually a story I don't tell regularly, but it was actually my grandmother, dear Abby, who anointed me a Democrat.
	And I'll tell you a quick story.
	My first political experience ever, I show up to school, I think I was seventh grade, 1980.
	And who speaks at our assembly that day, but John Anderson, Congressman John Anderson, the Republican from Illinois, who decided to run.
	And I never imagined I would draw this arc, but it's very connected.
	He ran for president as an independent, and he came to our school and he told us that day, and I remember it vividly.
	He talked about the need for independence and politics, which I didn't understand at the time.
	And he talked about money in politics, which I didn't understand at the time either.
	But I was really excited.
	I got to dinner that night with my family, including my grandma, who sat next to me.
	She asked about my day.
	And I said, it was amazing.
	The next president of the United States came to our school and she laughed.
	I remember and said, look, if he's speaking to a bunch of seventh graders in the summer before an election, he's probably not going to win.
	So that was a note to self.
	And then she said, but hey, before you continue, are you a Democrat or Republican?
	And I said, Grandma, I'm 11 years old.
	I don't even know what those are.
	And she said, you're a Democrat.
	She anointed me a Democrat in 1980 at Murray's steakhouse in downtown Minneapolis.
	I'll never forget it.
	And I had a similar experience.
	My Nana said to me, I said, are we Republicans or Democrats?
	And she said, Republicans for rich people.
	We're Democrats.
	That was her impression, right?
	She was born in 1915 and all the Republicans she knew had money.
	She thought tax cuts were bad, right?
	She wanted more taxes because she thought she might benefit from them and so on.
	Of course, the world has been turned on its head now, but I can understand the imprint of the nana on one's future.
	I'll tell you one other story, one other story that's really important about her, and this was how she operated.
	By the way, she only became Dear Abby and my aunt Ann Landers because of Senator Joe McCarthy in Wisconsin, 1950.
	My grandma, my aunt were housewives in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
	And his antics during the Red Scare literally got them out of the house into activism.
	It brought one of them to Chicago, Ann Landers, who became an Ann Landers in Chicago.
	My grandma ended up going to San Francisco.
	But had it not been for Senator McCarthy's communist scare, they never, the world never would have known, Dear Abby and Ann Landers.
	And my grandma said one thing all the time: if you don't know the answer, find someone who does.
	And I'll tell you, when she passed away and I was the recipient of her old Rolodex, and I'm talking about like the old Rolodex, Megan, I'm telling you, thousands of names by category.
	And when I tell you the most extraordinary, prestigious, well, you know, educated names in everything you could possibly imagine, when someone wrote her a letter with a problem, she didn't know the answer, but she knew somebody that did.
	And that was her lesson to me.
	Don't pretend you know, find someone that does.
	And that's exactly what good leadership entails.
	That's very cool.
	And I feel for you having jumped from what seems like a lovely business, ice cream, into something that's incredibly toxic.
	I always say I work in such a toxic stew and I'm only on the outskirts.
	I'm a reporter covering politics.
	I'm not actually in politics, which I'm sure it's been very eye-opening.
Toxic Political Stew 00:08:23
	Let me get to a couple of these issues.
	You mentioned Hunter Biden.
	What did you make of him coming onto the House floor today after having flouted the subpoena?
	Just like, hey, here I am, the prince.
	I can do what I want.
	Megan, I'm just, you know, frankly, I recall the days where, you know, presidents were presidents.
	The first lady typically, you know, made appearances on occasion, but the family was usually secondary or off limits if they were children, but they didn't really engage in the leadership platform, if you will.
	And look, I'm appalled.
	You know, I wasn't thrilled with how the Trump family was engaged.
	I'm not thrilled with how the president's brother and son, clearly, who are both unethical people, are engaged.
	I've seen no evidence, by the way.
	I just want to make it clear.
	And if I had, I would let you know right away.
	I'm not seeing any evidence that Hunter's indiscretions lead to the president himself.
	But the man is clearly unethical.
	He clearly was an addict and is recovering, and I do give him credit for that.
	But this is just sickening.
	You know, Americans right now, by the way, Megan, they don't give a hoot about Hunter Biden ultimately.
	They don't give a crap about all the BS going on in the Congress right now.
	They are suffering so badly the cost of health care, housing, education, food, and fuel.
	And they look at what happens in our United States Congress and they must think to themselves every day, like, what in the world is going on?
	Nobody's listening to me.
	No one cares.
	Nobody hears me.
	But you know what?
	Donald Trump heard him.
	And that's exactly why Joe Biden is losing and he will lose in the next election because all the coverage is about Hunter Biden or this or that.
	And the idea at the end of the day is that people are not being heard.
	We have a crisis at the southern border.
	We have wars around the world.
	People can't afford their lives.
	And this is what people consider important.
	Hunter Biden should go away, should go away.
	And I think what he's doing today is foolish.
	There is some evidence against Joe Biden.
	I don't want to make this all about the corruption case.
	We've done a lot of deep dives on it.
	But let's table the evidence that he was involved, 10% for the big guy emails to that effect.
	Is it appropriate for a sitting vice president to allow his son to sit on the board of Ukrainian energy company when he, the vice president, is in charge of Ukrainian policy?
	No.
	No.
	In fact, I'm still shocked.
	Now, look at anybody who's a parent, we all know the more you tell your kid you can't do something, you know, they're more likely to do it.
	It doesn't matter.
	They're eight.
	I know.
	I'm just saying generally, Megan.
	And no, I just answered the, have you ever had anyone answer the question so directly?
	The answer is no.
	He shouldn't have.
	I can't believe that the sitting vice president would have condoned it or even allowed it.
	It is so egregious.
	It is so wrong.
	And it is such an example of why Americans have no faith in their government.
	They can't seem to find a politician who actually cares and is actually ethical and is actually transparent.
	And that's why I understand.
	Who won't sell out?
	Who won't sell out?
	Right.
	It's just like.
	And of course, all these politicians were supposed to sort of get into office and then get out, right?
	Not be lifetime politicians.
	That's what Joe Biden is.
	So many.
	It's not, he's, it's on both sides.
	And now we've got these 80-year-old lawmakers.
	And now we have two, you know, octogenarians are near running for president.
	So that brings me to you.
	How old are you?
	I'm 54.
	Okay.
	I don't want to mislead people.
	I'm going to be 55 on January 20th.
	So there you go.
	Okay.
	Very, very young for the record.
	I like it.
	So you're running for president.
	And you, I know you've said, and you've been asked about the fact that you say you, you totally agree with Joe Biden's policies.
	You're 100% behind his policies, but not his candidacy.
	So why is there a need for Dean Phillips?
	Well, let me start with policy.
	You know, I have voted for his policies.
	Does that mean I'm 100% behind his entire platform?
	Not at all.
	In fact, I think I'm one of the only Democrats pointing out the other truth, which is we have a crisis at the southern border that is embarrassing, undescribable, and frankly, unforgivable.
	And that is a responsibility of a number of administrations from the past, Democrats and Republicans, but it's true.
	And I'm a Democrat telling you that.
	We have got to secure our border and also our northern border.
	Megan, we are not far away from where we have migration waves of millions of people who are fleeing war or famine or lack of water.
	And, you know, the fact that we don't put a high, the highest priority of the American president should be secure borders.
	And it's a big problem.
	I favor the legalization of cannabis.
	That's a big difference.
	I'm an investor in peace, and I do that through strength.
	But I do believe that it is the failures of Joe Biden in the past that we have the crisis in the Middle East and also Ukraine.
	And these are truths.
	I voted for the agenda, which, by the way, were investments in America.
	My proposition, Megan, is to invest in Americans.
	And that means housing, health care, education, and to ensure the prices for food and fuel are something that every middle-class family in America can afford.
	So that's the policy difference.
	As for the pragmatism, Joe Biden is going to lose to Donald Trump.
	Now, I have affection and appreciation for principled conservatives.
	In fact, I want those ideas embedded in my own policy perspectives.
	I do have animus towards Donald Trump, not Trumpers, but Donald Trump.
	And Joe Biden is going to lose to him.
	And if it's Nikki Haley, if you're a Democrat, Nikki Haley's ahead by 17 points over Joe Biden in the last Wall Street Journal poll.
	So there is a Democratic delusion and frankly a hypocrisy of democracy based on what the DNC is doing in Florida and North Carolina here in New Hampshire, where I am right now.
	And I'm on a mission to say the quiet part out loud, speak truth to power, and give Americans the chance to completely turn the page to a totally different chapter if we want to.
	And that's my proposition.
	It is not some bold claim that we could never achieve.
	It's not demeaning everybody who comes in my path.
	It's trying to return to a time where competency, integrity, decency, and experience all play together, and we work together and fight for each other instead of against each other.
	And that is my proposition.
	That's how I'm going to wake up every day.
	You make a point of distinguishing between Trump, who you don't like, and Trumpers, people who support him, MAGA.
	That's very different from our sitting president who, you know, the dark Brandon speech, ultra MAGA.
	He's been trying to demonize Trump supporters pretty much at every turn.
	And what we hear is that that's his plan for the next year, like just demonize Trump, and his supporters.
	We don't want to empower these people.
	Why do you disagree with that?
	Well, first of all, and by the way, this is a symptom of the disease you just mentioned, which is people who've been serving in Washington for decades.
	Joe Biden has never had a job outside of the public sector.
	He's been in Washington, I think, since 1972, since I was three years old.
	How would he even ever know how to create a compelling strategy that I've done my whole life in the private sector?
	I've never built a business, Megan, by demeaning my customers or telling them they suck or they're dumb or they don't matter.
	It's just the opposite.
	The whole reason I won my first race in Congress in 2018 and flipped a district that had been Republican since 1958 is I used invitation, not confrontation.
	I have great affection for all Americans.
	And I'm really, I'm equally angry.
	I'm angry at Washington.
	I'm angry about the two-party system.
	I'm angry we don't have term limits.
	And I'm really angry that amazing, hardworking Americans who bust their tails to make ends meet for their family and invest in their country are totally ignored in huge swaths of this country.
	They matter.
	I hear you.
	I invite you.
	And I want to work together to make life better for the people who really have been forgotten about.
	And why Democrats ignore that, not only ignore, but condemn, condemn these people.
	I'm appalled.
	And that's why I think we need competition and that's why I'm providing it.
	And I'm just hopeful that people who are frustrated like I am.
	We do need competition.
	We'll see whether the Democrats allow it.
	They're very good at stifling, very good at stifling.
	Just ask Bernie Sanders.
Need for Competition 00:07:48
	They're working hard right now.
	Believe me on me.
	They're working really hard.
	Oh, I realize.
	I mean, I've been watching.
	I mean, they're very good at what they do.
	I have to give them some credit on that.
	They're better at that than winning lectures, I'll tell you that.
	Yeah, well, we'll see.
	The border, you've spoken about your feelings shared by, I think, by most of our audience.
	Today, there's news you've probably seen out of Brooklyn at this James Madison high school, where now they are moving, they moved 2,000 immigrants, illegal immigrants, into a high school there, kicked the students out from school, said, okay, here they are arriving.
	You can do remote learning instead.
	And then we found out today it's not even remote learning.
	It's just remote homework assignments.
	The children have to request a Zoom with a teacher if they would like to have actual instruction in their taxpayer-funded school because the people who came to the country illegally are now in their homerooms and their classrooms.
	What do you make of this?
	It's a massive failure, a massive failure in leadership, period.
	And let me say this too, Megan.
	I know you probably feel the same way.
	Those poor kids whose parents bring them across the border, you know, for the same reasons that my four mothers and forefathers and probably yours came to America, which is to flee persecution and find a better life.
	I mean, I'm sure that's what most of these poor kids and their families want.
	But I'll tell you, the leadership failure is just extraordinary.
	And that's why when I'm president, Megan, I can fix this.
	We can have border security.
	We can have a buffer zone on both sides of the border, barriers, better technologies, completely redesigned ports of entry for both commerce and people.
	But if we really want to fix the problem, Megan, it's way too late once they come to the border.
	It's our asylum system.
	It's our policy that is actually responsible for the problem itself.
	And I'm sure you know this.
	We force people who wish to declare asylum to cross our border.
	And they have to spend $10,000 roughly per person.
	They give it to a Mexican cartel, which by the way, then uses it to hurt our country.
	And then they come across the border.
	They're processed by border patrol.
	They're dumped in the streets of El Paso or somewhere else with not a penny in their pocket, the inability to work and nowhere to go, other than told to show up in a court case maybe three or four years from now.
	So what can we do?
	It is so simple.
	We've changed the law to force the declaration of asylum cases in your country of origin.
	So if you're coming from, say, El Salvador and you feel unsafe, you go to the consulate or the embassy, you make an application for asylum.
	We can build inexpensive dormitories next to our consulates or something to keep people safe temporarily.
	We adjudicate their cases there.
	They hold on to their $10,000.
	And if they qualify, we bring them to America.
	They can work and they have $10,000 to start their lives here instead of having to rely on the public sector.
	So why wouldn't we do that?
	You know, why wouldn't we make a simple change?
	And the reason is simple.
	Well, you tell me.
	We talk about it all the time.
	Why?
	What is it about the open border that is appeasing or pleasing to Democrats, including Joe Biden? has to be an answer because otherwise we wouldn't have such a sieve.
	Because politicians are focused on winning the next election, executives and those that come from the private sector like me, we want to solve problems and then turn it over to somebody else.
	And every single person I've encountered in Washington, D.C., Megan, they want to stick around as long as possible.
	I've torpedoed my career in Congress by design, by design.
	I knew I was going to continue Biden.
	Right.
	Yeah, by challenging the president.
	I knew my party would completely disenfranchise me.
	I knew that it would be hard to come back.
	And my goodness, everything I expected has happened.
	I wish we had more people in Washington that would knowingly torpedo their career to get something done.
	That's what I want my legacy.
	Can you expand on that?
	Like, what blowback have you received?
	Oh, well, you know, well, I will tell you that the tactics are mostly behind the scenes.
	The inability to attract any media interest is actually a function of the strategy.
	Telling donors, telling media hosts, telling networks that they better be careful if they platform me or support me because they're watching.
	And of course, you know better than anybody.
	The lifeblood of Fox or MSNBC is access to the administration, information, and people.
	And if you do something to risk that flow, you are literally risking billions of dollars of revenue.
	So you know that.
	The other is...
	The Space White House has given a warning to the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world, like, and maybe the mainstream broadcast channels too.
	Like, don't put them on.
	Otherwise, no access.
	I have, let me just say this.
	Until I see hard evidence of anything, I will not say with absolute certainty, but do I have anecdotal evidence?
	Lots of it.
	Yes.
	But that's who I am, by the way.
	If not, I see or hear firsthand.
	I'm not going to tell you I know.
	I don't know.
	But do I think?
	Absolutely.
	And do I have some pretty good evidence?
	Yes.
	That's how the game works.
	State parties.
	Let me tell you another way.
	The Democratic National Committee clearly communicated with the Florida Democratic Party to remove all candidates from the ballot other than Joe Biden, announcing essentially that the 4 million Democrats in Florida do not need to have a primary because Joe Biden already won.
	Same thing in North Carolina, only one name submitted by the Democratic Party to be on the ballot, Joe Biden.
	And by the way, I'm not a fly-by-night candidate.
	You know, I'm a third-term sitting member of Congress.
	I was a member of House Democratic leadership elected by my peers.
	I'm the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs.
	I'm not a fly-by-night candidate.
	And they are intentionally suppressing voters, intentionally suppressing candidates, and intentionally suppressing debate.
	So the hypocrisy of democracy is alive and well, and I'm going to call attention to it.
	And that's why they're very, very upset with me.
	And I know how a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle who had the audacity to speak their principles, how they felt when the MAGA machine turned against them.
	It is discomforting.
	And that's really my call to action, Megan, is to the exhausted majority of thoughtful center-right and center-left Americans.
	If you really want to do something about this, support someone like Nikki Haley or me.
	You know, why not?
	Why not turn the page?
	What have you got to lose?
	All right, stand by.
	Hold that thought.
	Much more to discuss.
	We'll get into a couple of the platform reasons.
	And I'll give this as a tease, Congressman Phillips.
	We'll get into why not, right?
	I've got a lot of center writers and some center lefters listening to this show.
	So we'll talk about a couple of the issues and see how that goes.
	Stand by.
	I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.
	It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.
	You can catch the Megan Kelly show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.
	Great people like Dr. Laura, Flyn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
	You can stream the Megan Kelly show and SiriXM at home or anywhere you are.
	No car required.
	I do it all the time.
	I love the SiriusXM app.
	It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
	Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
	Go to seriousxm.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free.
	That's seriousxm.com slash MK Show and get three months free.
	Offer details apply.
Americans Reject Biden 00:05:52
	Okay, so quick question on Mr. Biden.
	Too old or mentally infirm?
	Well, Americans are making it very clear.
	They feel he's too old.
	By the way, Donald Trump's only a few years younger, I think four years younger, so there's clearly some disconnect, but Americans have opined.
	I think 75% of the country has said that they believe he's too old.
	It's more about stage of life than anything.
	I think people see the decline in his ability to communicate and his physical infirmity on occasion.
	I do not see any evidence of any cognitive issue to be forthright.
	I want to make that really clear.
	But once Americans have made up their mind about who they want representing our country in the future, you got to listen to the numbers.
	Now, politicians lie all the time, but the numbers don't.
	And the numbers are very clear.
	They do believe he's too old.
	And both, by the way, I think most Americans want to turn the page from both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
	That's really the case I'm trying to make.
	77% believe he's too old.
	And I think it's over 65% of Democrats share that same opinion.
	Abba, how about Kamala Harris?
	If President Biden were to step down, would she need to go too?
	Because I know you pointed this out and then got chastised for it, but you know as well as I do that the American populace, including the Democrats, are not huge fans of Kamala Harris.
	And I see the numbers, and that's what I was referring to.
	And here's my very basic point for Democrats.
	Look at what the GOP is doing right now.
	There is a very spirited competition despite having Donald Trump, the former president, in the race.
	Democrats should be behaving exactly the same way.
	If it's Vice President Harris, if it's Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, me, whoever wants to, the whole point is to practice democracy.
	So I'm not going to opine on whether it's Newsome or Harris or me or somebody else.
	That's the whole point of democracy is let each of us make our case.
	If your numbers are low because people don't know you, well, then you get a chance to make them go up.
	And the best part about not being well known like me is that two-thirds of the country doesn't hate me.
	And that's actually a real benefit.
	You know, you know what it's like in this day and age.
	It's hard.
	No, it's very hard to be not hated.
	Do you think she'd be a good president, Kamala Harris?
	I don't.
	My experience with the vice president has always been reasonable, decent, and she seems effective to me.
	But that's not, that's my perspective.
	And at the end of the day, I would like to see anybody compete in a Democratic primary that wishes to.
	And of course, look, I don't, I support one person right now to replace Joe Biden, and that is me.
	I'm prepared.
	My experience is, I think, perfect for this job.
	And at the time to meet the moment, my style of leadership is exactly what the country needs.
	So I'm not going to opine on who it is.
	And I know, look, I know that's what attracts eyeballs.
	And you want me to say something about her or Gavin Newsom.
	I'm just curious.
	I think I know the answer.
	I just don't, I don't think you want to.
	I know very, the time I've spent with her has been quite pleasant.
	And I think she's a whether she'd be a good president.
	That's irrelevant.
	You know, I mean, but let me make this point.
	I think it's really important.
	We're all making decisions about people based on Twitter, conversations from a friend, something you see on TV, and nobody is showing up to actually look someone in the eye, hear them make their case, ask questions of them.
	And all I would say, Megan, and I would just invite everybody listening, the next time you're going to condemn a politician, do it after you've had a chance to maybe just go to one event, get a sense of who they really are, because the media right now is really misportraying.
	We've had enough of her and Biden and Trump to know who they are and whether we like them or not.
	But yeah, in your case, I know you had New Hampshire is your big place where Biden's not on the ballot because he thumbed the middle finger at them because he didn't want them to be first in the nation.
	He wanted South Carolina to be.
	So you, your big play is to do well in North Carolina, where Biden has to be a write-in vote if people want to vote for you.
	New Hampshire.
	New Hampshire.
	And, you know, you say people aren't showing up.
	I saw the thing.
	It was sad.
	People didn't come to your, nobody came to your event the other day.
	I think they should go to your event.
	They should hear you.
	They should listen to you.
	But how does that bode for your chances when you're having events there and nobody shows?
	Well, so first of all, let me, it's actually kind of funny because that moment, yeah, there's the picture right there.
	So to your credit, you tweeted it, like you made a joke about it, which I thought was very classy of you.
	Look, I mean, if people could see, first of all, I would love for every American to come along with me on the campaign trail for one day.
	I love America.
	This is so fun.
	It is wonderful to meet people.
	The daily experiences you have here, some are heartbreaking.
	Some would make perfect episodes of Veep.
	And the truth is, sometimes you have events where you're shocked by how many people come.
	And then sometimes you have moments like yesterday.
	We pulled my government repair truck outside the hotel we're at.
	I thought I'd serve coffee to these young people going to this college convention.
	And little did I know that they were all parking in the garage and coming up a different way.
	So yeah, it looked pathetic and sad and weak.
	But at the end of the day, what's really interesting, Megan, is Jake Rosen, the reporter that put up that tweet.
	I think his post showing me lonely in the back of my truck, staring off into the wilderness, I think that's generated like, I don't know, 3 million views or something.
	One hour later, he did another tweet of me playing bingo with this extraordinary and hysterical group of old ladies here in Manchester.
	He did another tweet literally one hour later, and I think it has like 4,000 views.
	So it's either 4 million if you make someone look pathetic or sad or like snarky.
	Only 4,000 if it's actually, it was a really beautiful experience playing bingo with a whole room full of seniors.
	So my point is this.
	No one wants to see that.
	I take it.
	Okay, let's go through a few issues in the time we have left.
	And I don't have a lot of time.
	So tick through these with me quickly if you could.
	Here's the one.
	I mean, I have voted Democrat in the past, unlike most of my, you know, colleagues who are more on the right now.
Abortion Rights Values 00:09:37
	I have voted for Dems and Republicans.
	And so you're kind of luring me in with your attitude and your bipartisanship and your just optimism and so on.
	However, I'm almost a single issue voter now on the trans thing and children.
	And I don't know if you saw, I asked the candidates about this at the last presidential debate on the GOP side, but it's a hard no for me on somebody who would allow these surgical procedures to be done on children who are under 18 in terms of chopping off body parts from kids who can't even smoke a cigarette.
	And I also am very much against puberty blockers straight into cross-sex hormones because even the trans community admits this is causing sterility.
	This is causing sterility, infertility for minors.
	They can't possibly consent to their own sterilization.
	And I think you're on the opposite side of me on this.
	So persuade me why I should still consider you.
	Well, here's how I feel.
	And look at I know that most of your listeners, if not all, and you as well, you know, care.
	We have hearts.
	We care about human beings.
	We don't want to destroy lives and we want to be empathetic.
	I'm the father of two wonderful daughters.
	My youngest daughter, Pia, is a gay woman.
	And I have particular empathy for people who have been oppressed or shuttered or kept out or closeted.
	And I've never walked in the shoes of a queer person, of a trans person, of someone who's facing bipolar disorder, whatever it might be, and they've never walked in my shoes.
	So generally, I lead with love.
	And unless it affects another human being, I tend to say I think it's something the government should stay out of.
	The government should stay out of women's bodies.
	The government should stay out of my house and out of my bedroom, out of my bathroom.
	That's how I see it.
	But as it relates to your question specifically, I will answer it.
	You know, I don't believe that children under the age of 18 who cannot buy firearms, who cannot buy beer, who cannot do a lot of things in the United States of America, should be able to make such consequential, life-changing decisions until a certain age.
	And I do think maybe that is the common ground that you can have empathy, you can have love, you can have understanding, and you can have support.
	But when it comes to making decisions that will really have significant repercussions, I do think a certain age is totally reasonable if we do it for driving.
	Well, I think this is, by the way, I'm glad you asked that question because at the end of the day, we're using these arbitrary ages that in my, I would argue, are both hypocritical in many cases and incongruent.
	But we're one of the only countries in the world, by the way, that allows you to drive before you're allowed to drink, right?
	Wouldn't it be a little bit more reasonable for kids in this country to grow up not thinking alcohol is something you go get bombed on when you turn 21, whereas you actually appreciate its effects, you understand it, you might enjoy a glass of wine with family when you're a teenager, and then you learn how to drive afterwards like most reasonable countries do.
	I don't know if the age?
	You don't have to be aware of that.
	Let me just say higher, lower than 18.
	18.
	Look at 18 is usually in 21 are the two ages we consider to be threshold ages in this country.
	You know, I'm not a doctor.
	I'm not an attorney.
	I'm not the parent of a trans child.
	So I don't believe that, frankly, I should be telling you what that age should be.
	What I'm telling you is that as president on issues of great consequence and of great challenge, this is an example of how I would lead.
	Bring together a table of parents, of trans children, of trans adults, of doctors, and hear perspectives on both sides about what makes sense and whether or not the government should get involved.
	Those are the fundamental questions.
	Before you appoint that table of people, please let's talk.
	Because what's happening right now in the medical community is they've been completely captured by activists, and they completely, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, even the Endocrinology Association has been captured.
	And you're seeing more and more detransitioners come out and sue these groups, sue the doctors.
	They've been so wronged.
	All right, let me table that one for now.
	Abortion.
	You know, there are a lot of Democrats out there who believe in abortion on demand, and they won't set any limits.
	They won't set a limit for the third trimester even.
	I think most people can agree if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, that the life that's already here has to take precedence.
	But should there be limitations on abortion for any trimester?
	Well, let me start with my values.
	My values are that I believe in freedom and liberty, and I believe that should extend to women's bodies.
	I don't think government should play a role in telling a woman how she can treat her body, what she can do with it.
	And I certainly don't think men should be doing that.
	Those are my values.
	So I believe in a woman's right to make that choice with her healthcare provider and herself.
	I also know there's a lot of conversation about late-term abortions.
	And I think you know, Megan, the data is very clear.
	There are very, very few of them.
	And if there are, they tend to be very tragic circumstances for either the fetus or for the mother.
	So to your question, I had, I'll tell you, in New Hampshire about a month ago, I had the most extraordinary conversation in my entire life on this subject because I had a young conservative approach me on the issue of abortion.
	He said, I'm fiercely pro-life.
	And I said, I respect you and I'm fiercely pro-choice.
	So let's have a conversation.
	And I said to him, where might we find common ground?
	And he said, well, what if we were to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies?
	I said, whoa, what a great way for Democrats and Republicans to start.
	And then he continued and he said, I'm going to actually make the conservative case for progressive principles.
	And he proceeded to say, imagine if American women who are facing this decision knew that their baby would be brought up with shelter, with food, with great education, with health care, and security in the neighborhood, and opportunity to make a living and be self-sufficient for his or her life.
	Don't you think more women might make the choice to have their babies?
	And I literally was so dumbfounded because it was the most beautiful case to make where Democrats and Republicans should be focusing our efforts.
	This notion of being pro-life.
	Just to be clear, just to be clear, just so that people understand.
	So you would not, because you're not in favor of any government bans or indifference.
	So you would say, in all cases, it's up to the woman.
	There should not be any bans on it, third trimester included.
	What I'm saying is this.
	And I know it's incongruent with some people's perspectives and perhaps yours.
	I'm saying this very clearly.
	I'm very concerned about the growing role of government in people's lives, including this one.
	And by the way, a lot of people share that concern.
	And I, first of all, and I want to say I have respect for people who see this differently.
	And I would ask that you have a respect for me.
	It is very simple to me.
	I just don't think, I think on this specific subject, I don't believe that government should be playing a role.
	I think physicians should be playing a role.
	All right, wait, I only have two minutes left.
	So I want to squeeze this last one in.
	DEI under a lot of fire right now, especially in the wake of the anti-Semitism we're seeing on campuses.
	We think it's directly linked to these programs.
	What do you think?
	I think it's really simple.
	DEI is a symptom of a disease that has never been treated.
	And that disease, for everybody watching and listening right now, is slavery.
	Our country never, ever repaired the relationship between the United States government and those who are enslaved and their descendants.
	We have never made a distinct effort to ensure that the long tail of slavery is rectified in the United States.
	And the best way to do that, and I will propose we do so, is to raise the foundation.
	I want to do a lot of things, Megan, starting with a notion of what I call the American Dream Account, which is $1,000 vested in every baby's account in the beginning of their life.
	You're endorsing DEI because of slavery.
	So you're in favor of that.
	What I'm endorsing.
	No, no, what I'm saying is DEI is a symptom of a disease that we've never addressed.
	I want to address the disease, which is to make amends and to fix the injustices of the past by raising the foundation for the black community and for all Americans.
	And I'll tell you, let me tell you what I propose.
	I want to start something called American Dream Accounts.
	For $3.5 billion a year, every American baby would be afforded a $1,000 account that would be invested in the stock market in American companies.
	$500 a year can be added to it over the course of your teenage years.
	It will become yours if you graduate high school or get your GED.
	And at 6% interest, $500 a year, that's everybody, everybody.
	And then secondly, if you want to afford one year of your life to serve our country, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, U.S. military, we'll put another $10,000 in your account.
	So you have $30,000 to start a life, own a home, begin a business, use for your expenses.
	I got it.
	I got 40 seconds until the computer is going to cut us off.
	But I just have to be in favor of these DEI programs in K through 12 and college campuses.
	I think training and preparing young kids for the world in front of them, which is a very diverse one, is really important.
	Do I think that the systems that are being employed right now and the programs and some of the people are effective and the right ones?
	No.
	And that's absolute.
	So I think, again, two things, you know what, let's wrap this up with my last perspective.
	Two things can be true.
	We need to prepare kids better for their futures, and that means diversity understanding.
	But is the way we're doing it right now effective and correct?
	No, I think it's actually really bad.
	And I want to fix it.
	Thank you for being here.
	We got to run.
	I appreciate it.
	Dean Phillips, to be continued.
	All the best to you.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:00 Strict Law Application
00:14:20 Getting Away With It
00:17:04 President Compromised
00:31:31 Presidential Immunity Debate
00:48:01 Limited Outer Acts Immunity
00:53:07 Military Family Sacrifice
01:05:42 Toxic Political Stew
01:14:06 Need for Competition
01:21:54 Americans Reject Biden
01:27:47 Abortion Rights Values