All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 25, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show
01:37:48
20240125_kari-lake-on-the-bribe-attempt-plus-texas-vs-biden
|

Time Text
Texas Border Constitutional Crisis 00:02:46
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at least.
Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
We have a packed program for you today.
The Daily Wire's Andrew Clavin is here to weigh in on Texas in a showdown with the federal government over this wire at its border.
We are facing a constitutional crisis unlike any I have seen.
This thing is getting more and more charged as now the governors from all the southern states or most of them.
We've seen Governor DeSantis of Florida.
We've seen Governor Kemp of Georgia come out saying they stand with Texas as Governor Abbott of Texas says he will not be standing down.
We'll get into it in more detail.
You know that Texas has this barbed wire up.
They have another flotilla out in the waters trying to prevent the invasion, which they've declared as a matter of law through Governor Abbott, as the feds continue to snub their responsibilities under federal immigration law to protect Texas and the citizenry beyond from the invasion of illegals coming across the southern border in record numbers now for the better part of a year, more than a year.
And they tried.
Texas has been left to do to take care of the matter by itself and it's trying to do something.
People are dying.
Not just the Texas citizens, but drug mules, young girls, they're raped.
I mean, the feds have just turned their eyes from this whole thing.
And now Texas does something to try to protect itself.
And what do the feds do?
They sue Texas, saying you're not allowed to interfere.
And Texas's response has been, you have to help.
It's your legal responsibility.
And if you won't do it, we have rights too.
We have rights to protect our citizens from an invasion.
And that's actually written right into the Constitution.
Now there's a Supreme Court ruling saying we are lifting the lower court injunction that stopped the feds from cutting down that wire.
So the feds have been given a green light by SCODIS to cut it down.
And Texas Governor Abbott so far has said he stands prepared to not allow that.
Now that hasn't happened yet.
So so far, there's been no express or explicit flouting of the Supreme Court order.
And Biden has not yet sent anybody down there to cut down that wire.
But if he does, I don't know what's going to happen.
We're watching it very closely.
We're trying to get Dershowitz on for some legal analysis here because truly we're in for something over the coming days and we want to prepare ourselves and you for it.
Powerful People Want Us to Win 00:15:12
So we'll talk about it politically with Andrew.
We're trying to get Dershu Itan to join us with the legalities of it.
But we're going to start today with a political story that everyone is talking about.
Earlier this week, something bizarre happened.
An audio recording was leaked to the Daily Mail.
Now on this recording, you hear the head of Arizona's Republican Party apparently trying to bribe Carrie Lake, who had run for governor, you recall, and was contesting what had happened with her in that race, but clearly had set her sights on running for Senate.
She wants to run for U.S. Senate in Arizona and now is.
And you can hear this guy apparently trying to bribe her to drop out of the state of the U.S. Senate race.
I mean, it's pretty clear.
Ms. Lake is, of course, a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump.
And two years ago, she came into national prominence as she ran for governor and dazzled most of us with her contentious exchanges with the media and made a national name for herself.
So now she's moving on to the Senate race.
Again, I'm going to play you about a four to five minute excerpt of this call.
We never do this on the show.
We don't run soundbites that long, but you have to hear this.
Carrie Lake is here listening.
All right.
She's going to join us on the back end of this.
What you're about to hear is the Arizona GOP party chairman, Jeff DeWitt, talking to Carrie Lake about how someone back east wants her to drop out and is willing to pay her big money to do it, trying to probe how much it will take to get her out and someone else in.
Who?
Someone who can be controlled?
Someone who's not MAGA?
Someone who will do this imaginary sort of party boss.
I mean, there is somebody.
Even DeWitt seems to be admitting this is not a made-up thing to do that person's bidding.
Who?
Again, we're going to listen to an excerpt of this long call, and Carrie Lake will be on right after.
The recordings, it's extraordinary.
Take a listen.
This is back east.
There are very powerful people who don't want to keep you out.
No, they do.
But they're willing to put their money where their mouth is in a big way.
So, this conversation never happened.
This is crazy, though.
They should want me.
I'm a great candidate.
People love me.
These people are corrupt.
If you say no, which is fine.
It's your choice.
Don't tell people.
They're going to try to have me murdered.
So what's going on?
Who is it?
What?
Forget the who.
Let me just tell you what.
Let's just say there are people calling around saying, gosh, no, you can't beat this.
Never repeat this.
If you say no, don't.
You say, I got offered to buy out.
Don't talk to me.
Here's my problem.
Rather than just say, let's work with her, she's a great candidate because they don't own me.
And it pisses me off.
Yeah, it's not just about ownership.
It's about control.
I don't know if it's about control.
It's about being on the team.
But if they're pushing a globalist agenda, I can't do that.
So what do they want?
What do they want me to do?
You want to stay out for two years.
But, I'll tell you what I got to do.
I said, you original talking head isn't it?
So the ask of me was, it's kind of fun.
So the ask I got today from back east was, this is hesitant.
Is there any companies out there or something that could just put her on the payroll and give her, to keep her out?
And I said, well, what do you want to do?
Whatever you need to do.
This is about defeating Trump.
And I think that's a bad, bad thing for our country.
DeSantis is not America First.
This is about the final death blow to Trump.
And I don't think that's good for our country.
I love her.
I mean, I love her.
It's not good for our country, Jeff.
I think what it really comes down to for a lot of people, it's not really about control or agenda.
It's about the ability to raise money to work.
If you really want to know all of both of those, all of us are not going to be, I think.
And even on their end, what makes them the most money?
I know.
All these consultants don't want their payday to end.
And I don't want to make a deal with these kind of people.
This is a hill worth dying on.
I am not, if they're going to steal the election to make me and our movement go away, I'm not letting them do that.
I owe it to the people of Arizona.
Or to carry their torch and their voice.
You don't go away, but you pause.
This is the battles right now, Jeff.
And you tell your cautious.
No, the battle is right now.
It's a backspring club.
That's all DC is.
It's a big backspring club.
You're in no position to scratch anybody's back, and you've already made it known that if you get the United States, he's back.
Where are we in two years if they steal the election again?
Listen to what you're saying.
Why don't we do something about it?
So that we the people can pick our what can we do?
I'm not willing to accept that.
Then I'm going to be the biggest pain in these people.
Go back and tell them that.
I'm running, and I'm going to be the biggest pain in their and I'm willing to tell them that.
And they're going to have to kill me to stop me.
I know, I know.
Look.
You don't have to tell them that, but I don't think they will.
I don't think that's the way they are.
I'm offended by whoever these people are that they're trying to buy me out.
You should be honored.
But I'm offended that there's people back there who just don't give a about our country.
Do you understand though?
You should be honored.
That means they know how powerful you are.
Just to say.
Is there a number at which I can be bought?
That's what it's about.
You can take a pause for a couple years.
No.
No.
10 million, 20 million, 30.
No, no, no.
A billion?
No.
This is not about money.
This is about our country.
I don't want to deal with people like this.
These people are un-American.
And I think they're unethical.
And I would be absolutely immoral if I did that.
Again.
That's immoral.
I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I, you know.
It's just, it's very powerful people that are willing to, they really want someone different.
They want new names, whatever it is.
I love you, but I got to get working.
All right.
I appreciate it.
I mean, I'm just...
I can't believe it.
I think you should go public with this and then say, hey, these people don't want to.
They don't want their...
I turn my key in my car and it goes.
I'm offended that they don't care about our country more.
I actually wish you'd just give me a counter offer this big.
Give me a counter.
I can't.
I can't be bought.
Come on.
Wow.
Carrie Lake joins me now.
Carrie, so good to have you on again.
This is unbelievable.
Every time I hear it, it's shocking.
And I've heard it several times.
And it just, I feel like the blood drains out of my body every time I hear it.
I mean, just so the audience knows to kick it off, you are running.
You did not pull yourself out of any race.
And you're doing very well for right now trying to get the primary win so you can run as the Republican candidate out there.
And you're crushing it at the moment.
So the latest poll shows me six points up, Megan.
So I think that's, we're doing pretty well.
And this was, this conversation happened in my home 11 months ago.
So this was people, powerful people back east trying to prevent me from getting into the U.S. Senate race.
And honest to God, it's one of the reasons I said I have to jump into it.
If these people back east, if these powerful people are going to try to bribe me out of politics, that tells me that I need to jump in with both feet.
And that's one of the reasons I ultimately decided I have to do this.
One of the interesting things on there to me is what, you know, what can we do with her?
Talking head.
Is there some company that would take her?
I mean, it's like that you used to be a news anchor.
We talked about that when you came on before.
They thought maybe we can just station her someplace as a talk.
I mean, does that tell you anything about who is making the offer?
Because my understanding is you don't know who was behind the money.
I don't know who is.
And I've thought about it many, many times.
The sad thing, Megan, is you could sit and ponder for 24 hours and probably come up with a list of 400 corrupt people or entities or maybe even more.
It could be anyone.
The whole Washington, D.C. swamp is so corrupt.
So I don't know who it is.
You know, I've had my suspicions here and there, but I really don't know.
And you wonder how many other people get this offer.
You wonder why good people don't get into politics because maybe the minute they step in, they get a meeting like this and they decide to step back out.
It's disturbing.
We've heard about this kind of stuff happening.
I will be honest, when it happened, it was so surreal.
And I was in a hurry because I was finishing up my book, finishing the edits on my book.
I know you've been there before and you have, you're under deadline.
And I was getting ready to pack for CPAC where I was going to go and be a keynote speaker there.
And so I shooed him out of the house and I got on the plane later on and I was thinking about what I wanted to talk about at CPAC.
And, you know, many times during this conversation, he said, this conversation never happened.
Don't talk about it.
Don't say anything about it.
And I said, I have to say something about this.
So I changed my speech the next day at CPAC and I brought this up immediately.
So I've been talking about this conversation for 11 full months.
I didn't name who it was that came to my home, but I in very, very good and sharp detail described what happened.
And the mainstream media never once contacted me and said, hey, what was that about?
Who was behind that?
This is just, you know, they're so in cahoots with the swamp back in DC, the mainstream media is.
And that's why we're lucky to have independent people like you out there where we can get information and trust it.
Well, it's shocking to see how the wheels turn behind the scenes, how you were apparently deemed unacceptable by someone, someone with a deep pocket who had a connection to Jeff DeWitt, who was running Arizona's GOP party.
And to the point where they got him to go to you and say, hey, would you take a bunch of money to get out?
Now, who was this person?
What other candidates did they buy right out of the races?
Were they all MAGA candidates who said yes?
And you can guarantee it didn't stop with just you.
And it really, like I just said yesterday, I'm not much for like conspiratorial.
There's a cabal of people who made the decision to do all the indictments.
I don't know.
But this is exactly the kind of thing that makes you think maybe there is.
Some of these conspiracy theories have come true in the past few years, as we've all seen.
You know, it's just so shocking because here Jeff DeWitt, by the way, he resigned yesterday, was leading up the Republican Party here.
I endorsed him and I was looking forward to having some good leadership out of him.
And he takes the candidate who is the most popular Republican in the state, myself.
There had been several polls coming out on the U.S. Senate race, possible contenders who might run.
And every single one of them had me not only winning, but beating everybody and going on to win in a general.
And every single one of them showed me where nobody could even come close to beating me.
So you would think that the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party would say, oh my gosh, we have to convince her to run because then the people come out.
I'm a populist.
We bring the people out.
We're going to get out and vote and we're going to have a huge, huge election.
But he did just the opposite, which tells me, you know, maybe he's bought and paid for as well.
Why would you want the most popular Republican in the state to not be on the ballot in a critical year like 2024?
I have a lot of questions about why.
So it's interesting.
You're right.
Jeff DeWitt then resigned.
And right now, as far as I can tell, he's kind of claiming that he was a victim here.
He's saying she was a friend.
I was employing her when she did this to me.
She breached her fiduciary duty to me as my employee, which is not Jeff, the way it works.
Which I'm not his employee.
Yeah, that's not how.
And then he says the following.
He says, this offer had everything to do with her being a drag on the ticket.
There are people who want to make sure we win the election and that's it.
No one believes she can get across the finish line, particularly with independents.
I definitely felt like we were in a better position of trust because of all I had done for her.
I'm blown away.
She had no respect for that at all.
So what do you make of that?
He wrote a two-page resignation letter, and I never heard an apology for this incredibly unethical, hinging almost on criminal behavior.
Never an apology to the people of Arizona.
It was a two-page diatribe manifesto.
It's almost like he's delusional to think that was creative editing.
I put 10, almost 11 minutes of this bribe out, and I don't know how you could edit that any difference.
I laid it out what he said.
And so I don't know how that could be taken out of context.
It's exactly what he said.
And he never even apologized for that behavior.
I'm embarrassed, actually.
I'm truly embarrassed for him.
And that he was trying to say, this is kind of normal business talk.
This is kind of how you get deals made.
I've been in business and I've been in, I've got lots of friends.
He was saying this was a friendly conversation.
I've got lots of friends.
I've never had a conversation like that.
And I'm sure, Megan, you have thousands upon thousands of people who own businesses, work in business, who listen to you every day, who heard that and would say that they would never, ever have a conversation like that in any way in business.
And I don't know anywhere, anybody who thinks that's normal.
Back Scratching in Politics 00:03:17
I'm just going to take.
I mean, it was explicit.
How much is it going to take to make you accountable?
You're going to drive the people of a choice who's very, very popular in the state.
And as for his concern about how you would do with independence, I mean, the latest polling, including by the Democrat election firms, are showing you're either in the lead or right behind.
I mean, it's very tight.
Looking past the primary, I'm saying you're definitely leading in the primary.
But looking at the general, this is not a case where, oh, the Republican has no chance.
You know, we need to get the most moderate Republican we can possibly.
It's not that case.
You could very well win this race if nominated, according to the polls out this month.
So it does make you wonder what was really behind it and whether it was more your alignment, as you were suggesting in the conversation with Trump.
I think that's exactly what it is.
The polling, our internal polling and several polls I've seen, especially even polls that came out after the election show that I'm the most popular Republican candidate with independence.
I mean, you have to remember, I was in the homes of Arizonans for 27 years, three hours a day in their living rooms.
And, you know, I was in Democrats' homes and independents.
And not a week goes by that I don't have Democrats come up to me and say, I voted for you.
You're the first Republican I ever voted for.
And I don't have extreme policies.
My policies are policies that Democrats and independents want.
You ask any Democrat and independent right now, do you want the border secure?
They're going to say yes.
Do you want safe streets where you can actually, especially here in Arizona, enjoy our weather, go for a bike ride, take a hike and not have to worry about the crime that's skyrocketing?
We have policies to make sure that all Arizonans are safe, policies to make sure that our kids go to school and get a world-class education where they're actually ready for the jobs that are out there.
So, you know, policies for energy independence, once again, like President Trump brought us.
The people of Arizona want those common sense policies.
So I don't know what it's about.
I think it truly is about getting somebody in there that they control.
You know, I'm not sure if this one talked about the back scratching.
He said DC is a back scratching club.
And you've already indicated you're not going to scratch backs.
Yeah, I'm not.
I'm not joining the back scratching club.
I'm going to start up the ass kicking club.
And that's what Washington, D.C. needs.
The fact that, Megan, these people in D.C. have done nothing to secure our border when for the last few years we've had an invasion on our border.
I mean, this is a dereliction.
You know what's interesting, Carrie?
You said invasion early on, and I remember you got a lot of guff about it.
And now we have an actual official declaration to that extent by the floor, by the Texas governor, Greg Abbott.
And as I said at the top of the hour, it's turning into a serious constitutional crisis down there because of the non-enforcement by the feds.
A lot of the things that you said that you got negative coverage on have come back actually to bear out.
The election denialism is what sort of party elders didn't like.
But I will say this.
Most of the Republican Party agrees with you, whether it's factually true or not.
Most of the Republican Party agrees with where you landed on it.
I don't want to get back into all that, but let me ask you this.
Edited Tapes and Threats 00:06:13
Well, and I will tell you this real quickly.
Independents are concerned about how our elections are run.
60 plus percent of independents are concerned about fairness and honesty in our elections.
And a growing number, more than 30% now of Democrats say something's not right.
And all I will say is I am pushing to make sure that all voters, whether they're the most liberal Arizonan, the most conservative, they're with the Republican Party, the Democrat and Independent Party, the Pizza Party or the Pool Party, whatever you are.
I want you to know that when you vote, you can feel comfortable and confident that your one legal vote counted.
So that's where we want to get.
I won't belabor the issue, but I'm still working to achieve that.
Good.
I mean, everyone should agree on that.
Okay, a couple more things from his statement, which is very lengthy and people can find online, but he says it was selectively edited audio of a private conversation.
Now, is that true?
Was it edited in any way other than for time?
Or like, what did you edit it?
It was edited.
Excuse me, I've got a frog in my throat.
It was edited just to include this part about the bribe.
I thought that was the newsworthy part.
So you cut off a chunk.
So that the chunk that we listened to, not what we just played.
We edited that just to get the most salient points.
But what you posted online.
Yeah, the part you put up was a, I think Benny Johnson kind of edited it down, kind of edited it down.
We did that.
The clip about the bribe was about, I don't know, 10 or 11 minutes.
And, you know, I had to move him out of my house quickly.
As I said, I had a lot going on.
I was under a deadline with my book.
I was trying to.
So you weren't taking like one line of his and then slicing it and putting in a different response of yours.
You know, that's what's dishonest selective editing, as you know.
Right.
No, that's not how it was.
I just took the bribe part and said, this is what's worthy.
This is the reason we have an unethical person and people need to hear this.
And people need to hear.
I don't know how you could cut it out.
I don't know how you could selectively.
I mean, he said what he said.
This isn't like you pulled one sentence here.
Were you taping?
He had called me.
He had called me and said, hey, what are you up to?
And I said, well, I'm at home.
I'm just, you know, I'm busy working.
He said, I'm right around the corner.
I'm just outside of your neighborhood.
And I got to come over and talk to you.
And at the time I had been talking and there had been some word that I was thinking of getting in the Senate race.
A lot of polling had come out showing that nobody could beat me and that we had a real shot at taking back the Senate seat.
And there were some people who were trying to talk me out of it.
Some of the non-MAGA type people don't want a MAGA person in Washington, D.C.
And so I said, Jeff, if this is about talking me out of the Senate, I don't have to, I don't have time for this.
No, no, no, no, I got to come over.
I just, what I have to tell you, I cannot do on the phone.
I have to do it in person.
I got to talk to you about something you need to hear and offer.
You got to hear it.
And I thought, this is weird.
So he's right around the corner.
I said, okay, you can come over right now.
And I put a microphone on and I thought this could be a threat.
I don't know what he's about to say, but it gave me great concern.
You ever get just like a feeling in your stomach where you just go, something's not right here.
And I'm sure glad I did.
I'm sure glad I did.
I thought you know what's funny to me.
I have to tell you, Carrie, what's funny to me is you hear he's now indignant that you taped him in this, you know, so-called private conversation.
Yeah.
At no point did the light bulb, because he's like, she tried to make herself the hero of her own story to make herself sound good as she taped me.
It's like, hello.
At some point, the light bulb should have gone off for you, sir, that you were having an inappropriate conversation and she wasn't taking your bait at all.
I think he's disappointed that at no point did he think to say, oh, gee, this is not a bribe.
This is just a friendly offer to what, you know, whatever.
Right.
So he's now saying that.
Well, and you know, and to be honest, because he's, I'll give you the floor, but he's saying he's quitting because you, you said you have more tapes and he doesn't want to be further embarrassed.
Is that true?
Are there more tapes?
He's saying that we threatened him with that.
That threat, there's never that threat made at all.
I know he's concerned because he's been taped before.
I mean, this isn't the first time this guy has been taped.
If you go online and I just saw somebody made me aware of it yesterday, there's a bunch of other recordings out there that sound just like Jeff trying to bribe other people.
There's a recording of him in a conversation where he's slamming President Trump.
I mean, you'd think that this guy would learn after all these other recordings of him in the past where he's putting his foot in his mouth or being completely unethical that he should probably shape up the way he talks and the things he says to people.
So he's obviously, he's obviously worried that there's more out there.
And, you know, he's basically saying, I'm resigning.
He's saying I'm resigning because there's worse stuff out there.
Well, he's worried you have it.
He says that you, you threaten him.
You have other conversations of so-called private conversations.
And that's, he's asking.
I don't have any other, I don't have any other recordings.
I've never taped any other recordings with Jeff at all.
I've never.
This is the only reason I taped this is because it sounded highly suspect when he said, I've got to come over.
I'm right outside your neighborhood.
I'm pulling in and I have to talk to you in person because what I have to say cannot be said over the phone.
I don't know about you, but a huge red flag comes up when you hear that.
And I thought, what on earth?
I felt like I was in an episode of House of Cards.
What on earth is going to happen here?
And I never even listened back to it until last this week, earlier this week.
Yeah, so that's my other question.
What made you release it now?
Well, I went to CPAC, as I said, and I spoke about this immediately.
I changed my entire speech.
I said, people need to hear what just happened to me.
This is the kind of crazy stuff happening in our government and in our politics.
And so I went and spoke at CPAC a day or two later.
I decided to completely change my speech and tell the audience about this because it's so, it's so terrible.
And I have been talking about this for the last 11 months nonstop.
I do speeches all over the country.
I do talks to small groups, big groups.
I've brought this up too many times to count and no media outlets even asked me about it.
Keeping People Coming In 00:14:50
It's really a shame.
But just this week, I don't know why.
I just said, I wonder, I never listened to that back.
I wonder what that conversation sounded like.
And I was sitting at the dinner table.
My daughter, who's 20, was sitting there and my husband.
And I pulled that up and I hit play while we were eating dinner and our jaws dropped to the table.
We were shocked.
I remembered it.
I described it in all these speeches, but it was so much worse, Megan, than I even remembered it.
And my daughter said, mom.
Tell me that guy is no longer in Republican politics.
I said, oh, yeah, he is.
He's actually running the Arizona Republican Party.
And she said, what are you going to do about it?
You have to do something about it.
That guy's, that's bad if that's the way he conducts business.
That's bad, mom.
What are you going to do about it?
And I said, I don't know.
I don't know.
And I slept on it for a couple of days and just kept getting that kind of nagging feeling in my stomach.
And I felt that it needed to get out.
He's gone now.
And I don't know who's taking over for him, but you've got your sights set on bigger things.
I've got to ask you, as we do the VEEP stakes chats, as President Trump secures this nomination, your name comes up a lot.
Is that a different job you might be interested in?
You know, I'm really interested in helping to turn this country around.
And we have such an opportunity here in Arizona to take back a U.S. Senate seat.
Megan, you know how big of a deal that is.
The U.S. Senate is so important.
We can't have Chuck Schumer.
Right now there's a Dem and there's an independent Mark Kelly and Kirsten Sinema.
Keep going.
Yeah.
And so we have a chance to take back the Senate seat from Kirsten Sinema, who's changed and become an independent.
And since she became an independent, she's become more liberal.
And she's voted with Chuck Schumer 100% of the time.
She's the one working on this terrible border deal that's going to include the U.S. taxpayer paying for attorneys for all of these people seeking fraudulent asylum claims here and wants to keep everybody here and give them work permits and doesn't want to build the wall.
So she doesn't, I don't believe she's got a snowball's chance in Phoenix of winning.
So we have a great opportunity to pick up this seat.
I think the Senate's really, really important.
I want to help.
I envision myself in January of 2025 standing on the Senate floor during the inauguration and then getting to work in Washington, D.C.
I want to help President Trump in any way because I think he is the greatest president.
He's the man for the moment that we're in in history.
And he's the only one who will stand up to the corruption.
That's why they hate President Trump, the people back east.
That's why they hate me because they don't want people who are honest brokers who are going to D.C., who can't be bought and can't be bribed.
So, you know, I do believe that President Trump is so good and such a great president.
He doesn't really matter who his VP is.
And I know that our movement has so many great fighters.
He will pick somebody great.
And whomever he picks, I'm going to get in line and vote for.
And I can't wait to support him.
So you don't mind if it's, because there's a lot of Trump MAGA folks who would say hard no on someone like Nikki Haley.
Do you share that feeling?
Yeah, I do.
I think that's pretty, that's pretty obvious.
I mean, she's not even a Republican, and she's sitting here and just saying horrible things about President Trump.
She's losing, but staying in the race, forcing all of this money and energy to continue to drag out her vanity project, her ego trip.
And we are because of that, hundreds of millions have been spent on ads for people who don't have a shot at winning.
When we have an incredible candidate and President Trump who's done the job, all of our lives were better when he was in the White House.
And he's got a plan to turn this nightmare around.
The guy brought us, you know, peace in the Middle East.
He brought us a strong energy policy where we're energy dominant.
I mean, I can go on.
I know we're up against it.
I got to ask you about the border crisis that we're facing now.
Arizona is also a border state.
This is a crisis that is building by the moment right now between Texas and the feds.
How do you see it?
Well, and not to toot my own horn, because I don't, I'm not trying to be boastful, but I was calling warning, warning about this two years ago when I put out the strongest, most bold border plan, which says if the government fails the guarantee clause in protecting the U.S. citizens, Article 4, Section 4, from invasion, then the states have the right to protect their citizen, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.
Our people are in imminent danger.
Time is of the essence and we're being invaded.
And I called for doing exactly what Governor Abbott is doing and then some.
And nobody wanted to listen except the people of Arizona.
They said that's exactly what we want at our border.
I'm happy that Greg Abbott is doing that.
I was suggesting he do it earlier, but hey, better late than never.
And it's just shocking that our federal government is so tyrannical and so corrupt that they're spending every energy they can trying to stop states from protecting their citizens from this invasion.
You know, we've just, our government has gone full rotten to the core between fighting Texas from trying to protect their citizens.
And by the way, when they're protecting their citizens, they're protecting all of us because fentanyl is pouring across, people are pouring across.
And then they're also at the same time, the federal government is going after President Trump.
It's just, it's frightening the times that we're in.
And I think they need to stand their ground.
They need to stand their ground and don't budge one inch in Texas.
If I could go over to Texas and help protect that border myself, I would.
And I know there are millions of Americans who feel the same way.
Millions of Americans who want to stand strong and protect the border of this great nation.
Otherwise, we won't have a country much longer.
Well, using the bully pulpit and running for office are two great ways of helping too.
Carrie Lake, a pleasure to see you again.
Thank you so much for coming on.
Thank you so much for having me on.
And thanks for the work you do, Megan.
We are so appreciative of truthful journalists that are out there.
You know, this is, we've got so many people putting out lies and opinion, and you put out the truth.
And we need you and we thank you for what you do.
Oh, I appreciate it.
All the best to you and good luck.
Thank you so much.
All right.
Wow.
Unbelievable story.
Isn't that unbelievable?
It's crazy to actually hear it, you know, for yourself, what goes on behind closed doors in trying to decide who we get to vote on, who we get to vote on.
Sorry, Jeff, did not work out.
By the way, if you want to come on and offer your side of the story, you're welcome here, sir.
I understand you may have some time on your hands.
We'll be right back with Andrew Clavin.
The fight between the state of Texas and the Biden administration is escalating.
And how?
As Texas continues to deploy razor wire at the border in an attempt to prevent migrants from crossing.
Governor Greg Abbott has issued a lengthy statement saying the executive branch has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting states, including immigration laws.
And in his words, the quote, refusal to protect the states has inflicted unprecedented harm, End quote.
My next guest is Andrew Clavin.
He's hosted the Andrew Clavin Show on the Daily Wire.
He also has a new substack with his equally brilliant son, Spencer Clavin.
It's called the New Jerusalem, which we'll get to in just a bit.
Andrew, welcome back to the show.
Great to have you.
Good to see you, Megan.
So it's getting very tense at the southern border with Governor Abbott accusing President Biden of violating his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws, saying that he instructed agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegals, and that he's done things like enticed illegals away from legal entry points into dangerous waters of the Rio Grande and so on,
saying you flouted your responsibility under the federal immigration law, and then adding that under Carrier Lake just referenced it, Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the feds have an obligation to protect the states against invasion, and the states have a sovereign interest in protecting their own borders.
In other words, it's on and basically daring Biden to go down there, as Supreme Court just green lit them to do it, to go down there and cut those wires, to cut that wire fence.
The Biden administration got the green light the other day from SCOTUS to do it, Monday, I think it was.
So far they haven't, Andrew.
But if they go down there and Texas stops them, like, I don't know what's going to happen, but we truly are facing a constitutional crisis right now.
Your thoughts on that?
Oh, no question it's a crisis, but good for Abbott for basically blowing up the narrative of the left, of the Biden administration and the left, because they keep blaming Republicans for this.
They keep saying the border is secure.
They say it's not secure, but it's fine.
And their basic argument always is that you're a bad person if you don't like homeless people living on your streets, if you don't like people breaking into your country, if you don't like high crime when these criminals are such poor, mistreated people.
You're a bad person for not liking those things.
And they're just blowing that up.
First by sending all of these migrants into leftist cities, so, you know, that Boston is keeping them at the airport and New York is filling up their hotels.
And also now by showing that not only is the Biden administration not securing the border, it's stopping Texas from securing the border.
And it is a genuine constitutional crisis because a lot of people on the right were angry at the Supreme Court for knocking down the lower court's order that they couldn't remove, that the feds couldn't remove the barbed wire.
But back in the day when Trump was in office, the right was arguing that the president had complete control of border law and that anything that he wanted to do by executive order was thereby illegal.
So it really, it really was not the Supreme Court's fault.
I think there really is an open question.
Abbott is making a terrific argument.
He's making the argument that not only the Constitution, but just the social contract, the reason we turn over our freedoms and our rights, some of our freedoms and our rights to a government is because they promised to protect us.
They promised to protect us, our property.
They promised to protect our lives.
And the federal government is failing to do that.
And they're openly failing to do that.
This is a throwback to the Obama administration's decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, the idea that our legislators have the power to pass a law, but the president can just say, no, I'm not going to enforce it, which basically makes him the king.
If you can basically throw away a law, you become the king.
And so everything that the Biden administration is doing seems to me a violation of the rule of law.
I think Governor Abbott has the better of the constitutional argument, but he's also got a much better narrative going now.
He's showing the people who are very concerned, according to the polls, about our open border, as they should be.
He's showing the people that the Biden administration is not doing its basic job of keeping us safe, of keeping the state uninvaded.
And I just think he's winning this argument hands down.
He is winning the argument.
That's the thing.
So the Supreme, what happened was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction saying to the feds, keep out.
You cannot go mess with Texas except under very limited circumstances, emergency circumstances.
You cannot cut down the razor wire.
And the Supreme Court lifted that injunction that had been placed on the feds.
So the feds are now free to go try to cut down border wire.
And Texas, I mean, what Governor Abbott is saying is we're going to build more, which he can do.
That actually doesn't flout the Supreme Court order.
But if he prevents the feds from cutting down the wire, then he's potentially in violation of the Supreme Court order.
And so like they've got to be very careful about not flouting the order, like not doing anything to get themselves in any legal, like right now they haven't done anything unlawful at all.
And keep the argument on the merits of who's got the obligation.
Does Texas's ability as written into the Constitution to protect itself against invasion trump these federal immigration statutes that the Biden administration is saying it has the right to enforce and only it has the right to enforce?
You know, the Constitution does Trump a federal statute.
So like we're kind of ramping it up on who's got the prior claim.
This is, well, we'll talk about it with Dershowitz.
But to your point, as long as Abbott has a legal leg to stand on, he's winning in every other way.
The PR war is on.
And if Biden is forced to send agents down there, Andrew, to cut down those wires, every news organization in the country will be forced to send a camera and to air it, and it will stay on loop between now and November.
This is the brilliant part of it, because everything that the Biden administration has done up till now has been, or at least has seemed to be passive.
They don't have to do anything to open the border.
They keep saying send us more money because we need more border agents.
But all they do with the border agents is process people into the country.
So the more money we send them, the more we're actually aiding this invasion, which is ridiculous.
But this is an active thing that they have to do.
They have to basically say, we want these borders open.
And once again, even if they do that, even if Biden somehow takes over the National Guard, which he has some right to do, you know, in terms of history, he has some right to do that.
He's actually taking the action that says, I want these people pouring into the country.
Nobody but the farthest people on the left want people pouring into the country.
We've never had it before.
It can't be done.
It's especially bad now that we have a government and an establishment, not just the government, but our entire cultural establishment that doesn't really believe in America, so isn't in favor of assimilation.
So you not only have people coming in, you have more people coming in that could be assimilated.
Plus you have this massive establishment calling us racist, saying we're systemically racist, saying our history is awful.
Our statues should be torn down.
So there's no way to assimilate these people and teach them to become potentially good citizens.
They've got the entire system rigged to overturn what has been an incredibly successful nation.
I don't think that that is a majority idea in any way, in any manner of means.
And it's jet fuel for Donald Trump.
I mean, basically the guy who's been saying build the wall all this time.
Biden Could Lose the Election 00:02:01
It makes him look great.
Well, that's a lot of people have been asking the question.
Does Biden know he's running against Trump?
Like, does he know Trump is going to be his opponent?
he seems to be doing everything possible to play right into Trump's strongest hand.
Well, on the one hand, it does seem to me that Trump is still in some ways the weakest opponent he could have in the general election because of the way he offends independents and suburban women.
And that's just numbers.
That has nothing to do with anything but the numbers.
But at the same time, Biden now has a popularity rating, I think, of six guys in Delaware who used to know him.
I mean, I don't know who is in favor of this administration anymore.
So now you've got the real possibility that maybe Trump can't win, but maybe Biden could lose.
And so this strategy that they've had that people hate MAGA and they've managed to demonize MAGA so much, you know, may not work.
It may backfire.
There's a really interesting thing going on in the country right now, which is people are starting to wake up to the hysteria of the media, this full court press.
I mean, you can watch, just for laughs, you can sit back and watch these supercuts of the media talking about what Trump will do in their imagination if he becomes president again.
You know, he could shoot his wife over office and get away with it.
He could, you know, he's going to send us all to gitmo.
He's going to arrest all his opponents and all this stuff.
And Trump loves this stuff because it makes them look like idiots and he can even play into it.
And the more he gets them excited, the stupider they look.
But even Jonathan Chait, a hyper-liberal, a big supporter of Biden, a hater of Trump in New York magazine.
So people are getting tired of this.
They're just exhausted by the hysteria and the fact that the hysteria just isn't true.
I mean, Donald Trump can be a very offensive character.
His manner is off-putting to many, many people, but his policies are center-right at most.
They're really center-right and center-left.
So when you start to look at his policies and you start to think, well, you know, he did a better job as president than Biden.
Davos and Offensive Policies 00:04:06
That's A.
I mean, I could do a better job as president than Biden, and I can't even balance a checkbook.
But he did do a better job than Biden.
And his policies are just not that offensive to really anybody.
And that's coming through to people.
It's a really interesting moment.
People are waking up in a lot of ways to this leftist idea that somehow we're bad guys if we disagree with their crummy policies.
The problem for Biden on this immigration thing is the country's mood has changed.
And I understand Democrat Inc. is pro-open borders, period.
But real live Democrats living in various cities have had it, right?
Like you're seeing that lawsuit in Chicago where they're pushing back against the illegals taking over.
The Illinois governor openly begging for mercy on Governor Abbott sending all the illegals up there.
The New York mayor, who's been Chicago mayor, who is begging for it, and the Illinois governor both saying that they need a reprieve.
And then over in New York, you've got Mayor Adams, who's been out there openly saying, we can't take anymore.
The city is going to implode.
These are Democrats who I just can't get past if there is a visual of the feds not just not enforcing, but actively opening.
I mean, there was a Babylon B headline the other day saying the Biden administration takes down razor wires to roll out red carpet for illegals, right?
That's going to be the metaphor going into November.
Well, you know what was really interesting?
They recently had that ridiculous thing in Davos, the World Economic Forum, which is the, you know, that's basically the headquarters of globalism.
That's the place where they're going to solve all our problems by the sheer brilliance of their own minds.
And they're not going to take into account national borders.
National borders are a thing of the past and all this.
If you look back a couple of years ago, the name of the Davos meeting was the great reset.
They were going to use COVID.
They were going to reset everything.
All this stuff we had about morality and nationalism and old-fashioned belief in God, all that stuff is all going to go away because they were going to deem it gone.
They were just going to eradicate it from their height in Switzerland.
This year's Davos meeting was called Trying to Win Back Trust because they've messed up everything they touched.
You know, it's like this COVID thing came up and everything they did was wrong.
And it's like, please trust us again.
But it never occurs to them that in order to get trust, you have to be trustworthy.
But there were a lot of people, including Obama's old pal, Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan.
There were a lot of people who stood up at Davos and said, you know, you keep demonizing Donald Trump, but he was right about a lot of things.
The head of the Heritage Foundation did it best, where he just got up and he said, you know, China, immigration, transgenderism, these are things that the right is right about.
And we have to start thinking about that.
And it wasn't just one person or two people.
It was a lot of people who were saying the same thing.
These guys have been humiliated, A, by their own incompetence, but B, after a while, you know, we're not living in a three-network media situation anymore.
We're living in an open information age.
And especially with Elon Musk taking over Twitter, but even beyond that, news spreads.
You know, we start to find out that the things that were called conspiracy theories were true.
We start to find out that the things we were told by the people we were supposed to trust in the government were false.
And they keep coming back and using these terms, conspiracy theories and far-right people.
And we just think, well, far-right people are just us.
It's just normal people who want things to go the way that they successfully have gone.
You know, this is still, if you get out of New York, if you get out of Washington, D.C., this is still an incredibly tolerant country.
This is a country where people marry across racial borders, where they live together in perfect harmony, or if not perfect harmony, at least human harmony.
And the fact that they keep telling us how evil we are just doesn't mesh with the people that we know.
I mean, I know a lot of Democrats who are sitting there scratching their heads and saying, you know, I don't agree with this.
The only thing I know is that I can't stand Trump.
Journalism Is Collapsing 00:04:37
Well, that's not going to take, that's not going to last forever.
Ultimately, policies matter and policies do change people's minds.
And people are just tired of being told they're a bad person if they don't let them tear down the country.
Yeah, they may not like Trump.
I don't think many of those people are thinking, but I really love that Joe Biden.
If you're diehard Dem, you feel that way.
But I think a lot of the people you're referring to are like, they're also not feeling like they love him and certainly not Kamala Harris.
So in the end, if you really do have to hold your nose and vote for one or the other, you're going to vote for the one whose policies are going to improve your life.
That's Trump's advantage.
I recognize the polling on independence, which we've spent a lot of time talking about and will over the next year.
But that's the bet of the people who think Trump can win.
Stand by.
I want to get to one of the things you mentioned in particular, which is the collapse of so many of these dishonest media outlets.
Updates on that today.
Andrew stays with us.
Don't go away.
My guest today, Andrew Clavin, author of The House of Love and Death.
Andrew, speaking of death, the media is dying.
The mainstream media and these ridiculously untrustworthy outlets are going down left and right to the point where we need to talk about it.
So just today, Business Insider announced it's laying off 8% of its staff, which is considerable.
The Washington Post just had massive layoffs.
The LA Times announced a huge round of layoffs earlier this week.
One of the most severe in the newspapers, 142-year history.
CNN's reporting that it was 115 journalists.
More than 20% of the newsroom got the axe.
The Sports Illustrated essentially closed its doors last week.
And I could keep going.
All of this led to, this is like a legit problem.
I think it's a good, it's a, I mean, with all due respect to those who lost their jobs, I have empathy for them, but I do think the collapse of the mainstream media is not bad.
It's just desserts for the way that they cover the news, but it's led to some meltdowns by people who still think that they're at the top of the influence cycle and don't want to see any sort of consequences for the way these outlets have covered the news over the past few years, which brings me just for a little sampling to Taylor Lorenz, who switched from her COVID hysteria for a day to media hysteria.
A lot of what she says, not all, a lot of what she says here is true, but just take a listen.
Our journalism industry is basically in a free fall.
Today, the Los Angeles Times laid off 115 employees.
But what's really dark is this is just the latest in months and months and months of layoffs in the media industry.
In fact, tens of thousands of journalists have been laid off in the past year.
Pretty much the entire digital media ecosystem that myself and a lot of other millennial journalists came up in has been completely hollowed out.
And it's not just digital media sites.
Local news has been obliterated.
The newspaper industry is cratering.
Radio is essentially dead aside from NPR, which has been gutted.
Even mainstream national media outlets owned by billionaires like the Washington Post, where I work and The Atlantic, where I used to work, have done layoffs.
If you're a young journalist today, there's almost no on-ramp to traditional journalism.
Even if you do get a job, journalists' salaries have been stagnant and even declined.
And by the way, we don't make that much to begin with.
I don't think people understand how bad the world would be without journalists.
Well, I love my favorite part of it is radio aside from NPR is dead.
Like no clue that there is a huge and thriving right-wing radio ecosystem, SiriusXM thriving.
We're not close to closing our doors like some of the outlets that she, right?
So it's like, if Taylor doesn't listen to it, she's with WAPO.
It doesn't exist, Andrew.
But the larger zoomed out look is media is hurting.
It's endangered.
And there's a very good reason for it.
Your thoughts?
Well, that's exactly right.
I mean, I too hate to laugh at other people's misfortune, but I just can't help it.
I mean, my show, my podcast on Friday is entitled Die Sports Illustrated Die.
You know, I'm a real sports fan, a big NFL fan.
I loved Sports Illustrated.
Five years ago, I publicly canceled my subscription so publicly that they actually had to go on Hugh Hewitt's show to defend themselves, but they couldn't defend themselves except by attacking me.
Media Weakness and Standards 00:06:18
The reason was that at some moment, the thought enters these people's head that their reason for being journalists is not to report the news.
Their reason for being movie makers is not to make movies.
The reason for being TV people is not to entertain us.
No, it's to teach us their higher superior reality and teach us why we are not deserving until we raise ourselves to their moral standards.
Sports Illustrated, which 10, 15 years ago was still a terrific venue to find out about sports, started preaching A, about how George W. Bush was a terrible president, but B, about how God was a terrible God.
This was what caused me to cancel my subscription.
I don't care if you hate God.
I don't care if you attack God.
I care if you attack God when you're supposed to be telling me the score of the game.
That was your job.
Your job was to tell me about football.
And they started to tell me how these idiot sports guys are praying before a game and how awful that was.
And Drew Brees was talking about faith.
What could he possibly mean by that?
It was just absurd.
They moved on from that because you do move on from that.
It is logical once you get rid of God to get rid of all human standards because all human standards are based on our sense of reality, our sense of a spiritual reality, as well as a physical reality.
So once you get rid of God, all standards are gone.
So now they start putting on the annual swimsuit thing, which was basically a cheap sex thrill that they would send out to sports fans.
And you could look at very beautiful girls in very skimpy bathing suits.
And suddenly they put a... an overweight model on the front.
And we're supposed to all say, oh, now thank you for teaching us.
Instead of looking at a beautiful girl in a swimsuit, which is why I'm here, you are now teaching me that I have to really look at fat people in a new way.
And Jordan Peterson is being re-educated because God knows the one thing Jordan Peterson is lacking is education.
I mean, you know, read a book.
Read a book, Jordan.
He's being re-educated because he said, it's not pretty.
You're not pretty if you're pouring, you're so fat that you're pouring out of your bikini.
Nobody wants to be mean.
Nobody wants to pick on people, but you force people into this situation.
And the way the left has done this is by violating any human standard.
They force us to push back and say, no, a man can't become a woman.
No, a gay marriage is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman.
And then they get to call us bad guys.
They get to call us bigots.
And so once again, it's this idea that if you don't accept their complete distortion of reality, their complete reversal of the moral order, you are the bad guy.
And so watching them fall down, especially watching, I love watching the New York Times.
These are the small pleasures of life, Megan.
I love watching the New York Times cover these things without mentioning the woke factor.
Sports Illustrators is dying because it went woke.
The LA Times is dying because it's woke.
That's why Washington Post is dying too.
They're not dying because the internet was invented.
They're dying because they don't tell the truth.
And they don't tell the truth about anything, even the most basic things in life that we know, like a man can't become a woman.
I mean, that's only, that just happens to be the most obvious one.
But all of the things that they say and all of their standards are not human standards.
They're not the standards that have upheld us for thousands and thousands of years.
They're just nonsense.
And so people are turning them off and they deserve it.
And it's hard not to celebrate.
It is.
Just a quick note.
There was a reporter for The Guardian who tweeted out, a woman who tweeted out something to the effect of, you know, there's nobody, none of these, no women actually believe that the trans thing is impossible.
All real women are allies to the trans community.
There's just a couple, like a couple hundred trans phobes who claim to speak for women who are out there causing problems.
And then it was great because, of course, Twitter just unloaded on this reporter.
Like, you are so clueless.
You have no idea what you're talking about, right?
Like, because again, just like Taylor Lorenz, if I don't see it, it doesn't exist.
If I don't listen to anything other than NPR, it must not be out there.
Like, I guess Sean Hannity failed in radio.
Okay.
Keep telling yourself that, Taylor.
I guess Howard Stern, he's not getting any.
Okay.
You know, it's like there's a whole ecosystem that you might not be tapped into.
So anyway, the LA Times is a great example of this.
Their headlines that people have pulled in the wake of their layoffs are absolutely stunning.
Even I didn't realize how bad it was.
And I was reminded, first of all, one of the people who got laid off was Gene Guerrero, who is the person who wrote the Larry Elder is a white supremacist article.
Remember?
Larry Elder, just in case the audience doesn't know that.
He was running for governor at the time to take down Gavin Newsom.
And she thought it would be great to write a column about how he's the black face of white supremacy.
As she gets fired, she wants us to know, I was the only, only Latina columnist for the opinion desk.
Oh, no, the only Latina on the opinion desk.
Well, that should save you.
I mean, you're a Latinx, I guess you can't go.
But anyway, so a couple of the LA Times headlines were absolutely disgusting, as were the Washington Post.
Hold on, I'm pulling, yeah, LA Times.
Gonna read you a couple.
Okay.
White drivers are polluting the air breathed by LA's people of color.
Look at this.
This is courtesy of ex-user Kristen Magg.
Editorial, bring on the crackdown.
The unvaccinated must be held accountable.
Another one, column, mocking anti-vaxxers, COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes, but may be necessary.
They wonder why they are going out of business slowly but surely, Andrew.
I'm sorry to not to mock their deaths, but I have to.
That's the thing.
That headline especially struck me because I thought, yeah, I feel the same way about you guys.
And it is, you know, in one way, the opinion page, I suppose you have to give them a little latitude on the opinion page.
But really, when you start to call Larry Elder the black face of white supremacy, it's just clear that you are a babbling idiot who never leaves his room.
And what you said before is exactly it.
Shutting Down Free Opinions 00:08:26
The great weakness, and I've been pointing this out for years, the great weakness of the media, the leftist takeover of the media, is that it put them in the position where they could not hear what everybody else was saying.
They literally could not hear that people were laughing at them.
It always reminded me of like that scene in Singing in the Rain where they open the curtain and you find out the real singer is standing behind the woman mouthing the words.
We found out that the left was standing behind the media, telling them what to say, and they didn't know the curtain was open.
And so this, it was really a design flaw in their takeover of the culture that it caused them not to hear the people.
So what do they have to do?
They have to complain that the problem is Elon Musk letting the far right, people who don't believe that their children should be trans or queer, you know, the people who believe in what people have believed for thousands and thousands of years.
Those are the people that are the problem and not letting them speak will solve the problem.
And I just think it has gone beyond that.
It is exactly, it is exactly what the Catholic Church tried to do when they invented the printing press.
It is the exact same thing.
It is, you know, no, we are going to be in control of what translations of the Bible people read, what opinions people read.
And if you don't go along with those opinions, we're going to burn you at the stake.
I don't think so.
Didn't work then, isn't going to work now.
This flow of information is the most important subject.
Obama and the rest who want to shut it down are absolutely right about that.
That is the fight we're in.
But I just don't see how they win it without crushing people.
And crushing people is not a good look for the free West.
It has never really worked in the West.
Every time you do it, the country falls apart.
The fact is, the fact is when you oppress people, you can't both oppress people and have a free market.
This is what China is finding out right now.
You know, people told us, oh, China is the future.
I used to shake my head and say, how do you have a free market without free people?
You can't do it.
Free people are what who create ideas.
Ideas are not created in the government.
They're created by guys in their garage who then get rich and forget that the next guy who's going to create the next idea is in his garage right now.
And then they start to shut things down.
You just can't hold on to power in the same way in a free, bubbling, creative society.
And if you do hold on to power, all that free, bubbling creativity that makes you rich goes away.
That's the choice you have to make.
And people have made the same choice in the West for centuries, which is we want to be free.
This information is everything.
It is the definition of the problem we have, but it's also the definition of the solution.
The more voices, the better.
And the more these voices who have tried to shut everybody else down, the more they are silenced, the better for everybody.
That's exactly right.
The LA Times, it doesn't have to go, you know, full conservative ink.
It can just offer fair coverage or of varying, you know, attempted opinions.
Um, and it, and it will do a lot for its credibility and its ability to stay open, but it won't.
You know what I mean?
Like take a, take a page out of SiriusXM's book where you've got the, you know, Patriot radio channel where it's all conservatives, and then you have more woke programmers like Stern.
That's how he describes himself.
You've got me, whatever.
The point is, it's not that businesses aren't going to suffer during the Biden economy.
Of course, they're going to suffer during the Biden economy.
Many businesses have had layoffs, but there's a reason all these media companies are suffering so badly.
And we're getting into it.
Not only have they abandoned all pretense at objectivity, but they've taken on like a particular cultural stance that is disgusting to probably a good 65% of the country.
So like, what is the business model when you're Sports Illustrated?
And the few times you're supposed to deviate from sports back in the day was to, as you point out, to put on Elle McPherson and launch the supermodel careers and the most beautiful women we've ever seen.
And you change it to putting on a trans person who's a man hiding who knows what under his bikini and telling the guys they need to like it.
You'll like it.
That's why they went from 3.4 million in circulation per issue to closing their doors.
It's over for Sports Illustrated.
They're now saying it's, well, you never know.
They could come back.
Okay, whatever.
We'll see.
But this is not what people want to see when they're, you know, just trying to feel kind of sexy and turned on.
They don't want to see some man posing as a woman.
And you can't convince them that they do.
And what you said before, I totally agree with this.
You know, when I first started, and it's a long time ago now, but when I first started railing about the culture, I used to say, I don't want a conservative culture.
I am a conservative, but I like seeing left-wing movies.
I just don't want only to see left-wing movies.
I don't want the right to be blacklisted as it has been.
They won't admit it, but it is just true.
You cannot make a conservative movie.
No, I want to see all the ideas.
That's how it works.
That's how good ideas rise.
That's how bad ideas fall when you have all the ideas.
And we know why they have to shut down the right because the right has better ideas.
The right is at least in touch with a reality outside itself.
It is at least in touch with the fact that in order for your ideas to work, no matter how virtuous they are, no matter how virtuous your ideas are, people have to thrive.
Countries have to thrive.
We want to be prosperous.
We want to be creative.
We want to be free.
And if your ideas are ever so virtuous, but they shut that down, hit the road.
We don't want it.
But at least, at least let the argument take place.
And that has been the big flaw.
The big flaw has not been, to my mind, there are people on the right who don't agree with me, but to my mind, the big flaw has not been that there are people speaking leftism.
It's that they will not let the right speak.
And they have acquired enough power to almost shut them down, almost.
But you got to do it completely or else you're going to lose.
They can't do it completely.
They are going to lose.
They're losing right now.
And it's bliss to watch.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, I know.
Well, that's, I, you know, I've said I tweeted out today and I stand by this.
The future of media is independent connections between the audience and a host, an anchor, a journalist, who they trust.
That's the future.
People don't trust these corporate conglomerates anymore.
They've just been exposed as having an agenda that may or may not conform with what the audience wants time and time again.
So you have to find somebody who you trust and make a real decision about whether you're going to entrust your beautiful mind to that person.
You know, is it a truth teller?
Is it somebody who's honest?
Is it somebody who corrects their own mistakes?
That's the future, you know, whether it's me or you or Ben or anybody, Tucker, whoever your cup of tea is.
And ideally, you have a few who you trust and you take them in.
But I don't see the future being CNN.
And by the way, they're hemorrhaging too.
Their average just this past week in primetime was down below the channel that Tammy Faye Baker started back like 2030.
But you know, you put yourself on the line.
Megan, I put myself on the line.
If you come in and just give Megan Kelly's reality, nobody's going to listen to you.
They listen to you because you not only describe reality as you see it, you let other people come on and talk about how they see it.
And you're not afraid.
You're not afraid to invite the left on to come and talk about what they see.
You know, that's the way everything should operate.
I am absolutely unafraid of the left won't come on my show because it'll ruin their careers just to be seen with me.
But still, I invite them all the time because I like arguments.
I mean, you know, it doesn't have to be mean.
It doesn't have to be nasty.
I want to hear what people say.
I don't think that every word that comes out of a leftist mouth is untrue.
Not every word, you know, a lot of them, but not everyone.
And so I want to hear what they have to say.
And I do think sometimes the left, because all they see is trouble, all they see is our problems with our country.
Sometimes they hit upon a problem that actually needs a good right-wing solution.
But the left is the one to identify it because conservatives sometimes want everything to stay the way it is.
No, you want a free, you know, open discussion, but that's what they've tried to shut down.
And they have tried to shut it down for one reason and one reason only.
They can't win the debate.
It's just like, you know, they want to expand the Supreme Court because they've lost the majority.
They want to change the Electoral College because they lost an election.
They want to shut down free speech because they're losing the argument.
That's the only reason they do it.
And I'm glad to see Americans pushing back.
You know, Americans can be too docile as they were during the pandemic.
Hollywood Out of Touch 00:08:02
Yeah, we're not your hostage anymore.
I know.
I feel like the difference between me and many of my audience members, I would venture to say most, is we may not agree with the left, but we don't hate the left and we don't want to silence the left.
And the left is very different about people who are over on the other side of the aisle.
And we feel it.
And we have a lot of purchasing power.
And so we're turning off of their channels and we're stopping the purchase of their magazines and their newspapers.
And these are the natural consequences of that whole ecosystem imploding because of its own choices.
Okay, that brings me to, it's kind of a good segue into the next thing I want to talk to you about, which is before you became Andrew Clavin, social commentator and political commentator that we know and love, and the author, of course, you were in Hollywood.
You were a very, very famous screenwriter, award-winning screenwriter who wrote like big, big hits.
And we're about to go into the Oscars.
And there's controversy, as you may have seen, because Barbie didn't get enough nominations.
All right.
So the new feminists are very, very angry that Margot Robbie did not get nominated for best actress and Greta Gerwig did not get nominated for best director because you see, they were entitled to.
That's pretty much what I understand is the argument.
The best supporting actress, America Ferreira, who was in that movie, she got the knot.
And best like screenplay, Greta Gerwig was nominated with the man with whom she co-wrote the movie.
But that's not enough, you see.
You're a misogynist unless you actually make Margot Robbie the nominee for best actress and recognize Greta in her directing role.
And that's just how life works.
What do you make of it?
Right.
Well, first of all, the first thing we should notice is that the Oscars, which used to be a major cultural event, that people used to have Oscar parties, they used to wait for it.
It's now like a nothing.
It's a blip.
Nobody watches it except for the, they watch the people looking pretty on the red carpet, but nobody actually watches it because they did nothing but yell at us about their superior moral position.
So first of all, all of these arguments are the reason nobody is watching the Oscars.
And the other thing is if you look at the list of nominated pictures, most of them, with the exception of Barbie and Oppenheimer are pictures nobody went to see.
They didn't go to see them because they are minor little pictures that deal with very small things that the left is interested in that the rest of us aren't interested in.
The fact that the star and the director of the Barbie movie were not nominated has in some ways to do with the way nominations are made.
But it also reflects the fact that Barbie was just not a very good movie.
It was an interesting movie.
It was an entertaining and a beautiful to look at movie, but it was a mess.
It was kind of because the left can't define what a woman is, they couldn't really make a movie about women except to complain about how hard it is while I'm allowed to be a woman.
You know, they actually didn't make a movie that explained, you know, why it is that girls play with Barbies and actually don't feel bad about their bodies.
That's not what happens.
It's not because of Barbie that women feel bad about their bodies.
You know, that's not what happens.
They couldn't do a realistic movie about Barbie and the effect of Barbie or even a movie that allowed 12-year-old girls to go to the show or eight-year-old girls to go to the show and enjoy it.
So it's not really a good movie.
What happens is that the best picture is nominated by all of the Academy members.
So it's kind of a hit and miss thing.
It's like sort of everybody throwing in their ballots.
And of course, Barbie was a smash hit.
It was a huge hit.
So everybody had to name it.
You just thought, yeah, well, it must be a good movie because it made so much money.
But once you get to the directors, the directors are nominated by other directors.
And you looked at it and thought, well, it didn't have any narrative drive.
It didn't really make sense.
It wasn't really besides the actual art direction.
It wasn't really a very good movie.
So why would I nominate the direction?
Margot Robbie, good actress.
I actually think she's quite good.
She is.
And this, she was not there.
There was nothing for Haitanya.
Yeah.
But there was nothing for her to do.
She just had to be a doll, you know?
It's like, it's so ridiculous.
Like now that women, now that, you know, we're considered equals, of course, and are getting treated like it, we deserve all the awards.
All the women we choose need to be nominated for the positions we think otherwise the fucking patriarchy.
That's literally what they're tweeting out.
That, you know, they made a movie about the patriarchy and then the patriarchy kept them down.
Well, how did they, why did they keep America Ferreira down?
Because she seems really thrilled that she got this nomination for best supporting actress and Greta got a nod as best screenwriter, but it's never enough.
The best, though, I would be adding journalistic malpractice if I did not raise the Hillary Clinton tweet, which was my favorite thing I've seen on the internet in a week.
Hillary Clinton decided to weigh in on this snub.
Greta and Margo, she writes to them, while it can sting to win the box office, but not take home the gold, your millions of fans love you.
You're both so much more than Kenno.
Is that a reference to the movie?
I didn't see it.
And then here's the capper.
At the end, hashtag Hillary Barbie.
She's trying to make that a thing.
I do play with my Hillary Talbot that keeps sticking the pins in and nothing happens.
I don't know what the problem is.
The thing about the director is one thing, but the actress is probably going to be a woman.
The best actress is probably going to be a woman.
So I see the argument there.
And to be honest, Lily Gladstone for the Killers of the Flower Moon acted everybody off the stage for the last five years.
It was just a fantastic performance.
So she's the one who actually deserves it, no matter who gets nominated.
You know, the fact that that's what the Oscars have come to be about, these political gripes, is why nobody watches them.
And it's partly why the movies, for the same reason the Sports Illustrated and LA Times and Washington Post are going out of business, is the reason the movies are kind of irrelevant now.
When was the last time?
I mean, Barbie and Oppenheimer are the last time people saw a movie that they talked about, but they weren't really culturally effective.
Nobody is going to change their minds about anything because of Barbie and Oppenheimer.
The movies are kind of irrelevant now.
Streaming is much more important.
And I would say even YouTube is more important than the movies because of this takeover of the left and their small-minded ideas.
They're out of touch with reality.
You can't even find a show.
You know, I like action movies.
You know, it's kind of my guilty pleasure, as it were.
And you can't find a show in which women don't beat up men.
You know, and you just sit there and talk and think, like, you know, I love them.
That's not the way it works.
You know, that's the way life works.
And you just want to see movies that actually reflect your life and speak into your life, whether they speak at a high level or a low level.
And they just don't make those anymore.
And these arguments are indicative of that.
The fact that this is what they care about shows you why their movies are empty and meaningless.
Yeah.
My team informs you that the word is kenuff.
You're both so much more than canuff.
It's a combo of enough and can.
Sorry I didn't see the movie.
I really don't have any desire to.
I got to be honest.
Some of the reaction online to this.
I love this.
Clearly, Greta and Margo should have campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Hashtag Hillary Barbie.
That's great.
That's terrific.
This is the thing.
The ordinary people are funnier than the actual writers in Hollywood.
Totally.
Well, we'll see what happens.
I'm sure we won't be watching, but we'll cover it after the fact, just for all the woke speeches that we get from Jimmy Kimmel, Mr. Blackface, and let's make the girls jump in bikinis on trampolines so we can see their boobies flop.
Andrew Clayton, always a pleasure, my friend.
Thanks for being here.
Supremacy Clause and Authority 00:15:37
Thanks a lot, Megan.
It's good to see you.
All right, coming up, Alan Dershowitz will join us on what we're supposed to make of what's about to happen between the feds and Texas.
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 SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love.
Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.
You can stream the Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.
No car required.
I do it all the time.
I love the SiriusXM app.
It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.
Subscribe now, get your first three months for free.
Go to 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.
Joining me now to discuss the legal ramifications of what's happening and what might happen in Texas as they take on the federal government at the border.
Alan Dershowitz, constitutional law expert and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
He's also the author of the new book, War Against the Jews, which he wrote quickly after everything that happened on 10-7.
And it's well worth your time.
Alan, thanks for coming back on the show.
So, this really is looking like a constitutional crisis in which Texas has built this border wire fence.
The feds don't want it up there and have been interfering with it to the point where Texas had to go into court to say, please stop them from interfering with our efforts to protect ourselves.
And they won at the lower court level.
They won it at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an injunction against the feds saying, do not cut down their wire fence.
And then the Supreme Court lifted the injunction, basically clearing the way for the feds to cut down the border fence.
They haven't yet gone back to do it, but they might.
And Texas right now is saying, we're going to build more wire fencing.
And Governor Abbott, he didn't actually do it yet, but he did say, I will continue to prevent the Biden administration from destroying our property.
So that's actually, that's pretty close to saying I'm not going to listen to the fact that the injunction was lifted by the high court and the high court basically gave them a temporary green light to go in there, the feds.
So what do you make of all of it?
Well, first, this is a classic constitutional clash under the concept of federalism and the supremacy clause.
You have a very legitimate state interest here, very legitimate, in preventing the crossing over of illegal immigrants with fentanyl and crime, et cetera.
And you have a legitimate federal interest in controlling the national borders of the United States.
So it's not surprising that you get an unsigned five to four decision with a moderate and a conservative joining the three liberals.
Let's remember this is a temporary order.
This is an order only pending final resolution of the case after evidence is taken.
We'll see how many emergencies there have been.
Remember, the lower court also made exceptions and said the feds could come in and cut the wires in the case of a medical emergency, but the feds came back and said, no, it takes too long.
In case of a medical emergency, it'll take 15 minutes to cut the wires.
And by that time, it might be too late.
So this is a very important case that I think we're just seeing the beginning of.
And it may very well be that one of the two conservative moderates is just waiting and saying, let's hear the evidence.
It wouldn't surprise me if Barrett ultimately joined the state of Texas after the decision was made on the merits rather than just as a preliminary matter.
So it's not over.
Or maybe Chief Justice Roberts, because sometimes when he votes with the liberals, he does so in order to prevent chaos, you know, maintain the court's integrity.
He certainly would want to avoid a constitutional crisis.
And in this case, voting with the liberals is helping create one.
So there's a shot at him too, I think.
What do you think?
I think that's right.
There's no way of avoiding a constitutional crisis here.
It's inevitable.
Texas has a strong point of view.
If you had to vote in Texas, it would be 80 to 20 in favor of what Texas did.
And you have already at least one congressman advocating civil disobedience, saying essentially what Andrew Jackson said to the Supreme Court in one of the Native American cases, you know, you've made your decision now, enforce it.
Of course, times have changed and the federal government can enforce its decisions and would enforce it if it came to it.
But there's no way of avoiding a constitutional crisis here unless Congress gets involved and starts passing some reasonable legislation allowing control of the border, dividing the function appropriately between the state and the federal government, which is where it belongs.
But this has become so politicized, this is going to be a major issue in the 2024 presidential election.
The Republicans know that border control is a great issue for them.
The vast majority of Americans, even in the North, believe that the borders are too open and that the Biden administration is responsible for that.
So this will figure heavily in the election.
Already we're seeing the Democrats moving slightly in the direction of mobile.
All right, but wait.
Let me stick with you on the legal analysis.
The Fifth Circuit decision, which the Supreme Court in that 5-4 decision, which was just, it was just a paragraph long, reversed.
But the Fifth Circuit decision said defendants are enjoined during the pendency of this appeal.
And the plaintiff was the state of Texas.
The defendants are the feds.
So the feds are enjoined, meaning stopped, during the pendency of this appeal from damaging, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Texas's sea wire fence in the vicinity of Eagle Pass, Texas.
So they're saying that the feds may not, may not destroy or damage that fence.
The Supreme Court lifted the injunction.
So does that mean, so the feds can go in there, they absolutely can go in there now and try to cut down the fence.
Does this, does the lifting of the injunction against the feds from doing something stop Texas from doing something like fighting the destruction of that fence?
Well, under the supremacy clause, the state of Texas must abide by the Supreme Court's decision.
Now, as you say, the Supreme Court's decision merely lifts an injunction.
And so it does give Texas some ability to achieve the results it wants to achieve, but it can't do it in direct defiance of the Supreme Court.
It would have to figure out clever ways of doing that.
Well, let me ask about that.
So I have a thought on it.
I have a thought on it.
So the way I would read it is, so Texas can't stop the feds from cutting down the fence, if I'm right, if I'm reading this right.
But they can put up a fence the next day.
They can put up another fence and another fence and another fence.
And especially if they don't put a dangerous fence up, a fence that has razor wires that can cut people and that can endanger federal.
Why couldn't they?
They have that up now.
That's what was at issue here.
And so why can't, and it's been very effective.
And actually the decision, the Fifth Circuit decision talks about how, let me just read you part of it.
To guard the vast stretches of land between these points of entry, Congress created the Border Patrol, whose objective is to deter illegal entry into the U.S. In recent years, illegal crossings have increased dramatically, talking about how it was 458,000 in 2020, 1.7 million in 21, 2.4 million in 2022.
Unsurprisingly, the situation has been exploited by the drug cartels who have made an incredibly lucrative enterprise out of trafficking human beings and illegal drugs like fentanyl, which is frequently encountered in vast quantities at the border.
But they go on to say that the two parties have been working together quite well.
Texas has constructed along more than 29 miles of municipal and private land in the Eagle Pass sector of our southern border.
And they talk about how the feds and Texas have been working quite well together for some time.
The Border Patrol wants to enforce the border.
It's the corporate bettors in D.C. who are telling them that they're constrained.
So I just like I, what, what came up was the wire fencing and whether it was hurting people, like illegals who were trying to get in.
They alleged that people had been caught in it, people had been hurt, people allegedly drowned.
And according to the press, that caused even the Border Patrol to say, we can't have this.
And we're actually in charge of the ones processing these illegals.
So it's got to come down.
This is an obvious answer to the problem.
You're very sensible.
I wish you were the president or in charge of the border control because you and I together can come up with an obvious answer in which Texas and the federal government work together on the legitimate goals.
But the provocative nature of razor wires and three people allegedly drowning in medical necessities is what caused the provocation.
This is a case that never should have come to the Supreme Court.
It should have been resolved by adult, wise minds working together to achieve Texas's legitimate goals while at the same time not defying federal court orders.
I suspect that's the direction in which it's going to go.
And I suspect that in the end, there will be a resolution and it will require building more barriers, but not ones as provocative as razor wires.
Probably have.
Because it is risky.
It's risky.
I hate to see Texas get in the position, if it chooses to, of defying the Supreme Court order.
Although I can see the argument, how do you defy the lifting of an injunction against someone else?
It's like, you know, the feds were enjoined from doing something.
Now they're not enjoined from doing something.
Texas can just keep doing what it's been doing, which is the fence is going back up.
The fence is going back up again.
It's going back up again.
But if they try to stop the feds from pulling down the fence, now we're on shakier ground.
Let me ask you this, as a constitutional guy.
Something new enters the fold today.
Abbott puts out a statement saying, well, it's yesterday, saying the framers included Article 4, Section 4, which promises that the feds shall protect each state against invasion, and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges the state's sovereign interest in protecting their borders.
And he says the failure of the Biden administration to fulfill its duties imposed by Article 4, Section 4, meaning protect the states against invasion, has triggered Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, meaning the states have a sovereign interest in protecting their borders, which reserves to this state the right of self-defense.
For these reasons, I already declared an invasion under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 to invoke constitutional authority in Texas to defend and protect itself.
That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.
So he's invoking the U.S. Constitution to say he's got ultimate authority on what happens at the border, no matter the federal statutes that say this is the purview of the federal government.
It sounds like something Ted Cruz would have come up with in my class when I taught him.
Ted Cruz is arguing the same, I think, right now.
Keep going.
Sorry.
Brilliant constitutional theorist.
And I think the argument is a sound one that there's no firm answer in the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't anticipate a situation like this.
But I think what Senator Abbott is doing is showing that there is a constitutional argument on the other side.
He will make that argument through his lawyers in the case itself, which has still not been resolved.
And we may see a different constitutional issue presented to the Supreme Court six months or a year from now.
All we know, and you put your finger on it exactly, is that what the federal government today can't, what the state government cannot do, and what the federal government can do, but it's very limited.
It's limited both in time and both in scope.
And so we're going to see this continuing.
And let me back up too.
Sorry, I wanted to keep driving it forward.
So you keep referencing the supremacy clause, which basically is where the feds have chosen to legislate, the states cannot.
You can't pass conflicting legislation there.
And so the feds have said they're legislating immigration.
But now the states here, Texas is trying to say, not so fast because I too have something in the original Constitution that gives me rights to prevent an invasion.
And if we're talking about constitutional power granted to me, that trumps your federal statute.
The Constitution reigns supreme over federal statutes that contradict.
what it says, right?
Is that basically what's happening here with the Texas statement?
But the supremacy clause is limited.
It's limited to areas where the federal government has authority.
For example, under the supremacy clause, the federal government couldn't require Texas to teach certain things in school or now after the Roe versus Wade overruling deal with issues like abortion or birth control.
Because if an issue belongs to the state, then the sovereignty, then the supremacy clause doesn't apply.
The supremacy clause only applies when Congress legitimately passes legislation within its limited authority.
Let's remember Hamilton's federalist papers.
He said you didn't need a Bill of Rights because Congress is very limited as to the scope of what it can do vis-a-vis the states.
And so what we're seeing is not only a major clash under the supremacy clause, but under Article 1 and Article 4, this is, you know, I could teach a whole court with you on constitutional law regarding a case just like this one, because it's precisely the kind of area that the Supreme Court ultimately will have the last word in.
Lawfare and State Sovereignty 00:06:15
So Alan, could this actually go to potentially go to a situation in which the Supreme Court rules those federal statutes saying the feds are in charge of immigration cannot stand in the face of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which does reserve to the states the right of self-defense.
It acknowledges their sovereign interest in protecting their borders.
I mean, could this actually, if litigated out all the way up to the Supreme Court, wind up in a decision that says, you know what, those federal statutes, they're too much.
The Constitution did envision the states being able to protect themselves, at least when the feds aren't doing it.
Like this, could this wind up in a huge legal victory for Texas, for all border states?
If Texas says the right thing and has hearings and talks about how the invasion of fentanyl and the invasion of cartel gangs is really affecting the quality of life among the citizens of Texas, I can imagine the Supreme Court saying that the state really has a legitimacy over the federal government.
The state's concerns are more immediate.
They're right on the border than the federal concerns.
Yeah, I could see it going that way.
If you had the right legislation with the right kind of hearings and the right legislative findings, this is a great case.
This is a kind of case that Hamilton and Madison would have argued over at the Constitutional Convention.
Well, now you've got the other border state governors weighing in.
Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia, enough is enough.
Our southern border is in crisis thanks to the Biden administration's refusal to do their job.
Greg Abbott and the state of Texas have our full support.
Even up in Virginia, Glenn Young, Virginia stands with Texas.
Greg Abbott is doing the job Joe Biden and his borders are refused to do to secure our border.
We must stop the flow of fentanyl, save lives, and secure our southern border.
Oklahoma governor, Oklahoma stands with Texas.
Ron DeSantis said as follows.
We have a little bit of a cliff, which he posted online.
Watch this.
Biden is going after Texas saying that they must remove fortifications from their border.
They put wire, they put things to keep people out.
Biden's saying you got to take that down to let people come in illegally, which is just crazy.
And I remark that if the Constitution was originally understood to mean that a state could not protect itself against an invasion, that the federal government could force a state to allow an invasion, the Constitution would have never been ratified in the first place.
Texas would have never joined the Union when it did.
And if you look at Federalist 46, which Daniel Horowitz pointed out, James Madison talks about situations where federal encroachment can be mitigated by state action.
All of this is just nonsense, what Biden's doing.
Texas has every right to stand its ground.
We've in Florida, we've been sending people to help.
Florida will continue to be there, helping out every step of the way.
Look, you're going to get governors.
Alan, that's got to be catnip to you.
Somebody, a smart constitutional lawyer, talking about all your favorite things.
Anyway, your reaction.
You know, DeSantis went to Harvard and Yale.
Notwithstanding that, he's pretty smart and he knows the Constitution very well.
So this is a great constitutional issue.
We're going to see the governors of California weigh in.
Obviously, the governors of Arizona and other states weigh in.
And we're going to see some coming out in favor of Texas, some coming out the other way.
This is a case that demands resolution short of a constitutional crisis.
And such a resolution is possible.
And if it wasn't as political as it is, we would see a reasonable resolution of this.
But both sides think they can benefit politically.
I happen to think the Republicans are right on this one.
The Democrats are wrong.
They will lose on this issue and the Republicans will benefit, which is why people like DeSantis and others are chiming in.
So, you know, continue to be continued.
We haven't seen the end of this.
This is going to be in case books.
This is going to be taught to our law students for years to come.
Yeah, this is all still pending.
And even the Supreme Court lifting that injunction against the feds is temporary.
They lifted it just while the case is pending.
It goes back down to the Fifth Circuit for an appellate argument, which happens on February 7th.
Everyone's going to be paying attention to that.
So this is not a final decision on the merits by the Supreme Court, nor was it by the Fifth Circuit.
All of it's going to start playing out.
And this is, I mean, look, politically speaking, what this does is it thrusts the immigration issue front and center back into the headlines of the news.
And depending on what the Biden administration does in Texas, the mainstream media will be forced.
They will be dragged along, kicking and screaming to cover it because it could cause a constitutional crisis.
So I think it's good lawfare.
It's good, it's important lawfare that they're unleashing against each other, I think, for legitimate purposes.
And I think it's going to have a major role in the political discussion.
Alan Dershowitz, thank you.
Yeah, I'll give you the last word.
Well, I think politically, this definitely helps the Republicans, hurts the Democrats.
And I think the Biden administration can ameliorate that if they act in a coordinated way with the states.
But whether or not we'll see cooperation now in light of the politics, that's the real question.
But what a great, what a great issue to discuss.
You made my day constitutionally.
Well, I always love listening to you.
I listen to your podcast.
I enjoyed your one recently on Fannie Willis.
Can't get enough of that story.
And read his latest book, War Against the Jews.
That's another area in which Alan has true expertise: Israel and what's happening on college campuses.
Thank you, my friend.
See you soon.
We're going to stay on the story.
This one's not going away, as I pointed out.
We mentioned Andrew Clavin.
He has a substack.
You got to check it out.
It's with his son Spencer.
We love them both.
And you can subscribe there at the newjerusalam.substack.com.
Check it out.
It's emailed conversations between the two guys, published in full about faith in our culture today and all sorts of great ideas.
Charlie Kirk is on tomorrow.
Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no
Export Selection