The Megyn Kelly Show - 20240304_unanimous-trump-victory-at-supreme-court-and-60-mi

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

March 4, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:36:22

20240304_unanimous-trump-victory-at-supreme-court-and-60-mi

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Trump's Humiliating Defeat 00:15:11
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111, every weekday at least.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show and happy Monday.
	We start the week with some major breaking news and utter humiliation for far leftists who thought they could manipulate in an election into bullying Donald Trump right off the ballot.
	with unelected bureaucrats declaring him an insurrectionist and saying he couldn't run.
	Well, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an extremely rare move, has ruled unanimously against that nonsense and in favor of former President Donald Trump.
	The liberal justices voting with the conservative justices that states may not remove Donald Trump from presidential election ballots.
	Some on the left, of course, are now accusing Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Katanji Brown Jackson of betraying democracy.
	We expected more from you.
	We knew the lunatics on the right were going to do this to us, but you, the betrayal.
	Maybe they just exercised normal jurisprudence.
	Maybe they actually just saw the issue very clearly, as most normal lawyers did right from the start.
	We've got the best of the hysterical reaction for you.
	Plus, I cannot wait to get to this story.
	I have so much I want to talk to you about.
	60 Minutes calls parents not wanting their elementary and middle school age children to read about anal sex and blowjobs in school, conspiracy theorists full of fear and ignorance.
	You should know, Scott Pelly, you demonstrated yours last night on CBS News.
	Joining me now to discuss it all, Stu Bergier.
	He's host of Stu Does America and Dave Marcus, Daily Mail and Fox News columnist, among other things.
	Guys, welcome back to the show.
	There's a lot to go over and the meltdown in the wake of this 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in Donald Trump's favor is where we have to begin.
	So, Stu, already we're getting reaction from those on the left about the betrayal they perceive from the liberal jurists and how to them it was just so clear.
	I mean, I don't understand Donald Trump is a clear insurrectionist.
	And how could the Supreme Court, which Keith Oberman says we just need to move on from, betray us and be so confused in this way?
	What do you make of it?
	It's a fascinating day and it's amazing to watch all of this happen.
	You know, I'm, for one, shocked that Sodomayor was on board for this.
	I could have believed Kagan.
	I could have even believed Katanji Brown Jackson would be on the right side of this.
	Soda Mayor, who I don't have much respect for, I'm surprised.
	But a 9-0 ruling is good.
	It's the thing that the country needs.
	They need clarity on something like this, which is insane.
	And the Biden administration does all of this and cheers this stuff on and the media cheers all this stuff on while arguing for democracy, which is such a bizarre, a bizarre, hypocritical thing.
	It's like their favorite form of democracy is the one where you're the only name on the ballot.
	And like, I don't remember that being really the way democracy works.
	It's shocking to kind of see this portrayed by the media as something that was serious.
	And that I think is, if you want to come off of all the really important things I think this means for the country and all the legal ramifications, you can come off of that and just look at the way the society handled this, which is half the country was convinced that this was correct and true and obvious.
	And the only way this would be stopped is by the right-wing Supreme Court, who is unfair and always just rooting on Donald Trump.
	And then when you get a 9-0 ruling, real clarity here that this is insane and everyone knew it was insane.
	And then to see the way the media had just led people down this road over and over and over again and get their gets their hopes up, right?
	I guess if you're a left-wing person and you want no competition in the presidential election, you thought this was going to be a good thing.
	Instead, they embarrass themselves.
	And there will be no retribution.
	We will not see some retrospective from these media organizations.
	Why did we give this credibility?
	Why did we run articles?
	Why did we take Lawrence Tribe seriously when he was making these arguments?
	Once again, the media just falls down flat on its face with no ideas of where it's going from here.
	Here's a sampling, Dave, of some of the reaction.
	Olbermann's always the best.
	The court has betrayed democracy.
	Its members, including Jackson Kagan and Sodomayor, have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension.
	And collectively, the court, that's in quotes, has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.
	It must be dissolved for good measure, adding, the Supreme Court is full of shit.
	Okay.
	We could keep going.
	As you might imagine, there's equally, well, maybe not equally, but similar hysterical reaction from people feeling that that's the word betrayed by them that they didn't get their way.
	They are really looking at the Supreme Court, whether it is in the January 6th appeal that just went up and that they took on whether he's got immunity for these criminal acts, alleged criminal acts taken while president, or it's this case in which they said, no, individual states can't kick a presidential candidate off the ballot.
	They feel like the court owes them something.
	It's up to them to stop him.
	Yeah, I mean, listen, unlike Stu, I've always known that Sotomayor is a secret ultra MAGA Trumper.
	So a lot of people weren't aware of that.
	Now that Pat's finally out of the bag and you know, he is doing better with a Hispanic vote.
	There you go.
	Now, but listen, I mean, this case in particular was the Mona Lisa of hypocrisy and projection.
	You know, Donald Trump's a threat to democracy, so we're not going to let you vote for him.
	I mean, come on.
	It was always completely absurd.
	But I think the good takeaway from this and why it's so important that it was 9-0 is that yet again, the guardrails of American democracy have held firm.
	You know, both sides, you know, the left looks to January 6th and they say, we were five minutes from losing our republic.
	No, we weren't.
	What was going to happen?
	The joint chiefs of staff were going to walk in and make QAnon shaman the president.
	I mean, it's absurd.
	And, you know, on the other side, it's like, you know, this, these prosecutions of Trump and everything they're doing, it's the same as Russia, blah, blah, blah.
	No, it's not because we do have these guardrails.
	They do work.
	The founders created amazing checks and balances.
	Americans throughout the century have sort of cherished and protected that.
	It's our job to keep doing that.
	And so really good to see a 9-0 Supreme Court decision on this case today, which really was, I think, a pretty obvious call.
	Totally agree with all that.
	I want to run this soundbite for you.
	I played it for the guys in the fifth column last week.
	It's absolutely nuts, but it bears another play, okay?
	Because this is Chris Hayes reacting to the decision to take up whether Trump has immunity for alleged criminal acts.
	The left did not want the high court to take that case either.
	They wanted them to just let the DC Circuit Court of Appeals saying he does not have immunity to stand, but they took it up, thus delaying the trial in federal court in D.C. on those January 6th charges until at the earliest, early July, but it's going to be later than that.
	But this is, here's it.
	This is what you're going to hear from him tonight and from the left tonight, because they clearly look at SCOTUS as their last best chance to stop him and are starting to realize, actually, no, actually, they're not an ally.
	Watch.
	That they would rob the people's Department of Justice the opportunity, present all the evidence of his guilt.
	That the voters of this country, you and I, the hundreds of millions of us, might be robbed of the information we need to determine whether the man is guilty of the gravest crime any politician has been accused of since the Civil War.
	If you were hoping that Donald Trump's authoritarian disregard for the rule of law was going to be stopped by Americans' institutions and the court at the highest level, that hope is severely diminished today.
	The Mueller investigation didn't stop him.
	Two congressional impeachments did not stop him.
	Today is the starkest proof yet that in the zero-sum battle between MAGA and democracy, there was and is only one thing that could ever truly stop Donald Trump, and that is we the people.
	Americans voting against him, a majority.
	You can see the little light bulbs still, right?
	Like, yeah, that's we know how this is supposed to work.
	If you don't want a guy to be president of the United States, you should vote for the other guy and go out and actually win.
	That's how this is supposed to operate.
	This is how our system works, right?
	I mean, I thought this was obvious to everyone.
	You know, if this guy is the Hitlerian figure you keep making him out to be, go out and beat him.
	Like just win.
	That should be the easiest thing in the world.
	It's not like Donald Trump doesn't give you real opportunities to criticize him.
	It's not like Donald Trump is the perfect candidate and everyone, I just can't find anything to say that's negative about him.
	They seem to find tons of things that are negative to say about him.
	It's just that the American people increasingly don't buy it.
	And this idea that the delay of the Supreme Court is some terrible, terrible thing.
	It took them two years to move on this case.
	Like they, they had thrown tons of other people in prison.
	And they did.
	And by the way, let's not forget he was never charged with insurrection.
	He was not charged with insurrection.
	They didn't even put it in the impeachment.
	They could have put anything in there.
	They didn't even put it in the impeachment.
	They had all of this time.
	They waited until he actually ran for president to do anything on this because they, you know, they did, they probably, honestly, if he had not run for president, probably they never would have done any of this.
	But they wanted to stop him.
	They wanted to make sure that he could not be president again.
	So they're throwing every piece of spaghetti they can find against the wall to see if anything will stick.
	And it's just an embarrassing failure.
	We are up to our knees at this point in spaghetti and more of it will come.
	We'll eventually be up to our necks.
	It's just, they will try literally anything except just winning.
	Go out there and beat the guy.
	In the famous words of Adrian to Rocky before the last big battle in Rocky I win.
	That's the best advice.
	Just win.
	I mean, he didn't, but it's good advice.
	Yeah, but he made it 15 rounds.
	That was a win moment.
	All right.
	So it looks like the point is they control the media.
	They have the best get out the vote operation in America and had for a long time now.
	They have the least popular candidate running as a Republican that we've had in decades.
	So just win.
	What are you in such a panic about?
	Oh, wait, your candidate is horrible.
	Well, then do something about it.
	Don't be such P-words.
	That's the one swear I don't like.
	Don't be such a P-word.
	Go out and find another candidate who can win.
	I don't care.
	I don't want to hear your whining when you won't find another candidate because you know your guy is struggling.
	You just want to bash our democracy, get rid of the Supreme Court, mess with our balloting system.
	No, it's a no.
	You were stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I want to play this for you, Dave, CNN in the middle of its reaction.
	Take a listen.
	You know, look, unfortunately for America, the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be.
	They wanted Congress, the people who are closest to their constituents, to be able to make the rules of the laws.
	That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues, they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues.
	I agree.
	It's very unlikely, close to impossible that Congress will take action.
	But this is now a fair question that Manu Raju Melanes and Ona should be asking members of Congress.
	Are you willing to pass legislation that would give us rules for how this works?
	It could only be in the future, by the way.
	Okay, so you see the people and their representatives, Congress, they're not doing their jobs because of gerrymandering, meaning holding this insurrectionist to account.
	And that's really the lamentable thing here, that really Congress should pass the law saying that he's an insurrectionist and you'd have to be, he'd have to be bounced off.
	And that's really the solution here.
	I mean, look, that's just foolishness.
	I used to live in Jerry Madler's district.
	He's like one of the most important Democrats in the House of Representatives.
	Anyone who's familiar with the geography of New York City, it begins in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, goes through Bay Ridge, jumps over the East River, skips Chinatown, hits Tribeca, and then goes all the way up the Upper West Side.
	You want to know why?
	To capture white Democrats.
	Everybody's always known it.
	This is nonsense talk.
	Look, yeah, CNN is begrudgingly right here.
	It is up to the people's representatives to do this.
	It is not the job of the Supreme Court to walk in and say, we're going to do it instead.
	This is why Roe v. Wade was eventually overturned, right?
	That's not the role of the Supreme Court.
	CNN admits it's not the role of the Supreme Court.
	Unfortunately, it still can't kick this habit of having to mention how supposedly awful Donald Trump is for America in the context of literally anything.
	I mean, you can watch a sports report and they're going to throw it in there.
	So, you know, that's the sad part that doesn't seem to be changing.
	But, you know, I don't know.
	At least they acknowledge that this was the right decision.
	But it's absurd to now say, okay, so Congress is going to pass a law now.
	Is that what we're going to do?
	I mean, that doesn't work on a look back basis.
	Congress can't pass a law now that's going to affect, that's going to take action, have effect retroactively.
	Here's a little bit from the decision.
	The court says, because the Constitution makes Congress rather than the states responsible for enforcing Section 3, that's the one saying if you've engaged in insurrection, you can't hold office against federal office holders and candidates, we reverse.
	The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject, of course, to judicial review, to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment.
	Senator, Section 5 casts upon Congress the responsibility of seeing to it for the future that all the sections of the amendment are carried out in good faith.
	They say we conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.
Court Reverses State Decision 00:05:39
	All members of the court agree with this result.
	And then you've got Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson writing in a concurring opinion.
	They say allowing Colorado to do this would create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork at odds with our nation's federalism principles.
	That is enough to resolve this case.
	Then they attack the majority for going on to talk about exactly how Congress would have to enact a particular kind of legislation in order to make this thing workable.
	And they think the court went too far on that, but they totally agree that under federalism principles, you can't have one state deciding he engaged in an insurrection and another state saying he didn't and on the ballot in one state and off the ballot in another state when you're talking about electing a federal officer, a federal candidate like president.
	Nonetheless, here's how the Associated Press dude describes what happened today.
	It's Sunmin Kim.
	That's the name of the reporter.
	She writes, Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to hold him accountable for attack on capital in 2021.
	That's what they were trying to do in Colorado.
	Again, the courts could just, they could maybe charge him with insurrection and being responsible for this if they actually believe that.
	They never go down that road because they know they would have no chance of winning.
	And what the media keeps relying on is a little known part of the Constitution called the but we really want it clause.
	And it's like, well, look at the Constitution.
	Where is it in there?
	Oh, it's not, but we really want it.
	So we really want this to happen.
	Yeah.
	So just do it, right?
	Like, I mean, this is the same situation that happened with like the student loan situation with Biden.
	Like, well, we really want to give a bunch of people who are, you know, among the wealthiest in our society, you know, student loan refunds.
	We want to spend an extra $500, $700 billion on this.
	Congress won't do it, but we really want it.
	So we're just going to do it.
	And the Constitution should allow us to do this because of our desire to have the result.
	Well, that's not how our system of government works.
	And I will say this, you know, Megan, I don't know if you feel the same way, but increasingly, I'm concerned about the state of the country where often over and over again, it seems like the Supreme Court is the only line of defense we have against a completely different system of government.
	I mean, you can't just... I've been saying all along, I personally have faith in the rule of law.
	I do.
	I believe, I thank God for Article 3 and the courts.
	It's not that they all get it right.
	And you've definitely got activist judges, especially at the lower level.
	But I do believe still in the rule of law.
	Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm really excited about this court.
	It's the first time in my lifetime we've had an originalist court up there issuing rulings that you can count on that do kick it back to the people time and time again.
	And it may cause chaos and it actually may inure to the Democrats' benefit the way the overruling of Roe did.
	That hasn't been a good thing electorally for Republicans.
	I don't care.
	I like the rule of law.
	Over time, it'll balance out.
	Keep going, Stu.
	Yeah, no, I totally agree with you.
	And I'm just, you know, I guess I'm concerned that this seems to be the only guardrail left.
	You know, our system is holding up.
	I believe in the system.
	It's by far the best system on earth.
	And, you know, it is held up under incredible stress.
	I mean, you know, people talk about the 2020 election.
	You know, here you have the president of the United States saying that the results should be different.
	He's obviously calling people around the country to try to change the results in a way that he thinks we're accurate.
	But still, like in that context, the system holds up.
	And if you are opposition to that argument, this situation is the same thing where like this is obviously lawless, but this is not just some crazy, you know, AOC type representative bringing this up.
	This is the Supreme Court of a state that wanted this to happen.
	What is the chaotic result if today this came down another way?
	If this was a 5-4 decision against Donald Trump, where basically we found out today that 50% of the American voters in this country could not vote for their candidate.
	I mean, and I say that not every state would throw him off the ballot, but of course it would be almost impossible for him to win because of all the states with Democratic control that would take him off the ballot.
	So you'd have a situation where, I mean, Donald Trump might have just been disqualified today.
	And we were, I was sitting there an hour beforehand thinking, I'm certain the Supreme Court is going to come down on the right side of this.
	But what if they don't?
	What happens here to our country and our system of government?
	We are so close and we're depending on basically six people to continually hold this together.
	And that is not a good situation for the Earth's greatest country to be in.
	You're right.
	You're right.
	I mean, the thing we've talked about, but the woman in Maine who kicked him off the ballot there wasn't even elected.
	She wasn't even, or she was an elected person.
	She wasn't even a lawyer.
	Not one woman, not even a lawyer.
	I declare him an insurrectionist and I kick him off the ballot.
	This is absolutely no way to run a country.
	Never mind, elected president.
	Here's old faithful Ellie Mistell on Acts.
	You know him.
	He's the correspondent for the nation and really the most racist person to appear on MSNBC, which is saying something.
	I mean, that's saying something.
	If you go on with Joy Reed, I almost call her Joy racist, and you're the most racist one, you know, that's a special slot to hold.
	He writes, as I said last week, the Supreme Court must be stopped.
	And then here's a quote from it.
Kill The Lawyers First 00:02:24
	The Supreme Court must be made to pay a price, a political, institutional, professional price for its ongoing political thuggery, lightly disguised as jurisprudence.
	Its members will never stop acting like the only nine Americans who matter until we stop them from doing that.
	And the only way to stop them is to limit their power, their budgets, and their unearned belief in their own supremacy.
	Ellie, you're an idiot.
	If you'd like to know where they get their supremacy, you should check the Constitution and then read a little case called Marbury versus Madison, because this has been along around for hundreds of years, my friend.
	They do have supremacy in determining what the law is and what the Constitution says.
	Even over you, my friend, yeah, take it up with your favorite justices who see it as I do.
	This is insane.
	I know I like to mock the Obermans and the Mistals of the world, but talking about delegitimizing, defunding the U.S. Supreme Court is true effing lunacy, Dave.
	It's very dangerous.
	There's an often misunderstood quote from Shakespeare from Henry VI, Part II, that goes, first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers, right?
	Sometimes you'll see it on t-shirts, like, ha ha, it's a joke about lawyers.
	The actual context of that quote is there are people who are trying to overthrow the government, right?
	And Jack Cade, who's the guy who's the pretender to the throne, he says, when I'm king, there'll be no money.
	I'll feed everybody.
	I'll clothe everybody.
	They'll live as brothers and they'll worship me as their king.
	And his henchman says, first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers, right?
	And Cade says, yeah, well, we're going to do that.
	And he says, because it's not the bee that stings, it's the bee's wax, because the bee's wax is how legal documents were sealed, right?
	What Shakespeare's really telling us in that moment is if you want to overthrow a government, if you want to become a dictator, what you've got to do is you've got to kill the lawyers.
	You've got to kill the judges.
	You've got to kill the people who, when Megan says to Stu, I'm the dictator now, Stu, I got to feed these people, give me half your cattle, come in and say, well, wait a minute, Stu has a contract.
	This has to be, no, those people have to go.
	That's what Ellie Mostell is calling for.
	That's what all of these people are calling for.
	And not only is it dangerous now, Shakespeare knew exactly how dangerous it was 500 years ago.
	Well done with a Shakespeare reverence.
Polls Show Election Reality 00:15:58
	Yes.
	I spent the weekend watching Pippin at the high school production.
	My daughter was a middle schooler in the chorus and they rocked it.
	And I'm all for the theater discussion, Dave Marcus.
	I know this is your background, but I am here.
	And let me tell you something else.
	Thatcher Brunt, fourth grader, is going to be starring as one of the players in the American Revolution at his school.
	So I'm having a cultural experience here in Connecticut.
	Thank you for the theater references.
	By the way, great job, kids.
	Okay, Stu, what were you going to say?
	I was going to say, I am I am also learning and having a cultural experience as Dave brought up Shakespeare and you bought up Rocky.
	I think that is like the, that is not the way I thought this was going to go today.
	Okay, wait, I've got something for you.
	Here's the best part of all of this, the best part.
	I mean, it's, it's a, I expected the Supreme Court to do what it did, and I'm glad it did a nine out, did it 9.0.
	It's undeniable and you can't argue with them and now.
	But listen to this.
	Here's the reason why it matters.
	It matters politically because Trump's going to be on the ballots now.
	That's the number one way in which it matters politically.
	But it also matters very much in terms of the narrative over the next nine months.
	This is what one of Biden's top advisors just told the New Yorker, okay, about how we're going to get to the terrible polling that just came out, New York Times slash Sienna and CBS.
	It's devastating.
	That's the headline.
	Devastating for Joe Biden, as so many of the polls have been.
	It's all going in the wrong direction for him.
	This is why there's not a full-on meltdown on the left yet about Biden or an even more robust push to get him out and get somebody else in.
	So Mike Donnellin, top Biden advisor, tells the New Yorker, this is their theory of the case, of the election and how they're going to win.
	Quoting here, by November, he predicted, the focus will become overwhelming on democracy.
	I think the biggest images in people's minds are going to be of January 6th.
	So this is their, this is what, this is their plan.
	Democracy, democracy, democracy.
	And we saw in the 2022 midterms that that worked for them.
	That actually did work for them.
	Saw it on the exit polls.
	However, this whole effort, what Georgia did, not Georgia, what Colorado did, what Maine did, and what Illinois just did the same thing, kicking Trump off the ballot.
	That's all reversed now, has completely undermined their argument.
	That's it.
	And the American public's aware of these cases.
	It's not like they, if you ask, say, average American, did you know they're trying to kick Trump off the ballot in a few states?
	I think the average American knows the answer is yeah, it's crazy.
	This is it completely neutralizes their saying Republicans are the threat to democracy.
	You're the threat to democracy.
	Yes, Trump behaved terribly around January 6th.
	And there aren't that many people who are going to argue that.
	But the Democrats are the ones trying to take the vote away from voters right now for the 2024 election.
	No matter how bad you feel about the 2020 election, Dave, it's in the past.
	I think the active threat right now looks very much like Team Blue.
	Yeah, listen, I've covered January 6th and the implications of it since January 6th.
	And I can tell you this, since the January 6th committee did its primetime hearings and hired an ABC News producer to come in and make Trump look as bad as possible, not only did the polls move slightly against them, not only did more people come around to say, well, maybe this isn't so bad.
	Since then, those polls have not moved at all.
	It's not even that nobody cares.
	It's that everybody's opinion is locked in stone.
	So, I mean, this idea that suddenly everyone's going to wake up on November 1st and be like, hey, remember January 6th, three years ago?
	That's what's really bad.
	I know, like, I can't afford any food at the grocery store, but I'm really worried about that.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	I don't think Donnelly believes it.
	I think it's a placeholder argument.
	I think he's got to say something.
	But look, it's failed.
	Even Biden has backed off.
	Remember, like two months ago, every day it was like MAGA extremists this and MAGA extremists that.
	I think even the campaign has backed off because his, as you note, his polling numbers are only getting worse.
	That message isn't working.
	That dog isn't going to hunt.
	So they're going to have to try to find something else or someone else.
	All right.
	So what is that?
	Because let's discuss the polls.
	So CBS News, just out with this poll, likely voters.
	We always say that that's what you want to look for.
	Registered voters are interesting, but mildly.
	Likely voters, that's what you look at.
	Pay attention.
	Those are the people who have voted before and are very likely to vote again.
	Choice for president, Biden 42, Trump 52.
	A 10 percentage point lead.
	That's amazing.
	I haven't seen that yet.
	How would you rate their presidencies?
	Trump, looking back, 46% say excellent or good.
	How many say that about Biden?
	33%.
	That was registered voters.
	The rest is registered.
	How is the economy under Trump?
	65%.
	Good.
	Current under Biden, only 38% think it's good.
	Their policies will make prices go up.
	Biden, yeah, 55% believe Biden's policies will make him go up.
	How many people believe that about Trump?
	34%.
	Whose policies will make prices go down?
	Biden, only 17% think that.
	Trump, 44% believe Donald Trump's policies will make prices go down.
	I mean, we could keep going.
	And then I'll switch over to the New York Times Sienna poll.
	That one's registered.
	But if the 2024 presidential election were held today, who'd you vote for?
	Trump, 48, Biden, 43.
	Trump up five percentage points.
	The largest lead, quoting here from Nate Cohen at New York Times, the largest lead Mr. Trump has ever had in a Times Sienna national poll.
	In fact, it's the largest lead he's had in a Times Sienna or Times CBS poll since the first running for president back in 2015.
	The Biden voters among Dems, the share that are enthusiastic, 23%.
	The share of Trump voters who are enthusiastic, 48%, 48.
	So more than double the enthusiasm of the Dems.
	The numbers keep going.
	We'll get into some more.
	But I don't think we can overstate the devastation that is in these numbers, Stu.
	This is five alarm fire time.
	It is call Michelle Obama time.
	It's time.
	It totally is.
	It's everything's on the table of time.
	And again, these are from their respected pollsters.
	These aren't, you know, this isn't some Rasmussen poll that they can dismiss or Trafalgar or something that they don't like.
	This is from the New York Times.
	New York Times Siena is one of the most respected pollsters out there.
	They do a good job with polls.
	And this is showing results that the Democrats must absolutely hate.
	And their argument seems to come down to basically eventually we'll get this Death Star put together and everything will be fine when it's fully operational.
	I don't see how that works for them right now.
	I mean, it's not impossible, to be fair.
	I mean, they will have six months of a media doing everything they can to help them.
	They will try to make Bidenomics look like it's working.
	They will try all these things.
	But I think the American people are pretty resistant to completely ignoring the truth that appears in their lives.
	So it's going to be a really hard sell.
	And then you're kind of just, I think depending on the emotions of the moment, we all know that, you know, there's a lot of people out there that really can't stand Donald Trump and will not listen to any argument that results in him being president.
	They don't want to hear it.
	They don't like him.
	And they are depending on that showing its face.
	And I think where the mistake they're making is, number one, their biggest problem with voters is not solvable.
	The economy actually is solvable.
	Maybe we'll have some amazing run.
	Maybe they can convince people that things are better.
	Maybe the inflation fears subside.
	There are things like that that are actually solvable.
	The age thing is not solvable.
	And every single person sees it.
	Every single person knows it.
	The time Sienna polling on this is terrible.
	And there's no way for him to reverse this other than some miracle of modern science that we're no longer, you know, we're not aware of yet.
	Yeah.
	So only one thing solves the age thing, and that's not really a solution for anybody.
	It leads to Kamala Harris being president.
	It does.
	It does.
	And they, of course, don't want that either because she's not better.
	Although that would at least solve this one major problem that they have, I suppose.
	And you look at this, and I think the one thing they're overlooking with this is in 2020, they were able to rely on the fact that a lot of people really hated Donald Trump.
	And if you keep Biden out of their faces, they won't think about him at all.
	And every vote will be cast either for or against Donald Trump.
	And they think they can win that election.
	And they did win that election in 2020.
	They think they can run that playbook back in 2024.
	The problem is two parts there.
	One is now Biden is president.
	So now it's not just nothing they're measuring Donald Trump against.
	They're measuring him against a president that has, as all this polling shows, hurt them.
	His policies have hurt these voters and now they're expected to embrace him.
	And secondarily, time heals wounds.
	Like people don't really remember the things that they didn't like about Donald Trump in, let's say, September of 2020 as they're approaching the election.
	They're thinking about, well, you know, the economy was good.
	And, you know, a lot of these things, I don't remember being assaulted by my government every single day.
	Yeah, Trump tweeted a lot, but I can kind of put that aside because the economy is really important.
	And all, and I remember immigrants everywhere killing young girls going out for a jog on university campuses.
	I mean, yes, you're right.
	There are actual data points in the news every day now that they can look back at.
	The economy is always a big one, although immigration seems to be surpassing it right now with voters, Dave.
	The listen to this stat.
	This is back to that New York Times, Sienna.
	Non-white voters who did not graduate from college, Biden's up by six points with them.
	Okay, well, you might be thinking, oh, he's up by six points.
	He won this group by almost 50 points in 2020.
	My God, that he can't, he can't win if this stays this way.
	Where does he make up for those lost voters?
	Okay, the soccer moms, they already went for Biden.
	If anything, they're probably migrating back over to Trump by a trickle, not by these numbers, but he can't win if that stays like that.
	Yeah, I mean, he had 72% of that demographic.
	The one that really jumped out to me, he lost 10% of Biden voters, by which I mean of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020, 10% say they're not going to vote for Joe Biden.
	Not only does that make Donald Trump president, I mean, that makes Donald Trump president in a landslide.
	And I think Stu just hit on something really important because like Stu is right.
	There are those people who they really, they're not, they don't like Donald Trump and they refuse to think of him as being president.
	There's also a group of people who aren't nuts about Donald Trump.
	They don't really like Donald Trump, but are willing to be transactional about it.
	I remember being in an auction once and the auctioneer was trying to move something and nobody was biting.
	And he finally said, you know, you don't have to like it to buy it.
	And what he meant was, this is a good deal.
	You can turn this around and make some money off it.
	And he eventually sold it, right?
	Because people will think with their minds and they'll say exactly what Stu said, like, like, I was better off under this guy, even if I'm not a big fan of him.
	So I do think that people are moving to Trump in that direction and they're moving away from Biden in the opposite direction.
	And that poor guy, I mean, he's taken it on all sides now.
	I mean, he's taking it from the left on Israel.
	He's taking it from the right on the border.
	I mean, there is no place that he can step right now without stepping on a landmine.
	And it's, I don't, I don't know what the path out of that landmine is.
	The stat you just mentioned that's from the same poll, New York Times, Siena, says Trump is winning 97% of those who say they voted for him four years ago.
	Virtually none of his past supporters said they are casting a ballot for Biden.
	Now, that would not ordinarily be enough because Trump lost in 2020.
	You know, he needs to go 100% and then some in order to change the result, unless his competitor has taken a bigger beating.
	And that number is Biden is winning only 83% of his 2020 voters.
	His 2320 voters, so he's lost 17% in the number you just referenced, 10% saying it's not just that they're no longer going to vote for Biden.
	They're going to vote for Trump.
	They're going to vote for Trump.
	And then you got another 7% who are either not going to vote or go RFKJ or Cornell West or I don't know what they're going to do.
	But this is not a winning campaign.
	You look at the numbers and the numbers tell you how it's likely to go.
	This is not a winning campaign, especially because historically, Trump polls terribly.
	You know, I mean, when the polls are wrong, they're usually wrong in the Democrats' favor.
	That's what we were all told going into the 2016 election night.
	Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of beating him.
	Look at these numbers.
	I never want to get out ahead of my skis when it comes to Republicans doing well in the polls, guys, right?
	It's like got burned by that in the last midterm election.
	And I don't know, Republicans aren't good at get out the vote.
	They're just not.
	But they're not going to win.
	If this is real and doesn't change, they're dead.
	It's time to break glass in case of emergency, but they won't.
	They won't, Stu.
	I mean, what you're saying, you know, internally is get over it.
	He's not leaving.
	You know, and we heard Bill Maher say over the weekend, like he should lean into his age.
	He should just own, I'm old.
	I walk with a stiff gait.
	But you know what, fellow old people who tend to vote way more than young people?
	I'm one of you.
	I'm not crazy and I'll make good decisions.
	It's not terrible advice.
	I will say, if Republicans cannot win an election in this environment where they have an incredibly unpopular incumbent president and immigration is the number one issue in minds of voters, if you can't win in that environment as a Republican, I don't know if you'll ever win an election.
	And I think, you know, what Maher brings up is interesting.
	It's probably a better approach than what he's currently doing, which is trying to say like it's not real.
	Don't believe your lying eyes.
	That's kind of his approach at this point.
	Forgive the interruption, Stu.
	We actually have the clips.
	I'll play it and then pick up your thought on the back end.
	Here it is.
	Don't try to deny the age thing.
	Lean into it.
	Lean in.
	Lean in like you're eating soup.
	And just admit it.
	Say, yes, I'm bad with names and I walk like a toddler with a full diaper.
	But I believe in democracy.
	72% of people over 65 voted.
	Those are your people, Joe, the Matlock crowd.
	Reach out to them.
	Take all your ads off Twitter and put them on CBS.
	Tell America I feel your joint pain.
	So next Thursday, when the president delivers the State of the Union, I say he should let his old fart flag fly.
	Go ahead, Stu.
	It's incredible.
	It's absolutely a better strategy than what they're doing now.
	But let me propose a more radical one.
Should We Switch To Harris 00:03:05
	And I think all of us would agree that if they could switch out Joe Biden for Michelle Obama, assuming Biden would go along with that, if you're king of the Democratic Party right now, could just make these decisions, you'd do it, right?
	You'd do it with Michelle Obama.
	You'd probably do it with any number of candidates.
	The one you wouldn't want to do it with probably is Kamala Harris.
	Let me propose that I think if I were the king of the Democratic Party right now, I actually would make that switch.
	I would switch Joe Biden for Kamala Harris.
	And we all know Kamala Harris is terrible.
	Her approval ratings are actually slightly worse than Joe Biden's.
	However, the one thing you'd be able to get out of that switch, maybe two things.
	One is you'd be able to at least solve the age issue, which is still the biggest drain on Joe Biden.
	Even though his policies are terrible and I have all policy disagreements with him, the fact that the man can't get through three sentences without stopping for eight seconds or forgetting a name or stumbling over himself or literally stumbling and falling down is their biggest problem.
	And it affects even their own voters.
	You solve that problem.
	And in fact, you probably turn it into an asset where Trump is at 77 and now you have Kamala Harris much younger.
	And then at your worst case scenario, if Kamala Harris falls on her face, like Joe Biden likely will, you at least solve the Kamala Harris problem going forward.
	One of the big issues with switching out is how do you go to somebody else other than Kamala Harris when she's the VP?
	Your voters care so much about the intersectional vibes.
	At least at this point, she goes out there and she loses, you're at least done with that problem till the end of time.
	I think I'd love to hear if you think this is the right move.
	But if you had a choice to just pull the plug right now, not literally, Joe, pull the plug right now on Joe Biden's candidacy and just switch over to Kamala and roll the dice, would you do it?
	No, no.
	Look, not to go all, you know, female girl power on you, but the United States has never elected a female president ever.
	It's really ridiculous.
	I'm sorry, but it's absurd.
	And the first one's not going to be Kamala Harris.
	It's not going to be.
	It's going to be somebody truly extraordinary, somebody articulate, somebody strong, somebody who is a leader.
	It's not going to be Kamala Harris.
	There's, for whatever reason, there's like a skepticism about it, probably because we've never had it.
	And even though we've had strong female leaders at the senatorial level and, you know, in other countries, Americans are just kind of used to the one thing.
	It's just, it's like the way I felt when I went to an Episcopal church the other day.
	I'm like, why are there female priests?
	That's not a thing.
	I don't, I'm skeptical.
	I'm Catholic.
	I'm used to the men.
	It's fine.
	It's not for me, but it's fine.
	Whatever.
	I'm just saying the first female leader is not going to be Kamala Harris.
	And indeed, it cannot be.
	For the sake of womankind and our future in this position and roles, it cannot be such a moron.
	We need somebody who actually can do the job and who we can look up to, even if we disagree with her politics.
	She's not it.
	Dave.
Powerful Ad On Immigration 00:05:45
	The other issue is immigration.
	And as I mentioned just in that comment, it's everywhere, these stories about, you know, what's happening, the college campuses and elsewhere.
	The murders of American citizens, our youngest, our most vulnerable.
	Lake and Riley was the latest, but this has been going on now.
	And we have an ad that was just put out by, I think he described himself as an activist on Twitter that's gone pretty viral.
	I'm trying to find the actual name of the guy.
	I'll get it on the back end.
	But watch this ad that's just been dropped on X.
	I would in fact make sure we immediately surge to the border.
	All those people surge through the border, surge through the border.
	More than 7 million people.
	That's how many foreigners have entered this country without permission or documentation.
	The Venezuelan government is purposely freeing inmates, including some convicted, of murder, rape, and those criminals are now entering the U.S. through our southern border.
	sparking massive outrage after alleged killer was in the country illegally.
	Her Pasadena girl was found sexually assaulted and strangled.
	An undocumented migrant illegally crossed into the United States.
	An illegal immigrant charged in the hit and run that killed a 10-year-old boy.
	The shooting that left a two-year-old boy dead.
	This suspect was in the country illegally.
	I cautioned against conflating immigration and crime.
	The data demonstrates that the two are not connected.
	Very powerful.
	He describes himself as creator, editor, video researcher, anti-communist liberty maximalist, has some 61,000 followers on X.
	I haven't seen anything more powerful than that yet.
	I mean, it brings it home what's happened to our most vulnerable, our youngest, and the pain, the back end of the ad gets into the pain that the families have felt.
	What did you make of it, Dave?
	It's an incredibly powerful ad.
	It's an incredibly powerful issue.
	You know, the horrible tragedy of Lake and Riley is something that everybody can feel.
	And no matter how you try to spin it, it's a person who just should not have been in the country, which means that this simply should not have happened.
	The left and their media allies are absolutely flailing on this.
	Just the other day, MSNBC ran an article where they said that, well, the data doesn't support Trump in terms of there being a migrant crime wave.
	I'm not making this up.
	On graph 13 or 14, right, of this article, it says, we don't actually know how many illegal immigrants are committing crimes because generally speaking, local police don't take that information.
	So it just blows up the entire premise of the article.
	They're literally on graph 13 or 14 saying, hey, by the way, this entire article is a bunch of bullshit that you should pay no attention to.
	But instead, the headline says Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.
	That gets played over and over on MSNBC, but it's not going to work because people in New York City are seeing the local news coverage of cops getting beat up.
	People all over the country in places like Miami are seeing that trende Araguas are taking over the prisons just like MS-13 didn't.
	So there's some things you can't hide.
	The media is going to try to.
	That was a particularly shameless attempt, but it's really not going to work.
	You know, Stu, they say, okay, that MSNBC and the others, you're much more likely to get assaulted by an American than you are an illegal.
	Okay.
	That's because we have 330 million Americans in this country.
	And who knows how many illegals are running?
	20 million in the country right now.
	So obviously by pure statistics, that's likely.
	But as Charles C.W. Cook was saying on the editors the other day, who cares?
	One is too many.
	Americans we have to deal with.
	We can't just kick them out of the country.
	They're our brothers and sisters, criminals or not.
	We may not be on their side.
	They may not be on ours, but that's not the issue.
	One crime by one illegal is one too many.
	And that's something we can do something about, but aren't on the back end because of the sanctuary cities and aren't even trying to prevent by keeping them out or throwing them out once we know they're here illegally.
	Yeah, 100% agree with you and Charles on that.
	It is, it's a situation where they try to do this all the time.
	They will say, well, immigrants actually have lower rates of crime.
	Of course, they won't separate, sort of separate out legal immigrants and illegal immigrants when they do that most of the time, which of course legal immigrants are welcome here and celebrated here, I think, by most Americans.
	And that's the right thing to do.
	In fact, the people that come here legally are often often cherish what America is even more than Native Americans because it kind of taken for granted sometimes.
	I mean, that's just true.
	And sometimes people who come here legally can and, you know, they, they are fantastic citizens.
	Illegal immigrants are another story.
	Also part of that analysis is that people who come here and are, you know, immigrants are largely older, generally older when they come over, sometimes out of the normal years where crime is most likely committed.
	So you have a situation where it is, it's a ridiculous analogy in the first place, but it doesn't even matter.
	Who cares what lower rate they have when it comes to crime?
	You don't import crime.
	There's no reason to import crime.
	You should be sure.
	You should be sure that when someone comes over here, you would accept them in your house, in your family, at your schools.
	We should be looking for the people we really want and accept here, because every other country does.
	All right, stand by, guys.
Moms Liberty Dodged Questions 00:15:23
	Quick break.
	Coming back.
	So much more to get to.
	That's 60 Minutes report among them.
	So we have got to get on to what happened on 60 Minutes last night.
	Unbelievable.
	I'm ashamed of you, Scott Pelley.
	I'm ashamed of you.
	You're disgusting.
	You failed America's children.
	I'm glad you feel so good about yourself.
	But my kids and the kids of anybody who's got young ones who are in elementary school or middle school are the ones who are going to pay the penalty for the, using your favorite word, disinformation you put out on CBS News last night.
	Mike Wallace is rolling over in his grave.
	Ed Bradley, too.
	They had on Moms for Liberty.
	And Moms for Liberty, of course, is this group of moms originating out of Florida who decided to run for school boards and so on when they saw overreaches by teachers who want to indoctrinate students in left-wing thinking instead of just teaching them basic subject matters, math, reading, and so on.
	And then they also reacted to the COVID overreach.
	And they've been great.
	I mean, they have 100,000 strong, they say.
	So they've been getting out a little bit more into the press.
	We played a soundbite recently of Tiffany Justice on with Joy Reid on MSNBC.
	It didn't go well.
	I'm just going to tell you, it didn't go well.
	Joy Reed did not give her a fair shake.
	And though I love Tiffany, I don't think it went very well for her.
	I don't.
	I don't.
	I love her and I love them.
	And I want them to get better at media before they keep going out there.
	I'm just going to be honest, because I watch this with immense frustration.
	Immense.
	Not everybody can do media.
	Not everybody can fight with the likes of Scott Pelley and CBS in 60 minutes.
	Not everybody knows their tactics and what they're going to do.
	And he embarrassed them because he's deceitful and dishonest, which was foreseeable.
	And Moms for Liberty taped it, which yes, that was the move.
	But there, you, you, even if you've given the answer in response to an earlier question, you must give it again.
	Everything, it must be given in response to each question or he will not use it.
	Just because you referenced something earlier, you cannot skip it the second time or third time he comes back to it because he will keep asking it of you until you give him a generic answer.
	And then he will show it to his audience and say, she dodged.
	She didn't answer the question.
	That's what effers these guys are.
	So that's my friendly criticism to Moms for Liberty.
	And I hope they listen to me.
	Scott Pelly, you, on the other hand, are dishonest and disgusting.
	And I saw exactly what you did to them.
	These are moms who got off the couch to be activists to help their kids and you treated them like they were terrorists.
	The way you treated them was grossly dishonest and a journalistic disservice to your audience and to children.
	I'm literally getting hot.
	I say, is it my age?
	I'm getting hot.
	Like I'm mad.
	So let me show you what he did.
	First, he asks, what ideology are the children being indoctrinated into?
	Okay, I'm going to set it up for you.
	I don't think, and I'm not sure, I don't know.
	I'm not sure where this begins.
	He's asking, they're saying, look, we love teachers, but there are some rogue ones in America.
	And he does the old eyebrow.
	He does the eyebrow.
	I could show you the eyebrow if my Botox weren't fresh.
	Rogue teachers.
	Rogue teachers, he says.
	And they answer.
	The other woman is Tina Deskovich, who's with her.
	Rogue teachers.
	They stand by.
	And then Tiffany says, Parents send their children to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology.
	And there goes Scott Pelle.
	What ideology?
	Okay, now watch.
	There are rogue teachers in America's classrooms right now.
	Rogue teachers.
	Rogue teachers.
	Parents send their children to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology.
	What ideology are they being indoctrinated into?
	Let's just say children in America cannot read.
	They often dodged questions with talking points.
	You're being evasive.
	21% of Israel students are videoing.
	What ideology are the children being indoctrinated into?
	What is your fear?
	I think parents' fears are realized.
	They're looking at these books where sexual discussions are happening with their children at younger and younger age.
	Stop it.
	That's exactly where she needed to answer the question again.
	She didn't answer.
	She looked evasive because she actually didn't answer there.
	And I know she can.
	She's living this.
	He's what ideology are they being indoctrinated into?
	Let's just say children in America cannot read.
	Often they dodged questions.
	You're being evasive.
	And her answer was far too generic.
	You want to know what ideology they're being indoctrinated into?
	They are being indoctrinated into race essentialism, where they believe you have a different power structure or different deficits heaped on you at birth based on skin color and sins of the past with which you have nothing to do.
	They are being taught gender ideology that allows them to choose their sex like it's a menu at a Chinese restaurant from the single digits.
	They are being sexualized when they are in elementary school, which is severely damaging to their mental health and primes them for victimhood and exploitation by grownups.
	Some could call it woke.
	Some could call it diversity, equity, and inclusion, which eventually Scott got around to mentioning without the equity because he took out the most controversial part.
	But it's very easy to explain what these teachers are doing.
	We've all been living it for years now.
	These two women know it better than anybody.
	In the longer interview of the transcript, we've gotten pieces from Moms for Liberty online, and they did mention the gender.
	But you got, that's what I said.
	You got to mention it each time.
	You can't generic.
	Let's just say children in America cannot read.
	No, Tina, that's not the answer.
	My answer is the answer.
	Tell Americans what they're doing.
	Now, behind the scenes, apparently they did give Scott Pelley the books, you guys, right?
	Because this whole segment on CBS News was about book banning, which is the wrong subject.
	That's not the right subject.
	The subject is what they're doing to our minor children when we are not with them at the schools we pay for, either with our tax dollars or with our tuition dollars.
	That's the subject.
	Why do they want to talk about blowjobs with my minor child without me there?
	Scott, why don't you do a story on that?
	He's not interested in that.
	He wants to talk about the book bans, the evil book bans of books like, here's one that we've talked about, genderqueer.
	That's one.
	Just so people, just for a refresher.
	And then all boys aren't blue.
	I'm looking at all boys aren't blue right now.
	I'm sorry.
	Can you see this?
	It's a penis.
	It's a penis that's being massaged at the end with things to try.
	And then another one talking about ejaculation.
	I'll read from you.
	This is one of the books that got banned that CBS is apparently so upset about.
	An excerpt: You told me to take off my pajama pants, which I did.
	You then took off your shorts.
	This is two boys, followed by your boxers.
	There you stood in front of me fully erect and said, Taste it.
	At first, I laughed and refused, but then you said, Come on, Matt, taste it.
	This is what boys like us do when we like each other.
	I finally listened and on it goes, Yeah, we don't want that in our schools.
	You're right.
	I don't want it in my high school.
	I certainly don't want it at my middle or my elementary school.
	Scott Pelley, he was provided books like this.
	He refused to put them on the air.
	Why?
	Because they're too disgusting.
	Because they probably could get censored by the FCC.
	So he chose instead to try to make Moms for Liberty look like a bunch of extremists who didn't have the facts to back up their arguments about a really serious issue.
	Dave, I know you've got a son, and I know you love Moms for Liberty like I do.
	So what do you make of the debacle that happened last night on 60?
	Yeah, look, I can't disagree, Megan, with anything that you said, but I will say, even so, I still think it's a net benefit that 60 Minutes did that.
	I think part of the evidence for that is there are a lot of people on the left today who are upset that Moms for Liberty were platformed on that show at all.
	Tiffany Justice and Tina Deskovich, they're very smart women.
	They knew what they were walking into.
	There's a reason that Moms for Liberty at their conference had media training.
	Look, that's the lions, Dan.
	I mean, you're right, right?
	You have to keep repeating.
	But we do this every day.
	They've been around for two and a half years.
	Speaking of that genderqueer book, though, and this is why I say it's still a net positive.
	There was a moment just after what you played when Tiffany held that book up and I think they blurred it, right?
	And Pelly said, Well, that's a book for upper schools.
	And on very rare occasions, this is a paraphrase, but on very rare occasions, right?
	We see it in lower school and went on to say, well, almost everyone would say that that shouldn't happen.
	Whoa, timeout.
	Stop right there.
	That is not what almost everybody has been saying, Scott.
	Almost everybody has been saying that if you complain about a picture of a blowjob in a lower school library, you're a bigot and you're a transphobe and you're all of these things.
	So for that one moment, right, when he's defending the book that his own network can't even show, and when he's saying, oh, come on, 11-year-olds are only being shown pictures of blowjobs every once in a while.
	I think there are a lot of Americans who are smart enough to look at that and say, what the fuck are you talking about?
	Do we have the rest of that soundbite?
	We have, I don't know how much of it we have cut, but let's watch the rest of that soundbite.
	Tiffany Justice read from sexually explicit books written for older teens, but found in a few lower schools.
	Most people wouldn't want them in a lower school.
	But in a tactic of outrage politics, Moms for Liberty takes a kernel of truth and concludes these examples are not rare mistakes, but a plot to sexualize children.
	Oh my God, that is so dishonest.
	These are not mistakes.
	These are not mistakes, Dave.
	Here's just, we just pulled a couple from Libs for TikTok, which we love on the number of places where you can find these books.
	Cherry Creek Schools in Greenwood Village, Colorado, Fort Worth Independent School District, Maine's Wyndham Middle School, Middle School and Kimberley Area School District in Wisconsin, Denton, Texas, Los Angeles, California, Illinois Middle School, Tulsa Public Schools.
	I could keep going.
	Scott, how many is a few?
	That's just what we found in two minutes of Googling this morning.
	We're not 60 minutes.
	Yeah, and much like illegal immigrants killing Americans, one is too many.
	I mean, these things being shown to nine, 10, 11 year olds, one instance of that.
	I mean, if somebody showed that to my kids, I mean, I'd want them in jail.
	Yes.
	And I don't, I mean, that didn't used to be controversial, right?
	Right, right.
	Exactly.
	That's the thing, Stu, is it's creepy.
	It's creepy that these schools want this overly sexualized material in front of our kids.
	And he completely ignores his, what ideologies do you, do you object to?
	Well, I mean, let me see if I can find it.
	I've done this before.
	The audience is aware of this story, but we pulled our students, I mean, our children from their schools in New York City, as you guys know.
	Our eldest, who was in fourth grade, was that school was literally circulating a quote scholarly article that they wanted to be mandatory reading for all faculty, accusing white mothers of indoctrinating their children in black death.
	Scott, you're in New York, you dumbass.
	Do a Google search.
	Try reading the New York Post instead of just the New York Times.
	You might expand your horizons.
	It's happening.
	It's happening with race.
	It's happening with gender.
	And it's happening with inappropriate sexual content.
	All you must do is open your eyes and your ears.
	Get out of your stupid myopic media circles for once and think about somebody else's children.
	This is what's so frustrating, Stu.
	This is why I was disappointed in this segment.
	I know that they manipulated Moms for Liberty.
	I know they weren't fair to them, but this is why you need fucking have me on, Scott Pelley.
	I dare you.
	Put me on.
	I will go on CBS News and you and I can have it out one-on-one or you come on my show wherever you want to do it and we'll have a little redo and we'll do it live so you can't cut me up.
	But even if you do cut me up, I'm ready for you because you hear this shit in every answer I will give.
	And why is that?
	Because I have three children who are 14, 12, and 10.
	I've lived this.
	Okay.
	I'm hot again.
	Is it my advanced age, Stu?
	I'm not a doctor, Megan.
	I can't, I can't diagnose this over Zoom.
	You want one of these cigarettes?
	Stu, that was pretty good stuff.
	Oh, I mean, I...
	That's so important.
	I love the Super Bowl, but if I can see you and Scott Pelly together talking about this, I would tune into that instead.
	This segment must happen.
	Please make it happen.
	You know, and I think, Megan, like, no, you know, no, I used to, I was born in New York.
	I, you know, I lived in the Northeast most of my life.
	And part of the reason I now live in Texas is because I don't want what happened to your kids to happen to my kids.
	I don't want any of it.
	But like, I think a lot of people rest on that and think to themselves, well, look, I don't live in New York.
	I don't live in Berkeley.
	But you just read that list.
	I'm sitting here in bright red Texas right now.
	And two of the districts you talked about surround the place I live in.
	Denton and Fort Worth are on opposite sides, basically.
	I'm basically right in between those two areas.
	This is crazy and it's happening all over the country.
	And it does indoctrinate people into a left-wing, sexual, racial, and so many different categories, an ideology that is a hardcore left-wing thing.
	And it's important that you get people young to believe these things when they're young.
	That doesn't mean all of them are going to turn into people who are trans or, you know, like they use the word groomer throughout that.
	And obviously that has multiple meanings at this point in our culture.
	But like, look at the statistics.
	I don't know.
	Did everyone like, is there something genetic happening where people are becoming trans at the rate of eight times, you know, per year?
	Is it really true that, you know, 40% of younger people are seeing themselves on the LGBTQQIA 2 plus part of that community?
	I mean, that doesn't seem rational, any mention of science.
	This is because of an ideology.
	And the other thing that's crazy about this is you mentioned Libs of TikTok creator who was on with Taylor Lorenz a couple of weeks ago.
Children Ask About Pronouns 00:05:10
	And they were talking and it's like, you see the reaction of Taylor Lorenz when she shows her the same exact book.
	She's never even seen this before.
	Like, how can you be talking about these topics without the basic knowledge what is going on?
	Scott Pelly knows his audience doesn't want to look at these pictures.
	Scott Pelly knows that if people are scrolling through their feet and that picture pops up, they'll likely mute or block the person who posted it because they don't want to see it.
	So they turn their heads away.
	And Pelly is depending on that ignorance to win this moment that he's having with his ideology.
	And that is despicable, particularly when it involves our kids.
	Right on.
	One of the books that was saved in this Beaufort, South Carolina town, the 97 that were supposed to be banned and then only five or six ultimately got banned after there was blowback on the over breath of the original categories.
	One that was not banned, Let's Talk About It by Eric Amon and Matthew Nolan.
	Here's an excerpt.
	Let's see.
	I think that's the name of this book.
	I'm trying to, it's either this book is gay or let's talk about it.
	Oral sex is popping another dude's peen into your mouth or indeed popping yours in his.
	There's only one hard and fast rule when it comes to blowjobs.
	And then they go on to list what the rules are.
	I mean, my child is in eighth grade right now and he is learning something in science.
	I can't even understand the numbers of X's and Y's and calculations he's doing and the periodic table of the elements.
	And neither he nor any of his classmates needs to be exposed to this filth.
	This is filthy.
	You can learn about this the way we all did in the 1970s by buying the book forever.
	You do not need to get it from your school, from your school, and you certainly don't need it at the tender ages in middle school and elementary.
	Now let's go on because there's a couple points.
	First, he seems, you saw the eyebrows, right?
	Did you guys see the eyebrows?
	Right?
	His doubtful eyebrows.
	Rogue teachers, as if there are no rogue teachers out there who force ideology on kids.
	I'm just going to show you a couple.
	Here, just a few that we grabbed.
	Watch.
	If you're a teacher and you consider yourself to be an ally to queer students, I'm sure you already know to ask them their preferred name and their preferred pronouns, but don't overlook the importance of asking them who you can use these pronouns and this name in front of.
	More parts of my middle school classroom.
	Probably my most popular flag is my progress pride flag.
	I get a lot of comments on this.
	One of the kids referred to me as a girl.
	And one of my kids was like, Jamie doesn't have a gender.
	Jamie's not a girl.
	She like even like said the pronouns to him.
	She's eight.
	Well, Peanut Goes for the gold.
	And Jonathan Van Ness is the author.
	This story is about a non-binary gerbil who wants to be a rhythmic gymnast.
	And it refers to Peanut as they or they're in the story because they're non-binary.
	One of my students just came out to me.
	Hey, if your parents don't love and accept you for who you are this Christmas, fuck them.
	I'm your parents now.
	I'm proud of you.
	Drink some water.
	I love you.
	That last guy was a teacher in Oklahoma who then got booted after he posted that on TikTok.
	And now he found a job 11 miles down the road still teaching.
	Okay, so those are just a few.
	That's a handful.
	Again, Libs of TikTok doing a great job.
	Ask your children.
	Ask the children what their pronouns are.
	Totally straight and non-gender confused children.
	Ask them what their pronouns are, and if you should stay a secret from their parents.
	That's what she's saying when she's saying whether you can say it in front of whom.
	Then an eight-year-old understanding I have no gender.
	That's not a thing.
	You lied to that gender, to that eight-year-old, and you confused him.
	A non-binary gerbil.
	You're disgusting, Jonathan Van Ness.
	That shit does not belong in front of young children.
	And then the guy from Oklahoma, fuck your parents.
	No, fuck you, sir.
	Fuck you.
	You should be fired.
	You should stay fired.
	And you will never teach my children.
	I venture to say the children of anybody listening to this show because they understand what you're doing.
	I found the thing.
	This is at our old school in New York on the ideologies being forced on our children.
	This is just my notes from that piece.
	Arguing there's quote, a direct connection between the schools where white children sit and the street corners where they choke out black life.
	That quote, white kids are being indoctrinated in black death and protected from the consequences.
	That quote, there is a killer cop sitting in every school where white children learn.
	That's the shit we don't want forced on our children, Scott, whether it's from a teacher's mouth or from a book in the school library.
	And if you haven't been made aware of this, you need to start paying better attention because this is very pernicious material that could actually really hurt a child and future race relations, future mental health of children.
Intellectual Grooming Of Kids 00:15:47
	And let's get to the grooming question because that's another huge one, you guys.
	He asked them about their allegation that some of these teachers seem like groomers.
	Tiffany Justice had a tweet that suggested that in response to this librarian who wanted all these books available to the kids.
	Watch that exchange.
	Here it is.
	Tiffany and I served.
	We wanted to know about the messages on mom's ex account, which adopts the extremist smear with, if they don't like being called groomers, they should stop trying to groom our kids.
	What are you trying to say?
	Well, I'm going to say that if we'd have to see the exact tweet, Tiffany manages our Twitter account.
	So we read more exact tweets from their account.
	This targets a librarian.
	You want to groom our children and we're supposed to give you love?
	Again, Justice and Duscovich went to their talking points.
	I'm just asking, what do you mean by that?
	What do you mean by grooming?
	Parents want to partner with their children's schools, but we do not co-parent with the government.
	Grooming does not seem like a word that you want to take on.
	You know, we did some polling and we asked, we really wanted to know, where are the American people on this issue of parental rights and what's happening in our schools?
	Dodging questions like those was not an option back in Buford, South Carolina.
	Critics of the book ban said they knew what groomer meant and they saw it as a threat to people of color and the LGBTQ community.
	I'm sorry.
	He has a point.
	She sounded like she was dodging and like she didn't want to discuss the issue of groomers.
	And I know she can do it.
	And I know she's done it.
	I don't know why she didn't do it right there because let's talk about groomers.
	The traditional definition of a groomer, pulled it up, is the action of attempting to form a relationship with a young child or young person with the intention of sexually assaulting them.
	The suggestion, the use of that word groomer in today's vernacular online and elsewhere, is not that all these teachers want to sexually assault our children.
	It's that you're priming them to be victimized by someone.
	You are priming them to be victimized by someone in the same way a groomer would.
	You don't have to be the assaulter.
	This is from Internet Safety 101.
	The groomer may use sexually explicit conversations to test boundaries and exploit a child's natural curiosity about sex.
	Quote, predators often use pornography and child pornography to lower a child's inhibitions.
	Here's from RAIN, which is the organization fighting against sexual assault.
	Abusers, groomers, may show the victim pornography or discuss sexual topics with them to introduce the idea of sexual content.
	Grooming, they go on, is usually employed by a person in the victim's circle of trust, such as a teacher.
	And guys, we did a long show on Jared from Subway.
	There was an amazing documentary about his disgusting behavior.
	A prolific child sexual pornography addict and alleged child sexual abuser.
	And a woman we had on the show did a sting operation with him that went years.
	She was a radio host who met him on her radio show.
	She pretended she was into his disgusting talk, all the while taping him, ultimately, for the FBI.
	So forgive the woman on the receiving end of this conversation because she is not on board with any of this.
	She's working with the feds.
	Listen to him talk about how he softens up a child before he intends to assault them.
	What kind of cute friends do your good have?
	Oh, they have very cute friends.
	They know everything about sex.
	It's all they ever talk about in school.
	What I need you to do is to start talking about that kind of stuff in front of them.
	You know, you would just say, oh, tell Jared what you're going to talk about in school.
	That's what we mean by grooming, Scott Pelley.
	And it's deadly serious and shame on you for not doing your own homework, Stu.
	Yeah, I mean, look, you're right, obviously, that when it comes to grooming in the traditional sense, it's not necessarily the same as Jared, but the strategies are the same.
	You can groom someone into anything.
	You can groom someone into an ideology.
	And we kind of summarize that as the woke ideology, wokeism, that idea that has CRT and DEI and ESG and all these, you know, acronyms in them.
	But you're sort of softening the ground for a belief system in this case.
	It's an intellectual grooming.
	I mean, I am the proud father of two children that I raised in Dallas, Texas, and both of them are Philadelphia Eagles fans.
	There's a reason for that.
	I have groomed them into becoming Philadelphia Eagles fans.
	I have worked.
	Because you're a good man, Stu.
	Thank you, Dave.
	I knew Dave would at least agree on that.
	David is doing that to our children right now, and I'm fighting him every step of the way because we like the Giants on my side of the family.
	Well, obviously, you're wrong on that, but that's a totally different story, Megan.
	But it is one of those things where, like, you, as a parent, you do this.
	I mean, you are trying to influence your child young so they believe the things that you believe are important.
	The left wing of this country right now believes for whatever reason, this movement towards crazy racial ideas where skin color is the most important thing, crazy gender-based ideas where you can switch on a daily basis, depending on how you feel.
	This idea that people should be sexualized earlier, that they should be thinking about sex at ages that, you know, none of us even considered it.
	They think that that's appropriate.
	They are grooming them into that ideology because at the end of that, they turn into adults with crazy ideas and couldn't ever consider voting for traditional values in an election.
	There are a hundred reasons why they do it, many of them darker than what the electoral output is.
	And I think that the, you know, the person who knows this, obviously, is Scott Pelley.
	I mean, I think you're right when you're talking about monster lady.
	I had Tiffany on the show.
	She did a, you know, she, I thought she did a really good job on our show.
	You know, I thought it's a difficult thing, you know, being manipulated by CBS in 60 minutes.
	They're really good at this.
	And I know the majority of your outrage is towards Scott Pelley, and it should be because I love Tiffany.
	Yeah, she's great.
	It is a really tough thing to walk through those media firestorms and they will do everything they can to trip you up.
	But it's like Scott knows this.
	He knows this debate.
	He can't be this blind.
	He knows about all of this stuff.
	He's just looking for his moment.
	And when they go to her on a couple of those occasions and ask her these questions and then just immediately after half a sentence, say that she's evading, we don't even know what point she was leading to.
	She may have gotten to that in 30 seconds.
	To your point, she has to know these rules.
	She has to know what Scott Pelly's up to.
	But it's like Pelley knows these debates.
	He knows what grooming means in this context.
	He's just looking for this moment to win this weird war instead of thinking about what is actually facing our kids, something that they've never seen before and something that I feel like I want to put them in a bubble to protect them against.
	You know, like people are like, oh, you got to get out of your bubble.
	I know, I want to stay in the bubble.
	I move to the bubble to get out of whatever you have.
	I want the bubble to protect me.
	And if I can stay, keep these kids in the bubble for as long as possible until they have to leave.
	The longer the better, in my view.
	Here's the thing, Dave.
	You know, as well as I do, that school is the last place.
	Number one, you want your kid getting groomed to be open to any sort of sexual experience with a grownup.
	And those incidents have happened, including in New York, where we both live.
	There was a school up, you know, in the Hill schools, as they're called, years ago where it was rampant and kids have come out.
	They're adults now talking about the disgusting sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of teachers at this very Tony New York City private school in Connecticut.
	Last week, last week, a teacher was outed as having been an alleged serial sexual abuser of children.
	Now, how would you feel if your kid was at that school and they had books like Genderqueer in there and about the boys not blue, whatever it's called, the books that I was reading to you now?
	I mean, how do you, I'm sure that teacher would love to see that material sitting in the middle school library.
	So a little sixth grader who's, you know, 11 or 12 can meander by, you know, land of stories and land instead on this thing and then go spend some after school private time with the teacher.
	That's the shit that keeps us awake at night.
	And it look, it's going to do that no matter what, but it certainly doesn't.
	They don't need help.
	We don't need sexualized material like this in school libraries.
	If you want your kid to read this book, you can order it on Amazon.
	No one's talking about a blanket ban.
	We're talking about in the school setting.
	Yeah, look, I mean, I think Scott Pelly's response to teachers, you know, sexually assaulting their students would be, it's rare, right?
	Don't worry about it, right?
	It's rare.
	We don't have to talk about it.
	That seems to be his attitude.
	The books are not rare.
	But whether they are or not, right?
	My point is, even if it's one person, it is a moral outrage and it's something that has to be taken care of.
	And you're absolutely right.
	Exposing minors to this kind of material absolutely does huge favors for adults who would like to take advantage of them.
	But, you know, you said something that I thought was fascinating about the reason that you took your kids out of that school and that, you know, the whole paper about, you know, the white parents.
	Yes.
	The key there, Megan, was parents, right?
	The key there is all of these teachers that you showed, they think that you and I and Stu and all of the parents out there are these very backwards bigots who are really doing enormous harm to our kids by not encouraging them to explore their gender identity and not encouraging them to explore their sexual orientation.
	And isn't this all wonderful?
	And in the words, their idea, in the words of Hillary Clinton, is it takes a village.
	So as moms for everybody points out, they don't want to co-parent with the government, right?
	The government doesn't want to co-parent with them either.
	The government wants them out of the picture.
	And that's terrifying.
	I mean, I can't imagine anything that's more terrifying than the government coming in basically to your family and saying, we're going to provide your children with their values now.
	And we've seen it in the past.
	We saw it in the Cultural Revolution.
	We saw it in the Bolshevik Revolution.
	It's terrifying, scary stuff.
	And it's happening right now.
	So they're trying to take a look at the power of the people.
	It's happening right now.
	Yeah.
	So not only that, but the end of that piece that I was quoting from, here, they asked this question again because they wanted this mandatory reading for the faculty.
	Where are the government-sponsored reports looking into how white mothers are raising culturally deprived children who think black death is okay?
	Yeah, that's it.
	No, that's the point, right?
	You're the problem.
	You are the problem.
	And to the extent that they can excise you from your child's life and development, that child and the society, they argue, will be better off.
	That's their position.
	It couldn't be clearer.
	And now you have Pali out there, CBS News, 60 Minutes, pretending like filters on what children see at school age are weird.
	Meanwhile, good luck going down to the middle school computer and Googling hot porn for free.
	That's not going to pop up.
	That's not going to appear.
	You know why?
	Because there's an agreed upon set of filters that we use to prevent children from seeing material that's inappropriate or not age appropriate.
	And to pretend that we shouldn't have the same rule for books is to just be obtuse.
	So we have that.
	And yet he wants to dismiss all the instances of these books appearing at the lower school levels.
	And I agree at the high school level, they shouldn't be in there either.
	I realize people differ on that as rare mistakes, rare.
	But listen, it's not rare.
	And we've been hearing on our shows on you guys, and I've been listening to you, Dave, and reading you for years now about parents all over the nation who get a look at these books in their school library and are horrified.
	White, black, Asian, doesn't matter.
	They've all come out to these school board meetings to say, oh my God, we put together, again, this is just what we collected this morning before the show and like the half an hour before we hit air.
	Watch.
	This book here, it's called It's Perfectly Normal.
	I'll read some of this for you.
	It says, after a bit, a person's becomes moist and slippery and the clitoris becomes hard.
	After a bit, a person becomes erect, stiff, and large.
	Sometimes a bit of clear fluid that may contain some sperm comes out of the tip of the and makes it wet.
	Can we, sir?
	I'm sorry.
	Was it something I said?
	Just so you know, this isn't two boys.
	This is two women with a strap on engaging in oral sex.
	You're okay with that?
	You're okay with that.
	Why are you okay with that?
	Skimming through the book, you'll find graphic images of two women performing oral sex while discussing the sexually preferred taste of each other's bodily fluids.
	An example of an erotic fetish.
	We're each busting a load into this bottle.
	If you don't come, you have to drink it.
	Ha ha ha ha.
	If you don't want to hear it in a school board meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system?
	We have perverts that are perverting our kids.
	And you all sit back smuggling in your chairs, but you don't want me to read it.
	Why?
	Does it bother you?
	God bless the pastor.
	I mean, we couldn't say it better ourselves, guys.
	It's not a few incidents.
	It's happened all over the country.
	It's happened on race.
	It's happened on gender.
	It's happened with the oversexualization in the books.
	We need to be better gatekeepers of the pernicious ideologies we're shoving in front of our kids and down their throats.
	And the reason that 60 Minutes chose not to cover it, honestly, is the reason that I hate to keep coming back because I don't say it as a self-promotional thing, but it is the reason that alternative media has risen.
	I mean, it's risen.
	It's risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the mainstream media that is just completely blind to the issues that people care about and to just the truth, the truth and what angle is the proper angle to cover, or at least tip your hat to in a piece like this.
	They won't do it.
	Who wants the last word?
	Well, quickly, if I may, Megan, you know, you mentioned 60 Minutes and they didn't show these images, obviously, and the FCC is part of that, right?
	But I don't think that's the whole story.
	The reason why they won't show these images is because they know for any normal human being, the second they see those images, the argument is over.
	There's no way to win when you see these images.
Pornography For Younger Kids 00:02:24
	And to the extent that Pelley even has to admit that nobody believes that these things are appropriate for younger ages, or he says most people would agree.
	Well, if that's so, if the consensus is there, then there's not really that much of an argument, right?
	The argument is, I think, quite clear that younger kids in particular, and I would agree with you that there's no reason for any of that stuff to be in school.
	I mean, obviously, a sexual education has had some history in our school system, but it's never been like, hey, look, talking about the bottle and the fluids and all these things that you just discussed.
	None of that's part of it.
	Keep this away from the younger kids.
	At the very least, then we can start talking about high school.
	We can't start talking about high school until we deal with what's in front of us with younger kids around the country that you would never allow them to even search for this stuff online themselves.
	You're putting them in a position where you're forcing this.
	And it's worse than them going online and finding some illicit thing that they think they're discovering for the first time.
	This is being given to them with the approval of adults as if this is the way they should be thinking.
	And that is a totally different approach.
	And it changes the way our kids grow up.
	And it's just wrong.
	Well said.
	That was Pastor John Amanjiku.
	He's now a Turning Point USA faith contributor.
	And God bless that man for saying it so well.
	Guys, great discussion.
	Stand by.
	Much more to get to.
	I'm going to have a glass of water.
	I'm going to take a break.
	I'm going to come back.
	If you have thoughts and want to share them with us, please email me.
	I do read the emails.
	You can reach me at Megan, M-E-G-Y-N, at MeganKelly.com.
	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, Flynn 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.
Steve Blaze's Legal Trouble 00:09:32
	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.
	I don't know if you've been following the Fannie Willis saga, but President Trump himself weighed in on it.
	It's like he held his tongue.
	He held his tongue, and then he just couldn't take it anymore.
	And he had to comment this weekend.
	Here's what he said.
	And they hired him for almost a million dollars because of his great, great experience.
	Of course, he didn't have any experience.
	He had experience in something else.
	You know that.
	And at that, I'm quite sure he was very good based on the fact that she called him 2,000 times.
	I didn't know the gentleman.
	I didn't know him.
	Oh, you have 2,000 phone calls, 3,500 text messages.
	How is it possible?
	I happen to have a very good relationship with a woman called Melania.
	But I would venture to say in all the years that I've known her, I might not have called her 2,500 times.
	I know I didn't send 3,500 text messages.
	For the listening audience, when he's saying Nathan Wade was very good at something, he's doing the old like pound thing with the fist, just in case you needed that brought home.
	So, Dave, I got to feel like the lawyers who are winning this case right now down in Atlanta, I mean, in the Fulton County area against Fanny would have preferred he just, could you just hold it for two more weeks till we get our ruling?
	But what did you make of it?
	Yeah, I mean, wow.
	Like, first of all, like, I don't know if you watched on Friday, but the lawyer for the state, like the DA for the state.
	Oh, I watched.
	Like, I finally understood why they went with Nathan Wade, because like, if that's the best they got into Fulton County DA's office, my goodness, that guy, that guy, not only could he not explain to me what he was talking about, he didn't seem to understand himself what he was talking about.
	And I understand he got, you know, a bad deck of cards there.
	But on a serious note, there's something that I came to realize in watching this testimony that I hadn't right off the bat.
	We talk a lot about the financial motivation that Willis might have had.
	And I'm not discounting that, right?
	If you've got a $400,000 job to hand out, why not give it to your boyfriend and he can take you on trips to Napa, right?
	But I think there was another motivation, and I think it's arguably more nefarious.
	I think Willis wanted a lead prosecutor who hates Trump and his associates just as zealously as she does, who would be willing to break ethical rules to, I don't know, go meet at the White House with people, right?
	Who would take every 50-50 call and go against Trump.
	And let's not forget, Fannie Willis is elected.
	The rest of those people in the Fulton County DA's office, their career prosecutors, they might not have been so keen on her idea of, I've got this completely novel way of using Rico and it's totally going to work.
	Go make a fool of yourself.
	So this thing looks horrible.
	I can't imagine that the judge is going to let either of them or likely their team stay on the case.
	And quite frankly, I'd be surprised at this point if this case moves forward at all.
	I'm curious if you guys agree, but that's what it looks like to me.
	That's the longer shot, but it's very possible because I don't know that there's going to be another prosecutor who's going to want it.
	And I do think they're both getting dumped.
	In the time we have left, we've got to get to Steve Baker, investigative journalist at the Blaze, though he was not working for the Blaze on January 6th of 2021.
	But he has been arrested.
	He's been arrested by the feds for his role on January 6th, 2021, Stu.
	He did not storm.
	He went as an investigative journalist.
	What are the feds upset about?
	The things he said.
	They're mad.
	He called Nancy Pelosi a bad word and he seemed to show some favor toward the protesters, though he says some of that was in jest.
	But even if it wasn't in jest, it's not illegal to favor what you saw on January 6th.
	It's controversial.
	It's not illegal.
	So what do you make of what's happened here?
	The arrest of a journalist?
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	I'm here at the Blaze.
	You know, I work with Steve.
	I did not know him at the time.
	And it's been fascinating.
	We had to, I mean, I did the last interview with him before he got arrested the other day.
	He was, you know, he's the most mild mannered guy you've ever talked to.
	He's a reporter and you can tell he's a reporter.
	He sounds like a reporter.
	He's been doing this for a long time.
	He was there with his microphone to get man on the street stuff.
	And, you know, he has been consistent ever since I've ever talked to him about how he opposed the violence and anything like that that happened at these events.
	They're trying to get him on words he said, many of them joking.
	You know, being a wise ass on a podcast is not is not a crime.
	That is just not a criminal activity.
	Yeah, I'd certainly be in prison.
	It's my entire career, basically, in a nutshell.
	But it's fascinating because I will say I approached Steve with a little bit of skepticism, honestly.
	Like I didn't know him.
	And when he came to the Blaze, like he wasn't working here.
	He was covering this stuff and doing his own reporting on his own.
	And like, you know, I think there are people who were probably inside on January 6th who used journalism as an excuse.
	You see them chanting and doing all of these things that aren't consistent with what a reporter probably would do.
	And I press Steve on that.
	And I've been impressed with the way he's answered these questions.
	He's at times talked about issues and said he's been critical of people who were in there, who certainly who committed violence, but also says, like he said to me, he said, look, I mean, I am not allowed to actually be in that building and I know that.
	Even if I have a press credential, I'm not allowed to be in there.
	But when I was in there, I was in there with 60 other reporters who were doing the same thing.
	None of them have been charged.
	He told me the fifth person to enter the Capitol was a New York Times reporter through a broken window.
	What am I the person to sit there and let the New York Times go in and get the story?
	And I'm going to be like, I'm the rule follower.
	I stayed outside.
	I didn't get any footage, boss.
	That's not the way journalism works.
	Right.
	And he took that footage and he was able to license it to NBC News and HBO and many other outlets because, and the Times.
	And by the way, we have the footage of him inside the Capitol.
	We have all of it now.
	And he is standing there like, I mean, I hate to say this for poor Steve, but like the most boring person in the entire world.
	He is standing against the wall.
	He's letting people walk by him.
	He's not even moving with the crowd.
	Yeah.
	Look at it.
	He just, this is, this is basically, it's the most boring 37 minutes of footage you will ever see because he was really there to cover the story.
	And like you'd think in a country that is at odds with each other, a lot of unrest, the last thing you do is press something like this against a legitimate reporter working at a major conservative outlet.
	But it seems like chaos seems to be more of the goal than quelling this unease between the two sides.
	And that is maybe the most problematic part of all of this.
	Dave, on top of everything, he says now, Steve Baker says, his hands and his ankles were chained when he was dragged into court in the federal building in front of the magistrate judge to face four misdemeanor charges.
	He was chained.
	Yeah, that was done for our benefit, right?
	That was a message to you, Megan.
	That was a message to you, Steve.
	That was a message to me and anybody else who may have the temerity to criticize the Biden administration, the Democrats, the left, or say a kind word about Donald Trump.
	This is absolutely chilling, and it's not an isolated incident.
	I wrote about the case of Owen Schroer, which was a little bit of a different case because there was a probation issue there.
	And so the underlying crime was perhaps a little more plausible.
	But the Department of Justice sent a sentencing recommendation where they asked the judge to give him more jail time because he went on InfoWars and said the election was stolen.
	I'm sorry.
	This is the United States of America.
	You don't get more jail time for stating your political opinion.
	So this is creep, right?
	Starts with InfoWars.
	Now it's at the blaze.
	Listen, their eyes are on us, guys.
	Don't kid yourself.
	James O'Keefe, too.
	We'll see what happens in the movies.
	But the FBI came, raided his house in the middle of the pre-dawn light after he tried to get that Ashley Biden diary potentially published, but he never did it.
	That's ongoing.
	His whole career is in tatters right now, but he's resurrected over at ONC.
	The only credential we need is the First Amendment.
	That is the only press credential that anybody needs.
	That's right.
	Now get out of my way.
	Guys, great to have you.
	It's so fun talking to you guys.
	I appreciate you being here.
	All the best.
	Thanks, Megan.
	Thanks so much.
	All right, I'll see all of you tomorrow.
	I want to tell you programming note on Wednesday, Ashley Merchant's giving testimony before the Georgia Senate, and we will cover it for you.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:00 Trump's Humiliating Defeat
00:15:12 Court Reverses State Decision
00:20:51 Kill The Lawyers First
00:23:15 Polls Show Election Reality
00:39:14 Should We Switch To Harris
00:42:19 Powerful Ad On Immigration
00:48:05 Moms Liberty Dodged Questions
01:03:28 Children Ask About Pronouns
01:08:38 Intellectual Grooming Of Kids
01:24:26 Pornography For Younger Kids
01:26:50 Steve Blaze's Legal Trouble