All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 5, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show
01:36:54
20240305_new-fani-willis-witnesses-and-the-power-of-drudge-
|

Time Text
Insurrection Statute and Precedent 00:14:57
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon East.
Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show and happy Super Tuesday.
Remember that?
Do you guys know that SNL reference?
I used to do this on the air at Fox, and Brett Barrett would be looking at me like, What are you doing?
And then he like he learned to love Super Tuesday.
Want, want.
It's really not that super.
It's kind of super boring.
2024, a very different election year from the prior Super Tuesdays.
We know President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are going to dominate tonight, and they're going to be the nominees.
The only thing that's going to stop them is somehow their own parties intervening to stop them, or you know, the big man upstairs stepping in to say, you won't be around in November.
God forbid, I'm just saying it's going to happen.
These two are the nominees.
We're going to let you know officially what happens tomorrow, but that's not where the real news is today when it comes to this presidential race.
Instead, it is in the courts, and we have major updates in several of the proceedings, including the Fannie Willis disqualification case, in which not one but two new witnesses have just come forward and the implications for former President Donald Trump's trial there, as well as a continued fallout in the Supreme Court decision yesterday, which we and others have been poring over to figure out just how good it is for Donald Trump.
And it turns out it's even better than we thought.
Plus, we've got trial updates now out of New York, DC, and more.
There are a lot of maneuverings going on behind the scenes by the Democrats to make these things happen faster, and of course, by Team Trump to slow them down, and then by the media to express outrage in response to any Trump win.
But then you knew that.
Joining me now to kick things off today is Mike Davis.
He's founder of the Article 3 Project, and Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located.
You can find Mike on Fox, Dave on MSNBC, but together only right here on the Megan Kelly Show.
Guys, welcome back.
Great to have you.
We'll get to Fanny in a Willis, Fanny in a Willis, Fanny in a minute.
But I want to start with the Supreme Court decision yesterday, nine to zero, that Trump should stay on the ballot in Colorado, and this will affect him in all the states.
Anybody trying to kick him off is going to have to deal with this.
But as it turns out, there was more in the decision, and it just broke in when we went to air yesterday, than we really knew.
And I'll paraphrase it from Andy McCarthy's National Review piece, where he said, Okay, it's for sure they held that states are not empowered by the 14th Amendment to remove alleged insurrectionists from the ballot.
That is clear.
All nine agreed on that.
States can't do it.
Can't have the patchwork of Colorado finding differently than Georgia, Florida, et cetera.
And then five of the justices went on to say, the only conservative who didn't join in this is Amy Coney Barrett, that this insurrectionist piece of the 14th Amendment can only be enforced against someone who's been convicted of an insurrection, who has been convicted of an insurrection.
And that is the piece that drove the three liberals nuts.
So they wrote their own decisions.
Sodomayor, Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson saying, you went too far.
I read this to the audience yesterday.
There was no reason to get to that.
You shouldn't have gotten to that.
And the reason they're so mad about it, Mike, is that what this does is it makes it impossible for Congress, really at any point, at any time it's going to affect Trump to invoke this clause against him again.
Because the majority of the Supreme Court said this piece of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment saying you can't run if you're an insurrectionist, can only be enforced against someone convicted of an insurrection.
And Trump hasn't been convicted.
He was impeached for things in the House.
He wasn't found guilty in the Senate.
He hasn't been indicted for insurrection anywhere.
And so this really was even better for Trump than at least we first thought when we looked at it yesterday.
What do you make of it?
Well, the Supreme Court's exactly right.
And they're following a precedent from more than 150 years ago called the Griffins case.
And it was, it's not a controlling precedent.
It's a persuasive precedent where then Chief Justice Salmon Chase, writing circuit as a circuit judge, not a Supreme Court justice, decided a case where it was these exact patterns where someone was that they were trying to disqualify a Confederate who engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
And Salmon Chase said, no, in order to do this, Congress has to pass a federal criminal statute for insurrection or rebellion with a disqualification clause, which Congress promptly did.
And it's on the books now.
The utmost updated version was 1948.
And it's still in the books.
And if Jack Smith or the Democrats want to get rid of Trump, if they fear American voters and they don't want American voters to decide the election on November 5th, 2024, then Jack Smith better get moving.
He better charge Trump with insurrection under this statute.
He better get a federal jury, grand jury to indict a federal jury to find guilt unanimously with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, a federal judge to convict and that conviction upheld on appeal.
That's the only way you can disqualify under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
You have to ask yourself this.
The January 6th Democrats and the Biden Justice Department have spent tens of millions of dollars hunting for insurrection evidence on Trump.
And they charge Trump with many other things, but they couldn't charge Trump with insurrection because the evidence doesn't exist.
How many insurrectionists go unarmed into a nation's capital, get to the Senate floor of the nation's capital and walk through velvet ropes, follow police direction, take selfies and don't burn down the damn place?
January 6th was a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service that devolved into a riot period full stop.
And what Andy says, Dave, is that this means that congressional Democrats would not be able to on the next January 6th of 2025, right after we've had the election.
You know, that was the day they certified the vote.
Mike Pence counted the votes.
They would not be able to refuse to ratify a Trump victory on the grounds that he is an insurrectionist.
the Supreme Court just took that away from them.
And this is one of the many reasons why some on the left are very angry at the Supreme Court for this decision and in particular for that additional step the five conservatives took.
Well, first off, good to be with you, Megan.
It's nice to see Mike so happy for once.
I can see why he's got two, he's got two really good Supreme Court decisions under his belt, plus good polling numbers.
So congrats, Mike.
This is your Halcyon period.
And I tell my Democratic friends, this is what you get when you listen to Susan Sarandon for your political advice and end up voting for Jill Stein.
You get a Supreme Court that doesn't know the idea of judicial restraint.
So instead of just ruling on the issue in front of them, they went further.
And the one thing I would disagree with, Megan, is, and I have a lot of respect for Judge McCarthy, but I didn't see that in the opinion where you have to have a conviction for insurrection before you can bounce someone from the ballot.
And I read this and the concurring opinions.
And here's how I interpret it is that what the Supreme Court said is that only Congress can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Now, there's nothing in Section 5 that says it's exclusive to Congress, but the Supreme Court said only Congress.
So if that means that there is someone who did engage in insurrection and was convicted of insurrection, that states cannot bounce that person off the ballot.
Only Congress can establish a mechanism.
And if Congress doesn't establish a mechanism, then tough luck.
Plus, even...
Wait, let me just answer that.
You're right.
I mean, I simplified it for the audience.
But what Andy is saying is that right now, the only existing statute that could be used is the penal law against insurrection.
That's the only law on the books right now that could be used.
And Trump has not been charged as an insurrectionist.
So yes, going forward, sure, they could change the law, but you tell me how in a Republican-controlled house, and we all remember Schoolhouse Rock, it's got to go through the House and the Senate and be signed by the president to become a law, they're going to change the law between now and November.
Oh, there is a less than 0% chance they're going to do that.
There is not going to be a change.
Congress is not going to act.
Congress is going to do what they're best at, which is do nothing.
So what this court decision did was to also tell federal courts that you don't have the power to disqualify a federal candidate from office because of insurrection.
Even if they're convicted of an insurrection, it's going to be up to Congress to create a mechanism to do that.
And so that takes the power away from state officials and judges until Congress acts.
So that's why it was such a broad ruling, such a powerful ruling by these justices and why even Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, hey, let's not go this far.
Let's use some judicial restraint.
But Katie, barred the door.
Mike's shaking his head.
No.
Why?
Well, I would say, I think David is right that you can have a civil component to this because the predecessor to this criminal statute on insurrection or rebellion, there was a civil statute.
So it could be either civil set up by Congress or criminal.
So that's, you know, well, according to the Griffins case, it has to be criminal, but there was a civil component to this.
So, you know, that's he, he could be, he could be right there.
I would say this on could Congress right now, could federal prosecutors right now get rid of people who engaged in insurrection?
And the answer is yes.
They would have to be charged.
Those insurrectionists would have to be charged under this federal criminal statute for insurrection or rebellion with a disqualification clause that's already on the books.
Congress wouldn't have to do anything new.
It's just the Biden Justice Department would actually have to come up with evidence of insurrection or rebellion.
Like Mike, like we're like take.
Take, for example, some of those J6 defendants who actually were charged with insurrection and found guilty.
Well, I don't know if they were charged with insurrection, I think they were charged with seditious conspiracy, which is, oh right, you're right, you're right, you're right, right.
So that wouldn't do it.
So, but if you were to have a january 6th uh, defendant charged with insurrection and convicted of insurrection, the Supreme Court has basically said those people are not going to be president, correct?
So you know.
But Dave, maybe if you go after Horn Man or Electorn Guy uh, my two favorites for presidents uh, you know, you could, you could take them out with that statute.
Well Megan Mike, Mike is right that no one has been charged with insurrection, they've been charged with conspiracy, which is different.
But now correct, if i'm wrong Mike I, the statute that says that insurrection is a crime contains a section that says you cannot run again.
I thought that was what was in the 14th Amendment, section three.
The statute actually prohibits you from running again if you violate.
Yeah yeah, so the insurrection or rebellion definitely lost my audience.
Get, just give me the bottom line don't, without doing in-depth statutory analysis.
I mean so, if you want to disqualify for insurrection or rebellion.
There is a statute on the books, a federal criminal statute on the books right now.
The latest version is was 1948.
It's been on the books for a long time.
You charge under insurrection or rebellion and there is a disqualification provision in that statute.
So if you're, convicted of insurrection or rebellion under that statute you are disqualified.
Okay, but that hasn't happened to Donald Trump.
That's the operative point, and while they could change the law going forward, there's zero chance that this house, controlled by the Republicans, is going to be on board with that.
So for now, Trump is protected, and not just for now, I mean all the way through the election and potentially, you know, up to january 6th um, when you know he's he's, if he wins, he's going to have the vote certified and so on.
All right.
So that's a very good thing for Donald Trump and it's very bad for people like Michael Ludig, Lawrence Tribe who, I mean, since this idea came up and Ludig was one of the ones who did it.
He was a, you know, I mean I think it's fair to say he's a respected appellate court judge um, but this is a cockamame idea and he was put.
It's not like.
You see Michael Ludig all over Cable NEWS on a normal basis, but he was a star on Cable NEWS.
Lawrence Tribe, he's been on Msnbc.
He's a very hardcore Anti-trump guy.
Um, but here's just a flashback of some of the media and the experts embracing this wonderful idea which, as I point out, while they were split on just how far they went, nine out of nine did say, states are not empowered by the 14th amendment to remove alleged insurrectionists from the ballot.
Watch this.
And Saudi Colorado is executing its states rights to decide who should be on their own ballot grounded in the constitutions.
That language in the constitution, Jim.
That simply could not be any clearer.
This is a slam dunk.
The former president is not eligible to be president again.
Trump incited and therefore engaged in an armed insurrection against the constitution.
Trump is indeed ineligible to be president.
Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection against the constitution.
Donald Trump cannot be president for under the constitution he cannot be our president again.
That engaging in insurrection has disqualified himself from holding any future federal office.
Will the Supreme Court agree with themselves?
We're confident the Supreme Court will reject that claim, Or not?
Constitutional Eligibility Debate 00:11:30
That was courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon.
For our audience, both guys are laughing.
Both lawyers are laughing.
It is kind of funny.
I mean, look, we'll see whether those experts now go back in and say, gee, even my side ruled against me on the critical point.
I mean, Dave, it was a resounding defeat.
Yeah.
Boy, the hazards of videotape, you know, that it looks like me.
Look like me when I said that the Supreme Court would deny cert in the absolute immunity case, you know, so I've been there.
It's just, there's no getting around it.
And that's, that's because it really was Kakamimi.
I mean, it was a real reach.
And I forget whether what I found, right?
I remember looking into Ludig.
He's, I think he's more right-leaning, but he's a never-Trumper.
He's a never-Trumper.
You have to, when you look at the conservative leanings of these judges, Mike, you have to figure out, okay, it's not enough just to say they're conservative and therefore I need to take them seriously on an anti-Trump move.
You do have to figure out one step beyond that.
And I'm sorry to make it all boil down to politics, but I mean, in this case, it does.
Yeah, so Judge Michael Ludig is a total goofball.
He lost his mind when he got passed over for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.
I was in the White House at the time.
He got mad.
He resigned from the bench.
And he's just been a bitter, washed up loser for years and years and years.
Can I raise his hand?
All right.
Here I am defending the Federalist Society ultra-conservative judge, Judge Ludig.
Look, here's the thing.
This wasn't a complete victory for Trump at the Supreme Court in that they did not address the issue that Trump wanted them to address, which is whether or not he engaged in insurrection.
They left that to the lower courts.
And by doing that, the finding from the lower courts is that Trump did engage in insurrection.
So where Ludig and others are coming from is that if you did engage in insurrection, the plain meaning of the text of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, says you are disqualified for running for office.
So that's where they came from.
But the Supreme Court decided to abandon their textualist roots, originalist roots, and decide to rule on principles of federalism and just common sense that we don't want 50 states to go in 50 different directions.
There would be chaos.
All right.
Here's a little sample of that point.
Not to lump you in with these people, Dave, from reacting to this decision.
This is given to us by the Media Research Center.
So I'm really watching.
This is actually what I had been concerned about.
I had been concerned that should it go to the Supreme Court, they would rule this way.
I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.
My next guest says Donald Trump is still an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
The court itself may have overstepped.
The court went way further than it needed to go.
Our colleague Melissa Murray has called this Supreme Court the YOLO court.
The criticism of the court is that they're playing interference.
Not since Bush v. Gore, who we've seen a court that has had this many opportunities to interfere in the election.
The headline here is that this is a unanimous ruling.
But if you scratch the surface just a little, this is a five to four ruling.
I'm part of it.
This is actually a five to four decision.
It's five to four.
Trump will take this, spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it.
You can't save the people from themselves.
Whatever happened to Larry Sabado?
Remember him, Mike Davis, back in the Fox days?
He was like a normal pollster that you could rely on for down-the-middle analysis.
Now he's gone hardcore never Trump.
But look, I understand the 5-4 argument for the reasons that we kicked the show off with.
But on the core point, it was 9-0.
And I wonder whether these same people are going to be so disgusted with the court and ready to dismantle it after the court is likely, Dave, to rule against Trump and his claims that everything he did in office is immune from prosecution when we get that decision in May or June.
They're going to rule against him on that, but they're going to drag their feet.
And that will infuriate my colleagues.
And I understand that because if they continue to delay this matter, the trial in D.C. may not ever happen.
So that's what they're doing.
What are you saying?
The only people who dragged their feet were Jack Smith and the Justice Department.
As soon as they filed the charges, Trump started to challenge it legally.
Now it's gone up.
Supreme Court took it.
They could have kicked it to next fall.
They didn't have to put it on this term, but they took it on this term.
They're not dragging anything.
Well, compared to what they did here in the Colorado case, Megan, where they expedited matters to give Trump a decision within weeks to make sure it was done before Super Tuesday, where they even issued an opinion on a Monday, which was so rare.
And then you compare it to intervening in Jack Smith's case, where they first said, no, we're not going to intervene in December.
No, no, no, we're not going to get in and Bigfoot.
That's because Jack Smith was trying to skip the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That's the only reason they said not yet.
They said, you got out of turn.
You got to go to the middle guys before you come to us, which Mike, every Supreme Court would most likely prefer, because then you get a whole decision with reasoning from the lower court that you get to kick off the argument with.
It wasn't unusual at all for the court to say, slow down, Nellie.
You're going back.
You do it before the Court of Appeals and then you come to us.
Well, yeah, I mean, of course they have to decide this Colorado disqualification case as quickly as they can because these states need to print ballots, right?
And they need to print ballots and figure out whether Trump is going to be on the ballots or not going to be on the ballot on this presidential immunity.
They are deciding this case in like warped speed.
They set this case for oral argument in April.
They're not allowing Trump to seek en banc review with the DC circuit.
They're not waiting to hear oral argument in this case next fall or even next winter as they should.
That would be the normal course.
They're very much expediting this.
And there's no need for them to expedite this because it's not relevant to the election.
Whether Trump is on the ballot is relevant to the election.
Whether Trump has president.
Yes, I mean, look, I would say this about presidential immunity.
I know you guys both disagree with me on this, but I seem to have a track record on this.
The Supreme Court is going to find that the president, any president, is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts.
Then the Supreme Court is going to remand this case to DC Obama judge Tanya Shutkin to hold an evidentiary hearing on what Trump allegedly did on January 6th that was in his official acts.
Like, you know, he was going to fire his acting attorney general.
That sounds pretty presidential to me versus in his personal capacity.
And then once they decide that, Trump can appeal that again because you're dealing with immunity.
And so the bottom line is, is that there's no chance this case is going to go to trial before the election.
And I would say to these Democrats, boohoo, you're going to actually have to vote for the president of the United States on November 5th, 2024, the old-fashioned way, instead of having your left-wing judges remove him from the ballot or throw him in prison.
Here's, take a listen to Jim Acosta on CNN talking about how sad this is and how Trump files all these appeals, delays everything like, not like a normal person, even though everybody in the United States who gets convicted or sued civilly and loses has the opportunity to file an appeal which, Jim Acosta, he should familiarize himself with, a lovely service known as Google, or or any of its competitors,
which we're moving to now.
Um, because this is not a special Trump thing, this is called being an American thing.
Watch this, Jim.
What do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this, who are frustrated and say, you know, Trump is getting away with uh breaking the law, that he files appeal after appeal.
He tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way.
That is just.
It just goes against what our judicial system should be about.
I mean, isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country?
I mean, just about anybody else would not have the the ability to appeal things until uh kingdom comes.
Well actually, they do have the ability to do that.
That's part of our justice system.
Well, for all practical purposes, it doesn't.
That doesn't happen.
I mean, the vast majority of defendants out there, don't have the ability, don't have the resources to drag everything out and umpteen different cases across the country Mike, I mean, but has he heard of public defenders?
I mean, if I mean, I used to.
I used to clerk for judge Gorsuch on the 10TH Circuit.
I used to clerk clerk for justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
We heard appeal after appeal after appeal from rapists and murderers and carjackers.
And these same same Democrats who bemoan that you know Trump's not above the law, they want Trump to be below the law.
They want him to not have any rights.
They just want to throw him in prison and bankrupt him and take him off the ballots after they impeached him twice for nonsense, because they fear American voters.
Why do Democrats fear American voters?
Why do they not want American voters to have a choice on november 5th 2024?
I'll tell you why.
Keith Oberman's going to explain it to you.
I know you were waiting to hear from him.
Here you go.
Of course.
I'm respectable, says John Houston as Noah Cross in the movie Chinatown.
To Jack Nicholson as Jake Giddis.
I'm old politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.
And then there is what happens when you are all three of those things, as the Supreme Court is.
All three of those things politicians pretending to be justices working in an ugly building and as Trump relied upon and yesterday was proven correct.
They are all whores, and I have lots to say about the Supreme whores and what they have done and what they might yet do, which improbably enough includes making Joe Biden into an instant American king.
Yet they are not the lead story.
The evidence is mounting that what Donald Trump is suffering from is something called fluent aphasia.
There are 2 million Americans with aphasia, a kind of catch-all for a series of communication disorders.
And obviously, this is a layman asserting this.
I could be wildly wrong.
Yes, some self-awareness at the end.
I'll give you the first crack on that one, Mike, because I see you laughing.
Well, I would say this.
I take offense to what he said about.
Everything else he said was fine, but he said the Supreme Court building was ugly.
And I just, I take great offense to that because I think the Supreme Court building is beautiful.
I agree.
I agree.
We can all agree on that.
I know.
It's absolutely beautiful.
And the actual courtroom in which the justices sit is magnificent, has a bunch of history.
And who knows whether Keith Olbermann's actually ever dragged himself out of his cave to go over and behold the majesty that is the Supreme Court building, but whatever.
Judicial Strategy and Delays 00:15:14
He's just fun.
He's just fun to listen to.
I'm not going to lie.
I'm kind of glad he's in the national conversation just because he's entertaining, but literally nothing he says is right.
I mean, it's either offensive or wrong or both, which is why we go to him a fair amount.
Okay, so it's done.
The insurrectionist thing is over.
And there's plenty more to discuss on the legal front.
All right.
Now that brings me to, I'm going to figure out what I want to do next.
Okay, January 6th.
That's the underlying case with Judge Chutkin.
This is actually getting very interesting.
So her entire proceeding is delayed.
It's frozen.
While SCODUS, in a separate matter that we made a reference to, tries to decide whether Trump is immune to that prosecution entirely.
So it's frozen.
She can't do anything on it.
And Politico comes out with an article called, entitled, The Enormous Pressures About to Land on Judge Tanya Chutkin.
And in this piece, the author makes a reference to the fact that Jack Smith, who's both pursuing the January 6th federal case against Trump and the Mar-a-Lago documents case against Trump in Dave's jurisdiction,
had an appearance before the Florida judge in the Mar-a-Lago case recently and said to that judge, Aileen Cannon, there are no DOJ policies that prevent cases that have already been charged from going to trial in the run-up to the election, even if the defendant is on the ballot.
All right.
Notwithstanding this, you know, supposed DOJ policy that they would not do anything to interfere with an election within 60 days of the election.
They wouldn't charge a candidate.
They wouldn't do anything like that because they don't want to influence the vote.
Now they're saying to Judge Cannon, we're actually not going to follow that in this case.
It doesn't apply because we charged him well before.
And so now there's real speculation about whether Judge Chutkin should go ahead with his trial as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court gives it any sort of a green light, should rush it to trial, in fact.
And the suggestion is that she could hold the trial only three to four days a week, leaving Trump the remainder to travel the country and campaign.
Hold the trial on alternating weeks, allowing Trump to campaign in the weeks in between his criminal trial in D.C. Hold half-day trial days, leaving Trump the remainder of the day to travel to closer states right around Washington, D.C., and to campaign nationally through his media appearances.
And then the writer goes on and Kush Kardori to say, you know what?
The trial also does not need to even end before November, though that's far from ideal.
They can keep this thing rolling and potentially you could get him convicted even after he wins.
And then he could be, I guess, kicked out, not certified.
I don't know what the end plan would be if they got his conviction between November and January.
But my takeaway on this, I am coming back to you, Dave, but let me just give this one to Mike first too, is that these Democrats will stop at nothing.
He can campaign in the afternoon in the states around Washington, D.C. in October 2024.
Yeah, remember, they waited 30 months, 30 months to bring these charges.
And these are coordinated charges with the Biden White House and the Biden Justice Department.
I've given you specific names in each one of these cases where they're specifically coordinating.
You have Nathan Wade, for example, billing his time to meet with the Biden White House and the Biden White House counsel, right?
You had Matthew Colangelo going from the Biden Justice Department, the number three office, to Alvin Bragg's office to bring the first indictment ever against a former president and a likely future president.
You had Jonathan Su, Biden's deputy White House counsel, waive Trump's claim of executive privilege on behalf of President Biden.
So you have Biden's fingerprints on all four of these things.
You had Biden going out there leaking that Garland was acting like a professor instead of an attorney general.
And so then Garland moved forward.
And we have these four coordinated indictments and criminal charges against Trump.
And they've timed these trials back to back to back right during the 2024 presidential election season.
And Jack Smith will probably convince DC Obama Judge Tanya Shutkin that he can do this.
Maybe he'll convince Judge Cannon.
But here's the deal.
The legitimacy of the judicial system is on the line.
When the American people start paying attention and they see President Trump in a courtroom for these bogus charges instead of on the campaign trail, this is not going to go well with the American people.
And when the justice system loses its legitimacy with half of the American people, they're going to lose a lot of their funding.
I mean, Dave, if this is the Democrats' campaign strategy, this is the thing that Biden thinks will win him the election.
That, as again, quoting here from Andy, who's making a reference to Adam Liptak of the New York Times outlining the possible plan.
A felony trial of Trump on the January 6th charges before a hostile Washington jury pool and an unfriendly Obama-appointed judge beginning after Labor Day, running through Election Day.
That is the Biden campaign strategy.
It's outrageous.
It could work, I guess.
Do we have a judge in Chutka and Judge Chutkin who would go along with this?
Megan, there is absolutely no evidence that Joe Biden has been pulling the strings on any of this stuff.
Remember, he, and I would agree, is frustrated with Merrick Garland because Merrick Garland, the one thing I'll agree with what Mike said is that he slow walked a lot of this stuff.
He is timid, and I don't think he was the right pick for attorney general.
But he finally appointed a special prosecutor and then it was on.
Remember, this is the same attorney general who's prosecuting Joe Biden's son, the same guy who let Robert Hurr become the special counsel and then released this report bashing Joe Biden's mental acuity.
And as far as the Department of Justice and this 60-day rule, there has never been a rule that says you cannot try a case before the election.
Just ask Senator, well, he's not around anymore.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, he had a trial for his fraud claims, his criminal activity in late September of the year, where he was up for reelection.
In fact, the jury gave a guilty verdict a week before election day.
So this has happened before.
It's not a surprise.
It's happening now.
And if anything, I got to tell you, I think the Supreme Court was dragging its feet.
I know we've talked about this, but one other thing about that.
They didn't have to intervene in this matter.
They didn't have to wait two weeks to then say, yeah, we're going to get involved.
And then when they did so, even after they granted CERT, they didn't have to issue a stay.
And then they could have had the oral argument like now, like in March.
It's all teed up.
You don't have to wait till the end of April.
So I look at it from a different perspective.
Not only is there no coordination between Biden and the prosecutors here, but it looks like the Supreme Court has been intentionally dragging its feet to make sure justice is not served before the election and voters don't get the information they need to make a rational choice.
I'm going to have to bust out my mother's cupboard again, aren't I, Dave?
Lack of planning on your part does not justify an emergency on my part.
She used to whip that thing open whenever I'd be like, mom, I need you to pick up my school report and bring it.
I forgot it.
No, it's they drag their feet.
Now it's not up to the Supreme Court to suddenly have to go faster than that aircraft carrier normally goes.
It's just not how things work there.
But I will say, Mike was nodding his head, yes, whether Judge Shutkin could actually help them engage in this strategy on J6.
But here's the thing I want to get back to.
Andy's saying, Mike, the DOJ pointing out, even if Trump wins in November and Mike Davis is his AG elect, right?
Is it the one that he's going to appoint?
You will not be in power until January 20th, 2025.
And he writes, remember, a president-elect is in no position to dismiss anything.
There may be more than enough time between September and January to get Trump not only convicted, but sentenced.
Jack Smith is banking on at least the former, the conviction, and he'll push for the latter too if it's remotely attainable.
My God, so he's positive.
I hadn't even considered this scenario, Mike, where Trump, where they do press forward on J6 trial before Judge Chutkin after the Supreme Court rules, if they allow this case to go forward in any way.
And I realize the whole heart of that case may get gutted by another case that they're about to hear, Fisher.
That's another matter.
That they might put peddle to the metal, make him do the half days or the four days a week, what have you.
He wins the election.
And between November 5th and January, they get a conviction and sentence him to prison.
What happens then?
Does anyone have any idea what happens then?
And that's why this Jack Smith is a scud missile that the Democrats send in.
And he is so reckless.
Remember, he was overturned nine to nothing when he brought his bogus corruption charges against former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, a likely presidential or vice presidential candidate in 2016.
He was able to win his conviction and destroy Bob McDonald's political life and personal life.
And then the Supreme Court eight to nothing reversed him in 2016.
It would have been nine to nothing, but Justice Kalia passed away, right?
But that's exactly who Jack Smith was.
He got banished to The Hague because he is a partisan buffoon prosecutor.
And then Garlands brought him back as the scud missile to take out President Trump before the election.
This is all about election interference.
They're not even hiding it anymore.
It's very blatant that what they're doing is they're trying to interfere in the election.
They don't care what the American people want.
They fear American voters.
And so they're trying to bankrupt, disqualify from the ballot and put Trump in prison because they don't want the American people to put Trump back in the White House.
Okay, Dave.
I mean, I think the answer to my question is we don't know, right?
It's truly unprecedented to have an elected president-elect get convicted of a felony and be sentenced to jail after he's been elected, but before he's been sworn in.
Like, I don't think we know.
We're on unchartered grounds here.
Are we not?
Agreed.
We don't know.
And I get asked that question all the time.
You can run for president from prison.
You could technically serve as president from prison.
What would be interesting, if he is convicted and then he takes office, I assume there would be a stay.
I assume there'd be an appeal and his sentence would be stayed.
And then he would go into the White House and then nothing would happen until after he's out.
I think that's why he's running for president.
He can pardon himself, right?
Once he's sworn in, he can pardon himself.
Well, it's not clear whether that would stick.
He can try.
He could also resign temporarily under, I forgot which Mike can help me, which amendment where the vice president takes over briefly and then parts of him.
Which one is it, Mike?
25th.
There you go.
25th.
So that could happen.
But you know, the reason why Donald Trump is running for president is because he realizes this is the best way to escape all the legal liability swirling over his head and it may just work.
So far it is working.
All right.
So there's, there are other developments still going, some crazy ones out of New York, too.
I'm going to take a quick break and come back.
The legal news today is actually really interesting.
We haven't even gotten to Fanny.
We have to ask if our guys can stay just a little later.
We'll do that during the break.
Mike and Dave, stay with us.
One final point that we raised the other day, Andy raised it too in this piece, and I thought it was important.
In the Florida case by you, Dave, they went in there, both sides, and said, okay, how about a summer trial date?
The prosecution said, we want July, or I think July 8th.
And Team Trump said, no, that's too soon, but we could do August 12th.
And no one really thinks that case is going to go off on August 12th.
But the thinking is that what he was doing there was getting a placeholder on that case so that Judge Chutkin over in DC and all the peril I just described there can't go anytime soon because they're not going to make Trump sit for simultaneous criminal trials.
So one is going to have to go before another.
So Team Trump appears to have thought, okay, better to have that one on the calendar than Judge Chutkin.
Let's keep her at arm's length.
But Andy makes the point that, well, the downside to this is Trump's lawyers have now undermined their credibility to argue to Judge Chutkin that the Biden Department of Justice must not be allowed to subject Trump to a criminal trial during the campaign stretch run.
So how could that manifest?
The judge, Judge Cannon and Mar-a-Lago would say, you know what?
We're not doing it on August 12th.
I know that was, we had a placeholder, but too much to go through.
So no.
And then suddenly this big, beautiful window of time opens up and Judge Chutkin says, I'm back from my European vacation and I would love to do it.
And at that point, is he saying like Trump would be in able to argue, unable to argue, oh, but it's not fair because he already agreed to in another jurisdiction.
It hurts his argument, but Trump said that they can't do it before the election.
And then he was pushed by Judge Cannon to say, give us a date.
You got to give us a date.
So then they said, okay, August 12th for the reasons that you and Andy have mentioned.
They thought it would block Judge Chutkin's future calendar.
But it is correct that now they can use that against him.
When it comes to Judge Cannon, it won't matter.
That case is not happening before the election.
Judge Cannon is going to give in to Trump's demands to delay it.
Where it could come into play is, yes, with Judge Chuck and when Trump says we can't do it right before the election, then Judge Chuck and says, ah, you gave them August.
So that is a real possibility.
And yes, she has said she's going to ditch her European vacation to come back and try this case.
Asset Liquidation Risks 00:05:59
So kudos to her.
Sure.
She's like, this is vacation for me.
This is the happiest place on earth.
Not Disneyland.
Okay, let's jump to New York for a minute.
There are big updates today on Fannie.
I'm going to save it to the top of the hour.
Via Katie Fang of MS. Donald Trump has until later this week to post a $91.63 million bond to stay the execution of Eugene Carroll's judgment against him.
This is the civil case for first it was sexual assault and then the big judgment for it was for him allegedly defaming her.
And Newsweek says, of course, in New York, a person must pay a court cash bond that amounts to 110% of the judgment to appeal the ruling of a civil case.
That's why it's more than the 83 million that was ordered.
So he has to pay $91 million in bond to stay the execution of that civil judgment against him as he tries to appeal this.
On Monday, Judge Lewis Kaplan said he would not reach a decision on Trump's motion to stay the execution of this judgment, but he will render a decision soon.
So Mike, what does this mean?
Is Trump going to have to post this bond for $91 million?
And is he then going to have to post the bond for the half a billion dollar judgment that's been handed down against him in the corporate fraud case against the smiling Judge Engeron?
I mean, that's the problem.
I mean, so what is Trump going to have to liquidate assets to pay the bonds on these bogus judgments up in New York?
I mean, they changed the law in New York for this nut job Gene Carroll's bogus claims against Trump.
I don't have any money, Gene Carroll.
So go ahead and try to sue you.
I was going to say she's going to sue you.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, sweetheart.
But, you know, here's the deal.
I mean, Trump's going to have to liquidate his assets.
He's going to have to post these bonds or they're going to go in and what, like take over his buildings and do fire sales.
This is the, again, this is part of the Democrat law affair.
They're doing this on many fronts.
They're doing this on the disqualification front, the impeachment front, the four criminal indictments.
They're trying to bankrupt him for non-fraud.
They're trying to go after him for $100 million.
But Gene Carroll, this is lawfare and election interference.
And Democrats may be gleeful about this right now, but they're not going to be very gleeful when Donald Trump essentially runs over their puppy with a lawnmower on November 5th, 2024.
He puts back the White House.
What an image.
That's a terrible image.
Terrible image.
Dave, I really am interested in this because when he tried to get the New York Appeals Court to reduce the amount of bond he had to post in that half a billion dollar judgment against him, the judge said no.
Now he's trying to get a larger panel of the appellate court to reconsider this, arguing that it's an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual, but also excessive fines.
And so far, these judges are all saying, no, no, no.
Post the bond.
The one judge said, you can, well, on the 500 million, they said, we'll let you go get loans.
All right.
If you want loans, you can go get loans because originally that crazy Judge Engron said, you can't even get a loan for this from any bank that even does business in New York, which rules out every bank in the world.
And so they said, all right, you can, you can get a loan.
But what's going to happen?
Because there's like a Wall Street Journal piece today really talking about how Letitia James is threatening to seize his properties.
And while that's really not the state's first choice, because they don't know how to run buildings or sell buildings, that what else can they do?
That's their threat.
And if he doesn't post the bond, that would have to be their next move.
Right.
I do think he'll get loans to pay off the bonds, but you're correct, Megan.
This is a real threat to Donald Trump.
And he takes this very personally when you go after his finances.
But this is where his own rhetoric hurts him because when he says how rich he is and he has way more money than people know, yeah, the courts use that against him.
So a lot of this is his own braggadocio.
How is he going to get the loans?
How is he going to get the loans?
Because I understand he's got some money.
But if you're a bank and you see how leveraged he is right now to the tune of over a half a billion, I can see you not wanting to loan anything to Donald Trump.
My own fear is like the Saudis are going to be like, hey, we'll do it.
And then he owes the Saudis, which we don't want in our future president.
That is a real concern.
That's something, Megan, that I think we can all agree on.
We do not want that.
Now, Trump does have an asset that could be blowing up financially, which is the true social where he could be in line for a couple billion dollars.
So he could put that up as collateral.
So that's something that he could use to get a loan.
All right, that's better.
Mike, do you am I wrong to fear like China coming in and saying, we can cover the 500 million bucks.
Here you go.
Yeah, I mean, it would be very bad to have a president of the United States corrupted and compromised by foreign loans and payments, you know, from China, Ukraine, from Russia, from Kazakhstan, from Romania, every other troublespot around the world.
I mean, I'd hate to see a president of the United States or his family members take any money from these foreign countries.
Oh, wait.
Well, how about the Bidens and the Biden crime family?
Okay, this would dwarf that on a massive scale, but I'm against it.
I want to go on record and say I'm against it for Biden.
I'm against it for Donald Trump, too.
I really hope this doesn't happen, but this is kind of the position he's being placed in.
I mean, what would you do if you were Donald Trump?
Would you sell Trump Tower so Letitia James could get it just to give to these Democrats in Albany who are busy taxing us to our eyeballs?
There's no victim who's going to get this money.
Lawyer Whistleblower Revelations 00:13:10
All right, stand by.
Fanny's next and there's two new witnesses in the case.
Don't go away.
Before we get to Fannie Willis, I've got to tell you, this has been reminding me of something.
I've made this reference before.
It's one of my favorite movies and it should be one of everyone's favorite movies.
This Keith Oberman little rap that he did today on the Supreme Court and that he did last week on the Supreme Court.
Remember, here it is.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court are Trump's whores.
Chief Justice Roberts is a Trump whore and he can burn in hell.
And Justice Alito is a Trump whore and he can burn in hell.
And Justice Gorsuch is a self-contradicting Trump whore and he can burn in hell.
And Justice Kavanaugh is a drunken abuser Trump whore and he can burn in hell.
And Justice Barrett is a handmade Trump whore and she can burn in hell.
Reminds me of Tommy Boy.
Stand by.
And that's when the whores come in.
There we go.
God bless Chris Farley.
God bless Chris Farley.
We can all agree on that.
He's obsessed.
The man's obsessed.
I'm just telling you, there's some sort of a revelation in his constant focus on whores.
I'm just going to put it out there.
There's some sort of a revelation.
I leave it to the audience to figure out what that is.
Okay.
On to Fannie Willis, where there is new news.
Not one, but two witnesses have now come forward to various defendants saying that they would like to and are ready to testify.
They are both saying, shocker, Terrence Bradley is full of BS.
The lawyer who once represented Nathan Wade for a short time and was Nathan Wade's friend.
And when he took the stand, notwithstanding all of his admissions to attorney Ashley Merchant before he got to the stand about, yes, I know when it happened.
It was long before they said they were lovers.
It happened when she left the DA's office as a junior person and became a judge in 2019.
And then he gets on the stand doesn't remember anything.
Two other people are like, he talked to me like that too.
He told me all the same secrets he told Ashley Merchant and went on and on and had great detail.
So it wasn't just the texts to Ashley.
All right.
Number one is a woman named Cindy Lee Yeager, who is not just some rando.
Cindy Lee Yeager is currently the co-chief deputy DA for Cobb County, the neighboring county.
This is Fulton County for Fanny, but, you know, kind of next door, this is the co-chief deputy DA.
So this person also has an obligation of candor for the court, to the court.
And she is apparently ready to take the stand if the judge, because he's still considering whether he will reopen the evidence or whether he even needs to reopen the evidence.
And she says from August of 23 through January of 24, all right, so basically this past fall, that's the same time Ashley Merchant was talking to Terrence Bradley, that she had numerous conversations with Bradley as well, in which he was talking about his favorite subject, Willis and Wade and their romance.
According to the filing, he told Ms. Yeager that relationship began, see if this sounds familiar, guys, around the time that Willis and Wade met at a judicial conference in 2019.
Wade, quote, had definitively begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for DA, which is 2019 to 2020.
Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of this relationship and included details regarding Mr. Wade's use of Robin or Ms. Willis's use of Robin Yurty's apartment and other meetings between the two of them prior to November of 2021, which is when he filed for divorce and got hired by Fanny.
Mr. Bradley told Cindy Lee Yeager, she alleges, again, this is an officer of the court saying this, that Mr. Wade personally prepared his own divorce complaint against his spouse and told Terrence Bradley, you just signed the divorce filings and filed them, suggesting that the actual attorney-client relationship did not begin until around November of 2021 and not back in 18, as Terrence Bradley testified.
And they say, based upon these statements, it is Ms. Yeager's understanding that Mr. Bradley did not begin representing Mr. Wade until November of 2021.
All right.
Now, just going to give you the second thing.
This happened this morning, moments ago.
Another person has come forward, another officer of the court.
His name is attorney Manny Aurora, former adjunct professor at Georgia State School of Law.
Apparently, he's a friend of Terrence Bradley's.
Terrence Bradley.
He talks a lot.
He spoke to Terrence Bradley, says Manny, and he's willing to testify that Terrence Bradley, same time period, September, October, 2023, this past fall, regarding the relationship between Willis and Wade.
Aurora claims that Terrence Bradley told him the relationship began when Willis was running for DA in 2019 through 2020, that Bradley had personal knowledge of the relationship, including details regarding the use of Robin Yurty's apartment.
That's exactly what the other one said.
Personal knowledge, including the use of Robin Yurty's apartment.
And he adds that Mr. Wade, this is what this guy learned from Terrence Bradley, had a garage door opener to the property.
This rung a bell with us because Ashley Merchant, I think was also told this by Terrence Bradley because she raised it when he was on the stand.
We pulled the sock.
Watch.
Do you recall that he had a garage door opener to either a house or a condo or something like that of Ms. Willis's?
I've never seen a garage door opener.
So no, I do not have any personal knowledge of him having a garage door opener.
Do you have any knowledge at all from Mr. Wade or any source that he had a garage door opener to access one of Ms. Willis's residents?
And I'll object to any source as to hearsay.
All right.
Depends on the source.
Overruled.
No, no, I don't have any knowledge.
Well, it's clear that Ashley Merchant got that from somewhere.
It appears to have been him, but for sure, we've got a lawyer named Manny Aurora who's willing to take the stand and say, he told me, Terrence Bradley told me Mr. Wade had a garage opener to that property.
And again, we have another witness, a DA, saying he told me that they were having an affair at that time and had details about the use of her apartment and other meetings.
I mean, a little butterball turkey.
The thing has popped out.
It's done.
It's done.
Dave, is it done?
Like, how many witnesses have to come forward to put the lie to this?
It's only done if they had firsthand information.
What they're doing is just, again, saying that Terrence Bradley lied on the stand.
He was out there saying things and he has clearly loose lips.
And then when he got in the stand, he said, well, I was just speculating.
So I think that's what would happen here.
He'd get put on the stand.
He'd say, I was just speculating.
I was talking trash.
And so I don't think I'd move the needle as much as something else, Megan, that you may have seen where the first witness, Jaeger, said that she heard Fonnie Willis' voice on a phone call to Bradley talking.
And that would, right, that would contradict actually.
Yeah, that I think is a bigger deal than this.
This, to me, Megan, because it's not firsthand information, does not move the needle.
And I don't think that the judge is going to reopen it just for this.
It's that other thing, which we'll talk about, which may be a bigger problem.
I'll just fill it in now.
This first witness, this assistant deputy DA in Cobb County is willing to take the stand and tell this judge under oath that Fannie Willis was calling Terrence Bradley when Bradley was visiting Jaeger in September.
So Bradley was with Jaeger and he got a phone call from Fanny.
And she was calling Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Nathan Wade and his law partners had been paid in the case.
She was mad because the press was going off about how well compensated this one guy was with no relevant experience in prosecuting RICO felonies and so on.
And Ms. Yeager personally heard D.A. Willis tell Terrence Bradley, quote, they are coming after us.
You don't need to talk to them about anything about us, us.
An obvious reference to Fannie and Nathan.
Mike, all of this undercuts Terrence Bradley trying to claim he knew nothing on that stand.
And of course, the underlying under oath assertions by Willis and Wade about their affair.
Yeah, I mean, this is a train wreck.
And I would say about this, Terrence Bradley, like he's a lawyer.
He was a law partner with Nathan Wade.
Why is he running his mouth?
Look, why is he running his mouth?
Just keep your damn mouth shut, even if it's not exactly an attorney-client relationship, or it may or may not be.
If you're a law partner, if you're a previous lawyer, future lawyer, just keep your damn mouth shut.
Why is he running his mouth to all these people?
It's just that to me just makes me not like him at all.
I know why.
I don't know.
This is my opinion.
Is he's mad he got pushed out of the firm over allegations of sexual assault that he denies.
So he doesn't have.
And then he got, that's when his relationship with Nathan Wade, at least as a lawyer ended, he testified.
And that was, I think, summer of 2022 or maybe September of 2022.
So he's probably pissed off a little that not only did they push him out of the firm, but he got accused of being a terrible person of like sexual assault, again, which he denied on the stand.
And so while it appears they had some contact going forward, it wasn't particularly close.
He denied that he had any contact.
But now we have this guy, Colin Ashley Merchant, leaving the voicemail saying, I served them having lunch together a couple of weeks ago.
So Nathan Wade and Terrence Bradley, and that I know these players.
I knew exactly who it was.
And I introduced myself and like just all the bricks are falling out of this wall for Terrence Bradley.
And why?
Because he's embarrassed that he did blab inappropriately on a friend and worse, potentially on a client, but he did blab and it's out there.
And for better or for the worse, I don't know.
You tell me the judge is a human.
There's no sequester order on him and media, Dave.
So he's going to know this and he's got to review these motions to see whether he's going to allow these people to testify.
Right.
I agree with everything you and Mike said about Terrence Bradley.
Remember when Fonnie Willis's lawyers went after him?
We didn't understand why.
So why go after your own witness?
He's given your side whatever he wanted, but now we know because I guess they anticipate all this stuff coming out.
And the fact is he did have a bad breakup with Nathan Wade.
And so, yeah, this is something the judge is aware of.
The judge may have already made up his mind and this doesn't matter.
But if the judge has not or if he's ruling for Fonnie Willis, then he's more likely to allow this to come in.
I still believe the only thing that really is relevant here is that conversation that Jaeger heard herself of Fonnie Willis's voice talking to Terrence Bradley.
I'm just going to say, Mike, how do you speculate that he has a garage door opener that he uses to access this apartment owned by Robin Yurty, where he's visiting?
That's quite a speculation.
And very specific, a very specific speculation.
I mean, this case is a mess.
I don't know if Dave is with me now that this case, they should absolutely get disqualified from this case and this case should be dismissed with a new prosecutor brought in because it is so corrupted.
I would say to the Democrats, why would you use these corrupt lying buffoons as your front people for the law fair against a former and likely future president of the United States?
If you're going to run lawfare in 2028, pick better people next time.
I think that's good advice.
That's free legal advice.
I agree with that.
And I want to tell the audience again tomorrow at 9 a.m., Ashley Merchant will be taking the stand in front of the Georgia Senate committee that's investigating this.
They've subpoenaed her and all of the texts between Ashley Merchant and Terrence Bradley.
They've already interviewed what they say are whistleblowers in this case, though we don't know anything more about that.
So we're expecting to learn a fact or two directly from Ashley Merchant tomorrow when, interestingly, she takes the stand.
All the lawyers are taking that.
Pretty soon, Dave and Mike are going to have to take the stand.
I'm going to take the stand.
We're all going to be, but we'll tell the truth.
Guys, thank you so much.
We appreciate it.
Thank you.
Ashley Merchant Testimony 00:12:29
Thank you, Megan.
All right.
When we come right back, the mystery of Matt Drudge.
There is a new podcast out, which is riveting about one of the biggest names and least understood men in media.
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.
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.
It is one of the great mysteries in media.
Where in the world is Matt Drudge?
Despite being named one of the most influential names in journalism, Matt Drudge has all but disappeared from the public eye.
His website, Drudge Report, is still going strong, but is he even behind it anymore?
And why did he turn so hard against Trump in 2020 after having been pretty openly supportive of him in 2016?
All these questions have led to a fascinating new podcast called Finding Matt Drudge.
The host and producer, Chris Moody and Jamie Weinstein, join me now.
Welcome to the show, Chris and Jamie.
Great to have you.
Thank you for having us.
Great to be here.
Jamie, great to see you again.
What a fun idea for a podcast.
He really is this enigmatic guy who no one ever sees.
I have seen him one time.
I have had one in-person interaction with Matt Drudge.
It was in the Fox News Green Room.
And he likes it that way.
It's not just because he's looking to stir up buzz about him.
He really is reclusive.
And so talk to me about how you got this idea.
Well, it was in the middle of the pandemic.
We're looking for something to do.
So my wife and I, we started a little production company.
And this was the first idea I had, in part because Matt Drudge obviously wields influence and has for over 25 years helped shape the media narrative.
But there's also a mystery to it, as you mentioned.
There are questions that people still don't know.
They don't know why Matt Drudge became increasingly reclusive over the years, ended his radio show, stopped going to the White House correspondence dinner, basically disappeared from public life for the last decade.
They also don't know why he turned against Donald Trump after pretty heavily going all in for Trump.
And as we show in our podcast, visiting the White House after Donald Trump was elected.
And there's even speculation there was an article a couple of years ago, and some of the people that Chris talks to on the show still think perhaps he doesn't even run this site anymore.
So there's these mysterious questions surrounding him.
He's obviously a person of great influence.
We thought that combination made for a pretty interesting show.
And that's why we went and did it.
Totally.
Absolutely.
It does.
Just so people know, I don't know if the audience is familiar with the Drudge Report.
They must be because it's one of the biggest sites online.
He doesn't like it when you call it a blog.
It aggregates stories.
And it could basically be the newsroom, you know, the sort of editorial hub for Fox News for many years or for other right-leaning publications.
Enormous power in conservative circles and beyond.
Yes, my team is telling me that in the mediaite power rankings this year.
Okay, I was number four, they're telling me, and Matt Dredge is number five.
So he's a power, very, very powerful, very clearly, but he legit is.
And you went back.
And Megan, can I just add?
Yeah.
He's five now.
And that's when people are saying his power has ebbed.
You know, he's not, he's not at his height.
So, you know, even after 26 years, that's true.
He is still in the top five of the mediite power rankings, which shows just how powerful he must have been at his very height.
Yeah, I mean, truly, when I was at Fox News, you did not start your day without going to the Dredge report.
You just, it wasn't done.
And then you could see over the years him change for sure.
His feelings about Trump changed.
And I don't know if you guys noticed this.
And we have all sorts of fun thoughts from your podcast that we're going to play, but my own impression was he was very much behind Trump in 16.
And then during the Trump presidency, he was to me as a reporter, it was very clear that Ivanka and Jared were his two best sources because every other day we'd see some glowing picture of Ivanka or some great piece about Jared, who were getting hit by all the other media.
And so, you know, you can kind of tell as a reporter who a guy's sources are when that happens.
And then suddenly, like 2020 came around, his coverage on Trump changed.
Even in Jared and Ivanka got ignored, Chris.
And what was it?
Do you guys figure out why?
Why did he turn on Trump?
Well, we should emphasize how important the Drudge Report was to the Trump campaign.
Trump had been courting Drudge even since 2015, actually, even a few years before that, where he would leak things to Drudge through certain spokespeople.
On election night, Bannon and Jared Kushner called Drudge on the phone for advice for what to do with the exit polls coming out showing that Trump wasn't doing very well.
And Drudge told them, said, you know, hold the line.
Those are BS polls.
Trump is going to win.
And then in the aftermath, of course, Drudge was visiting the White House and was speaking with the president and his staff quite often.
People saw him there certainly more than once.
So he was a part of that in more cases than just somebody influential in the media.
Now, the reasons that he turned on Trump, there's a lot of different speculation.
But what we've heard from the Trump White House is that there was talk of Drudge not being happy with Trump on immigration.
That was a certain policy reason.
But we also have an interview coming out very, very soon with a former Drudge Report editor named Joseph Curl, who talks about how members of the Trump White House spoke negatively about Drudge and it got back to him, kind of took him for granted, said things kind of like, well, who needs Drudge?
Who needs a blogger?
That kind of talk.
And, you know, Drudge has ears everywhere.
He hears things.
If you say something about him, he will notice it.
And that got back to him.
And so it could have been a little bit of policy, could have been a little bit personal, but it certainly was a mix that made him turn against Trump in the end.
I believe the immigration thing because one thing I think we know is that he's good friends with Ann Coulter.
And Ann Coulter, of course, everybody now knows, has completely turned on Trump.
And it's, I mean, if ever there were a single issue voter, it's Ann on immigration.
She's, it's, she's devoted her life to this issue.
And God, she's been proven right every day on her forecasts.
And I think she and she has Mickey Kaus on all the time.
I enjoy her sub stack and her submissions, but I think she and Mickey Kaus and Drudge share this one issue as a true passion.
So it would make sense because she was an ardent supporter of Trump's.
And what soured her on him?
It was he didn't build a wall.
And even though he did more certainly than Biden has done on immigration, he didn't really get it done.
As we can see, everything he got done got undone as soon as he left office.
Well, Megan, just to follow up on that, we actually have an interview with Mickey Kaus, who hasn't aired yet, where he talks about a dinner that Ann Drudge and he had after one of the debates in 2016.
So there's definitely a nexus.
He's not a stranger to Drudge either.
So that is certainly part of it.
But let me just add one more thing that I think we heard to what Chris said about why he turned on Drudge.
I think those two are crucial.
The third is, I think people mistake Drudge for a partisan kind of Republican Party operative sometimes.
And he's not that.
He likes to be different than what people think.
There's a clip from him on C-SPAN in 2000, 1999 talking about Pat Buchanan ending the race saying, oh, this would be interesting.
I think he always wants to be interesting.
I think he wants to go against the grain sometimes.
And, you know, after supporting Trump, what's more against the grain than turning around and showing that he's his own man and doesn't necessarily need to follow Trump and do the same thing four years later.
So the podcast gets into his beginnings.
And I didn't know any of this, but he apparently worked at CBS News for a time, always loved media, always loved news, even as a kid, grew up in the Maryland area and gets a job at CBS News and starts pulling things out of the garbage ratings.
And you have a bit of that.
You have a clip of the actual Drudge.
Here's a clip for our audience from your podcast of you, Chris, introducing the clip.
And here's the clip.
Watch.
Drudge started finding that CBS staffers were tossing television rating numbers in the trash before they were made public.
He went out and dug them out.
Here he is telling the story during a speech in 1998.
Overhearing, listening to careful conversations, intercepting the occasional memo, would volunteer in the mailroom from time to time.
I hit pay dirt when I discovered that the trash cans in the Xerox room at Television City were stuffed each morning with overnight Nielsen ratings.
Information gold.
And it wasn't CBS News.
It was the Price is Right, right?
Price is Right, where he worked for a time.
So fascinating.
So just put some meat on those bones, Chris.
Well, Drudge knew a story when he saw it.
You mentioned that he grew up in Maryland, right outside of Washington, D.C., in the shadow of the great institution that was the Washington Post, right?
And I think he idealized it quite a bit and wanted to be part of an institution like that.
But due to, I think you could argue, educational or class differences, he never really was welcomed into that club.
And I think he always carried that with him, that he wasn't part of them.
So going out to California, right at the advent of the internet, he's using what we would see now as a primitive computer in his apartment.
This is the moment when the gatekeepers really started coming down.
And a 20-something like Matt Drudge could dig something out of the trash and then wouldn't have to get permission from an editor.
He could post it on his own, on his own terms, on his own website.
And that is the key change.
And it was in those seeds at CBS that we saw his greatest scoop that really launched him just a couple of years later when Newsweek magazine had some details of the Bill Clinton Monica Lewinsky scandal and then paused on publishing it.
Well, Matt Drudge got a hold of it and published it real quick right on his website and thrust the news media very quickly into the internet age, realizing that anyone could scoop these institutions all of a sudden.
And I believe that clip that you played was when Drudge, after releasing the Monica Lewinsky story details, going back to Washington and speaking at the National Press Club, surrounded by the people who I think he would argue in his mind rejected him and saying, hey, I scooped you and now things are changing.
And that was the start of it all.
And now he scoops him all the time.
I mean, you know, it's wonderful when you get a clip on the Drudge report or a link to your, you know, something you've done because your volume of hits just goes through the roof.
Compound Discovery Story 00:06:29
That's the power of his reach.
But yeah, the Monica Lewinsky thing is huge.
We'll get to that in one second.
Where he lives, how to find him, how to actually lay eyes on him is weirdly a huge mystery.
He doesn't want attention.
And you talk about in episode two, this moment, Chris, where you're at the Palm restaurant in Washington, D.C.
And to me, it's like Kaiser Soze.
You know, like you just, you almost, you almost had him, but no, what happened?
Well, Jamie had gone into the restaurant for dinner and the Maitre D rushed up to him and said, you won't believe who was just here.
And Jamie says, hi, who, you know, somebody famous.
And he says, Matt Drudge.
Now, it is remarkable that a Maitre D would be so excited to see somebody because they see celebrities at the Palm all the time.
But Matt Drudge is someone so elusive, so mysterious that he's worth gossiping about and talking about.
And the Maitri D spoke to us on the podcast, but it did drive us a little crazy that we had started this project and we almost had him by, I think, 10 to 15 minutes.
Drudge also, I want to say, came into the door, didn't see anybody at the front, just kind of slipped in quietly, had a drink at the bar.
People noticed him.
They Googled his face.
They said, I can't believe it's him.
And then before they could turn back around, he was gone.
This is really emblematic of how he operates.
He appears in Washington or he appears in a place and then he just disappears on his own terms.
You can never really nail him down.
You mentioned how elusive he's been.
The guy hasn't been photographed, I believe, in over a decade.
When we spoke to Joseph Curl, who was his staffer for four years at their exit meeting before he left the company, Joe Curl said, hey, brother, can we get a photo together?
And Drudge said, absolutely not.
And he's never spoken to him again.
And that's Matt Drudge.
I love it.
And he's always got the fedora on, you know, which is kind of interesting because that is a tell that.
Well, he always does, Megan, unless he wants to be recognized, takes that thing off and he's just a guy walking around town and people don't recognize him.
It's kind of like Batman's mask.
You know, you wouldn't know it's Batman if he took it off.
The fedora in a way is his mask.
So one of the people you talked to about Drudge was Tucker Carlson, who's of course been in conservative circles, media circles for his entire adult life.
And actually before then, even when he was a kid, his dad worked in the media.
So this is a fascinating story.
And I'll play the audience a little clip.
You should definitely download the podcast so you can hear the full story.
Again, finding Matt Drudge.
Here it is from episode one.
I remember having one conversation with him.
We were talking about, I was always been fascinated by, you know, who is he personally?
And somebody once said to me that he had bought a bun, maybe Breitbart, I think, told me that he had bought a bunch of land in Miami-Dade, but kind of on the outskirts far from Miami and had built a sort of doomsday compound.
And for the record, I'm not against doomsday compounds at all.
I don't think that's a crazy thing to do in the slunkiest.
I think it's an admirable thing to do.
So I wasn't mocking him, but I asked about it and he became so emotional and burst into tears and started yelling at me.
And I was going to betray him and tell people about his compound.
And I suppose he was right because now I am.
A lot of people in the media business really want to be famous.
In fact, it's the rule rather than the exception.
And here was a guy at the center of the media business at the top of it who didn't want any attention personally.
Okay, so you actually followed up on the alleged compound and you've got a story in the podcast about someone who actually in 2020 found it, went onto the property, which already seems scary to me.
You're like, it's somebody who doesn't want you there.
And yet he did it.
So what tell us about that?
There's a reporter named Bob Norman who was working on a story about why Drudge turned against Trump in 2020.
And as a good reporter, he couldn't get comment over the phone or over email.
So he drove over to Drudge's house.
He assumed there'd be a big gate.
Maybe he'd leave a note.
And the gate was wide open.
So in drives Bob Norman right to Matt Drudge's front door.
He steps out, knocks on the door, no answer.
Then so he gets up and he leaves.
Not long after his telephone rings and who is it but Matt Drudge?
And he is furious.
Couldn't believe that this reporter would come onto his property, said he was going to call the police, said, you know, you were brave for doing this.
You could have been shot.
Something could have happened to you, you know, that kind of thing.
And what the reporter noted was that Drudge, he said it was about a 30-minute phone conversation, wouldn't stop ranting about him coming on his property.
Every time he'd try to turn the conversation back to an interview about the story he's writing, Drudge would just come right back around.
And he actually exasperated the reporter so much that he just said, please just stop.
Now we did our own following.
You know, it's interesting.
I have to tell you, what's interesting about this to me is the more I live and the more I meet very successful people, you know, whether they're extremely talented or they're extremely hardworking or whatever, or they've made a bunch of money in doing something, the more I realize that these people tend to come in very interesting and complex packages.
And in many of the cases, and I don't mean this pejoratively, but they're a little off socially.
You know, I honestly, I could say the same about myself.
I definitely have social anxiety and I'm constantly a bull in a China shop and saying the wrong thing.
But I just think, not to say I'm this brilliant person, I'm just saying like I can relate to you might be very strong at one thing and like kind of not so strong at another.
And he's that to the extreme, right?
He started this with no support, no connections, just this sort of aggregated news source.
And then he's for all these years been so incredibly powerful to this day.
I check the Drudge Report every morning.
And I love that you're looking into whether it's still Matt behind it because I have wondered and, you know, and you actually conclude it's him that like we'll know when Matt Drudge is no longer interested in doing this.
How will we know, Jamie?
Well, Chris interviews some people that were at Andrew Breitbart's funeral.
And of course, Andrew helped edit the Drudge report when Drudge needed someone to stand in for him back in the very beginning.
Drudge Report Legacy 00:09:05
And Drudge shows up and some of the Breitbart staffers there who are just about to launch actually Breitbart's website talk to him and they say, you know, he asked them actually.
He goes, what are you going to call the website now?
And they go, well, we're going to call it Breitbart.
He goes, really?
You're going to call it Breitbart?
But Breitbart's passed.
He goes, yeah, but we want to honor Andrew Breitbart.
That's what we're going to call it.
We're going to continue on.
And he said, well, that won't be for me.
When I'm gone, that website is done.
So when, you know, basically it gives the answer to the question we're trying to answer, whether he still works on the site.
There's also, you know, other information we have to show that he does.
But he will not be, that site will not exist if Matt Drudge is not working on it.
That's basically what he said.
Well, on the subject of the house, Chris, it looked like I haven't seen it personally, but I know we have some video and he's putting it up for sale now.
So I think it's okay to show it.
But it's a nice house, but it Matt Drudge has got to have tens of millions of dollars.
There's just no question he's a multi-millionaire thanks to what's happened with the Drudge report.
I don't know.
Did you expect him to be living more elaborately?
Well, one thing about this house is that the price is in the location.
It is secluded.
You cannot see it from Google Earth.
It is covered in green.
It is invisible from above.
You cannot see it from the road.
It is tucked away.
It's almost built into the earth is how Bob Norman described it.
It's a place where somebody who wanted to get away and not be bothered would certainly go.
You know, he used to have a place closer to downtown Miami Beach and those kinds of places, but he just wanted to get away from that exposure.
And you did mention that that house is for sale and it went up for sale right in the middle of us doing this podcast.
And the descriptions have changed.
They've added more exclamation points and more references to why this seller is very motivated.
So we don't know why he wanted to get rid of it, but one can speculate.
But I would say that reiterate, they put this online.
He put this online through his realtor.
They want you to get to know it.
Oh, it's not our video.
We wouldn't.
No, no, it's not like you secretly got in there.
No, no, no.
But he also is known to live around the world.
You never know where he actually is.
His staffers never know where he is.
He could just be in Israel.
He could be at Arizona.
He could be in Florida.
He has properties.
He spents a lot of time in Las Vegas.
He likes to get really fancy suites.
Matt Lieschak, his biography, his biographer has reported.
And so he's a person that likes to move around.
And that I think when you mention like, hey, this doesn't look like a palatial mansion or anything, it's like, well, you know, he has other priorities and he has other properties too.
And it's a beautiful home.
I just know, I mean, he's got to be one of the richest men in media.
I went down in Miami.
You could go big.
You could go right in the ocean.
Okay, I'm going to get to two things.
We have to talk about Monica Lewinsky, and then I will tell you about the time I met Matt Drudge in person in the conversation that we had.
So Monica Lewinsky is really what put Drudge on the map.
And you point out in the show, most people think Matt Drudge broke that story.
And he did, he did break the Monica piece of it, did he not?
Because I'll tell you my experience of this.
I mean, I was not in media.
I was just a kid.
But I was a lawyer.
And shortly thereafter, when I got to Fox News in 2004, Britt Hume told me this personally, that the reason Special Report launched the night it did was because Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story and they've understood it, Fox.
This was huge.
And they had no choice but to like fire up an engine, the special report show that they were not yet ready to put on the air.
But they're, you know, Fox is kind of, it was a startup to begin with.
They're like, let's fucking do it.
You know, so they did it.
And the show is still going strong and now hosted by our friend Brett Baer.
Anyway, Matt Drudge got that whole thing started.
And I see in the piece, Michael Isakoff, who writes for Newsweek, who actually had the story, but was told by his publisher, Newsweek, to hold it.
He's kind of like, he didn't really break it.
You know, I broke the piece about being investigated by the Justice Department for, you know, but it really was a Matt Drudge thing.
Well, Matt Drudge pushed it into the open in a way that Newsweek was hesitant to do.
There were lots of details swirling around at this time.
And yeah, in the finer points, Isikov had quite a few scoops and he's a fantastic reporter.
He's now at Yahoo News.
But the point with Drudge was that Drudge made this story impossible to ignore.
There was no more, hey, should we hold this story?
Should we check it?
Everyone had to run after the story.
Television shows had to be launched.
You know, it thrust the ships to war, as it were, in a way that might not have happened in such an abrupt way.
It could have been a little drip, drip, leakier.
We don't exactly know.
But what it certainly did was put legacy news organizations on their toes.
And they realize in the internet age, if we don't break this, somebody else will.
And I think it pushed us into a digital era that we were in a different universe before Drudge broke this.
And for that, you could tell the biography of Matt Drudge game changer.
I mean, you really could.
It could just be called Game Changer because he really has been.
Here's Isikov from the podcast.
This is a clip from episode two, Finding Matt Drudge, where Isikov talks about it all.
Take a listen.
You had the scoop, and why was it not run?
Why was it delayed?
Basically, they were nervous.
I mean, the editors, you know, this was like they wanted to know everything, but like, wait a second, like, you know, can we really report that Clinton has been having an affair with an intern?
The story was going to come out.
It's a question of how and when, right?
But the fundamentals were already there.
It was just too explosive.
They couldn't handle.
It was too big to report.
Well done.
So, I mean, kudos to him because he did do great reporting on it.
It was just Newsweek that didn't, that didn't have the appetite.
And so that's the thing about Drudge because he puts up the red siren above the Drudge report.
And everyone in news is like, holy shit, Drudge has got the siren up.
We all have to pay attention.
And one day, he did that involving yours truly.
And this would lead to my encounter with him.
So it was 2013.
And my son, Thatcher, had just been born in July.
And I had struck a deal with Roger Ailes to, when I returned from maternity leave, join the Fox News primetime and take over the 9 p.m. spot.
And it was to be kept secret.
I certainly wasn't going to blab it to anyone.
I didn't want to screw up my own career across my boss in that way.
And I was online one day in our little townhouse we had, and boom, there was the news on the Drudge Report.
And I remember like, holy, oh my God, like, how does he know?
Because I knew and Roger knew and almost nobody else knew.
And it says something like, Megan to prime time.
And I never found out, but shortly thereafter, it must have been, you know, between 13 and 17, because that's when I left Fox.
I saw Matt Drudge in the green room outside of Sean Hannity's studio on a night.
I think he was going on Hannity.
And I said, Matt Drudge, like, how you doing?
I said, someday you're going to have to tell me who told you that news.
And he said, I promise you, someday I will tell you.
And then I haven't seen him again.
So I'm really kind of hoping that someday it was like maybe after the person dies, he didn't tell me what the condition would be, but he felt like he was in a position to actually at some point share it with me, which I'd love to know if he gets back to me.
You know, I'll let you know.
But anyway, it's just another testament of how he gets stuff no one has.
Yeah, he is remarkable at that.
And I think, Chris, in one of the episodes, I believe it talks about how Trump secretly would have things leak to him after telling people, you know, don't leak this anywhere.
Keep this secret.
But when the doors are shut, he would have someone give it, give it over to Drudge in part to curry favor with someone he viewed as so influential, which is Matt Drudge, and which is why from the very beginning of his campaign, as Chris mentioned, they try to court Drudge as a supporter.
And it certainly worked in the beginning.
And he would send Drudge personal notes too.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Monica Lewinsky Era Context 00:04:23
Of course.
Trump would write personal notes to Drudge.
He would have the Drudge report.
He does it in the Dallas.
Yeah, I got one myself.
It's on my office desk here.
But he would print the Drudge report and then write little notes like, great story, Drudge.
You know, I mean, the personal attempt was very real going after him.
What Donald Trump was sending me when I was in the prime time of Fox almost invariably were stories about himself in the newspaper that he would then sign and just mail them to me.
Okay, thank you.
But he would call me also to compliment various news segments he had seen on the Kelly file.
I have one from Trump that says, Chris, you're a bad reporter.
Sign Donald Trump.
With love.
Okay, can we just spend one second?
Because we're talking about Monica Lewinsky and the whole Bill Clinton affair.
She's actually back in the news.
Do you guys see this?
She's got this huge spread in L magazine as like the next supermodel.
And these young people over on TikTok, et cetera, are reacting to her as though she is a hero.
She's modeling Reformation clothing.
And the young folks today are so incredibly excited about Monica Lewinsky, who for the young people watching this show is famous, or I do believe the word is infamous, for having an affair with a married man who happened to be the president of the United States, whom she admitted to aggressively courting by showing him her thong and bragged about her, quote, presidential knee pads before she had even met him.
So she was excited to go into the White House and get it on with the all too willing sitting president of the United States.
She was outed.
One thing led to another.
He lied about it under oath and he was impeached, but not convicted, similar to Trump.
And her name became synonymous with blowjobs.
That's what happened.
I mean, that's all she gave him.
They didn't have actual conventional sex.
And to get a Lewinsky became synonymous with getting a blowjob, which was embarrassing, I'm sure for her.
But now she's resurfacing as like the new heroine to the young folks today.
I'll give you a sample of one of these TikTokers.
I don't know, 19 or 20, whatever you guys think is better.
I am not going to lie.
I had zero idea who this woman was.
So I had to do a little bit of research.
And this is Monica Lewinsky.
And she's pretty iconic.
So she is the woman that Bill Clinton had an affair with.
The woman where Hillary Clinton got cheated on.
But Reformation basically partnered with Monica Lewinsky and voter.org to bring awareness with voting for the election for 2024.
So this collab is truly iconic.
The fact that she is promoting voting, well, she had a literal affair with Bill Clinton.
Icon, legend.
Like get that bag.
But can we take a moment for the red dress, the red tights?
Like, I know Hillary Clinton is shaking in her boots right now.
Like, I know Bill Clinton is peeping.
Like, he's lurking.
He's like, oh, that's Monica Lewinsky.
She looking absolutely fire pooky.
Oh, my God.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to be honest.
I prefer my female heroes to have actually done something heroic for womankind.
Okay, I'm glad Monica Lewinsky is doing okay, but she's not it.
Jamie, thoughts?
Well, first of all, the language just makes me feel old.
Collab and get that bag.
I mean, this is a different era.
I guess I am getting older.
I don't know what to say to that.
It's so bizarre that Monica Lewinsky is being brought out again so many years later.
My only thought is that hopefully that bodes well for the show.
If people are figuring out about Monica Lewinsky, maybe Drudge podcast will be next up their alley.
I don't get it.
Are we so desperate?
Do we run out of actual heroes, like actual heroines?
There are actual women out there right now doing great things for America.
I'm glad she's back on her feet.
And I'm glad back in her 2015 special, the black and white thing, she took responsibility for her terrible decision making.
These were no ordinary mistakes.
Yes, every 22-year-old makes mistakes.
These were not ordinary ones.
You have an affair with a sitting president of the United States while his wife, the first lady, is upstairs.
Social Media News Shift 00:02:57
And you're jeopardizing the country in a way.
This was a huge one.
So she deserves some time on the sidelines.
Doesn't mean she should never work again in her life, but she's not a heroine.
This is so weird.
I don't get it.
Young people seem desperate to prop up anybody who's been through anything as a hero because they don't allow themselves to go through anything anymore.
Even the bad words they can't hear.
And discussions about abortion are they need trigger warnings.
Reading the founding documents, they wanted a trigger warning at the National Archives.
I mean, we could keep going.
So in any event, keep looking.
Go, Monica.
I love, you know, I love that you keep trying to reinvent yourself and keep coming into the national news every other year saying this is the first time.
But anyway, it all started with Matt Drudge.
So what do you guys make of it now?
Because media over the, what, 20 years that he's been doing this has changed dramatically.
Does he have, I know we talked about number five media and all that, but does he have the same influence now, especially given how the Republican Party feels about Trump as he used to?
Well, you mentioned, Megan, that Fox News was always reading him in the studio and everything, but it wasn't just Fox News.
It was all the networks.
It was ABC, CBS, NBC, all the reporters, mainstream, left, and right.
To your question, though, of has he declined a little bit in his influence?
I would say certainly so.
The internet has changed.
Drudge is where you used to go to see the latest news.
You would refresh it.
You would hit refresh, refresh, refresh to find something new.
But now that's on social media.
That's on TwitterX.
That's places like that.
And so that has kind of supplanted it a little bit.
And also his reporting has kind of slowed down a little bit.
It's a lot more aggregation and fewer scoops than he used to have.
But I think it's okay for a site like that to enter a new season.
I'll tell you why I really love going to the Drudge Report is because so much of my media diet is run by an algorithm.
I desperately want a creative, interesting person to find stories for me to read and say, hey, I think you'll like this.
And not because of who you are, but because who I am, who I am as the editor.
And I think that is what is going to make him stand up, that human touch that he has.
Even if he doesn't have the influence that he did maybe 10, 15 years ago, he still certainly matters.
I agree.
He's done so much for the news industry, for causes I hold dear, for the media coverage and media in general, that I'm grateful to the guy.
Enigmatic though he may be, that that is kind of part of his allure.
You guys can hear more at finding Matt Drudge, new podcast available on all platforms.
Guys, thanks for being here.
Thank you for having us, Megan.
Really appreciate it.
All right.
And we'll see all of you tomorrow with the latest Omnipany Willis hearing.
Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no
Export Selection