All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Nov. 17, 2024 - The Megyn Kelly Show
01:20:37
20241117_best-of-the-week-trump-puts-homan-at-border-and-ga
|

Time Text
Government Efficiency Boon 00:15:45
Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.
Megyn Kelly, and welcome to today's weekend best of special.
Oh, we had a busy week this week.
Not quite as busy as the week before, but a busy one, including my first ever interview with billionaire entrepreneur Bill Ackman, who has had quite a political evolution over the course of 2024, culminating with his endorsement of Donald Trump.
See what he said about this next administration that Elon Musk got so happy about, he was retweeting it.
We also spoke with the EJs about Trump's new badass border czar, Tom Homan.
What a man.
And the fellows from Rootless swung by to discuss Trump's picks of Matt Gates as Attorney General and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence.
Then on Friday, I gave you my diagnosis of why Kamala Harris lost and what a terrible candidate she actually was.
So much more news ahead.
Enjoy, and we will see you on Monday.
I think it's just so innovative to go completely Trumpian.
Just keep people on their heels.
Do not go with establishment types like he tried to do the first time.
And I see absolutely nothing wrong with him going with Trump loyalists, but that term keeps getting bandied about as though it's a bad thing.
Actually, I think it's, I call it a dream team.
I'm really super impressed.
We have Elon Musk.
We have a good friend of mine, Vivek, Rob Swani, who's incredibly talented.
I'd love all these.
I've actually been super impressed with all the picks so far.
The New York Times, the Daily podcast today, and the New York Times itself is really wrestling with Elon's elevation to the right-hand man of the sitting president-elect.
They don't seem happy.
I feel like you should look at somebody like Elon who's willing to serve in any capacity for our government and just say thank you.
But they are concerned.
He's got a hundred different lawsuits against him.
How is he going to deal with those conflicts of interest?
He's got all sorts of regulatory constrictions on him that are important to our safety.
You know, why can't, how can he possibly be in this important role?
What do you make of Elon being willing to serve as he is?
I think he's a great American.
I think he's a great global citizen.
You know, if you have to think of a guy who's made more consequential impact on society, on everything from the electric car to space to now Neuralink, AI, he's, I would say, the most important figure of our time in the non-political sphere.
And now we have the benefit of all of his talents working alongside the president.
I mean, it's an incredible home run.
I have not been this excited to be an American, if you will, in a very long time.
And so it's amazing.
Yeah, I feel the same.
And so, what they announced last night was that Elon and Vivek are going to work together on Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, and start trying to find efficiencies in the biggest business of them all, the United States government, and figure out where we can tighten our belt and save some money.
And yet, you know, sort of the established Washington, D.C. class is very upset about this because it means jobs of federal bureaucrats.
And that's what runs DC.
So what do you make of this idea of Doge?
Trump says in the announcement, it's going to be completely outside government.
These two will not be government employees.
Yeah, I think it's a home run.
I've always thought of the United States as one of the greatest.
My day job is to find these really great companies that have lost their way.
And then what we try to do is bring in great new management and have them fix the business.
And that's basically what's happening here.
And they're not going to have to look far.
And everyone knows the government is the most ineffective bureaucracy in the world, governments generally.
Ours has not particularly impressed us as citizens.
And now we have an opportunity, not just to find cost savings, but actually to operate more effectively.
The analogy that Musk makes is he says, think of the government as just when you go get your license updated.
Think about how inefficient that process is.
Well, imagine the entire country being run that way.
And I think that's the opportunity and having sort of outsiders do this.
Elon certainly has the playbook.
X was a quasi-governmental agency and the way it operated in San Francisco.
And he stepped in.
He took out 80, 90% of the employees.
And it's become a much more effective platform.
Software development, the various features, functionality have been able to happen much more quickly under new leadership.
And I think that's what we have here.
And so I think it's going to be a huge boon for the economy, for business generally.
And that will help everyone.
When we saw Javier Millé run for and then ascend to power in Argentina, a lot of us were shocked by how he spoke and the things he did with the chainsaw that he was going to take to government and highly entertaining.
Here he is with his chainsaw.
And look at this guy.
I love him.
So I have friends who are from Argentina and they're absolutely thrilled with what he's doing.
And he told everybody there, we're in for some short-term pain as we try to get our enormous inflation down.
But these are the things we have to do.
Here he is.
This is video for the listening audience of him pulling these names off a board, the ministry of this, the ministry of that, and throwing them behind him.
We don't need it.
It's down.
It's out.
And that's how I see Elon and Vivek, you know, who are supposed to go in there and Javier Millé, our government.
I had the advantage of being next to Elon in September when he spoke on the all-in podcast at their summit.
And I too was there and spoke on the same thing.
And he was describing what it was he would like to do if this whole thing worked out, if Trump were elected and if he could form this Doge thing.
Take a listen here to Sat 10.
If you could just pair two, three, four, 5% of those organizations, what kind of impact could that have?
Yeah, I mean, I think we'd need to do more than that.
I think ideally, if you could shrink the side, the size of the government with Trump, what would be a good target just in terms of like ballpark?
I mean, are you trying to get me assassinated before this even happens?
No, no, piccolo number.
I mean, you know, there's that old phrase, go postal.
I mean, it's like their mind.
It's just that people, you know, have like immediately turved, you know, tossed out with no severance and now can't pay their mortgage.
They need to see some reasonable off-ramp where amp where, you know, they're still, you know, earning, they're still receiving money, but have like, I don't know, a year or two to find jobs in the private sector, which they will find.
And then they will be in a different operating system.
So you heard him, Bill, say in response to Jason, who said 2%, 3, 4%.
And Elon said, oh, it's going to be more than that.
So how high do you think we could go on shaving the bureaucracy?
I think there's a massive amount of waste.
And I think you're going to see fairly dramatic change.
And I think it'd be incredibly uplifting for the people who stay.
And I think it'll be uplifting for the people who have the opportunity to do something new.
As he said, I think they're going to be quite generous with severance, making sure that people can transition to the private sector.
So I think it's going to be good for everyone.
Yeah, what do you make of that?
Because the last thing Trump wants 100 days into his administration is massive layoffs that run up the unemployment rate and make them look bad.
So he's not going to want that narrative in the press, even though he will want these efficiencies.
So how would you recommend they handle the offloading of these federal employees?
Sure.
So what's interesting is you don't want to give people a disincentive to find a job, right?
If you just hand everyone two years' severance, some people may say, okay, I'll take the next 20 months to just have fun.
I'll go look for a job.
And then it becomes hard to get a job at the end of that.
So I think the right approach is to give enough severance so people are absolutely covered between this job and the next one.
And then basically pay it to them over time.
But when they find a job, pay them the balance of the severance.
Let's say they give it a year of severance.
Someone finds a job a month after leaving government.
Well, then they get 11 months of salary as a bonus.
People are incentivized to find their next job.
And I think you have job training.
And then, of course, there are a lot of people in government where you could probably, you know, just instead of severance, you allow them to begin the retirement process early.
And government employees are very well taken care of in terms of pension.
I like that.
That makes sense and is less scary for those worried that it might be their necks on the chopping block.
But we all know there are too many employees that we have 20 people to do the job of one and they're counting on no one paying attention to how inefficient the government is.
It's baked into the system that no one's going to be looking at just how much red tape there is and how many people we have enforcing it and how useless it is.
And worse than useless, it's pernicious.
It stops development.
It stops business.
One more Elon Clip, and then I want to talk about a post you made on X today.
He explained with SpaceX how impossible the regulatory system makes it and really kind of said, at this rate, we're never going to colonize Mars, which is one of his life goals.
We're never going to get there.
Because when it comes to building rockets and so on, it's just absolutely prohibitive what they make innovators go through.
Here was his example.
It's out 27.
The next fly starship is ready to fly.
We are waiting for regulatory approval.
You know, it really should not be possible to build a giant rocket faster than the paper can move from one desk to another.
I mean, it's perfectly well said.
And he talked just about other problems he had, like one of the rockets dumped water.
I think it was potable water.
You know, it was drinkable water on the desert as a release valve.
And he got fined like $35,000 for that and went to them and said, what are you doing?
You know, I'm trying to innovate.
I'm working with the government.
I've been used by NASA to resupply the space station.
Get off of my back.
And they won't.
It's just, those are all great examples of A, why we need reform and B, what drove him here.
So what do you make of it?
Look, I think actually just getting back to what you talked about before, the context for the efficiency creation in government is one in which I think there's going to be a huge boon in the economy.
I think, you know, what's interesting is I'm hearing from friends who control a lot of assets, invest in lots of operating companies, that the management teams of their businesses are extremely optimistic.
Even those that have voted against Trump are excited about what's going to happen with the economy.
So I think we're going to have a big economic boom.
And actually freeing up a meaningful number of government employees to make them available to the private sector will actually help manage the potential for inflation.
So I'm, you know, the cost cutting is one thing, but making the government more efficient on regulatory approvals, you know, you think about how difficult it is in America to build a bridge, a highway, a house.
And, you know, the faster, if you can accelerate construction, obviously that has a huge impact on infrastructure, the fluidity of the economy, driving demand.
And actually, I think freeing up government workers to step into some of these roles that will be created will actually help the economy manage through this period.
It could really change their lives too for the better.
It'd be so exciting to work for one of these innovative companies, hiring new blood.
These people have been stuck in these concrete jungles in the circles of DC.
And maybe it's a new leaf for them too.
You wrote in that ex post to which I referred and you mentioned that merger and acquisition activity is about to explode.
Do you think so?
Yes.
So the Biden administration has been and Lena Kong, who's led the FTC, very anti-sort of merger.
And the result of that is many of the startups in our country don't get to a scale where they can go public.
They have to be basically sold.
And if you don't allow the Facebooks and the Googles and the other companies to make acquisitions, these businesses eventually either run out of capital or run out of opportunity.
And there are a lot of big companies where meaningful synergies can be created when one business buys another.
But if you can't do a deal, you have to sort of put it on hold.
And sort of the antitrust environment in the last four years was one in which you wouldn't even try to do a transaction.
I think that's going to change.
And so there's sort of a long list of transactions that are waiting to happen in the event there's a change administration.
And now that post-Nevember 5th, you'll see very aggressive announcements.
And the benefit of a merger beyond just the synergies is that often it's an opportunity for the people who invested in the first company, the company being acquired, to take their capital and redeploy it in something else.
It's going to free a lot of capital in the economy.
That's going to put money into the, you know, in the system that's going to fuel growth.
You know, so it's going to be a pretty exciting time for the country for sure.
What are you hearing about non-U.S. companies looking at America right now?
I think they're frightened, I guess I would say.
They're frightened to the extent they don't have a presence in the United States.
I mean, the U.S. is going to be the best economy.
We really are one of the best economies in the world right now, certainly the best large economy in the world.
China is in a lot of trouble.
This whole European continent is really kind of struggling.
So we're kind of the best economy, and that's going to change in an even more positive way.
And Trump, as we know, is very America first.
And if you don't have a presence here, you're at risk of tariffs being put on your goods.
So we're hearing foreign companies that don't have a presence here looking for an ability to immediately have a presence so that they're not locked out of the U.S. economy.
And that, of course, is also going to bring jobs here and drive growth.
We saw an announcement right after Trump won that certain companies, Steve Madden was one, but he wasn't the only one, had already decided that they would not build a plant in China as they'd been considering doing.
Now, that particular company didn't say, I'll build it in the United States.
He went to another country, but it wasn't one of our enemies.
It wasn't somebody who's actively working against us like the Chinese are.
So that was a bit of good news too.
I wonder how many more US companies like that or even foreign companies like that will, maybe they won't move to the states to build their companies, but they'll avoid enriching one of our enemies.
And that too is a plus for us.
Yeah, look, I'm very, very bullish on the Trump administration, as I think is the entire business community.
And business is sort of a confidence game.
And people lose confidence.
don't hire people.
They don't make investments.
Trump's First Hundred Days 00:14:52
They decide not to build the next factory, build the next building.
All of that is the opposite is happening.
People are actually hiring people in anticipation of growth.
They're making, they're increasing their estimates of what the revenues will be in the next 12 months.
And that has a very powerful self-fulfilling effect.
So you're seeing interesting things, obviously, on the economy.
You're also seeing our enemies.
Ron, I just read this morning, is tabled their response to Israel and is talking about a negotiation with the U.S.
I mean, it just shows the importance of having strength in the White House.
What do you make of, have you given any thought to Trump's tariff proposals?
Because those have been controversial with some in the business community and some people got burned by, I mean, I remember some agriculture workers saying the tariffs he had in place first time around really hurt them, some farmers.
So, but, you know, this is crux, a critical piece of his plan.
So what do you make of his proposed tariffs?
Sure.
I think Trump used tariffs.
I think you have to think about the context, right?
The context was World War II, the rest of the world was decimated.
And Marshall Plan, we helped rebuild Europe.
Japan had to recover from the destruction of the war.
And all of these governments put in place tariffs to kind of protect their home markets.
And that allowed their economies to recover.
That allowed Japan to develop an auto industry.
And now what's interesting is those tariffs stayed in place even when Japan became one of the most successful, built one of the most successful auto industries in the world.
And Europe, if you think about BMW, Mercedes, and all the various very successful auto companies in Europe, they've had the benefit of tariffs versus the U.S. and that goes for everything from food and wine and so on and so forth.
And I think the United States has been a very open market to the rest of the world.
And I think Trump's view is, look, if they're going to use tariffs, we should too.
And let's use tariffs as a way to make the world get rid of tariffs that are out there.
So I think it's a very important negotiating tool.
And I think he'll be very effective in using it.
Now, there's risk associated with tariffs, right?
If the response to more tariffs from the U.S. is that the foreign governments decide to put even more tariffs on their own home markets, you can get into sort of a downward spiral, which is very negative for the economy.
But I think he's pretty smart and sophisticated.
I think he'll have a very capable team working with him.
So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And his goal, of course, look, I think President Trump's goal fundamentally is to be one of the great, to be the greatest president of all time, right?
That has to be his ambition.
And obviously the economy is, if not the most important, certainly one or two.
And I would say it's probably the most important issue.
And it's something he knows a lot about.
And he's going to build a very capable team.
And I'm just confident it's going to execute well.
Well, I know you have been a registered Democrat for most, if not all of your adult life.
And when you said, but I'm voting for Donald Trump this time, one of the things you pointed out was if you wanted to destroy this country, one of the things you would do is open the borders.
You would just let this influx of migrants come into the country, come into the cities.
And while we talk a lot about illegal immigration on this show and elsewhere, it's different when you actually go, you zoom into a community.
Springfield, Ohio was one during this election cycle, but there are many others and see how that influx is actually changing the way people live without their consent or approval.
Yeah, I think it's, I think it's a problem.
You know, we have a very small version of that in New York City where I live, but it's, you know, 200,000 people in the city of 11 million.
Springfield, I think was 20,000 people in the city of 40,000.
So obviously, but even in New York, it's had a very significant impact.
Did you see what Mayor Adams said today or yesterday, I think it was, where he said he's not ruling out working with the Trump administration to try to deal with this problem.
New York is overwhelmed.
There are way too many illegal immigrants and we already have our problems.
It's not like New York was running super efficiently prior to all these buses and flights bringing all these illegal aliens up here.
Look, the interesting thing is that this is, you know, arguably, I certainly believe it to be the best place, best country in the world.
And you see how many millions of people want to come here.
And when you have the opportunity of millions of people coming to your country and actually immigration is important for growth, for bringing in talent and so on and so forth, you want to have policies that let in the people you want to let in.
And in fact, the way our policies work today, my wife runs a really interesting company and she has a very talented collection of MIT PhDs that she used to teach when she was a professor.
Now she's hired many of them, but many of them are from Germany, other places around the world.
And just the challenges and trying to get these incredibly well-educated, educated in America, brilliant minds, obviously no criminal records.
They're going to help advance our society.
It's hard to, you know, can take a year or two, if not more, to bring them into the country if you can do so.
Meanwhile, we've allowed sort of unvetted people walk across the border, and then we provide subsidies when they get here.
So it's the reverse of a sensible immigration policy.
We should take advantage of the fact that this is an incredibly desirable country and we should pick and choose the right people and we should vet them carefully.
And we need to, I mean, one of the things I'm hoping from Doge, if you will, if you went to MIT, you don't have a criminal record and you've got a job at an interesting company in the United States or you want to build a business here, it should be a 30-day process to vet you, right?
It shouldn't be a year or two years.
We should make it really, really easy for the best and brightest to come to America.
And we should make it difficult for criminals to cross the border, if not make it impossible.
Gates, for the listening audience, is controversial for a number of reasons.
He is definitely a professional shitsterer.
He is fiercely loyal to Donald Trump.
He actually is a very effective cross-examiner.
And that I now am realizing comes from his time as a lawyer, but he's very good when he's going after somebody on Capitol Hill at these hearings.
But he is also immersed in controversy.
Some salacious allegations have been made against him by the DOJ, which then decided not to pursue charges.
Gates has denied these charges.
We can talk about them.
But still under investigation by the House Ethics Committee or Oversight Committee.
Now that's done because he resigned yesterday when this news came out.
But it's going to come up if he goes through a confirmation hearing.
And then also something probably closer to your hearts, you guys.
He took down Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker over on the Republican side and then kind of didn't really have a solution ready to go once Kevin McCarthy fell.
But this is one of the reasons why a lot of the so-called establishment Republicans hate him.
And therefore, it is, let's say, far from a guarantee that he will be confirmed because we already have Murkowski and Collins on the record seeming to say it's a no.
They can't afford to lose too many others.
And, you know, you've got some squishes over there when it comes to these kinds of people.
So I don't know.
Andy McCarthy says, why are we even engaging in this debate?
He's never going to be confirmed.
So this is all pointless.
So who wants to take it?
Any of those?
Well, look, all of that is true.
Everything you said is true.
And look, he's dedicated his entirety of his congressional career to creating enemies, mostly from within, like mostly within his own party.
It kind of goes way beyond the establishment of your own party.
He's just not played by anybody's rules, which I imagine probably makes him pretty popular amongst the American people, certainly outside the beltway.
The problem is, as you suggested, at some point, you have to figure out how to get 51 votes to get confirmed as Attorney General.
I think we may have talked about this months and months and months ago, Megan, is that Donald Trump's nominee to be attorney general was always going to be the most controversial of them all.
It was going to be the most difficult because of this hardened Democratic opposition to it, some concerns lingering on the Republican side about what he would do with the Department of Justice.
And so like I, he just went full Leroy Jenkins on it and was like, if you're gonna, if you're, if you're gonna be controversial, well, then let's make it the most controversial.
And that's where we're at.
I do think the only thing that I'm concerned about from a Trump standpoint is how much political capital do you use on this stuff?
He's got four years and you got to figure out how to get a whole bunch of things done in the first six, eight months.
And political capital is at its highest when you win in an election, certainly in the fashion that he did.
And you begin to drain political capital out of it with each thing that you do that becomes controversial that you have to actually use the power of the presidency to try to get through.
Using too much on this in what may very well be something that just can't be done concerns me a little bit because there's a whole bunch of things about that Trump agenda the American people really, really want him to spend all of his political capital getting.
Yeah, but you know, he has earned the right to pick who he wants.
He had a huge win last Tuesday and he has a mandate to pick whoever he wants and the Senate is going to consider them and we'll see what happens.
But I mean, if you look at Gates, like you said, he can cross-examine.
The guy is not without talent.
And if you look at the beginning of his career, he is a guy who supported Jeb Bush in 2016, which I think is why comfortably Smug likes him so much.
Smug really liked Jeb.
So I look at the same data that Ashbrook and Holmes are presenting.
And I think it's accurate, but my conclusion is completely different.
President Trump did come away with an absolute mandate, which is why I think every one of these centers should be on board with it.
And like Holmes said, there's a small window where Trump can act.
And it's even shorter than four years.
It's even shorter than two years.
It's probably the first hundred days where you can really move the ball before you start getting all the opposing forces organized and trying to stop Trump's agenda, which is why I think Matt Gates would be the perfect person you want in place in those first hundred days.
I think what most of these people are afraid of is, oh, God, we had the Department of Justice and we used it to go after conservatives.
We used it to go after Trump.
You know, you had Merrick Garland calling parents who would show up to school board meetings domestic terrorists.
So we don't need to send the same old, same old.
We need to send the message that, hey, that time is up.
There's a new sheriff in town.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree with you.
Smug, I was never really a Matt Gates fan.
I was never really a huge Matt Gates person at all.
I haven't really spent any time thinking about him other than with that whole Kevin McCarthy defenestration thing.
I know that there are allegations against him.
There are no charges.
So that's that.
I mean, they weren't able to make any charges and it involved his alleged relationship with a 17-year-old girl, which he's denied.
And then they were accusing him of sex trafficking.
He went on, he denied this.
This is the thing he went on Tucker about a long time ago.
He answered the charges as bullshit and didn't go anywhere.
So, I mean, that's that.
We'll see what the House says, if there's something more.
But if there was something seriously more, we would have seen a charge.
But what I look at is two things.
Number one, and I tweeted this out yesterday.
If you are Donald Trump and your chosen attorney general has turned you over to Robert Mueller, who then ruined your first term as president with a bunch of bullshit, then you leave office and the next guy's attorney general is behind not one, but two criminal prosecutions of you.
And his DOJ is cooperating with not one, but two state prosecutions of you in a bridge that's never been crossed in our 250-year history as a nation, then I too might prize loyalty to me above all other qualities and go with a guy like Matt Gates.
Who can blame Trump for trying to pick the most loyal soldier he can find for this position?
And then point two is what you just said, Smug.
Eric Holder was a partisan hack loser.
And so is Merrick Garland, partisan hack loser.
So what do I, I don't care.
Like at this point, I'm like, you know what?
F you people.
Get the fighter in there.
The gloves are off.
You took them off.
Now Trump's brought in his own guy with the brass knuckles.
It's on.
Yeah, that's the greatest fear of Democrats is that other people will do to them what they've been doing to the American people.
And Trump picking people who are loyal to him is exactly what the American people want.
That's why he has the popular vote on top of the Electoral College in his victory.
He needs to send people who will execute his vision 100%.
And if he sees Matt Gates as a loyalist, who's willing to accomplish that, I'm 100% on board.
I don't blame him, Duncan, for being a little squeamish about, you know, some rando establishment attorney general.
Sorry, Ashbrook, I interrupted you.
You go.
Go.
Go.
I mean, like I was saying, it's going to take a very, very strong person to fix these gigantic problems at DOJ.
And Gates will take a meat axe to it.
You can bet on that.
And if he doesn't get there, Trump will find somebody else who will do the exact same thing because these problems have to be addressed.
That's why he was elected.
Go ahead.
Oh, okay.
I can see you looking at me, Michael.
I heard you there, Megan.
Am I squeamish about it?
No, I just to reinforce Holmes's take on this.
It's like you don't want to waste political capital on things that aren't going to happen.
I agree with everything that Smug said.
In fact, I think it goes deeper than that.
You go back and look at what James Comey did at the beginning of Trump's first administration, where he basically went to Trump Tower to president-elect Donald Trump and tried to entrap him and gave him APPA research generated by the Hillary Clinton campaign and said, hey, did you pee on Russian prostitutes?
And then he scurried back down to his car and typed out a bunch of notes and tried to leak it to the media to get a special counsel appointed.
So I'm all for that and rooting out all of the deep state bureaucracy at DOJ and the FBI and all those sort of things.
I just don't want to waste any time.
The thing that makes me squeamish is trying to get a Gates through.
Clearing the Deep State 00:16:02
And we waste a lot of time solving these problems because like you said, Susan Collins, Murkowski, like that's just political reality.
There are people who are going to not support him.
And I saw Dick Durbin this morning, you know, telling the House Ethics Committee that he'd love to see that report for the hearings against Matt Gates.
And I mean, it'll just, it's going to be a circus.
That's all I'm saying.
A circ.
So just to be clear, Susan Collins, the reports are that she will oppose.
Murkowski said, quote, we need to have a serious attorney general.
And I'm looking forward to the opportunity to consider somebody that is serious.
This one, this one was not on my bingo card.
So she hasn't said no, but she certainly sounds like a no.
Then Senator Tom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, he didn't say no, but he said the following.
I have very few skills.
Vote counting is one.
And I think he's got a lot of work to do to get to 50.
So it's really about the Republicans.
There's this, this is on the record from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who dodged Politico's question on Gates saying, I'm trying to go fix a toilet between getting back for a vote.
Life's a little hectic right now.
No.
Megan, that's what you're seeing.
And I think, look, there's an issue at the beginning of every administration in that what you would like to do is take your political capital, take the mandate that the American people gave you and put your hardened opposition in a very difficult place.
And I think Donald Trump has got the opportunity to literally break the Democratic Party.
I mean, you look at all of the recriminations.
It's Joe Biden's fault.
It's Barack Obama's fault.
It's George Clooney's fault.
It's Hollywood's fault.
It's Oprah's fault.
Like they're all blaming everybody.
They don't know.
You hear people saying like, oh, we've got to moderate on social issues or we've got to be more clear populist opposition to big business.
They don't know what the hell to do.
They don't have an identity at all.
But the conversation that we're having right now is a conversation about Donald Trump versus Republicans.
And I think if you're doing that for a prolonged period of time at the beginning of an administration, you're sort of missing the opportunity to sort of forever change not only the policy that comes after, but the political dynamic in which Democrats live in, which they are very, very uncomfortable with, provided you have a United Republican Party that is absolutely beating the drum on them.
And it just makes it makes Dick Durbin's job easier.
It makes Chuck Schumer's job easier when we're arguing amongst ourselves.
And I understand.
So what you're saying, Holmes, is he can go provocative, but he can't go full-on nuclear.
Yeah, I think he can do whatever the hell he wants.
You just have to know that in the backdrop of all of that is that each one of these United States senators wake up every morning and see a president of the United States in their own mirrors, right?
All of them are elected statewide.
Many of them were elected.
Everyone that we just mentioned on this program were elected before Donald Trump ever came around, right?
So like you have to try to figure out what is the best use of your political capital.
And if it's Matt Gaetz, if they decide it's Matt Gates, well, then it is Matt Gaetz.
And then we'll see how that whole thing plays out.
But I just worry about sort of the underpinning of that.
But, you know, you mentioned, I think it was you, Duncan or Ashbrook, you mentioned the FBI.
And that's another thing.
I mean, the FBI is within the DOJ.
And that's the organization that raided Mar-a-Lago and tried to humiliate him.
That's the organization that spied on churchgoers under Joe Biden to see if we were wearing our masks.
That is the organization that Biden pulled in to discuss whether parents objecting to the masks and the mandates and the school lockdowns were domestic terrorists.
And that is the organization that most Republicans believe needs to be shredded down to the studs and rebuilt fresh from scratch to focus on only one thing, which is law enforcement and not these investigations and so on.
That is probably part of this too.
You know, there was a report, I think it was Politico today, I think, where, did you see the guy who runs Polymarket had an FBI raid?
The FBI raided his house this morning at 6 a.m. and took his phone and other things.
And apparently one source close to Trump World in an interview to, I'll figure out what's political or Axios.
I get them confused, said he picked, it was Axios, he picked Matt Gates to stop shit like that.
Like just to raise, or look at what happened to James O'Keefe, right?
Like they're trying to harass him.
The FBI showed up and raided his house too after he was reporting on the Ashley Biden diary.
I mean, we really had some rogue FBI behavior here.
And I can see why they think you don't want a perfectly polite, you know, Queens English pinky out tea sipping lawyer to run herd over these guys.
And that's the thing is it's frustrating that you have Republicans in the Senate who always wonder, oh, wouldn't this cause some problems?
And the Democrats never thought, well, this caused some problems when they sent Merrick Garland, who wasn't fit for the Supreme Court.
So he's not there.
When they sent Eric Holder, who since running the Department of Justice has gone on to essentially start a dark money group that gerrymanders districts across America so conservatives can't have their voice heard.
So we need to stop thinking about, oh, would this cause some problems?
Am I going to have a tough press conference and think about what could we gain from having Matt Gates there?
If he shows up day one at the FBI and says, anyone who has a problem with me, get up and leave.
And you see half the people in that building leave.
That's a huge win.
That's a solution.
Yeah.
I guess at the end of the day, what I would prefer is that like the opposition, to use an analogy from golf, you're playing a heads-up match against somebody.
They take out the driver and they hit it into the water and they're out of bounds.
Pull the fly iron.
Pull a five iron and hit it down the middle of the fairway and go and use your political capital on, I don't know, deportations, a 70-30 issue in this country, fixing the economy, ending the wars.
Those things are worth using your political capital.
He doesn't need to.
How does he, what do you, what do you mean?
He, he already has the public support on those issues.
So you don't have to burn political capital to do those things.
Well, what I'm saying is the Democrats on the deportation issue will make it a circus.
They're going to make it a circus on the Matt Gates.
Yes.
But when, what's his name, Homan, is not his nominee.
Yeah.
Like, oh, man.
When all this, when all that guy, when all that stuff starts to be implemented and put in motion, there's just an effect in Washington, I think, three months into a new administration, six months, where the cement starts to harden and it gets harder to do things legislatively.
Right.
And so if you get all of these things in process and in motion in the first hundred days, you're going to reap the political benefits into the future.
I mean, I think the biggest question.
How much, wait, I mean, let me ask this quickly.
How much can they slow down?
How much can the Democrats slow down this confirmation hearing?
So like, how long will this drama be going be with us?
Well, it's not really up to the Democrats to provide the pace.
I mean, it'll be Chairman Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chair, who will set a timeline.
They'll obviously have to go through, you know, your background checks and your financial disclosures and all of that.
And once they're satisfied with the information, then he sets a hearing date.
You've got hearings and ultimately, you know, report on a committee and they'll set a date for a confirmation.
So Democrats can't do a whole bunch about that.
But what they can do is turn the Judiciary Committee into a big top circus, as we saw like during Kavanaugh, for example.
Yeah.
And the question is, look, everything that you guys have talked about in terms of the problems with the Justice Department, the problems with Merrick Garland, you know, Eric Holder insane, the FBI, everything they're doing.
Nobody disagrees on that.
I don't think there's any Republican that disagrees with the notion that we have to do something about that.
I guess the question is whether or not you send RuPaul in to do it, right?
I mean, there's different ways to get.
Holmes is not a Gates fan.
I think we've determined Holmes is not behind the pick.
And I don't dislike him.
I mean, to be honest with you, Megan, my problem has never been with Matt Gates.
In fact, he's kind of said some nice things about the Ruthless Variety Program.
So I have no problem with this guy.
I have a problem with us just sort of pretending gravity doesn't exist.
And what I really want to do is...
We'll find out whether it does.
Yeah, I wish we would take the opportunity to sort of like study and understand how the most effective implementations of policy have happened because we don't have a very...
It doesn't sound like Trump.
No, it doesn't, but it doesn't.
He ran a campaign that did, though.
You know, I mean, he ran a campaign that was technically.
But this is his most sensitive area.
This is like the crowd size piece of policy for him.
Like, trigger, you know, like DOJ, FBI.
Imagine.
I mean, I understand it for the reasons I just stated.
Who has harassed Trump more than this string of DOJs?
It's his own to begin with.
Jeff Sessions recused, handed the thing over to Bob Mueller.
Bob Mueller took over, made his life a living hell.
And, you know, then he had attorney general after attorney general who he couldn't stand, who he didn't feel was loyal to him.
And even the New York Times is reporting about this this morning.
Like, well, they were grownups who were loyal to trying to keep him in check.
Well, he doesn't want that.
The American public may say we like it.
They may not.
But Trump, he's not required to like it.
This time around, he got smart for what he wants.
And he's like, I'm getting a loyalist.
You got, got to hear what he did on immigration.
This is so good.
It's so good.
If you voted for Trump, you're getting dividends already.
He's announced that he's going to appoint this man named Tom Homan as his border czar.
That's not a position that must be confirmed.
So that's good because this guy can do what he wants.
Hey, if Kamala Harris can be the border czar, so can Tom Homan.
He served in the first Trump administration.
He was acting director then of ICE, Immigration and Custom Enforcement.
And in his announcement, Trump said that Holman, quote, will be in charge of all deportation of illegal aliens back to their country of origin.
Homan reacted to the news this morning on Fox Watch.
Hey, look, I've seen some of these Democratic governors say they're going to stand in the way.
They're going to make it hard for us.
Well, a suggestion.
If you're not going to help us, get the hell out of the way for a while.
Tom, you know, the last person who was Border Czar, she didn't want to be called Border Czar.
You're proud of it, right?
You know what?
I want to look like a genius because when you follow failure, you can't help her succeed, right?
He began his career in immigration enforcement back in 1994 as a Border Patrol agent.
And while his career background is important, the way he fires back at these bully Democrats on this issue and at the media is a thing of beauty.
It's truly beautiful.
Last month, he was interviewed by 60 Minutes.
Watch.
We have seen one estimate that says it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year.
I don't know if that's accurate or not.
Is that what American taxpayers should expect?
What price do you put on national security?
Is that worth it?
Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?
Of course there is.
Families can be deported together.
Amazing.
In 2019, Homan took part in a hearing on Capitol Hill.
It's so good.
About the Trump administration's border policies.
He was accused by Democratic progressive congressman of not caring about migrant children because of the color of their skin.
Do you understand that the consequences of separation of many children will be lifelong trauma and carried across generations?
Have we not learned from the internment of Japanese Americans?
Mr. Holman, I'm a father.
Do you have children?
How can you possibly allow this to happen under your watch?
Do you not care?
Is it because these children don't look like children that are around you?
I don't get it.
Have you ever held a deceased child in your arms?
First of all, your comments are disgusting.
I've served my country.
I've served my country 34 years.
I find your service.
This is out of the way.
I've served my country for 34 years.
And yes, I held a five-year-old boy in my arms and backed that tractor trailer.
I knelt down beside him and said a prayer for him because I knew what his last 30 minutes of his life were like.
And I had a five-year-old son at the time.
What I've been trying to do my 34 years serving my nation is to save lives.
So for you to sit there and insult my integrity and my love for my country and for children, that's why this whole thing needs to be fixed.
And you're the member to fix it.
If you want to legalize illegal immigration, good luck with that because it's going to get a hell of a lot worse on that border.
If you say, well, Craig, from now on, there'll be no consequence, no deterrence.
It's not illegal to come to this country illegally.
More families would come.
31% women would be raped.
More children would die.
We're a nation of laws.
If you don't like it, sir, change it.
You're the legislator.
I'm the executive branch.
And I've served my country honorably for 34 years.
And I will not sit here and have anybody say that I don't care about children because you're not the same color as my children.
He is amazing.
This guy's incredible.
We looked into that story he referenced of a five-year-old boy that he was talking about that he did hold in his arms.
It happened back in 2003.
The boy died along with 19 others after being crammed into a tractor trailer with nearly 70 other migrants in total.
They were being smuggled into the United States.
This is how they do it.
And they suffocated to death.
Some tried to claw two holes through the truck's foam insulation just to try to get a breath of fresh air.
Per a report by the Daily Signal, at the crime scene that day, Tom Holman was there.
Holman said he directed the men taking the bodies away to save the child until last, to not remove his remains until last.
Because he said, quote, I couldn't deal with it because I just kept seeing my son there.
And he held that little boy.
And then that idiotic representative walked right into that.
Have you ever held a dead child?
Yes, I have.
I've seen the consequences.
That's what Holman was saying of your disastrous policies.
I'm the one who's got to clean up the bodies.
There were reports at the time about that disastrous truck stop and the deaths.
There were at least 62 people packed into this trailer.
They were in a nearly airless, heat-baked container, despite the effort to get two holes in there so they could breathe.
Most of the human cargo was male.
That five-year-old boy was the youngest, but there was a girl who was 15 that day, and she actually lived.
Sheriff deputies there brought her cake and cookies.
So much for the evil Border Patrol guys who are there not caring about the brown people, like that representative suggested.
Immigration Policy Signals 00:06:37
An emergency dispatcher received a 911 call from a man speaking Spanish.
This is how they found out there was an emergency there in broken English at 1142 p.m.
The man was saying, we're asphyxiating.
Help me, help me.
We're asphyxiating.
In Spanish, he said, we're in a trailer.
We're illegals.
This is the cost of that open border that people now like Harrison Biden have allowed for years.
And by the way, the reports now are that we can expect the immigration problem to spike over the next couple of months until Trump gets there, that the illegal see, this is part of the Daily Wire this morning quoting from NBC, that they're anticipating January 20th as their deadline to get into this country.
So what's Joe Biden going to do about it?
Because you're going to get more deaths and more rapes of young girls and more families who ultimately get separated because these drug mules, these bad actors use the children, since we're against family separation, to get across the border.
And the children are exploited time and time again.
Tom Holman's been on the side of the angels on this.
And he's being placed back in charge.
And we should all celebrate his return.
In that same hearing we just showed you, he also fired back at AOC, who as always thought that she knew better when she questioned him about the administration's zero tolerance policy.
Mr. Holman, your name is on this.
Is this correct?
Yes, I signed that memo.
So you are the author of the family separation policy?
I am not the author of this memo.
You're not the author, but you signed the memo.
Yes, a zero tolerance memo.
And so the recommendation of the many that you recommended, you recommended family separation.
I recommend a zero tolerance.
Which includes family separation.
The same as is with every U.S. citizen parent gets arrested when they're with a child.
Zero tolerance was interpreted as the policy that separated children from their family.
If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in a car, I won't be separated.
When I was a police officer in New York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that.
Mr. Holman, with all due respect, legal asylums are not charged with any crime.
When you're in the country, illegally, it's a violation of eight United States Code 1325.
Seeking asylum is legal.
If you want to seek asylum, you go to the port of entry, do it the legal way.
He's incredible, isn't he?
My God.
The EJs are back with me now, Emily and Eliana.
I don't know what more.
Just as I was thinking, I don't know what more we could ask for.
We get the announcement that Trump is putting Stephen Miller also on the immigration case.
He's deputy assistant.
What is he, Steve?
Glossing over his official title.
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy on the immigration front.
And he's the guy who came up with a lot of those policies that worked so well under Trump, like remain in Mexico and some of the executive orders that Trump signed requiring us to crack down on these BS asylum claims.
That's a dream team, Emily.
Tom Holman is so interesting because one of the ways he first started, I think, really getting it in media is that he worked for the Obama administration.
He's been given like an award by Barack Obama.
And I think that's what gives him the confidence to go and talk to AOC like that because he saw this flawed process from the inside.
He saw it on the ground.
And he's able to then sort of flip the script and say, this is zero tolerance.
And you saw her kind of pause there.
It was really interesting when he said it was a zero tolerance memo.
She didn't totally know what to do with that because it's the script being flipped on her.
And he's a great example of somebody who's able to do that with confidence and boldness because he sort of has worked for the other side.
He's talked to the other side.
He's been friendly with the other side.
And so he's able to just say, listen, I don't give a damn.
Like, I've seen this.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
And so he's a huge asset for Trump.
Stephen Miller, somebody who is totally vilified in the press.
And Trump isn't afraid to appoint him to a deputy chief of staff position.
So you're definitely seeing fearlessness.
There's no hesitation from Donald Trump at all about bringing some of these people, no matter how vilified they are in the press.
Stephen Miller is a genius.
He is a genius and he knows immigration better than almost anyone.
And I don't, I'm thrilled that he's willing to take the risk with, you know, his family, his wife, they called a white supremacist over and over.
He was a newlywed.
They were calling him terrible names.
That's what's going to happen if you try to clean up the border.
We've seen it time and time.
So it does require nerves of steel to say yes to this.
Homan looks like he's got him.
We know Stephen Miller's got him.
I'm overjoyed to see this, Eliana.
And in the news today, too, Tom Homan making clear that President Trump's deportation priorities are not about people who are here unlawfully, who are abiding by the law now.
I realize it's a crime to sneak into the country illegally across the border, but that that's not the priority.
The priority is the criminals who are here and causing havoc in the states.
And in response to that, you already get like the Massachusetts governor coming out and saying, we will not cooperate.
We will not.
You know, what happens is this person, Massachusetts is seeing a rash of rapes by these illegals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
And what happens when an illegal rapes somebody is they go to jail if they get arrested.
And then you might find out that there's a detainer on them from ICE.
They're in the system as like, hey, we're looking for this illegal.
If you happen to catch this person committing a crime, please call us.
And what happens in sanctuary cities or states like Massachusetts is the cops see that and they say, we don't give a shit.
We don't care.
We won't be calling ICE.
We're going to release this guy back out into the general public like he's just like a shoplifter.
And we are not going to be involving immigration authorities.
And now the Massachusetts governor has gone on the record saying we will not be cooperating.
We will maintain our status as a sanctuary state.
And that's going to be the next battle as Trump tries to get the worst of the worst out of the country, Eliana.
And the media will be on the wrong side.
I think there are a couple interesting things happening here with personnel.
Weaponized Political Laughter 00:13:35
The first is the order with which these picks are being made.
You know, first you had Susie Wiles being named chief of staff, and she's a really interesting pick who couldn't be more different, I don't think, from Reince Priebus, who was Trump's first chief of staff last time around, who was somebody he didn't really know.
I mean, Reince was running the RNC.
Trump and the RNC weren't that close when he ran.
Susie has been running his operation since 2021 and somebody who has really gained his trust and demonstrated an ability to manage both Trump and his operation.
The second is that the first appointments we're seeing coming from Trump are on immigration, which I think sends a signal to folks that he's going to take the issue seriously.
You know, the first appointment coming out wasn't the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, but it was the Immigration Czar.
And I do think that's intentional and sends a signal.
And also to see, we even talked about Elise Stefanik going to the United Nations.
She's someone who is, he talked about strong women.
She's, I think, likely to be in the mold of Nikki Haley, who was there before, who will be an advocate for America and Israel on the world stage.
So thus far, you know, we're seeing interesting appointments that I think are broadcasting the president-elect's intentions for what he intends to prioritize.
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.
Kamala lost because of Kamala.
That is the subject of today's show.
You know, I really thought that someone on the left would write this.
I've been saying this, the true story of how Kamala Harris lost the presidential race.
I thought that they would be so angry with her for losing to Trump that they would be clamoring to write the in-depth piece on how she blew it, you know, like journalists.
Silly me.
I thought we'd get to read all the juicy details about how this well-known bully who lost 92% of her staff as vice president because no one could stand working for her was impossible to manage, wouldn't take advice, couldn't execute prepared strategies, was too paralyzed with fear to make decisions, except for the big one that she did make, which was to pick Tim Walz as her running mate, which turned out to be an absolute disaster.
But so far, nothing has really been only a couple of lame pieces, and none have really gone in depth behind the scenes.
Maybe it'll still happen.
But truly, what's happened so far is it's been mostly she lost because of racism and sexism and maybe because of Joe Biden.
We are being spoon-fed a bunch of nonsense.
Oh, what a change about how Kamala Harris hit all of her marks.
I mean, you can't be mad at her.
She hit all of her marks.
These are lies.
Maybe it's just easier for them to blame Joe Biden.
He's the white guy who stayed too long and was far too infirm.
I guess he's not going on Mount Rushmore anymore.
Remember, Nancy Pelosi?
No, so it's a no?
Or maybe it is because this is the Democrat Party and you don't blame problems on black women, period.
It doesn't matter how terribly they have behaved.
I give you Donna Brazil, who cheated on a presidential debate and now has had not one, but two contractor or contributor deals with Network News, Fox, and now ABC.
It's unbelievable.
Sure, some white man would have the same deal, right?
The way Joy Reed has survived, despite the anti-gay slurs all over her blog, her lies about how she'd been hacked and the FBI was investigating.
So weird how that never went anywhere.
And now years of open, abject hatred of whites.
They're fine with that.
I don't know exactly the reasons why they're not doing it or whether they will do it.
I still, I mean, like, I'm still an optimist at heart, I guess.
But look, before we close this chapter in presidential history and say Sayonara Kamala, I decided we need to take an honest look back.
So here goes.
From the start, it was very important that we get her name right.
Okay, so how do you pronounce it?
First you say Kama like a common sentence.
Then you say la like la Put it together and it's one, two, three.
Kamala.
Oh my God, is inflation lower yet?
They devoted portions of the Democratic National Convention to this.
And then if you did not get her name right after you'd received the lesson, you were racist.
Just ask Nancy Mace.
When you disrespect Kamala Harris by saying you will call her whatever you want, I know you don't intend it to be that way.
That's the history and legacy of white disregard for the humanity of black people.
So now you're calling me a racist.
I didn't say it.
I just said you weren't racist.
That is completely different.
You don't have to intend racism to me.
No, no, no.
Kamala Harris is.
Kamala!
Kamala!
You said it's going to call you Nancy Mace.
It's Kamala.
You're doing this on respectfully.
Disrespectful.
Okay.
Helpful articles were written explaining that mispronouncing someone's name is a microaggression, an effort to disparage them, a disrespect rooted in the racist tradition of othering black people in subtle but meaningful ways.
Even though it's routinely done to white people as well, like Matt Gates and Demi Moore, Ralph Fiennes, Steve Bushimi.
Here's MSNBC's Nicole Wallace this week pretending while on air not to know how to pronounce or even spell that pesky Pete Hegseth's name.
Or the Fox Weekend guy.
His name's someone, what is his name?
Tom Heg what?
Pete Heg Seth.
Heg.
Can I get a spelling?
H-E-G-S-E-T-H?
She's such a faker.
She's such a faker.
God, she's inauthentic.
But yeah, look, here's the kicker.
Even well-known Democrats pronounced Kamala Harris's name wrong.
Kamala Harris spoke to me that day.
Our leader, Kamala, asked them, how can I help you?
We need Kamala Harris, the president of joy, to lead us.
Kamala said, we're all closely monitoring the storm.
Kamala.
Kamala.
Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden.
I guess they didn't get the memo because they weren't there when the little girls talked about their auntie.
They're racist too.
Or is it just Nancy Mace because she's a Republican?
So in any event, that's how things kicked off.
Everyone is racist.
Racist for mispronouncing her name, except for all the Democrats who can't pronounce her name either.
But you're not supposed to notice that.
Knowing that she has an unattractive personality, Kamala Harris's team tried hard to rebrand her when she first launched as not painful, but as brat, the meaning of which nobody knows.
Charlie XCX, who I do know, quote, Brat, you're just that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says some dumb things sometimes.
Very cool.
I'm sure that messenger really communicated to the young folks when she told them she is brat.
So the message for voters is she's not awkward.
She's not off-putting.
She might be dumb, but she's actually the cool wine ant you'll love to hang with at Thanksgiving.
Absolutely perfect for the presidency.
Everything about her had to be made over, you see, because the public spent four years watching her and had come to deeply dislike this woman.
In June, 2024, this past June, a majority of Americans had an unfavorable view of her.
For over 40%, it was very unfavorable.
The most important rebrand to start with her makeover, the cackle.
Wow.
It's a lot.
It's a lot.
It's not a cackle, they told us.
It's joy.
This joy, this campaign of infectious and dynamic joy.
These two very positive, joyful, energetic people embrace the joy, which you see them doing.
A lot of joy, a lot of optimism out of the box.
The vice president has spoken to this eloquently with great joy, great enthusiasm.
And joy, I think, is a great word because you can see this in Tim Walton.
This week for Democrats has been not to overuse this word, such a joyful one.
And just in case you weren't convinced and you actually think she does cackle, her cackle's amazing.
It's amazing and it's just being weaponized against her.
You're a Pollyan Republicans have at times weaponized you laughing.
What do you make of Republicans using that as a way to suggest that you're not a serious candidate?
There are sometimes when your adversaries will try and turn your strength into a weakness.
Don't you laugh then?
Get off Kamala Harris's dick about her laugh.
And number two, get rigorously honest with yourself and go get some therapy and talk about how clearly you have such a hard time wrapping your head around the idea of a smart, successful, self-made, confident woman who is able to easily and frequently find and express joy.
Tale of two tickets.
One radiates joy.
The other is dour and frankly, frightening.
And this is how you know the Republicans are freaking out about it.
Vice President Kamala Harris is criticized for her race, gender, and parental status, but also for laughing.
As if an infectious, energizing belly laugh, the literal display of joy, is a bad thing.
Infectious and energizing.
Whole think pieces were written, like this one from The Atlantic entitled, Kamala Harris and the Threat of a Woman's Laugh, which told readers, Trump doesn't really laugh.
He smirks.
He bares his teeth silently.
Bears his teeth, I say.
He's a rabid dog, you see.
Kamala, according to The Atlantic, well, her laugh is wholesome.
It's honest.
It's human.
In fact, they write, quote, criticism of emotional expression has long been a weapon of choice for those wanting to cut down women in political power.
Criticism of her laugh is weaponization, they say.
Trump, you see, is rabid with bare teeth.
Kamala is wholesome.
And disagreement means you're just threatened by an honest woman.
In sum, she does not cackle.
She is joyful and also wholesome and honest and human and you're sexist.
Kamala's Wholesome Laugh 00:08:12
We're off to a banger start.
At first, she was tightly controlled.
Obviously, there would be no interviews, but some big decisions were required before the Democratic National Convention, like deciding who would step into her shoes if she were incapacitated as president.
She later explained, on that one, she went on instinct.
What's the last time you would make a gut decision?
This here is very prescribed, very controlled.
Yeah.
Probably the biggest gut decision I've made most recently is to choose my running mate.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So what did her gut get us?
You are the dancing queen, come and sweet on the seventeen.
Dancing queen.
You and God in the time.
Nicely done, Debbie Murphy.
Let's be honest.
He looked a little familiar.
Come on now.
Yeah, all on now.
The listening audience knows, but that was clips from The Price is Right.
Or maybe it wasn't The Price is Right.
Maybe it was this.
Chris Barley.
It was a little bit awkward, but maybe it was just his physicality, you know, like the jerky, herky motions.
But maybe the guy was a really effective orator.
Look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community.
I've tried to do the best I can, but I've not been perfect.
And I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that.
Oh, well, not the best message for your VP choice, but okay.
It promptly came out that Tim Walz was a radical leftist.
The man who was supposed to win over Midwestern working class men for Kamala had mandated tampons in the boys' bathrooms and made his state a sanctuary for underage kids claiming to be another gender who wanted to castrate and sterilize themselves.
A story so extreme that many did not believe it, but it was true.
Turns out the insult Walls hurled at Republicans that caught Kamala Harris's attention in the first place and led to her making him her VP running mate was no more than a mere projection.
These are weird people on the other side.
They want to take books away.
They want to be in your exam room.
That's what it comes down to.
And don't get sugarcoating this.
These are weird ideas.
Listen to them speak.
Listen how they talk about things.
Listen to how your previous guests were right.
Like you said, they've told them that they shouldn't talk about race.
They can't help it.
It is built into their DNA because there is no plan.
Tim Walz also lied a lot, a couple dozen times at least, about his inflated military rank.
He was not a retired command sergeant major.
Where he served in combat, he did not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, as he led people to believe.
Lied about in what context he served.
It was not in combat, as he later claimed, and about many, many other things.
We hosted some of the National Guard members who served with Tim Walz.
And I just called him a deserter also, because he left his post.
He left his duty station and he walked off into the sunset.
I say slithered a lot of times, that he, that he slithered out of the armory, but he walked into the sunset, never turned around, never had any intention of ever coming back to the military.
He was gone.
And because I've got better things to do with you.
What would you like to see him do?
Apologize.
Apologize.
Didn't happen.
He lied about being a head coach, which he wasn't, using IVF, which he didn't, receiving a commendation from the Chamber of Commerce, which he didn't.
Being in China when the Tiananmen Square massacre took place, which he wasn't.
His son was witnessing a mass shooting, which he didn't, and much, much more.
It was clearly a problem.
And pretty soon, we stopped seeing much of Tim Walz on the campaign trail, whose daughter, by the way, has thoughts on the election.
I've like officially reached a point of anger and I'm not an angry person.
So I'm just trying to channel it.
The first one being this country does not deserve Kamala Harris.
That woman should go live her best life wherever she wants, doing whatever she wants, because we don't deserve her at this point.
The only people that delivered this election were black women and we failed them.
And it's just heartbreaking.
And we've got to do whatever we can to support them and support our people through these next four years.
These people have to live in their own skin, as in JD Vance and Donald Trump have to be JD Vance and Donald Trump.
And that is not a punishment I would wish upon anybody except those two individuals.
Yeah, so I'm just really grateful that I am who I am and that I'm on the side of love and hope and joy and progress.
Oh, nice.
I mean, I think it's fair to say the joy is gone.
It's gone.
We've kind of changed our messaging, but you know what?
Good luck to you in your future endeavors.
So the Kamala campaign, at this point in our story, had tried Brat and Joy and kept her mostly under wraps, putting her out only in highly controlled, scripted settings like the Democratic National Convention or at rallies with the teleprompter.
But there was still the matter of her radical policy statements from 2019 when she first ran for president.
She wanted to ban fracking to eliminate private health insurance, to ban meat, to ban gas cars, to ban and confiscate guns.
She wanted to mandate taxpayer-funded sex change procedures for prisoners and illegals.
She thought the wall was a stupid vanity project.
She was open to reparations.
My God, where to begin with the cleanup?
Fracking.
That's as good a place as any.
Pennsylvania is a must-win state, and they love fracking.
So reversing that position is a no-brainer.
Soon, we received unsigned paper statements from rando campaign spokespeople saying Kamala disavowed her position on fracking.
Oh, and also on banning private health insurance.
Fracking ban?
Who ever heard of a fracking ban?
There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.
What?
Do not believe you're lying ears.
Unnamed spokesperson claimed it's not so.
Getting rid of private health insurance?
What kind of a nutcase would ever propose that?
To reiterate, you support the Medicare for All bill, I think initially co-sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders.
You're also a co-sponsor onto it.
I believe it will totally eliminate private insurance.
So for people out there who like their insurance, they don't get to keep it.
Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care.
And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require.
Who of us has not had that situation where you got to wait for approval and the doctor says, well, I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this?
Let's eliminate all of that.
Let's move on.
Yeah, that's worked out beautifully for our friends up north in the evil Top Hat Canada.
She's over it.
Trust me, said Rando spokesperson via paper statement.
Dana Bash Fracking Play 00:04:14
Other positions were not expressly reversed, but her language around them became very, very different.
Gun bans and mandatory gun buyback programs?
Oh, hell no.
Reinvented Kamala is a 2A NRA gun-totin kind of gal.
She's the Dana Lash of Canada.
She's Serpico.
Come on.
Okay.
Do you want to play with?
Okay.
Do you want to play us?
Okay.
Okay, Jolanda.
That wasn't Al Pacino.
That was the reinvented Kamala Harris.
On cops and immigration, she also sounded very, very different from 2019 Kamala.
Kamala didn't really bail rioters out of Minnesota prisons.
Yeah, she did.
And she wasn't really soft on the border or on ice.
Yeah, she was.
In fact, she was the only candidate in this race that has prosecuted transnational gangs and criminals in a border state.
In other words, ain't gonna be no border trouble in this here town, little missy.
Sheriff Kamala Harris had arrived.
Well, here's my word.
Get the hell off my spread.
Now, get on off them horses.
I don't favor looking up to the likes of you.
If you say three, mister, you'll never hear the man count ten.
Every time you turn around, expect to see me.
There's one time you'll turn around and I'll be there.
Anything goes wrong, anything at all.
Your fault, my fault, nobody's fault.
It don't matter.
I'm going to blow your head off.
It's like looking in the mirror for Kamala.
So some radical positions, either reversed on paper by the Rando nameless spokesperson or seemingly disavowed by new messaging, and boom, we're off to the races.
Done.
Now it was time for an interview.
Took about a month for her to finally do it.
And the lucky recipient, CNN's Dana Bash.
By the way, that's another person whose name gets mispronounced and it's not racist.
Big opportunity, big, lots to discuss.
CNN's ratings are in the toilet.
So this is a chance to show everyone you're not actually in the tank for Team Blue.
Do your thing.
You're a serious journalist who will hit Kamala Harris just as hard as you did JD Vance, who you've had on your show many times.
And you continuously routinely go round and round with him.
You're tough.
Let's go, Dana.
So she gets Kamala Harris there next to her emotional support governor, Tim Walsh.
And Dana Bash does the thing.
She asks about the all-important fracking reversal.
This is going to be the first time we're going to hear her explain it on camera and directly as opposed through the Rando.
This is exciting.
When you were in Congress, you supported the Green New Deal.
And in 2019, you said, quote, there is no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.
Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania.
Do you still want to ban fracking?
No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking.
As vice president, I did not ban fracking.
As president, I will not ban fracking.
Wait, what?
No.
In 2020, she participated in a vice presidential debate against Mike Pence and said Joe Biden, who was at the top of her ticket, would not ban fracking.
Surely you know that, Dana Bash.
Surely you've done your homework since this is a very big interview, her first as the nominee, and you studied her earlier statements on fracking, a subject you have chosen to raise.
And you know that other paper statement through the Rando spokesperson is all we've gotten, that she's never disavowed anything directly.
And this is our chance to find out all about it.
Cross-Examining The Nominee 00:00:46
Let's check in and see whether she was cross-examined, held to account, and how things actually went between them from there.
How much we really care.
I hear your voice inside me.
I see your face everywhere.
Still, you say we belong to your voice.
Yes, that's exactly how it looked.
Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no
Export Selection