Jack Smith's "Election Interference," and Truth About Walz's Abortion Law, with Michael Knowles and Mike Davis | Ep. 905
01:40:33 Share

Building a business may feel like a big jump, but OnDeck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business. As a top-rated online small business lender, OnDeck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit OnDeck.com for more information.

Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

Carl's Jr.'s Big Carl fans know nothing beats the layers and layers of flavor of a Big Carl. Nothing beats that charbroiled beef, American cheese, and tangy Carl's classic sauce. Nothing. Except getting a second Big Carl for just $1. Big Carl just one-upped itself for just $1. Then buy one Big Carl, get one for a buck deal. Only at Carl's Jr. Get burger! Get burger. Available for a limited time at participating restaurants. Tax not included. Price may vary. Not valid with any other offer, discount, or combo.

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east.

Welcome to the Megyn Kelly show. Well, folks, it's October in a presidential election year. And you know what that means. I mean, everything gets labeled in October. Surprise, to be honest. This isn't a surprise to me or to anybody following the lawfare against Trump. Since Jack Smith could not get his D.C. case before a jury prior to Election Day, the one before the woman who hates him, Judge Chutkin, he decided to lay it out through a paper trial against former President Trump in a new 180

and 65 page legal brief. Would you look at this? Look at this thing. These are the little redactions you can see on there, allegedly protecting people's privacy. Honestly, in some ways, this is even better than a trial because it's just Jack Smith's side of the story.

and no defenses whatsoever. And quotes that may be taken entirely out of context, in fact, appear to be, um, just to hurt Trump a month before people go to vote. Sure. This is totally legit and nonpartisan at all for those, um,

Keeping score at home, this 165 page legal brief, that's roughly three and a half times longer than the original indictment. And then Judge Chutkan unsealed it yesterday at Jack Smith's request. He was like, it's very important that the public see this. Sure, this is totally about the law case. It has nothing to do with public opinion before people vote.

Um, in this brief Smith's team argues over and over and over again, that Trump's scheme was a private criminal effort and resorted to crimes to overturn the election. Can I just tell you something? So now I've read through most of it and I've read through 25 articles discussing it and I've listened to podcasts already on it. Like I'm, I know this case, but here's my number one takeaway.

Trump behaved terribly after he lost that election. And you've heard me say that from election day 2020 all the way forward. You've heard me defend Mike Pence. I know a lot of you disagree with me. That's fine. We can disagree. We often do. But this is a private and a political matter. This is not a criminal matter. And Jack Smith is doing everything

acrobatics, Cirque du Soleil level to try to make this somehow a crime. And now he unveils this in this dramatic, oh, here it is. It's unsealed. The public must see it before election. It's the same shit we have seen. We had an impeachment trial. We had a prime time week long January 6th

you know, public condemnation trial. We've had January 6th witnesses leading the news on every other news station for years. We've had books written like we know he behaved badly.

All of it lacks any context, and I'm not saying it was at the same level, but lacks any context when it comes to Democratic efforts to overturn elections like Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams. There's a long list. This is now just one guy who clearly can't stand Donald Trump and his 165-page reasons why.

So, okay. I mean, I did you the solid of listening to the left-wing press this morning, MSNBC and elsewhere, and they're so excited. It's like, you didn't learn anything new. This is all stuff you just want to bathe yourself in it more. It just feels so good on you to hear about Trump's tweets and where he was when he sent them. Jack Smith apparently tracked Trump's phone. He got like data on where Trump was tweeting from.

when he was tweeting out certain tweets and this is the big reveal, he was in the dining room off the Oval Office. Okay, is that gonna change the next election? I mean, Jack Smith certainly hopes so. After this thing was unsealed,

The Trump campaign spokesman Steve Chung hit back saying, quote, the release of the falsehood-ridden unconstitutional J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz's disastrous debate performance is another obvious attempt by the Harris-Biden regime to undermine American democracy and interfere in this election. That's an interesting point, right? Because this is what kind of what J.D. Vance did at the debate.

Don't lecture me on your commitment to democracy. J.D. took it to a censorship place saying, you know, given how you love to censor everything and everyone's speech, you're not exactly lovers of the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights. So spare me. And now you have Team Trump saying this is election interference real time. You are ceding whatever moral high ground you purported to have.

But they're not dumb over on Team Blue. And they accurately predicted that the media would absolutely love this. Here's just a brief sampling of the headlines. MSNBC, Trump tried to block Jack Smith's immunity brief. It backfired.

What? How? How did trying to stop it backfire against him? Politico, 11 damning details in Jack Smith's new brief in the Trump election case. NBC News, Trump resumed.

resorted to crimes, quoting, to stay in office after 2020 loss. Jack Smith's team says, hello, we know that that's what Jack Smith's team has said. They've indicted the man on four charges in a federal court, alleging exactly that. We've known that for years now, NBC.

Over to ABC. Bombshell immunity filing details Trump's alleged increasingly desperate bid to overturn the 2020 election. How is it a bombshell if we'd learn nothing new? Truly, we learn like small, it's like, I have a red sweater on today. It has gold buttons. Okay, it also has flouncy sleeves at the bottom. Okay, what we learned on the next day that it actually had some creases in the cuff. Yes, yes.

you know, film at 11, stop the presses. Not exactly. However, it's important for us to understand exactly why they did this, what this is about and what you need to know when you see your leftist friends over the next 30 plus days and they wave this thing in your face and tell you this is a nightmare and how could you possibly vote for this guy? And so joining me now is Mike Davis to discuss all of that. He's founder and president of the Article 3 Project.

If you're tired of the same old coffee from those mega corporations pushing their woke agendas, listen up. It's time to take a stand and support a brand that truly embodies American values, Blackout Coffee. They stand with hardworking Americans who believe in family, faith, and freedom.

They roast some of the most incredible coffee you will ever taste using only premium grade beans, roasted and shipped to you within 48 hours. And for the cold brew fans, Blackout Coffee is excited to announce the launch of their two new ready to drink cold brew coffee latte options.

don't settle for less. Make the switch to Blackout Coffee. Head over to blackoutcoffee.com slash MK, or use the code MK for 20% off as you check out off your first order. Blackoutcoffee.com slash MK. The code is MK. Join the movement. Taste the difference. Remember, with every sip, you are supporting a brand that stands for America. Be awake, not woke.

Mike, welcome back to the show. We asked your partner in discussing crime, Dave Ehrenberg, but he is off for the Jewish holiday. So Shana Tova, Dave, and you and I will fly as a duo today. What do you make of the fact that Jack Smith thought it was so important? He went to the court and said, please, please at least let me submit something to the public with names redacted so they can read this prior to November 5th.

It shows total desperation on the Biden-Kamala Justice Department's part. They waited nearly three years to bring this unprecedented, I would say bogus, indictment against President Trump for the non-crime of objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

They made up four counts against Trump. Two of these counts have been struck down in June by the Supreme Court, but that didn't stop Jack Smith from bringing these counts that the court in Fisher said you can't bring. These obstruction counts against Trump that relate to corporate fraud after Enron that Jack Smith has now weaponized publicly.

against President Trump. And if you read this document, it's very clear this is a political document. Jack Smith knows that he's not going to be able to get this case tried before November 5th. And so, as you said, Megan, this is trial by paper. This is Jack Smith putting every allegation he can come up with

in this 165 page document. Jack Smith knows that Trump can't respond to this. Jack Smith knows this is a one-sided political story and they're desperate to get this out there. And DC Obama judge, uh,

did gymnastics to allow Jack Smith to do this. This is an unprecedented thing that they've done, that they've allowed this political document to come out before President Trump, as the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss, which is the regular order. And it just shows that this Biden-Kamala special counsel, Jack Smith, and this D.C. Obama judge,

Tanya Shutkin are political actors who are trying to interfere in the 2024 presidential election, something that they are accusing Trump of doing in 2020 and something they say is now a crime. Yeah, something they indicted Trump for doing. Even Judge Mershon in the New York State business records case against Trump said, I'm going to hold off on the sentencing because, again,

I see that there's a presidential election. I mean, you couldn't find a more partisan judge. Even he was like, this is a bridge too far. I know it really would be election interference if I held this sentencing hearing now.

But Judge Chutkin, not a qualm. Put it out there, Jack Smith, a one-sided document to which Trump cannot reasonably respond within the next three weeks as is due. Even the Jack Smith's defenders have been saying there's no question Trump will need an extension. They waited to file this thing. Then they tried to get, you know, a hurry up procedure.

procedure established in the court. Trump went to the Supreme Court, it slowed it down, and now it's all along. Jack Smith has shown an urgency to get this tried before the election. He doesn't even try to hide it, Mike, how badly he wants voters to have his side of the story before they go to the ballot box, which is one side of the story, all of which comes with a presumption of innocence for Donald Trump.

And it just shows you that Jack Smith is the political scud missile that Democrats launch against Republicans. Remember, Jack Smith did this to former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. He made up bogus charges of corruption against McDonnell. He won a conviction. That conviction was eventually, years later, overturned by the Supreme Court 8-0.

It would have been nine to nothing, but Justice Scalia passed away, but the political damage was done. They're trying to do the same play here with Jack Smith and President Trump. They know that this case is a dog. They know that two of these four counts have already been struck down by the Supreme Court in the Fisher decision. They know that presidential immunity...

Yeah, he was crazy. He put two of the courts were struck down in another Supreme Court case and Jack Smith did not strip them from his case.

Yeah, he put him in the superseding indictment, which is just unbelievable. And I mean, it's shameful. And we expect this from Jack Smith because we know his record. He's a partisan clown, right? But this D.C. Obama judge, Tanya Shetkin, it's shameful what she's doing because the Supreme Court and the presidential immunity decision, a six to three decision in June written

by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, not exactly a Trump supporter, not wearing MAGA hats, doesn't have Trump signs in his yard, I guarantee you that. He even reprimanded Judge Shuckin for rushing this case, rushing this monumental case of presidential immunity because the Chief Justice understands this is so much bigger than

than President Trump. This is so much bigger than one election. This is about the presidency. If you can throw a president of the United States in prison for his official acts, you're going to destroy the presidency and therefore destroy our republic. And the Chief Justice understands that. And that hasn't stopped. I mean, this is like the Freddy Krueger case, Megan. They've had both of their arms cut

cut off. They have their eyeballs blown off. They have their leg blown off and they're just bloody and wounded, but they just keep coming back. It's like Freddy Krueger part, part six with this superseding indictment with Tanya Shuckin and Jack Smith. Is it like Jason and Freddy, this like part, part 15, this is, this case is a dog, but it just won't die.

You know what it is, Mike? I mean, I will say it's, I mean, it's obviously an attempt to manipulate our feelings in advance of this debate. Like he's bad. He did bad things. And I, as somebody who believes strongly

Trump lost. And as I said in the intro, I hated his behavior around J6, but I've gotten past it. And I'm a lot more worried about our country than that episode of Trump's bad behavior. I really am. I think it's far more egregious and evil to let 20 million illegals into this country to murder American citizens, rape little girls. And we could go down the list of all the things then Trump's personality problems around accepting a loss. But

They're trying to tap into people like me who are independent voters. Obviously, I'm in Connecticut, so my vote doesn't really count. But I'm saying like in the swing states, they're trying to remind people like me, let's say women in particular, who hated the January 6th story, all of it.

He's bad. He's bad. He's bad. None of this has to do with the law or anything he's actually been charged with. The whole case is not really about the law. It's to keep this in the news and try to play on our heartstrings. And, you know, this is why they don't talk about Lake and Riley. They talk about Trump and a mean tweet or some sort of callous behavior. And look at what it's already led to that we put together a little media montage of

making the most of this filing. Check this out too.

personal, private, criminal interest in that moment. They just cover every single angle of it in a way that it just feels like a straitjacket. It's not, I think, particularly useful or edifying for me to say this, but I'll say it, which is that it did make me enraged at the Supreme Court all over again. I would recommend saving some rage for their next decision on this very same thing. Well, that's a good point, Rachel. But

But importantly, when they do that, they will at least be unable to run away from the factual contentions as laid out by Jack Smith. As I said, metaphorically turn to any page in the Smith filing and treason will fall off the shelf and hit you in the effing head.

There may never be a Trump trial because a Trump election would erase the chance of it. And with that would erase the entirety, the entirety of justice in the United States of America. And with that, erase the entirety of the United States of America. Treason and the U.S. of America goes away if you read this indictment. Your thoughts on all that, Mike? It's like watching a therapy session of Trump trial.

deranged lunatics. And what's so funny about watching this is they so desperately want real Americans in real America to actually believe that Trump's the gravest threat to democracy after

after Biden and Kamala tried to bankrupt Trump, throw him in prison for the rest of his life, take him off the ballot so the American people don't have a choice, take away his Secret Service protection, underfund it twice and almost have him killed twice. And when that all didn't work, they had Kamala Harris, who did not receive one Democrat primary vote in her life for president, gutted.

Joe Biden in a bloodless coup and throw out 14 million Democrat primary votes and install Kamala Harris as their nominee. And they want to lecture Donald Trump and his supporters about democracy. Are you kidding me? Whose mental infirmities she's been covering up and continues to cover up. You know, I was thinking about it. So maybe they're just genuinely really upset about J6. Maybe they're just, you know, let's let's go with that.

What happened before J6? What happened before the November 2020 election? Were they respectful towards Trump? Did they accept that he won the 16 election and was the rightful president and where they could work with him? Did they write to them? No, they were talking about impeaching him from day one of his presidency. They made up all the Russia BS. They had the fake impeachment.

over what Trump calls the perfect phone call with Ukraine. They spent the entire four years trying to ruin his presidency and say he had committed impeachable and illegal acts the whole time. So people really need to keep their reaction to what happened on January 6th, which was a very bad, unfortunate protest in perspective. How many very bad, horrible,

horrible protests have the Democrats foisted on this country over the last four or five years without apology, without any accountability, nevermind an impeachment and multiple criminal charges, none, absolutely none. So all of this is so rich. Having said all that, let's just go through some of the points because they're everywhere. And I'd love to get your take on it as a lawyer.

Okay. One of the big reveals is that Jack Smith used forensic data to track Trump's moments in the White House on J6 and they were the New York Times reporting and the indictment or the brief shows as follows. Trump was sitting alone in the dining room off the Oval Office at the time the riots were unfolding. According to the brief, forensic data shows he was using the Twitter app on his phone and watching Fox News. Trump posted to Twitter that Mr. Pence,

lacked the courage to do what was right. The mob became enraged at the vice president. Okay. We knew all of this. I guess we didn't know he was in the dining room. Uh, and the secret service took him to a secure location and aid to Mr. Trump rushed in to alert him to the peril. Mr. Pence was in, but Mr. Trump looked at the aid and said only so what, according to the brief. All right. So do you want to take that one, Mike?

So we have hearsay testimony and President Trump can't respond to it because this is a one-sided document. It's a one-sided political document, 165 pages of one-sided evidence that Trump can't respond to. He can't bring in that aid and cross-examine that aid. He can't bring in his own evidence to know whether it's true or not. And

And guess what? You know, it's it is not a crime to be a jerk. Right. And if it were a crime to be a jerk, I think that just about every politician in Washington, D.C., except for Chuck Grassley, my former boss, the nicest guy in D.C., everyone else I think would be in prison if it were a crime to be a jerk. And so you have to that's the problem with this whole case. You have to separate people.

The political and the personal, as you said, Megan, versus what's actually criminal. What did Trump do on January 6th that was criminal? And the answer is nothing unless you have evidence that Trump incited the riots on January 6th. And that evidence does not exist because Jack Smith has not charged him with inciting the riot. Trump did not and could not have committed a crime on January 6th.

They offered ditties like this one. Trump mocked Sidney Powell, who was later indicted down in Atlanta. On November 20th, Trump muted his phone while Sidney Powell was talking. Remember, she's the, we're going to bring the crack in lady who said the smartmatic voting machines had been hacked, et cetera, and mocked her repeatedly, calling her claims crazy and making a Star Trek reference. Hold on, this typeface is so teeny tiny. I need some help. Call

Calder claims crazy, made a reference to the science fiction series Star Trek when describing her allegations. He agreed, let's see, he agreed he had not seen anything to substantiate her allegations, I think. All right. So all of this is meant to show us, Mike, that Trump knew he had lost and yet pushed false voting claims, false claims about the voting process.

The fact that he thought Sidney Powell was nuts does not disprove that Trump believed he had rightfully won the election. That's the bottom line here. Yeah, that's, that's, I mean, look, I,

Trump still believes he won the election, right? And remember what Democrats did in 2020. They illegally used COVID to change state election laws in violation of the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They threw out the election observers, the evidence gatherers, and then said that Trump had no evidence. Well, no kidding. You threw out the evidence gatherers, and then they mass-mailed

ballots out to old voter list and they got rid of signature verification because somehow COVID changes your signature. So the Democrats, if the Democrats don't at least concede that the 2020 election was highly irregular, they're not being honest themselves. There there is a paragraph in here which says that Trump.

uh, said to his family in advance of the election that, hold on, I'm trying to get a page 15, a Trump operative, again, more hearsay as was the last paragraph I read. I should about Sidney Powell, page 15, a Trump operative who was the assistant to the president and director of oval office ops told investigators that

he witnessed Trump making an unprompted comment to his family members, most likely wife Melania, daughter Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Quote, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you still have to fight like hell. The brief calls this statement plainly private because if it's an official statement and in its official capacity as president, it's immune, can't be the basis of a claim, and it can't be used as evidence against him per that Supreme Court ruling.

Plainly private because it was about the election and delivered to family members. What I said?

No, no, that's not true with what Jack Smith said, that that's purely personal because the Supreme Court in the presidential immunity decision said not only can you not use official acts, you can't take evidence from, for example, the deputy White House chief of staff for operations, which is exactly what Jack Smith did there. You can't use that evidence under the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision. That evidence is not admissible.

As and that's the other thing like about his conversations with Mike Pence, they're trying to get in conversations he had with Mike Pence. If he can't if you can't get in conversations between the president and his attorney general, which the Supreme Court already ruled, how do you get in conversations between the president and the vice president?

That's it's, it's very interesting. So remember, the Supreme Court and the Fisher, excuse me, and the presidential immunity decision said that the that that the Justice Department what Trump did with the Justice Department is absolutely immune. And what President Trump did with his vice president is at least presumptively immune. And Jack Smith

didn't even consider that. He just took everything that Trump did with Vice President Pence and put it back in his superseding indictment, just like Jack Smith put in the two post-Enron charges that the Supreme Court and the Fisher decision included.

decision in June said that the government cannot do. So that Jack Smith essentially just ignored the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision and took out the Justice Department stuff and put in everything else.

Yeah. I mean, the fact that he didn't adjust based on Fisher was absolutely outrageous, which said, hey, that main claim that's been brought against all these J6 defendants and the main claim against Trump is not a claim for January 6th behavior. It's a claim for people like Arthur Anderson that shredded documents while under subpoena in the Enron scandal. It's not about finding some lawmaker or official who behaved badly and didn't perfectly comport with what you wanted him to outside of a congressional hearing that was happening inside the Capitol.

but Jack Smith acted like that ruling was never handed down. He'll learn the hard way from the U S Supreme court. It was, this is another situation, Mike, where we've got, okay, what does that mean? Even if it's true. So some witness, some alleged witness overheard a family conversation prior to the election where he said, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you still have to fight like hell.

What does that even mean? I don't know what that means. Fight like hell for your principles, fight like hell for the unborn, fight like hell for the American people, even if I'm out of office. This is the problem in having a one-sided brief dropped on us 30 days out.

And it's not a crime to object to the presidential election. And that's, again, if it were a crime, you would have Democrats going to prison for objecting to Republican wins in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017. I don't see Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in prison for objecting to Republican wins. Hillary Clinton still says that the 2020

2016 election was stolen from her and she maintains that position eight years later. She's not being charged for that. Again, what happened on January 6th, it was a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service that devolved into a riot. And the problem is, is that Democrats have said it's an insurrection. There's zero evidence of an insurrection. There is zero charge for

of an insurrection. And so what you have to do on January 6th is there are three categories of people there that who are there. There were people who were there peacefully protesting outside the Capitol. Even if you think they're wrong, even if you think they're crazy, they have an absolute First Amendment right to be there. And then there are people who trespassed and they should be charged with trespass. And then there were people who were violent and they should be

charge more harshly. But if you're not going to charge BLM and Antifa rioters who attacked the Portland Federal Courthouse and the White House and caused $2 billion in damage across America over several months and killed dozens of people, if you're not going to charge left-wing rioters, then I don't want to hear their crocodile tears about right-wing rioters.

Here's the other thing. There's a piece in here that's the quote is make them riot, make them riot. And all these left wing media publications are out there with a sleight of hand suggesting Donald Trump said that.

And it's not true. If you look at the actual brief, the prosecutor here, Jack Smith, is describing an effort by Trump operatives to, quote, create chaos. He raises the fracas at the Detroit Counting Center, pointing to evidence, this is via CNN, pointing to evidence that a campaign staffer, upon learning that a heavy incoming batch of votes leaned Biden, asked for options to file litigation against

Even if it was, I think BS is what they, they mean the same campaign operative, not Trump said, make them riot. When told that protests at the counting center were heading in the direction of the so-called Brooks brothers riot that disrupted the 2000 Florida count between Gore and George W. Bush. Okay. So that's some camp, some rando campaign operatives operative in Detroit.

This is not Trump. The headlines CNBC quote, make them riot. Trump election case judge unseal special counsel motion on immunity deadline quote, make them riot. Newly unsealed filing gives new details of federal election conspiracy case against Donald Trump. MSNBC quote, make them riot. Jack Smith,

coup bombshell reveals damning evidence against Trump. No one makes clear. Trump is not accused of saying that. We have no idea who rando campaign operative in Detroit is or whether anything was done as a result of said knuckleheaded comment.

And I don't understand how that that supposed evidence would be admissible at all in this case against President Trump. How is it relevant at all to the charges against President Trump in this case? I mean, it's just it seems like it's.

that Jack Smith and Tanya Shetkin gratuitously put this in this 165 page political documents in October before the November 5th election, because it's pretty obvious that they're trying to do political damage to President Trump before the election because they fear American voters on November 5th, 2024. Okay. Finally, uh, and Andy McCarthy raises in a great piece on NR today, uh,

Jack Smith is arguing that the public has a right to a speedy trial in this case. The public has a right to a speedy trial. So we need to go pedal to the metal so the public can extract its justice against Donald Trump. Andy pointing out the public is not the one who holds the right to the speedy trial. We have one right as the public, and it's a right to a trial that is just that's it.

Yeah, I mean, it's it's it's absolutely insane to say that the right to a speedy trial is for the public. It's for the defendants, obviously. Right. It's so the defendants can vindicate his constitutional rights in a speedy manner. It's not so the public can railroad a criminal defendant before an election. Here is this.

Just a little bit before we go on the media. First of all, here's Trump on News Nation with just a bit talking about this filing. Sat one.

This was a weaponization of government, and that's why it was released 30 days before the election. And it's nothing new in there, by the way, nothing new. They rigged the election. I didn't rig the election. They should have never allowed the information to be to come before the public. But they did that because they want to hurt you with the election. It's pure election interference.

Okay, so that's Trump kind of repeating what Steve Chung said. And then I've got two more for you. Here is Paula Reid. Who is she? She's CNN. She's CNN, isn't she? Out there talking about how CBS, I can't keep them. They're all the same, but she's CNN. Okay. Here's where her head is today and her worries about this document.

If former President Trump is reelected, this case is expected to be dismissed by his attorney general. So the idea of releasing a long narrative like this from prosecutors, highly unusual. Now look, there's no precedence for this. I mean, this is just, this is just such an extraordinary circumstance. I think that this is

absolutely going to be used again in the court of public opinion to once again try to frame the former president as a murder or a victim of the justice system. And this is definitely the last opportunity that voters have to see what prosecutors gathered in this multi-year investigation. It's going to be used to frame him as a martyr and CNN is concerned about it, Mike.

Well, I mean, I have been doing this for the last two years, 4,000 media hits, explaining to the public that this is a politicized and weaponized justice system against President Trump. His top aides like Steve Bannon, who's in prison right now, Peter DeVaro, who went to prison. They went after his attorneys, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani. They went after his supporters,

On January 6th, they persecuted his supporters, and that is very clear in the Supreme Court's June Fisher decision where they illegally politicized and weaponized a post-in-run obstruction of justice statute intended for corporate fraud to go after their political enemies, right? And so...

I'm glad the American people are tuning in to this. I do think that this is going to backfire and backfire badly. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's faces before the election, because I think this document, I think the American people see that this is 165 page political document. It is clearly election interference. And I think the public understands this is lawfare and election interference. And I think they resent this.

You know, I'll just say this in closing. Even though a lot of us have concerns about the behavior around J6, look at what's happened to the country since then. Look at our dear country.

and what this current administration has put us through. And they want four to more eight years in control. There will be no more Southern border. There'll be no more America as we knew it. If we can't handle another 20 million illegals, and if you don't think they're not gonna lift that Biden executive order that was put in place in June to try to cut down on these so-called asylum seekers, you're crazy. Why would he leave the border open for three and a half years only to close it June before the November election? He just did that to cover his, you know what?

It's going to be lifted if she wins. And I feel the way this guy, Gordon Sondland feels, um, who wasn't just upset about January 6th. He actually was a former Trump impeachment witness. He's the former EU ambassador.

And he went on MSNBC with Ari Melber today, who seemed to be expecting former Ambassador Sondland to say something very different about Trump, given his past testimony against him. But here's what happened instead. Why was it important for you to say no more Trump because of his January 6th conduct? And do you stand by that? No, I don't stand by it. And I'll tell you why. I've now lived four years under the Biden-Harris policies.

And I have to say that those policies are not only becoming an existential threat to our country's way of life, but to our allies as well. So when it has to. No, no, no. I'll let you finish. No, I want to finish. You said it was a no for me after that. I did. And here we are right now. I did. And you're saying it's a yes for you. It is a yes for me. It is an absolute yes for me. That is how badly.

the Biden-Harris team have prosecuted their job. But the whole point you seem to be making was that January 6th and that kind of attack on democracy is bigger than any policy. I am seeing so many attacks on democracy that eclipsed January 6th. That's the thing, Mike. We're kind of ignoring that we could maybe be on the brink of another world war today.

thanks to the administration that's now in power. And, and somebody thinks it's going to get better with Kamala Harris at the helm for another four years. I mean, we're just waiting to see what's going to happen between Israel, our closest ally in the

This is, I think, what he was referring to there as the former ambassador to the EU. There are personal grievances and things you may not like about both candidates. You have to think about what is best for this country. I'll give you the last word. Yeah. So Joe Biden put Kamala Harris in charge of our border, and she let in over 20 million illegal immigrants, unvetted and unvettable fighting age men from the world's

Trump, most problematic places in the world. We have the resulting chaos, the resulting migrant crime. She was also the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on Bidenomics that caused this crushing inflation. This migration policy, this inflation is harming real Americans and real America. And then Biden and Kamala sent Biden

billions of dollars to Iran. Trump had Iran on the ropes. Biden and Kamala sent Iran billions of dollars. We saw October 7th, the most horrific terrorism imaginable. And now you have Iran launching ballistic missiles at Israel. This is on Kamala. We cannot take four more years of Kamala Harris. We will not have a country. She will replace

Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, maybe Sam Alito, and it is game over America. There goes our God-given rights to speak, worship, associate, and protect ourselves. Everything is on the line on November 5th. Mike Davis, thank you. Great to see you. Thank you. You know, one other thing I wanted to say to the audience is, for those of you who need a little comfort on the Trump thing, that behavior is highly unlikely to reoccur.

for many reasons. Number one, Trump is term limited. Notwithstanding the musings of Rachel Maddow, there's no Trump stays in office forever. And he knows that. He's going to be considerably older at the end of his second term if he gets one. And the second important piece of it is there will be no lawfare hanging over him that he has to stay. It's not like a Putin situation, you know, where you're going to get killed or prosecuted if you leave office.

The New York case is over, but for the sentencing and I really don't think he's getting jail time. And even if he does get jail time, this whole thing is probably going to be reversed on appeal. It's been gutted that case too by the Supreme Court ruling on immunity. The whole trial is going to have to be done over. I mean, they introduced Hope Hicks. They introduced all sorts of evidence that they argued in their in their own closing. The prosecutors did was crucial.

to the case, citing his official conduct in office. That now has to be thrown out per that U.S. Supreme Court ruling on immunity. That was improper. So that case is not a threat to Donald Trump. And the only other state case against him is the Fannie Willis case, which is in tatters.

That case is up on appeal. As you know, her disqualification or the failure to DQ her, she's going to get DQ'd. I really don't have much doubt about it. And there's not going to be another prosecutor willing to bring it. The Atlanta case is done or about to be done.

So you've got the two federal cases. The Mar-a-Lago case has been thrown out down in Florida because of the documents case, because Jack Smith wasn't properly appointed. And then there's the January 6th case, which is peddled to the metal, but it's been gutted whether Jack Smith knows it or not. But the point is, if Trump has won in this imaginary scenario that I'm going through, he's already stopped those cases because he's pulled the DOJ off of both of them. And now they're done.

So what reason would he have to say, I'm never leaving? I'm never leaving power. He's not going to be afraid of, let's take it worst case scenario for Trump, like 30 days in jail in New York is going to make him, that's just none of that. That's a left-wing fantasy. It's like Trump trauma, trauma porn. And, um, the one down in Florida is done. So, and the one down in Atlanta, as I said, is probably done. So anyway, um,

I'm saying this because I am not, as you know, like a diehard MAGA person. I describe myself as adjacent because I like the policies and I like the people. But I, you know, I see the flaws in Trump. I am not, you know, I'm able to see Trump clearly. Flaws and pluses.

So these are the things I think about. Is it, is it possible he would do something like this? Do I need to worry about this? Do I want to be responsible about my vote? Would it be irresponsible to cast a vote for somebody who did what he did? And this is where I've legitimately gotten to. So for those of you who are out there thinking about it, the way I think about it, that's why I offer my own take.

Thank you. Up next, Michael Knowles is here and there's a lot to get to with him. Like the Tim Walls lies the other day. They're worse than we even knew. We're going to go through some of them. Do you owe back taxes? Are your tax returns still unfiled? Did you forget to file for an extension? Are you stressed out about it? The October 15th deadline is fast approaching and time is running out. If you haven't gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments, you could soon be targeted by the IRS.

After October 15th, the IRS can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts, or even seize your property. But there's help available. You don't have to fight this problem alone. Tax Network USA, a nationwide tax firm, has helped taxpayers save more than $1 billion in tax debt.

They have filed over 10,000 tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens, and they can help you too. Don't wait. Visit TNUSA.com slash Megan or call 1-800-958-1000 for a free consultation. They will guide you through a few simple questions to determine how much you can save. Take action now before it's too late. Visit TNUSA.com slash Megan or call 1-800-958-1000.

It's the new Ghost Burger from Carl's Jr. It's a juicy char-broiled Angus beef burger.

I don't have any teeth.

After the Biden-Harris administration spent billions helping migrants who illegally crossed the southern border, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is going broke. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said yesterday the agency does not have enough funding to make it through the hurricane season. But according to a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration cost U.S. taxpayers about $150 billion in 2023, $150 billion in 2023,

And even more than that, in the neighboring year, the group said this amounted to about $1,100 per American taxpayer. Meantime, Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Augusta, Georgia yesterday, one of the hardest hit areas, announcing the feds will be providing hurricane victims with relief. ASAP, what are they getting? A one-time payment of $750.

Okay. For essential items like food, water, and baby formula. Victims eventually will be allowed to apply for other federal aid after filing all the proper paperwork. They don't even have pens. Their houses are underwater, but okay. Did all the migrants have to file a ton of paperwork to get their aid? Nearly a week after the hurricane hit, the devastation remains widespread and awful, especially in hard hit North Carolina. This is Lake Lure,

Debris covers what used to be the waterfront with homes destroyed in the background. Just devastation, just rubble. This is an image inside of one woman's home. Look at this. Furniture absolutely destroyed. The home ceiling, gone. Mud covering every inch of the floor. This is a home in Morgantown. The sides of the house, the roof, the front door, gone. What is this? This looks like one of those kids' homes that the dog attacked. Nothing left to it.

According to local media, thousands of people in North Carolina are still without power, many of them stranded without access to medical help. Some helicopter pilots, private, have taken it upon themselves to rescue people who are stranded. And that has ticked some of them off. They're wondering where the government is. Jonathan Howard is a Florida state guardsman who is helping a nonprofit rescue people.

He says he helped save an 11-day-old premature baby and an 87-year-old woman in need of oxygen. Take a listen.

I'm gonna tell you everything that's happening from the ground, what I'm actually seeing, because what they're telling you is complete bullshit on the news and these politicians don't have a fucking clue in their life. If I have helicopters, I can save lives. Without helicopters, I can't reach these people. I am literally flying around in a civilian helicopter looking for SOS messages carved in the mud or painted on the ground. Yesterday, me and my team did the rescue of that 11-day-old baby.

And all these government officials and social media, they're showing that video, that pictures and video of that rescue and claiming that they have some government helped with that. Without that civilian, that baby would be dead. And the old lady we went and rescued after that, she'd be dead too because she had one day left of oxygen. I will tell you, when we go up in the air, I probably see 40 civilian helicopters

And I might see two Blackhawks, National Guard, military, whatever they are. Nobody wants to coordinate with anybody. Everybody wants to pretend like they're being the hero while these people are literally fucking dying in the mountains. But they are literally allowing these people to fucking die in the mountains right now because we can't get helicopters. They got money for everything else in the fucking world right now. So I hope this video goes viral. I hope these politicians get fired. I hope people get pissed off.

Thank you to Jonathan Howard for posting that and keeping America informed. Joining me now, Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles show with the daily wire. Michael, great to see you. It's really galling. I mean, by one estimate that I read in the Federalist today, uh,

We have taken over $1 billion in our tax money out of FEMA and used it for services for illegals. $364 million in 23, $650 million in 24 reports the Federalist to the Shelter and Services Program to, quote, provide humanitarian services for

to non-citizen immigrants following their release from DHS. They unlimited coffers when it comes to people who are not American. For the people in North Carolina, $750 per home, which are in absolute devastation, tatters, ruins today. Your thoughts? San Diego took $20 million from FEMA to build a migrant welcome center.

As if the resources that were already being given to the illegal aliens were not enough. They need a big center Maybe they'll build a nice bouncy castle - I don't know. Maybe they'll get a snow cone machine or something a $750 to American citizens, of course there's one town that probably will receive a fair bit of attention and

in rebuilding. That is Asheville, North Carolina, because that's where the Democrats live. And so already you're seeing a little bit more of an effort there to rebuild. But the rest of these people, especially people who are more likely to be Republican or conservative, people who don't necessarily check the politically advantageous boxes for Democrats, they're going to be completely overlooked. And if the media and the federal government have their way, people won't even be talking about this two months from now.

You know, people may think that you're being too harsh, but the Federalists actually went to FEMA's website and pulled its priority list. And the top two are, one, instilling equity as a foundation of emergency management. And number two, leading the whole of community in climate resilience.

This is a woke agency that cares about the illegal immigrants. And yeah, maybe they do care about the Democrats in Asheville. But for the more than likely red staters in very rural North Carolina, we'll see how quickly they restore and make sure they have pads. I'm sorry, but to voting machines and back to civilization, I hate to think that they're that crass and cruel.

But when you list your top priority as equity, which we all know with that, it doesn't include Republican voters at all. It's matter. It's a cause for concern.

Of course. And now Mayorkas is saying that FEMA's out of money, won't get through the rest of hurricane season. So what's going to happen is the Democrats in Congress are going to say that we need to give more money to FEMA or the heartless Republicans don't care about disaster relief, disaster relief that the Democrats have not delivered and the funds for which they've completely frittered away on non-American citizens. I don't even begrudge illegal aliens some basic supplies.

I wish that our elected officials would secure the border and stop importing unvetted foreigners into the country, including lots of murderers, but I don't even begrudge them. However, there is an order to charity here and it is disordered for you to starve your family while feeding a family down the road. It is disordered for politicians to ignore their own citizens, their own constituents, and give everything away to foreign nationals.

not to mention what we've given to Ukraine. Stand by, Michael Knowles stays with me for the show. We'll be right back. Hungry root is one very easy way to eat healthy. They send you fresh, high quality groceries, simple, delicious recipes and essential supplements. It's like having someone else do all the planning and shopping so you don't even have to think about it.

Hungry Root gets to know your personal health goals, dietary restrictions, favorite foods, how much time you want to spend cooking and more. And then they build you a personalized cart for the whole week, including easy four ingredient recipes to put those groceries to use. I like that, four ingredients, even I can do that. Each order is fully customizable. They've got fresh produce, high quality meat, healthy snacks and more.

Everything from Hungry Root follows a simple standard. It has to taste good, be quick to make, and contain whole, trusted ingredients. Hungry Root is offering the Megyn Kelly Show viewers 40% off your first delivery and free veggies for life. Just go to HungryRoot.com slash Megyn to get 40% off your first delivery and get your free veggies too. That's HungryRoot.com slash Megyn. Don't forget to use our link so they know we sent you.

Carl's Jr.'s Big Carl fans know nothing beats the layers and layers of flavor of a Big Carl. Nothing beats that charbroiled beef, American cheese, and tangy Carl's classic sauce. Nothing. Except getting a second Big Carl for just $1. Big Carl just one-upped itself for just $1. Then buy one Big Carl, get one for a buck deal. Only at Carl's Jr. Get burger! Get burger. Available for a limited time at participating restaurants. Tax not included. Price may vary. Not valid with any other offer, discount, or combo.

So, Michael, we've officially gotten the ratings in for the vice presidential debate. They were at about 43 million across the 15 networks. That's not great. In 2020, the Pence-Harris debate was 60 million votes.

Four years earlier, Pence, Tim Kaine was 37 million. Can you blame them? The Biden Ryan debate in 2012 had 51 million and the all time most watched vice presidential debate was Biden versus Sarah Palin in 2008, 17.

70 million. Watch that because there was such a fascination with her. So 43 million, not great, but nothing to shake a stick at in terms of number of Americans tuning in. And the fallout continues for Tim Walz on the disastrous performance he delivered in particular when it comes to his self-described knuckleheaded behavior, which was just his latest in a series of lies.

The reason he resorted to I'm a knucklehead was he got confronted with his latest lie that's been on earth. There's a long list of them. This one was that he was in China when the Tiananmen Square disaster unfolded, when hundreds of people were killed. You know whether you are in a place where hundreds of people are being massacred by their government when it happens.

But he continues to try to say like, oh, gee, I was just kind of confused. You know, that happened in May and I was there in August. But I just I guess I just imagined that I was there or whatever. So he got asked about that debate moment where he completely melted down on Wednesday in Pennsylvania. And here's how he handled it. Look, I have my dates wrong. I was in Hong Kong and China in 1989.

That move from Hong Kong into China, it was profound for me. That was the summer of democracy. I said it's where I understood how sacred democracy was. It's what encouraged me about 15 back and forth with my students, taking them to China. I speak like everybody else speaks. I need to be clear. I will tell you that. But here's my whole point on that thing with China. I do understand China a hell of a lot better than Donald Trump. Kamala Harris understands China.

My clarity to take away from the message is something I want to be very clear. August of 89, into Hong Kong, into China, 15 times with students to try and do this. My point being on this, Kamala Harris and I understand American jobs are more important than where Donald Trump tried to save Chinese jobs.

Okay. So once again, the excuse for his lies, Michael, is I speak like everybody else. I, this is not the first time he's done this. I lie like everyone, everyone lies. I'm not the only one. It's really what he's telegraphing. Remember the interview with Dana Bash where the issue of his stolen valor was brought up for two minutes. Watch. Remember?

You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you? Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud. I've done 24 years of wearing the uniform of this country. Equally proud of my service in a public school classroom, whether it's Congress or the governor. My record speaks for itself, but I think people are coming to get to know me. I speak like they do. I speak candidly. I wear my emotions on my sleeves and...

I speak especially passionately about our children being shot in schools and around guns. So I think people know me. They know who I am. They know where my heart is. And again, my record has been out there for over 40 years to speak for itself.

the idea that you said that you were in war. Did you misspeak as the campaign has said? Yeah, I said we were talking about, in this case, this was after a school shooting, the ideas of carrying these weapons of war. And my wife, the English she's telling my grammar is not always correct. The excuses with this guy for his lies, Michael. It's amazing to me that he continues with this and people aren't now just referring to him as pathological. Your thoughts?

His grammar is not always correct. Like when he's diagramming those sentences in the first grade, he accidentally mixed up the part where you're supposed to say, I never served in combat. And he substituted the one where he said, I did serve in combat. I was at Tiananmen Square. My wife and I used IVF to conceive our child. I mean –

The real takeaway from this is, one, Tim Walz's low opinion of people. He says that everyone's a cynical liar. And in his defense, most of the people around him probably are cynical liars. The establishment media, the Democrat politicians, and he's very practiced in this himself. The other big takeaway, though, and it's where I have a little sympathy for the guy, maybe not empathy, but sympathy for the guy, is...

He has no good answer here because people very rarely lie a little bit. People very rarely lie about one thing and never about anything else. Either you're an honest person or you're not an honest person. Either you endeavor to be honest or you endeavor to deceive people. And so people do sometimes have a slip of the tongue, but that's not what's going on with Tim Walls here. In that first clip that you played, Megan, Tim Walls

And this did he lies so much this wasn't even really noticed. He cops to another lie. He's told he's previously said that he's visited China 30 plus times. He said he's visited China on another occasion dozens of times there. You heard him say that he's visited China 15 times.

I don't know if he even knows how many times he's visited China. I don't know that he can any longer discern between truth and falsehood. He lies with ease and there's a great deal of wisdom to the old idiom, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. He can't keep up with his own lies and so he totally burned down on stage. He's dissembling there in front of the press now that certain uncomfortable questions are being asked.

If just so that the press can maintain even a shred of credibility. But for the people who are criticizing his answers, what else is he going to say? The guy's lied about all the most important things in his life. He's lied for decades and he continues to lie today. What's he supposed to say other than, "Whoopsy-daisy, you can't trust me." He's a serial fabulist.

He lied about being a retired command sergeant major, which is opposed to he only held temporarily and didn't actually earn. He's not allowed to call himself that. He lied about carrying a weapon in war. He carried a weapon presumably as a national guardsman, but he never went to war. He lied about the IVF thing when he'd only had IUI. His wife had had IUI, which is a totally different procedure.

He lied about getting a commendation from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, which wasn't true. Now he lies about going to China 30 times when in fact it was half that 15, which he was forced to admit when the Minnesota public radio folks called him up to say, where's the evidence that it was 30? And his campaign after weeks of delaying had to admit it wasn't 30. Now it's only 15. Now you hear him saying that.

He lied about being in China when Tiananmen Square happened. And it appears he even lied about his son witnessing a school shooting, a shooting, which it was a comment he made when they were discussing school shootings at the vice presidential debate on Tuesday night. That's what the subject was, the school shootings.

And this is where Tim walls took it. A lot of people, I'm going to confess members of my own team, people I was with were like, I, I don't believe it because he does embellish over and over again. And it appears this was yet another instance of it. Here's what he said. And then we'll do the fact check. Well, I think all the parents watching tonight, this is just your biggest nightmare. Look, I got a, I got a 17 year old and, uh,

And he witnessed a shooting at a community center playing volleyball. Those things don't leave you. As a member of Congress, I sat in my office surrounded by dozens of the Sandy Hook parents, and they were looking at my seven-year-old picture on the wall. Their seven-year-old were dead. And they were asking us to do something. And look, I'm a hunter. I own firearms. The vice president is. We understand that the Second Amendment

is there. But our first responsibility is to our kids to figure this out. Senator. Tim, first of all, I didn't know that your 17-year-old witness is shooting. I'm sorry about that. And I appreciate you saying that. Christ have mercy. It is awful. Well, it turns out, Paul Sperry at Real Clear Politics tweeted this out first, that the son was inside the community center when this happened. It was a shooting that occurred outside

outside the community center and it not for nothing, but it had nothing to do with a school shooting. It was two people involved in some sort of a workplace dispute around the community center. There's just a constant need to embellish, to make it more than it was so that it makes Tim Walls look, look better or like he can relate more to an issue. It's a problem.

Megan, you know, I think you're being a little nice to Tim Walls here. Okay. Embellishment is when you say 50,000 people came to my rally and it was really 47,000. When you say I was in Tiananmen Square when you weren't, when you say my wife and I used IDF when you didn't, when you say I carried weapons in war and you never went to war in a combat zone, you know,

It's just a lie. The guy just lies. And I thought what JD Vance did there was so brilliant. His whole debate performance was absolutely magnificent. And I thought in tone, in substance, he was just right on the money. What he did there though, I thought was so brilliant, which was he didn't question Tim Walls' story, which he would have been totally justified in doing because Walls has lied about so much else. He just doesn't have any credibility, but he didn't question the story. He didn't appear insensitive. He didn't appear aggressive.

He just called attention to it. You heard he said, wow, Tim, I didn't know that your 17-year-old son witnessed a school shooting. You know, Christ have mercy, that's so awful. And then he moved on and made his point, which flagged that. It made that moment unmissable. So when the fact checks inevitably came out,

They would point out that once again, Tim Walls is lying. And this is really disturbing because everybody, sometimes we exaggerate, we engage in a little hyperbole and sometimes people tell lies. And then, you know, if you have a conscience about it, then maybe you go confess your lies, you feel bad about it, you apologize for it. But

When people engage in the kind of pathological dishonesty that Tim Walz has done, that is a big red flag. That's not different in degree from saying my crowd sizes are bigger. That's different in kind. That is engaging in a kind of fraud and deception that should send a chill down the spine of anybody who might be living under a government in part run by this guy.

It's really disturbing because he mentions the son as the amount of damage that is done to a child who witnesses something like a school shooting or a shooting at a community center would qualify too. It would be something that you'd definitely remember if he had said, my son witnessed the murder of another person. My God, what? I mean, that's a very small slice of the American populace who's actually witnessed something like this. And the careful parent...

responsible politician would say, my son witnessed the aftermath of one of these things and that was bad enough.

And then you would stick with the actual trauma. He claims to have sat with the Newtown families. He claims that one of the students who was involved in the Parkland shooting, David Hogg, is a close friend of his. You would stick with people like that and say, I've spoken with kids who were in these schools or family members who lost kids in these schools. That kind of trauma doesn't heal, whatever. But you would not inject your own child in it and try to attribute that trauma directly to him.

on something it appears he did not witness. Now, maybe there's a scenario, Michael, that comes out in which his son wasn't playing basketball or what have you inside the community center, but happened to be staring out the window at the very moment this happened. We'll wait to see. But he deserves no benefit of the doubt, none whatsoever, because at this point, it's like

Another Tim Walz lie. It must be a day ending. And why? Well, of course, Megan, you heard another lie. Even within that statement, he said, I'm a hunter. I own guns. The vice president is.

I guess that refers to the vice president is a hunter. I doubt that she even owns a gun, but the vice president's a hunter? No, she's not. That just isn't true. That's a lie. I thought the clearest lie during the whole debate was when JD Vance, again, subtly, respectfully, quite persuasively pointed out that as governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz signed a law

to remove reporting requirements for babies who survive abortion and who are born alive, and to remove the requirement that physicians provide medical care to those babies who are born alive after surviving abortion. And Tim Walz said repeatedly, that isn't true. That's not what happened. I didn't do that. And when J.D. Vance Preston said, okay, well, how is that not true? All Tim Walz could say is that's been debunked.

It's been fact checked, it's been debunked, it isn't true, and it manifestly is true. Even the New York Times had to admit this today. As the New York Times admitted it, they lied about it too. They said that JD Vance's claim was false, but then if you read the explanation as to how the claim is false, the New York Times admits, "Yeah, actually Tim Walz did sign that law, and yeah, he did remove the reporting requirements, and yeah, he did remove the requirement for physicians to provide medical care."

It was a stone cold lie. There was no way you can convince me that the New York Times editors didn't know that. As far as I can tell, I think they're still literate over there at the New York Times. And there's certainly no way you can convince me that Tim Walz was unaware of a law that he himself signed. That is absolutely that's psycho stuff.

Yeah, no, that's absolutely right. There's something wrong with him. You signed it. It was a big deal in Minnesota. The vote in the House and the Senate came down exactly on party lines.

They have slightly more Democrats in Minnesota in their statehouse than they do Republicans, which is how they got this through. But this was not a situation in which they had crossover. They had widespread agreement on this. This was hard fought. The Republicans knew what it meant to say we're not going to require medical care for these infants. And Tim Wall signed it into law. He knew exactly what he had done. And yet here's the exchange Michael Knowles just talked about.

You're free to disagree with me on this and explain this to me, but as I read the Minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion. That is, I think, whether you're pro-choice or pro-abortion, that is fundamentally barbaric.

These are women's decisions to make about their health care decisions and the physicians who know best when they need to do this. Trying to distort the way a law is written to try and make a point, that's not it at all. What was I wrong about, Governor? Please tell me. What was I wrong about? That is not the way the law is written. Look, I've given this advice on a lot of things, getting involved, getting against. That's been misread, and it was fact-checked at the last debate. But the point on this is there's a continuation of these guys to try and tell women or to get involved.

Okay. So I want to get into this. I looked at this law. I looked at this law prior to last night. We've been talking about Tim Walz and his radical social policies for a while on the show. Here is the law. Okay. It is section 56, Minnesota statutes, 2022 subsection one four five point four two three subdivision one.

It is amended. Tim Walz became governor in 2018 and they amended it in 2022, took effect in 2023 subdivision one. It used to read recognition, medical care, a born alive infant as a result of an abortion and

shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. This piece of it was passed before he became governor in 2015. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant. That's how it used to read.

Tim Walz got into office and he changed it with the Democrats in his statehouse to now read recognition. Medical care is crossed out. Recognition, care, it now reads. And instead of a born alive infant as a result of an abortion, it now reads recognition.

An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel. And they crossed out to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant and changed it to a responsible medical personnel shall care for the infant and

who was born alive. Do you no longer have to preserve the life and health? You just have to care for the infant. What this means in the law and what they so heavily debated in Minnesota was the switch from medical care to comfort care is how it's referred to. Because this is a thing that's happened in many states where they've had this debate between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. Must you try to save the baby that you just tried to kill?

utero, but you failed and somehow the baby was born alive, must you provide life-saving care or must you just provide so-called comfort care until the baby expires or lives? And in Minnesota, he changed the law to say no medical care is necessary. You can just do comfort care. And secondly, he revoked the requirements that they keep track of the number of babies this is happening to.

And here's the other thing, Michael. Let's just stay there because then we'll go next level next. But that those are the facts that J.D. Vance tried to raise and that that sociopath denied repeatedly getting indignant, saying that's not true. You're trying to distort the law and the way it's written. This has been misread and was fact checked at the ABC debate. All those are all lies.

If it's so easy to fact check, if it's so easy to debunk, then why don't you just do it, Tim? You've got the stage. That's the point of a debate is to defend your record and to propose your policies. So, uh,

The reason he has to point and say it was vaguely fact-checked by some other people on some other network is because he's trying to pass the buck on lying to somebody else, because this lie is so without credibility. We know what comfort care means here. The other Democrat governor, Ralph Northam, explained it in an interview that the left-wing media are trying to

deny and debunk and hide but he said exactly what what it means in this scenario which is if the baby survives the abortion the baby will be put on a table somewhere and kept comfortable while a conversation ensues between the doctor and the mother the comfort is the comfort of neglect and the comfort of death even at this term when it's used in in less egregious ways

Any person who's ever had a loved one enter into hospice knows exactly the difference between life-saving medical care and comfort care or palliative care or hospice care. The former is designed to keep the person alive. The latter is designed to await death. That's all that it's for. But what they do in hospice care is a lot kinder and gentler than what they do to these babies themselves.

who, again, they just tried to kill, but they survived it anyway. I'll give you this, Michael. I went back and looked. There's an EMT who's a GOP state representative in Minnesota. His name is Jeff Backer. And he said the fact that I think I'm trying to read my own writing. I think it's Browns Valley or Bonus Valley. Anyway, he's a GOP rep in Minnesota. And he

also works as an EMT and said he had a 20 week year old, 21 week old born in the back of his ambulance. And he said, if I gave that 21 week old who was born in my ambulance, quote, comfort care and only comfort care, I would be charged with murder. Quote, comfort care means lay on a hard surface.

Comfort care means lay on a hard surface, maybe a blanket. That's a Minnesota state lawmaker who is objecting to this shift, saying this is barbaric what you guys are asking to do now to these infants. So you're exactly right, only it's even worse for these infants who don't have any of the advantages that a fully grown elderly adult would.

The reason they have to use euphemisms and the reason that Tim Walz in this case is really just trying to avoid the issue entirely, say, "It was already debunked. It's been talked about elsewhere. Move along, move along. Rights, freedom, happiness, women, joy." The reason they have to do that is because whether you're talking about medical care or so-called comfort care, which as you rightly note, Megan, doesn't involve very much comfort for these babies.

You are acknowledging that the baby is a human being, the sort of creature that is entitled to care and that can benefit from care. But also, as you rightly note, in abortion, the baby has just been the target of an attempted murder. So the baby has survived the abortion. The purpose of the abortion is to kill the baby. The baby has survived, as sometimes happens.

well, what are we going to do now? You're faced with the irreducible and unavoidable humanity of the baby. That's why Tim Walz has to move off of this. And for many years, with abortion being a controversial issue, especially among people who just

don't have a totally coherent set of policy views and don't think about politics all that much. They're a little wishy-washy on the issue. Republicans have argued that we need to be focusing on abortion where it is most clearly egregious, where it's the most easy to understand, and that is late-term abortion. And you want to talk about lies during this campaign. During Kamala's debate with Trump, and we've heard it ever since then, Republicans

They have denied that late-term abortion happens in America. That's not true. There's a lot of late-term abortion in America. And if a late-term abortion weren't happening in America, why would Democrat governors like Andrew Cuomo, or like Tim Walz for that matter, seek to enshrine ever more rights to late-term abortion in recent years? That's the first question. But then the second part they say is,

Late term abortion doesn't happen, and when it does happen, it's always to save the life of the mother for some extreme medical necessity. That also is not true because we don't have a lot of reporting requirements in a lot of states. We don't have great data here, but the data that we do have suggests that late term abortions happen for the exact same reason that early abortions happen. This is frequently elective because people just wait a long time or they die.

weren't told that they were pregnant or because they, for whatever reason, financial stress or personal relational reasons, just don't want the baby. And so the response to that is to kill the baby. Well, when we're talking about it at the late term, as J.D. Vance, I thought, masterfully did during the debate, we see why that is barbaric, why that is inhumane, and why I think that's not going to play in Peoria, which is why Tim Walz has to get off the subject. Tim Walz could have said...

We ran the numbers and the vast majority of cases in which a mother aborts her third trimester child, it is because the infant has been catastrophically injured in some way. Something is catastrophically wrong with the infant in the womb and the mother is painfully making the choice to try to spare this infant.

whatever's coming its way, some horrific life, you know, that will last two days, et cetera. Pro-lifers would say still not okay. Many pro-choicers would say that one's okay with me. Okay. He could have said that.

But instead he just lied and said, this doesn't happen. This is all lies. It's been fact check. You're misreading the law. Those are, those truly are lies. I want the audience to understand me. I am not some pro-life advocate who's out here all the time. Like, like Lila Rose, you know, I am telling you the truth. The law is exactly as JD Vance said, and Tim Walls lied. So

So that led to this exchange that was pretty remarkable on CNN, where they had four against one. Scott Jennings is the sole Republican who goes out there. And this Alyssa Farah, who's the pretend Republican who goes on The View and CNN, she was there. And so was David Axelrod. He's a Democrat. Anyway, watch. Watch this. OK, watch. Walls totally lied about the

The post-abortion infant bill, I totally lied about that. And number two, he totally sidestepped the court. It is true. He totally sidestepped the question about what restrictions do you prefer? Just like here. I mean, he essentially ratified the position, which is no restriction. I do not think that's what the Minnesota law states. I wish that Republicans would stop saying, oh, they're allowing babies to be killed once they're born in Minnesota.

There were eight deaths among infants who survived abortion attempts during Tim Walz's tenure as governor. It happened. They don't want to talk about the fact that it happened, but there were children. What's the source? First of all, let me ask you a question. What's the source? You deeply researched this.

What were the condition of these babies when they were born? What was the participation of the family? They tried to abort the babies, and they survived the abortion, and they died. And you think that families casually...

Toss them aside. Tell me what their condition was, Scott. Could they have survived? Was it a case of families not wanting children to suffer when they were told that they are doomed? If I couldn't articulate a single restriction, I would attack Trump. This is what Kamala Harris and Tim Walz believe. That is none of your business what women do with their body. And so stay out of our doctor's offices and stay out of our bed. Well, I guess I'll have to speak up for the babies. They're not here to speak for themselves. Lord have mercy.

She rolled her eyes. She rolled her eyes when he said, I have to stick up for the babies. Now, let me give you the data because we've been following this closely on the show. There's a great piece by the National Catholic Register and people might roll their eyes that it's a Catholic organization. Go ahead and look at the article because it offers all the arguments of the other side, too. They've got a lot of people who were who were in favor of this law and they give their voice a full hearing.

But they did a very good piece on exactly what went down in Minnesota around these numbers. David Axelrod, listen up. During the eight years that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was in effect, that's the one that was passed in 15 and stayed in place till 23 when Walz repealed it.

The state's health agency reported, and they had to report back then because Walls had not removed the reporting requirement yet, 24 babies. It's not eight.

24 babies were born alive after an attempted abortion. Now, some of those preceded Tim Walz becoming governor in 2015. Listen up, David, talking to you. 2015, it was five. We're just talking about one state. 2016, another five. 2017, three. 2018, Tim Walz becomes governor. It's three. 2019, three. 2020, zero.

2021, five, 2022, zero, 2023 and 2024. We don't know because Tim Wall started telling the hospitals, you don't have to tell us how many we don't need or want to know.

All 24 died. All 24 of the infants born after an attempted abortion that was botched died after they were left on the table. 10 had fatal fetal conditions, quote, incompatible with life.

Four were medically pre-viable, meaning they were too underdeveloped to live on their own. We don't know what week they were born of the pregnancy. Two were, quote, barely clinging to life. I don't know what that means. Barely clinging to life to me does not mean you let it die. It means you try to help it live. And at that point, they were.

They were required under the law to at least try. Two were barely clinging to life. As I said, one in 2016 had transient cardiac conditions and one in 2017 had a low APGAR score, which really just means the baby needs medical attention. It could be something like insufficient oxygen. So again, these are conditions that under the new law, they would not be required to try to save the babies.

And they could potentially live, somebody with just a low APGAR score or a transient, meaning temporary cardiac condition. Anyway, all of this happened. And then Tim Walz becomes governor in 2018 and sent from that point forward 11 babies at least.

were born alive and died. And it's going to be more than that since we don't know 23 and 24. The eight others, Michael, were described when reporting was required only in quote vague language for seven

Comfort care measures were provided as planned for one in 2017. No specific steps were taken to preserve light life, or at least no specific steps were reported. So we really don't know, but these were not all catastrophically doomed babies from the sound of this reporting. There were some who had, I don't want to say mild, but low APGAR score is at least ambiguous. Um,

transient cardiac conditions, again, ambiguous. And I'm sure it doesn't get much better from there once the reporting requirements were lifted under Tim Walz. This is a travesty. And the fact that this guy didn't get a fact check from the super ready to engage on climate change and illegal immigration fact checkers at CBS News is just disgusting.

It certainly is. However, I in a way have some sympathy for that last lady on the panel who just rolled her eyes than I do for Alyssa Farah, the fake Republican from The View or David Axelrod because Alyssa's point was just to not understand the law.

worked alive at the law, as though we can't look it up, as though you can't just read what's in the law and see the effect of it. That was ridiculous. David Axelrod's point was ridiculous too though, because he tried to suggest, he said, "Why are you implying that these people are just casting aside their children? How dare you suggest they were just casting aside their children?"

By definition they were they had gone in to have an abortion to kill the baby through abortion And so this is what makes the law so difficult for the Democrats and so inconvenient and so incoherent for that matter if it's legal to go in and kill the baby and

But then moments later, when the baby is in a slightly different place, it is a legal requirement to provide medical care for that baby. Then why were you permitted to kill the baby in the first place? How come moments prior, it was completely legal and in fact celebrated to murder the baby, but then 90 seconds after, let's say,

two inches removed from where the baby just was, it would be a heinous crime. It would be murder to kill the baby and you actually have to provide all the medical care possible to allow the baby to survive. What changed? Nothing really changed. It's a completely incoherent stance. And so that woman at the end who just rolls her eyes and says, "Hey, listen,

You shut your mouth. You let us kill whatever babies we want. You let us kill the baby in the womb. You let us kill the baby outside the womb. You let us kill the baby wherever. You shut your mouth. You have nothing to say about this. That's actually the most coherent view from the pro-abortion side. And I think even a knucklehead like Tim Walz knew that that was not an acceptable response to give on the debate stage. So he was counting on the people in the media to continue to cover up and lie for him, which is exactly what they're doing.

Yep. Her name is Ashley Allison, the IBI ruler. Here's the other thing before we take a break. Walls also put a stop to state funding for the pro-life pregnancy centers. So while he's saying you can have an abortion through the ninth month, which he did in another law and repealing the protections for babies who have survived abortion attempts or are born alive,

He also pulled all the state funding for the pro-life pregnancy centers, which provide child care, medical care, parenting classes, free clothes, free diapers, assist with adoptions, and provide educational support for moms who are considering either having the baby and keeping it or having the baby and giving it up for adoption.

So this guy, I mean, that's what JD was saying. I, he was like the Republican party needs to get better at that piece, providing real support for moms who feel like there's no other option than an abortion and showing them, no, no, no, there is a real other option. Even if you don't want to keep the baby, we're going to make this as easy on you as humanly possible. You can, you can give it up for adoption. There are loving families who would love to have this baby and raise it. And unsaid,

was, you didn't want that either, Tim Walz. You pulled the funding so that women who don't want to kill their babies in utero have another meaningful option. It's just the absence of honesty on the abortion issue in the press, it really might be the most egregious problem in the press. I'm not kidding. It might be worse than the climate change agenda. There's just

Everyone in the media is pro-choice. Everyone, Michael. Well, you can always tell, Megan, how dishonest people are being about a political issue by the number and intensity of euphemisms that they're using to describe that issue. So in the case of abortion, abortion, which is in itself a kind of euphemism,

for infanticide. They'll never use, certainly the term infanticide, and they increasingly don't even use the term abortion. They'll say women's health or reproductive freedom or choice or whatever. So that's usually a sign that they're trying to distract you from a harsh reality. But then on this word choice, I think Tim Walz has just proven that he's not pro-choice. If he were pro-choice, he

He wouldn't be defunding the pro-life pregnancy centers. That's right. He would be in favor of giving women a choice, but he's not. He doesn't want women to have a choice. He wants women to abort their children. He is in favor of abortion, and unfortunately, that is now the mainstream position of the Democrat Party. I mean, it's horrific. I will say for the record,

Thank God I have never had an abortion and I never would have an abortion. This is not why I don't give my own personal opinions on abortion. Um, but I do want people to know it's not because I've had one because the people who are the most pro abortion are the, I think the women who have had them. I mean, they're just, they come out and they're there. What's her name? Was it Joni Mitchell who was out there this week? Oh God. Wait, wait a minute. Who was it who was out there this week? It wasn't Joni. It was, um,

Joni Mitchell did not have an abortion, actually, as far as I know. It wasn't Joni Mitchell. Forgive me. It wasn't. Stevie Nicks. Thank you. It was Stevie Nicks who wrote this pro-abortion song that was making the rounds like a week ago. And she gives an interview about it. And she's like, you know, I'm just heartbroken about, you know, the inability to have children. Oh, I had four abortions. Four? You had four abortions? Like...

It's just absolutely outrageous. There are women who use abortion as birth control. And that's why they want to make sure it's available all the time and every and they don't want to see or hear about the pro-life center. They feel guilted by the fact that other women might make a different choice if provided with the information. And Tim Walz and his friends just said, oh, no, those are just centers where they pressure you out of having your abortion.

Pressure or just educate? This is a really important point that you're making. And I think it's an important point for the GOP in terms of communicating. And it's an important point for women. There is something, I think the number is about one in four women

will have had an abortion at some point in their lives, and that number seems quite inflated. It's from the Guttmacher Institute, which is the think tank for Planned Parenthood. From what I can tell from those data, the number is actually fairly reliable. I know a number of women who've had abortions,

All of them regret it and almost all of them explicitly regret it and some of them merely implicitly regret it, but it can be a big burden. I do think you're totally right. I think that the reason why a lot of women support abortion as a matter of public policy is because they've had one and they feel guilty about it.

And of course they feel guilty and some of them were duped and deceived and didn't want to acknowledge the moral reality of it. And then when one becomes aware of the moral reality of it, the guilt is so absolutely awful that to look at oneself in the mirror, one could not admit that reality. Now, the happy side of this is –

There is redemption and forgiveness, you know, that's at least a Christian idea, and I think it's true. So this is the real trick of the devil here, is the devil tempts you to sin, and then you sin, and then he never lets you escape your sin, and never lets you, and in fact impels you to make that sin worse by doubling down on it and defending that sin. You don't have to do that. Everybody commits terrible things at different points in life, and even the most terrible sins...

can be forgiven. You don't need to double down on scandal and suffering, and in this case infanticide, just because you feel guilty. There is forgiveness. You're welcome on the other end of it. You can move on in your life. Things actually can get better. That's something that the devil and the Democrats don't want you to know.

Yes. So well said. I mean, to my fellow women who have had to make this choice, my heart goes out to you. I'm sure it was absolutely awful for most people. Unlike Stevie Nicks. Let's do it again and again and again.

But I don't think the answer to dealing with the severity of that choice is to then just run around encouraging other women to do it too, or worse yet, to deprive them of information on how another option is there for them and what it might look like and what kind of families...

could be helped by your making another choice, why wouldn't you at least consider it? Even though in the moment it could make you feel bad, if you choose to have an abortion after the fact, it could make you feel worse. It's true. But why wouldn't you, given the gravity of this decision, at least keep open the option of another choice and education about it? Okay. I feel better having had that discussion because it's really been bothering me how they're talking about it. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back with Michael Knowles. More to get to ahead.

I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave

We'll be right back.

Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Pearls Jr.'s Big Carl fans know nothing beats the layers and layers of flavor of a Big Carl. Nothing beats that charbroiled beef, American cheese, and tangy Carl's classic sauce. Nothing except getting a second Big Carl for just $1.00.

Before we move away from the topic of abortion, it's in the news today for another reason. Melania Trump came out and said she's about as pro-choice as they come.

And that's her personal position. She doesn't think the state has any position to interfere with a woman's right to choose. And here was the reaction on The View. Watch. I think she hates him. Yeah, well, yeah. Okay, so we can all agree on that. That's a given. I also think that she wants to take him out. She does not want to be the first lady anymore. She doesn't want to be the first lady. She destroyed the Rose Garden.

Who hates Christmas? Melania Trump hates Christmas. She doesn't wanna decorate for Christmas. She doesn't care. She doesn't care about that. She doesn't wanna sleep in the same room with him. She can't tolerate him. Would you look, this is a network that still runs out fact checks to these women. Like it's concerned about them staying factual. She hates Trump.

She doesn't want to be near him. She doesn't want to be president again. She destroyed the Rose Garden and she hates Christmas. That is what passes for news on a network they did a presidential debate on. Thoughts? I think there's a simpler explanation, which is that for as long as abortion has been a major national issue, every single first lady, including every single Republican first lady, has supported abortion. I think that's a sad fact.

I think it's a strange fact of history, but I think that's a simpler answer than whatever the view is saying that Melania is playing 7D chess and doesn't want to have to decorate the White House Christmas tree, so she's going to release this memoir. I mean, there are competing theories here. Obviously, the memoir of a first lady doesn't just accidentally get released spontaneously or without any expectation.

this was planned for a while some people might conclude that this is a strategic choice by the trump campaign to moderate trump in a way with plausible deniability on an issue that democrats have made a lot of hay on over the past couple of years it's i suppose that's possible we also have to remember that melania trump is from slovenia slovenia has extremely lax abortion laws

They permit it up till 28 weeks. It's paid for by the government. Minors who get abortions, procure abortions, don't have their parents' permission necessarily. So she comes from a place where abortion is pretty liberal, though she's a Catholic, so one would expect her to oppose abortion for that reason. But I think there's this simpler explanation, which is that

All of the Republican first ladies, going back to Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, and now Melania Trump, have strangely been in favor of abortion. That's an unfortunate fact. I think it's a reminder that the pro-life movement, which is so dominant in the conservative intellectual movement and also in the conservative activist movement, doesn't have quite as much cachet in the elected movement.

and uh or the the elected government part of the conservative movement and also has an uphill battle among americans who the the american people the vast majority of the american people do not agree with the democrats on abortion democrats who are literally advocating for fourth trimester abortion in some cases post-birth abortion but also they don't totally agree with pro-lifers who are coherent who recognize that that if i

If a baby is a baby, then a baby is a baby the whole time. A person is a person no matter how small. There is a disconnect between philosophical coherence and even scientific coherence and where people stand on this. That is not unique to Melania Trump. That is reflected among all the first ladies and unfortunately a lot of Republicans. It's incumbent upon the pro-life movement

to argue, to persuade, to make the scientific case and the philosophical case, and also to show people the reality of abortion. Many people thought after Roe v. Wade was overruled that the pro-life movement was over. No, I think the work of the pro-life movement in many ways is just beginning.

Yeah, I can see that. Lastly, there has been now a spate of university volleyball teams refusing to play against, I think it's San Diego State. Is it San Jose State? I'm going to look it up. Hold on. It's San Jose. It's San Jose. Wyoming, Boise State, Southern Utah,

And also I think Utah State, maybe that's a different one, but there's four now. Refusing to play San Jose State, which has a male player pretending to be female and taking the loss, saying we're not playing. It's not fair and taking a loss. And I have to say good for them, Michael, as hard as it is for these girls to forego potential championships and whatever comes with it.

This is not going to stop until more girls do this. Like we're just not going to do it. And what it, what a testament it would be. Look at this guy. If they could stop the whole thing, right? If, if they could just shut down these tournaments entirely because all the teams said, no, this isn't fair. The same guy, um, was, let's see.

I'm trying to get his history. Oh, I'm confusing my trans cases. But there was one in New Hampshire at the high school level where there's a male who's playing. And this same guy was dominating track and field before he decided he was going to play. Let's see. Hold on.

Yeah. Play soccer. He's nearly six feet tall. He won all the girls high jump competitions, the state indoor championship and, um, first place by a mile, six first place finishes. So more and more of this is happening and more and more of the girls are figuring out

How to object, at least, if not stop it. Your thoughts? Of course. This is so obviously unjust that the girls have to suffer in their own sport because some perverse man wants to have an advantage on them. So what they're doing is important and brave and significant just from a standpoint of politics. But also, it's just smart for their own health.

these girls could be permanently paralyzed if they play against this guy. It's happened before. So, well, I laud the political courage of these girls. Also, what choice do they have? I mean, these girls could be permanently paralyzed. There are real, tangible, physical consequences to letting giant brutish men dominate girls in sports. And so I think if I were their parents, I'd be thrilled about this news. But maybe now we can do something about the injustice of it.

Michael Knowles, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for being here. Tomorrow, we are back with Tim Dillon for the full show. Don't miss that. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

This is Larry Flick, owner of The Floor Store. We all know that fall means the end of summer, but it also means the beginning of our fall sale, now through October 15th. Up to 50% off storewide on carpet, hardwood, tile and stone, waterproof flooring, and much more. Interest-free financing for a full 18 months and no sales tax on anything. The best part of summer is going to be in the fall, but it ends Tuesday. Go to floorstores.com to find the nearest of our nine showrooms, from Santa Rosa to San Jose.

The Floor Store, your area flooring authority. It's the new Ghost Burger from Carl's Jr. It's a juicy charbroiled Angus beef burger.

I don't have any teeth.