Truth About Media Indictment, and Harris Still Complaining About Debate Rule, with Joel Pollak, Dave Aronberg, Xavier Durousseau, Britt Mayer, and RCP | Ep. 880
01:39:30 Share

Anthropics Cloud is AI backed by uncompromising integrity. Cloud is run by responsible leadership who have an ethical approach to the development of AI while providing strong data security and putting humanity first. Whether you're brainstorming alone or building with a team, Cloud can help you do your best work securely. Discover how Cloud can transform your work and business at anthropic.com slash cloud or find Cloud on Apple and Android app stores.

If you've ever felt like the auto repair business is broken, you're not alone. Everybody's over it. From talking down to selling up to car-splaining mechanics, you're just done putting up with BS. Bad service. Stop!

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

Hey, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. My God, do we have a lot to get to today. We begin with some legal news that's making major, major waves overnight. Actually, before we get to that, you should know that there's even bigger news, and that is that Hunter Biden has now agreed to change his plea to guilty in this tax charges case against him in order to avoid trial. So

So that is big. He was about to go to trial. You know, this case out in Los Angeles on some of these tax evasion charges that, I mean, honestly, they were just a light, pathetic version of what ought to be brought against him. But it's all that was left under the statute of limitations. And it only was brought because those whistleblowers came forward. And these U.S. attorney in this case, who was actually wound up being special counsel, was forced to try the case after the judge caught him trying to give Hunter an enormous sweetheart plea deal and

And so they were forced to go forward. And finally, now Hunter caved at the last minute. I'm sure he'll be getting a pardon from daddy. I realize Joe Biden says he won't. We'll see. We'll see. OK, back to the other news. Can I just let me just start with this? OK, we knew yesterday that the DOJ was going to be making some sort of an announcement about Russian influence in this election.

And we talked about that. We talked about how Russia has been a stalking horse for Democrats for some time when it comes to this is why we lost the 2016 election. And this is what Trump did in order to get ahead. And Russia, Russia, Russia. And indeed, they do love to wave this flag as an excuse for virtually everything. Well, the DOJ we knew was coming out yesterday with a major announcement. And when we closed the show yesterday, we said, we'll cover it for you. And our guest tomorrow will be Dave Rubin.

Well, imagine our surprise when later that day the DOJ announced that its case is not against Dave Rubin. Maybe I need to be perfectly clear about that, nor is he accused of doing anything criminal or wrong.

He, in fact, is one of the victims of this scheme that the DOJ alleged in great detail yesterday. He, Tim Pool, Benny Johnson and other conservative media personalities you likely know well. They've all been swept up.

in this Department of Justice indictment announced last night, not against them, but against two Russians, a male and a female, for their involvement in creating an independent media company that used the podcast feeds and services of these big names in order to amplify their own channel called Tenant Media.

And the whole thing turned out to be covertly funded by Russian media organization RT, so alleges the Department of Justice. It's a complicated case that is unsurprisingly not being covered honestly so far by the corporate press. I'm just going to lay it out for you quickly.

relatively quickly. Okay, so here's the deal. The DOJ is alleging that these two Russians who worked for RT, I mean, that does matter, but it's really the fact that they're in Russia and they're Russian and they're pushing Russian interests. What they did was they called their friend Lauren Chen. Now she is a Canadian citizen who's living and working in America, I believe living here too, but definitely working in America for among others, the blaze. And she's

A relatively well-known conservative personality online. I will say she's a troll. I, I unfollowed her a while ago because it was obvious this is not a person worth listening to, um, on X. So they, they contacted Lauren Chen online.

Because, unbeknownst to me, she had worked for RT for a year as a commentator, apparently on the air, but at least writing articles for that. So openly affiliating with this channel. Now, it's not that RT, it's definitely state-run media. It is with Russia. I mean, good luck finding them doing anything critical of Vladimir Putin. Trust me.

Uh, they, they try to get more and more influence in the United States. They've had people reach out to me many times to try to get me to do something. It's a no. Okay. They know that by this point. Um, but in this case, they did reach out to Lauren according to this, uh, indictment and said, help us form a new independent media company and help us find influencers who will work for it.

And according to the indictment, she did. She and her husband both did that and recruited guys like Dave and Tim Pool and Benny and three others I never heard of. And she, according to the indictment, knew that the Russians would be funding this and editing content.

But the influencers, the conservative podcasters did not. And that's according to the indictment. That's why none of them has been indicted. The feds are saying Rubin pool, Benny, they didn't know they were not told. In fact, they were given misinformation by Lauren because they allege she knew they would never do this if they understood it was being funded by the Russians.

Um, she told them that it was all being funded by some French businessman, Edward Gregorian. And the indictment alleges that both Tim and Dave, I don't know about the others, tried to kick the tires a bit, obviously not enough on who this is, who's Edward Gregorian. And they wanted to see like a profile of the guy. All that was forwarded was a LinkedIn, which appears obviously to have been fake.

And then Dave Rubin is, according to the indictment, the guy who pushed more and said, like, this isn't enough. And then they created this whole fake profile of this guy, Edward Gregorian. That's like pretty fancy. I'm holding it up for the listening audience. And you can see, frankly, it looks a little obviously stock picture at the top of some vaguely attractive man looking out a window of a private jet. And then it's got all sorts of fawning descriptions about the guy.

And Dave apparently did push back even after that saying, I'm not sure about this guy. It says he's into social justice. Why is he looking for me? Anyway, there was some pushback, but here's the bottom line. They were offering eye popping sums to these influencers and they took the deal.

Um, according to the indictment, Dave was offered some number and he went back and said, I'm not getting involved with this. And he didn't do anything really extraordinary for them. He was doing something like viral videos and aren't they funny? Ha ha ha. For a few months. But for that, they were willing to pay him $400,000 a month, every month for a year, plus a signing bonus, plus another bonus. So we're talking about, you know,

between five and $6 million for one year. Um, and Tim pool reportedly, well, according to the indictment was charging $100,000 per video per, per week. He would post something, I guess, once a week, which would be in a similar ballpark. I will tell you in the podcast world, those are jaw dropping sums. And I'm sure people will make the argument they should have known

Um, my friend Jim Garrett, he's making that argument right now over at national review and others will make that same argument. But I can tell you personally that I've known Dave for a long time and there is zero chance that he knew anything about this. I, we had a conversation a year ago, he and I, and I can disclose this in which he mentioned this in passing. This wasn't like our main point, but he mentioned this and he told me

I said, who's funding this? And he said, it's a French businessman. And Dave would have no reason to lie to me that he said that explicitly and not for nothing. But the conversation went on and I will tell you that I told him not to do it. And that was not necessarily because I knew anything about the funding. We didn't get into that more than him saying it was his French guy. But I don't have good feelings about this. Lauren Chen.

And I was right. And I'm sorry that Dave got swept up in this. And I'm sorry Tim did. I don't know, Benny, but, you know, I do think these guys are right that they were the victims in this scheme. And sure, you can say they should have known. I get it. But you guys know I did that fraud series over my June vacation. And I, too, was almost defrauded. It was a totally different scheme. It was like some guy trying to convince us that my mother-in-law

trying to convince her that her daughter had been in a car accident, pay money and all that. You should check the episode out. It's actually really good, but I understand it's very easy with 2020 hindsight to say they should have known. Anyway, the question now is what does this indictment mean? Because they claim that there's a wider reach than just this podcast network. And they also don't say that,

that Lauren and her husband, Liam Donovan, not to be confused with the Liam Donovan, who's very prolific on Twitter, who's all out there saying that it's not me, it's different Liam Donovan. What about them? They are not indicted per this document, though that doesn't mean it hasn't happened in secret and that they've potentially turned against these two Russians and are cooperating with them. But I will tell you when you read this indictment,

For sure, these two Russians seem like the villains and Lauren and her husband do not come off much better.

We'll see what their defense is. So far, they've said nothing. And I'll get more into detail on what the podcasters are saying in their own defense in one second. OK, joining me now to discuss Joel Pollack. He's author of the new book, The Agenda, What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days. And Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and host of True Crime MTN on YouTube.

I have to tell you about the Daily Wire's documentary. It's amazing. That is exposing the left's precious DEI industry. It is called Am I Racist? And it hits theaters like real theaters nationwide on September 13th. Go. And honestly, I'm going to go and I'm going to bring my kids. I think my kids will laugh and learn.

This is from the same team that brought you What Is A Woman? And this film proves that the only way to take DEI seriously is to laugh it into oblivion. Matt Walsh goes deep undercover, man, bun, and all, in the twisted world of diversity training, and the results are as hilarious as they are shocking.

Here's the deal. Let's pack these theaters. This is more than just entertainment. It's a counterpunch to Hollywood's woke propaganda. Every ticket sold is a blow to the left's ridiculous narrative around race. The more tickets sold, the more theaters will show it. That's how it works. Go to amiracist.com and get your tickets right now. Bring your friends, your family, even bring a liberal. They might learn something. They might realize that they're actually on our side.

Let's show conservatives can dominate the box office and make opening weekend a huge success. Don't sit this one out. I promise you, you are going to laugh. You're going to learn. You'll be horrified and you'll be glad they made this movie. Head to amiracist.com and get your tickets now.

Joel, Dave, welcome back to the show. So Dave, you're an actual criminal prosecutor in Palm Beach. So I'll ask you first, what do you make of my summary of these allegations and how troubling do you find them? Troubling. And I think you're spot on, Megan, especially when you're talking about Lauren Chen. You know, Lauren Chen was pretty normal for a while and then she started taking money from Russia and

apparently around 2021. And then all of a sudden she started complaining about the influence of Jews in political life and AIPAC and how they were controlling the agenda. What sounds like projecting to me, right? The whole dual loyalty thing. All of a sudden she started being one of the more prominent anti-Semites

on social media. So I have no sympathy for her and hopefully she'll be held accountable in all this. And you're right to call her out. As far as the others, I worry about like with Tim Pool, for example, he was issuing broadsides against Ukraine, saying Ukraine was the biggest enemy of the United States. You're wondering where did this come from? Well, you have to wonder

Was he a useful idiot for Russia? The government said he wasn't a Russian agent. They didn't indict him for anything, but they're sort of accusing him being useful idiots where they are promoting Russian propaganda. Now, all of a sudden, I've seen social media where he's back

down from that and saying, well, you know, I've switched on Ukraine. I don't know if that's real or not, but it's really suspicious. And I'm glad the government's doing this and that they were unafraid to do this this close to the election. I'm actually a little surprised because Merrick Garland is not known for his courage. He's known for his timidity. And here we are with this. And I'm

For those who think this is political, they could have indicted people, perhaps if they really wanted to get political. They did not. You were correct, Megan, how you phrased this. So it's an important issue. It is troubling. And we should all be talking about it today as you are.

But before I get Joel's reaction to that, Dave, is it, it's very odd that Lauren and her husband are not named as, you know, to, uh, of the targets to the indicted, uh, defendants. So, and there's no way the government doesn't think it has the ability to do that against them. If you read the indictment, they're, they're really among the top villains and they make very clear that they believe Lauren and her husband, they have, they have them dead rights. They believe, uh,

on knowing this was Russian money and that they were acting as agents of Russia and that they were hiding it from the podcasters. So you tell me as a DA, what do you think is happening behind the scenes here? Because those are like the only two who haven't issued a statement. Right. Well, that is telling. That could mean they're cooperating or in discussions to cooperate. I don't know if they've been issued a target letter. The feds keep things close to the desk. Could they have been indicted? Could they already have been indicted secretly and cut a deal to work with the feds?

They could have cut a deal. I think that a secret indictment is unlikely. I think that they could have cut a deal, yes. The feds are uniquely private about these things. This is something that we're different at the state level. We're public about everything. The feds do work in secret. But you have to wonder, why would they do a secret indictment? They would go ahead and they would indict, or they would be talking to them, issuing them a target letter, and then negotiating with them. Perhaps they have flipped already because it is very conspicuous by her silence.

So you don't need to indict them, is your point, to get them to cooperate. The DOJ, the FBI shows up and says, you're going to be indicted. And here's all the evidence we have against you. And clearly they've been monitoring their emails and their communications for months now. It's like they know where this is leading. And most people would probably cut a deal because they'd be terrified.

Yeah, exactly. You know, the feds usually get their person because unlike the state, they've got really draconian penalties, unlimited resources, limited discovery for defendants. And that's why they win about 98 percent of their cases. And unless your name is Mark Cuban, you're likely going down. So it's probably good to cooperate early on. OK, Joel, so what do you make of everything we've just discussed? Because I'll just say there's one thing. The I know Dave is saying that like Tim Pool was shilling on on Ukraine. Yeah.

You and I both know that in the conservative sphere in particular, being against our involvement, our support of Ukraine is not that controversial a position. Oh, shoot. You know, we're having trouble with Joel. All right. I'm going to keep it on you then, Dave, while we restore Joel's connection. So.

It's not that unusual, right? There are a lot of people who are not shills for Russia who think we shouldn't have anything to do with Ukraine. The Republican Party in general is becoming more isolationist under Trump. And you don't have to think, think much of Russia at all to have that position. And here's as far as the indictment goes.

It reads in paragraph two, while the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with the government of Russia's interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core government of Russia interests such as its ongoing war in Ukraine. I mean, that is quite a thin read, Dave.

They're not uniform, but the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with Russia's interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions. I mean, you could say that this show is consistent with a desire to amplify domestic divisions because we talk about controversial things. We don't we're not all about unity and rainbows and unicorns like this. This seems like a thin reed.

I hear you. It's just the content of Tim Pool. He didn't just say, you know, I disagree with our policy towards Ukraine. He actually said Ukraine is the greatest threat to the United States. Stuff that is so preposterous. You're like wondering, did Vladimir Putin write that himself? And now I don't know if this is true because I saw on Twitter, I don't like calling it the other name, but on Twitter that he's now changed his position. I don't.

because I don't know what to believe anymore if it's a deep fake or not. But if he changed his position overnight because of that, that's also telling. One more thing on that. Remember there was that attack on the concert venue in Moscow in March? It was an ISIS attack.

attack. And yet the Russians who were involved with this operation told the folks at Tenet to push the narrative that it was Ukraine behind it. And apparently some of the folks that were eager to do so. So, you know, that's why it's like it's a little more than just saying we disagree with policy. Let's be specific. I saw that same allegation and it's probably the worst allegation

the worst allegation in here about what they did, but it's not them. It's not like, first of all, I want to reiterate on Tim pool because you're saying, okay, he was, maybe he was stealing, but

But he's not even alleged to have known that the Russians were here, like were paying him. So there would have been no reason for him to change his position to be pro-Russia. He may have just been pro-Russia. He may have just been anti-Ukraine. I think that he was anti-Ukraine. And I think he could have come by that and did come by that totally organically without knowing he was getting Russian money. That's what the indictment says. But here's the thing that you're referring to that does bear some discussion. And that is on page 24 and 25 of the indictment, they write that

On or about February 14th, 2024, one of these Russians, she goes by a couple of different names, but one of them is Helena Shudra shared with Tenet. They don't say Tenet. They say U.S. Company One, but we know it's Tenet. A video of a well-known U.S. political commentator visiting a grocery store in Russia. That's obviously Tucker. Helena Shudra.

Helena posted the video on the producer's Discord channel. That's an internal, that's like how you communicate in like a more protected way internally as producers at Tenet.

Later that day, producer one, and we don't know who that is, privately messaged founder two, that's Liam Donovan, Lauren's husband, on Discord. They want me to push this, right? So this producer, again, we don't know who it is, referencing this video of Tucker. But it just feels like overt shilling. Founder two, meaning again, Liam Donovan, replied that founder one, that's Lauren Chen, quote, thinks we should put it out there. Producer one acquiesced, responding, all right, I'll put it out tomorrow.

Then the next example, as another example on or about March 22nd, 2024, Helena, the Russian, shared in the producer discord channel, a video of the March 22, 2024 terrorist attack on a music venue in Moscow, which killed approximately 145 people and injured hundreds more.

Producer one privately messaged founder one, meaning Lauren Chen writing. I don't know if you saw it, but they want me to post some footage from an attack in Moscow today. There's a watermark in the middle of the page that's blurred, which looks bad. And it's also pretty graphic. You can see people getting shot. I'll be it from far away. That's a very normal producer email dissent. It's got a watermark, meaning somebody else owns it. And there's excessive violence. Is that something we're going to put on the air?

Founder Juan Loren Chen did not push back on the content of the clip, but replied in the producer discord channel quote, I'm not sure it's,

It's a good idea to blur out someone's modern watermark. Then weighs in the Russian Helena assuring the group that quote, it's fine. No worries. It falls under fair use. Producer one and producer two found a video clip of the attack without the watermark and posted the clip to X the next day. Helena privately messer messaged founder one Lauren Chen on discord asking that quote, one of our creators record something about the Moscow terror attack.

Despite public reporting that the foreign terrorist organization ISIS had claimed responsibility for the attack, Helena requested that tenant media blame Ukraine and the U.S., writing, quote, I think we can focus on the Ukraine-slash-U.S. angle. The mainstream media spread fake news that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, yet ISIS itself never made such statements. All terrorists are now detained while they were headed to the border with Ukraine, which makes it even more suspicious why they would want to go to Ukraine to hide, end quote.

So founder one, meaning Lauren Chen responded that she would ask commentator three. We don't know who that is. And the next day confirmed that commentator three said, quote, he's happy to cover it. That's the entirety of getting one of the hired podcasters or influencers to directly shill.

We don't know who commentator three is, but it's not Ruben and it's not Tim pool. And it's not the woman who's been mentioned, not Lauren Chen, but the other podcaster. And this person, all this person would have known was that Lauren Chen was asking him to push this message. And there's no, not even an allegation that he would have known

It was a Russian request, just that Lauren Chen, who brought him into this company, thought this was a good angle to pursue. That's as far as it goes. I think we have Joel now. Joel, welcome your take on all of this. Thanks, Megan. And hi, Dave. You know, I just want to say Dave is one of the most fair minded people out there. It's great to hear his take. And I remember watching in 2016 when he came out with the decision not to prosecute Corey Lewandowski.

over the incident with my former colleague, Michelle Fields. And we all expected him to prosecute Linda because he's a Democrat in Palm Beach County. And he didn't. He looked at the facts and he called it as he saw it. So he's a real great person to meet here virtually. I think that this is I think this is a case where

There are different people who are swept up in this. I mean, I think it's funny to call people who've received millions of dollars victims. You know, usually when you talk about victims of fraud, they're the ones who lost millions of dollars. So, you know, maybe I wouldn't mind being a victim who got paid millions of dollars. But anyway, look, I think they are going to suffer a little bit through this controversy. The only two that I know are Kim Pool and Lauren Chen. And Kim Pool, I've been on his show a couple of times. I was there last week.

And he's always struck me as a straight shooter. Nobody should assume that because he had sponsorship from this organization or that person that he's taking their view. He has strong views. He has views against

are foreign policy in Ukraine and so forth. And I don't think anybody could have bought him either way. Lauren Chen, I don't know very well, but I got to know her sort of through X or Twitter back in October, where she came after me out of the blue.

When I said some things about Israel that were pro-Israel, admittedly quite strident and emotional after October 7th, but she was pretty hostile. And she was the first influencer or person with any kind of following that I really noticed who was representing what surprised me as a kind of

anti-Israel strain of thought on the online right. You know, we've all seen the left explode in the streets and on campus. And there's always been some anti-Semitism on the right and the left, especially online where people can comment anonymously. But Lauren Chen represented this very passionate and quite

Rehearsed strain of thinking that was very anti-israel She died dialed it back over the months as these mobs emerged on campus and I think she took exception to that but it now seems to me that we have to take every manifestation of some of this online anti-semitism or bigotry or weird commentary of any sort with a grain of salt because we don't know who's being paid to say what and if that's where this came from if this

new resurgent anti-Semitism online is coming from people who are paid to do it. I think on the one hand, it should make us feel better because I don't think Americans are neatly anti-Semitic. On the other hand, we really have to be concerned about how much this sort of thing is affecting our discourse. And I think, I think there's no, there's no evidence of that. There's no evidence. I've definitely seen her anti-Israel tweets. I mean, she's been as aggressive as anybody. And, but

But there's no evidence. There's not even an allegation in here. How is that? You know that she's she was doing that to satisfy these Russian handlers of hers, the people who are because she was also making bank. She wasn't making as much as Tim and Dave, but she was making thousands of dollars. I think they alleged she made seven hundred fifty thousand dollars in the not quite one year that this tenant media was operating. So she was getting paid a lot. But it seemed like it was mostly to be pro-Russian, not anti-Russian.

Israel. I'm going to defend her, Joel, by saying she came by that one honestly. I think she just genuinely doesn't like the country of Israel or those who support it. But in any event, let me just ask, let me say this. Okay, so I want to get to a little bit of what the guys are saying in their defense.

I take your point that they've made a lot of money and there are many people online saying, are they going to give it back? Are they going to give it back? Well, that's sticky because I'm sure they paid people to help them with like, I mean, Dave was doing this show on viral videos. I'm sure he had somebody he paid. I don't know where that's going to go, but here's what Dave says.

He says,

there's a explicit, um, admission by the DOJ that these podcasters did not know that Lauren, they say new and her husband knew, and they kept it a secret and misled these guys into thinking this Edward guy is Parisian was really the money behind it. And again, I can, I can tell you myself, that's what Dave told me. Um,

Taylor Hanson, he's another one of the faces. He says these allegations are a complete shock. I want to be as clear as possible. I was never directed to report on any topic, had complete freedom and control over my reporting at all times. I would never agree to any arrangement where I'm not the sole person in charge of the stories.

Matt Christensen, he's another one. At no point has anyone ever directed me what to say or what not to say. I would never agree to anything otherwise. My videos and streams for Tenet are exactly the same as my videos and streams for my personal channels. Every word's from me and me alone. Tim Pool, we have him on camera because he reacted on a show today. Here's what he says in part.

Did you read the indictment? It clearly says that I, as well as the other personalities were victims. We were deceived by people intentionally to trick us into licensing our content to them. Uh, I will add, I have a statement about this, which, you know, we'll, we'll launch the full segment, but, uh, we never produced anything for them. We had an existing show that was already in production that they licensed distribution for, which meant that the show that we already produced appeared on their network. That was the gist of the deal. So, uh,

There's no one from their company involved with ours. Their company paid a license fee to broadcast a show that we produce, that we run, that our employees are involved with, and they have nothing to do with. I don't know what, I mean, like politically, you're going to see a bunch of Democrats making claims and all this other stuff.

I can't speak for anybody else involved in the company because I don't know what they do or what what their jobs are or anything like that. I can just tell you plainly culture war existed well before the license agreement. It will exist well after the license agreement and they license it for a set period. And that meant that the show appeared on their channel. That's it. Go ahead, Joel.

Well, it's just interesting. You mentioned that the fictitious French businessman was named Edouard. His last name, I think, was Gregorian. It had one too many Ns. I think the double N at the end of the last name was a tell that this was not really a well-thought-out person or persona.

But look, I have actually been in a similar situation. I don't know if you remember, but the late Larry King had a show on a network called Aura TV. And I used to go to his studio and he was still very sharp. Well, into his 80s or however old he was, he had a huge staff and so forth. And then Russia Today, which is the network involved in this indictment.

They bought Aura or they bought whatever parent company was running this. And so I would go to film with Aura.tv, but then my interviews would be replayed on Russia Today. I would never have gone to Russia Today, but this content was, I guess, licensed to them. And I think that's what Tim Pool is saying, that he was producing this and it was licensed to them anyway. So again, yeah.

different people may have been involved at different levels. But I think the explanation for this is pretty simple. Russia saw people who were against the war in Ukraine, and that was their fundamental interest, or at least skeptically, the war in Ukraine. And that was their interest in amplifying those voices for purely strategic reasons. They want the American political discourse to shift away from support for Ukraine. And I'm skeptical of

the war in Ukraine in some ways. Nobody has made me a victim. I am too at this point. Yeah, you know, I'd like to be a victim. Maybe not at the price of my integrity. But look, this is going to happen. We do have to be very careful about where funding comes from. And my former Breitbart colleague who went on to serve in the Trump administration and now has his own media show, Seb Gorka, he had a lengthy post on X about how Lauren Chen had approached him

to do content for her company. And he said, well, where's the money coming from? And she couldn't answer him. And then she sent him this information about Gregorian with the extra end. And he said, this doesn't look right. And you walked away from it. So I do think it was possible to ask Gregorian

some more questions about this. And I think unfortunately in the world we're in where this is not just social media content, this is seen by important people as very powerful. You have to be careful about who you're dealing with. Here she is just to give you a visual. I'm just going to run a quick sound bite of Lauren Chen talking about repealing the 19th amendment because it's so annoying when the women vote sought to.

Democracy, all it means at its core is mob rule. And yeah, you have institutions like the UN who like to tack on these other aspects of it. Oh, it's only a democracy. There's a certain amount of freedom of the press. You can have opposition parties without any issues. Like all these other things are really at its core. Democracy simply means mob rule, majority rule. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, guys, if you're watching this, but there is nothing...

at all that says that mob rule is conducive or synonymous to freedom and individual liberty. The 19th Amendment specifically, more so than any other law or provision out there, solidified the concept of universal suffrage in our collective conscience.

When you look at the language of the 19th Amendment, it makes it clear that voting isn't just a civil liberty. It is essentially a human right, no different than the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. It talks about how the government should not be able to deny the right to vote to someone instead of how I believe we should view voting as a privilege, something that needs to be actively granted to someone. I am somewhat saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote in the same way that I'm thinking that just men should.

should not have the right to vote. Gender's entire groups of people should not be given control of our government. All right. She's an idiot. She is just fucking idiot. I just, I'm sorry. It's no, it's no accident. They targeted her. It is no accident. They thought I got a live one right there. The blaze TV has just fired her. That just hit. She was an independent contractor says Tyler Carden blaze media CEO.

and her contract has been terminated. We'll see what happens to her in this legal case. Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean you go to jail. She's not indicted. By the way, I forgot to read Benny Johnson's denial. He says...

A year ago, we were pitched by this startup media company to provide content as an independent contractor. Our lawyers negotiated a standard arms-length deal. It was later terminated. We're disturbed by these allegations, which make clear that myself and others were victims in this scheme. My lawyers will handle anyone who states or suggests otherwise. Got to leave it at that because I know Dave's got to run. You guys, thank you. Thank you both so much for being here. Thank you. Thank you. Unbelievable, right? I'm just like...

It's very annoying. The whole thing is annoying because let me tell you why it's annoying. Let me, let me play you the soundbite from morning. Joe, look what the left is going to do with this shit. This is what they're going to do. Not, not because of Dave, not because of Tim, not because of Benny, because of you, Lauren, according to this indictment, we'll hear your denial. I'm open-minded to your denial. Let's hear it. So far, she said nothing. I think we know why she probably working with them.

Listen to how the people over at Morning Joe, and I'm sure the entire left today is already spinning this. We have all seen it for several years. There are people who are deliberately or unknowingly promoting Russian propaganda, propaganda that comes straight from the Kremlin. Of course, one of the great ironies about this is that

Not really an irony. It's just cynicism. And it's and it's just unfortunately un-American. These are the same people that get out, a lot of them, that get out and talk about the Russian hoax. Oh, it's a Russian. Oh, there's a there's no. Come on. What are you talking about? There's no connection between, you know, this and Russia and Russia is not trying to always

always apologizing for Russia, always apologizing for Putin. Yeah, these are the people online, like you say, Joe, who have condemned what they call the Russia hoax, despite all the information we had in front of us from the Mueller report and now from this indictment, but also who are perceived as truth tellers outside the mainstream media. You're not getting the real story. You're not getting the true story. Come to my YouTube channel and I'll tell you the truth. Well, it turns out some of those prominent among them were complete dupes for the Russian government.

That's where they're going to go with this. They're not going to read the indictment. They're not going to see that the feds do not even allege in particular that Tim and Dave had any knowledge whatsoever that any of them had any knowledge whatsoever that the Russians, other than Lauren and her husband, were actually paying the salaries.

And except for that one instance, I just read you with commentator number three, and it's a he. So it's either Benny Johnson, Matt Christensen or Taylor Hansen, because we know Rubin and Poole are one and two. There's no specific allegation that anybody ever actively covered or changed their coverage of something in the news at the request, not of not of the Russians, but of Lauren.

That's as much as they've been able to allege. So even commentator number three thought this was coming from Lauren. And according to the indictment, did change or at least agreed to cover a story. I don't know whether he would have otherwise, but that person is going to need to speak out and should speak out. And this is this does not undo years of false Russiagate allegations. But that's where the left is going to go with it.

shame on all of the people who push this on us. And I'm talking to you, you two Russians who allegedly work for RT. And if Lauren and her husband, Liam actually did what's alleged in this indictment, I realized it's a DOJ. I realized the FBI, I realized what their history is, but they are citing specific emails and so on. Then shame on you too. We'll be

We'll be right back. Do you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns? Along with hiring tens of thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has been sending over 5 million pay up letters to those with unfiled tax returns or balances owed. Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own. Instead, Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved more than $1 billion in back taxes for their clients.

and they might help to secure the best deal possible for you too.

Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help you. Whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or if you're on a fixed income, they can help. Finally, resolve your tax burdens once and for all. Call these guys at 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Megan. Don't let the IRS control your life. Empower yourself with TaxCard.

Tax Network USA's support and take charge of your financial future. Visit TNUSA.com slash MEGYN today. Get ready to tackle the NFL action with FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. Because right now, new customers can bet $5, get 300 in bonus bets if you win. Make every moment more with FanDuel, an official sportsbook partner of the NFL. 21 plus and present in Arizona. First online real money wager only.

$5 first deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets which expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342.

a major about face by a quote unquote Republican. Well, she's a Republican. She just, she's never Trumper hardcore, never Trumper who just a few years ago was very anti Kamala Harris. Yes. Liz Cheney. She has now publicly endorsed the vice president and the left is very, very excited about this.

Because they think it's going to persuade who again? Joining me now, the guys from Real Clear Politics. Find them across the dial on Sirius XM every night. They're on the POTUS channel. And we've got them all. Tom Bevin, co-founder and president of RCP. Carl Cannon, Washington Bureau chief. And Andrew Walworth, chief...

content officer. Guys, I hope this isn't too personal, but I love the podcast and I listen to it all the time. And sometimes like if I wake up in the middle of the night or whatever, I'll put on a podcast and I'll listen to it. And last night I, I was, it was like four,

4.30 in the morning and I was listening to the RCP show and you'll be happy to know it did not put me back to sleep. It did not. Great news. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, so let's start with Liz Cheney. Tom, I bet Team Trump is quaking in its boots.

This is the ultimate, you know, dog bites man story. Like, what is the news here, really? Right. We know Liz Cheney is is not a fan of Donald Trump. That's obvious. And so the idea was, I mean, she made this big announcement that she thought deeply about this and she was going to go ahead and vote for Kamala Harris. I mean, I just don't know what the.

Obviously, it gets play in the media and on MSNBC because it's bad news for Trump or it's a bad headline for Trump or whatever. But to your point, Megan, who's this going to convince? This is really not much of a story at all, in my opinion. And yet people are excited about it. I don't know. Here she is. Here's Liz Cheney explaining her reasoning. Sat 10. I think it is crucially important

for people to recognize not only is what I've just said about the danger that Trump poses something that should prevent people from voting for him. I believe that we have the luxury of writing in candidates' names, particularly in swing states. And as a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this. And because of the danger that Donald Trump poses,

Not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will vote for him. All right. And yet, Carl, you've got tweets all over the Internet, including this one from August 2020, where Liz Cheney wrote Kamala Harris is a radical liberal who would raise taxes, take away guns and health insurance and explode the size and power of the federal government. She wants to recreate America in the image of what's happening on the streets of Portland and Seattle. We won't give her the chance. So which which constitution is governing right now in Liz Cheney's mind?

Well, Megan, I understand why some of these establishment Republicans dislike Trump. They, you know, people like, you know, you know, the names Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney and other people, some people, some of them are my friends. You know, Donald, it was like a hostile takeover of their party in their minds. So the way some of them talk about Trump is angrier than the Democrats. I understand that.

But so then you think, are they, some of them want Trump to lose so that they can reconstitute, you know, bring back what they would call the norms or whatever, you know, bring back the old coalition. Maybe. And, but she didn't say that. What she said was that Donald Trump is a threat to the constitution. They know that this will be the last election we ever have. These, you know, these ideas about that Donald Trump is an authoritarian, that the democracy is actually on the ballot is,

There's no evidence for that. And the Democrats ran on that in 2020 in the midterms, and it helped them. They're running on it again. I don't understand why people believe that, but that's what Liz Cheney said. And so once you get to that point, I guess then you think, gee, Conal Harris would be a terrible president, and the Democrats, their policies are awful, but I'm doing this to save my country. I think they've convinced themselves of this.

I just don't think that this is going to have influence over a single American. Absolutely not one, not one. All the people who are going to vote for Kamala will say, great, Liz Cheney's on board. And all the people who are going to vote for Trump will say, who cares? We know Liz Cheney hates Trump. And the undecided four people who live in these swing states will say, who, what? I don't, okay. And they're going to move on. Like Mike Pence is not supporting Trump. That didn't seem to have some massive impact. I don't know why Liz Cheney would. But

Let's talk about the biggest news that's coming in the next week or so. And that's the debate. Apparently, Andrew, there will be mics turned off during the other person's turn. So while Trump is speaking, her mic will be off while she is speaking. Trump's mic will be turned off. This was the subject of debate for weeks. And

And the reports are that her team is very disappointed about this because she was looking to have what they're calling a Brett Kavanaugh moment with her where she got up in Brett Kavanaugh's face during the confirmation hearing. So how big an impact, if any, will this have on our experience of this debate on Tuesday night?

Well, I guess marginally, people are saying it's a victory for Trump. I don't think it makes any difference at all. I think they were going to debate no matter what. They both need the debate. Trump,

has been practicing and practicing for this. Every time he goes out and speaks to someone on a podcast or a town hall or with a press conference, he's practicing. So I think he's ready for the debate. The big question is, is she ready? There'll be no notes.

that you can bring. It's a standup debate, I believe still. So it will be all the rules that applied during Joe Biden's debate. And we saw how that ended up for Joe Biden. So if, if, if, if I had to bet, I think he probably will have a good night and she's going to be, the bar's pretty high for her because she has not been doing any press.

talk to anybody been challenged in any way other than that CNN interview. So we'll see what happens, but every, you know, the stakes are pretty high, I guess.

Yeah. Well, meantime, NBC News reporting earlier this week that this is how she's preparing, that she's being coached to avoid being pulled into Trump's personal attacks by remaining calm. She and her team are focusing on how to needle Trump and rattle him. In that sense, the source said it's going to be less about substance and more about showcasing Harris as a woman who is not scared.

So that's what we're looking for in a president now. A woman. She's a woman. So check who is not scared of Donald Trump. That will earn you the presidency in the eyes of her team, Tom Bevin. But the plan to rattle and needle Trump is a good one.

And we'll see whether they're able to do it. That was what they did throughout the DNC, making fun of him not being a billionaire, his money, the criminal cases against him. And he held his fire. He did not start spouting off on Truth Social in the middle of the night face to face across from her. Can he do it?

Yeah, we'll find out. I mean, look, the reason she wanted these mics on is she wanted to pull that same shtick that she did with Mike Pence in 2020. You know, excuse me, excuse me, I'm speaking. Stop speaking over me. Sort of, you know, that whole thing. Totally. And there was a report by, I think, CNN, who had a source, the ABC News, saying that

uh, that the, or the, that the campaign Kamala Harris's campaign had gotten assurances from ABC that if there was some crosstalk that the mics would be turned on and that the moderators would help inform the public about what, what was being said. So, um,

you know, that was sort of a curious report. I'll be interested to see when this actually goes down, whether those mics are fully turned off the entire time or whether they, you know, they might be left on on occasion or how they handle the crosstalk between these two candidates. But

You're certainly right that, you know, she's going to try and get in his head and say some things and, you know, try and get him to overreact and then, you know, play perhaps play the victim or whatever the situation is going to be. And Trump has to be aware of that and has to basically not fall for it. And we'll see whether he's able to do that or not. You never know. I suppose it'll depend on the, you know, the mood he's in on the night of the debate.

He's had far more experience with adversarial media than she is, which is to his advantage, Carl. Well, yeah. And you've reminded me of something. The first person who showed on a presidential debate staff, the debate stage, that they could be simultaneously a woman and unafraid of Donald Trump was Megyn Kelly. Doesn't qualify me for president. I think it does. Yeah.

And in terms in terms of that microphone, I'll take you guys back when a couple elections even earlier, Al Gore's debating George Bush and there and Al Gore Bush is talking and Gore was sighing so loudly into the microphone. Those of us who were in the hall there couldn't hear Bush. And I was sitting next to Frank Bruni of The New York Times. Frank, is the air conditioning broken? What's going on? And he turned to me, said, I think that's Gore.

And the neck and on TV, it wasn't as bad. But the next day, Barbara Bush and then Gorse, you know, stalked across the stage at Bush and Bush kind of smirked at him like he was, you know, bring it on, boy. And the next day, Barbara Bush was clutching her pearls on one of the morning shows. And she said,

I thought he was going to hit George. And, you know, so some of these histrionics, these subtle movements, you know, when Bush's father looked at his watch during a debate, they can matter. And so I, you know, so I think the Mike's turned. I guess I kind of prefer him just to be on all the time. You guys remember when that moment in the New York in the New York Senate race or New York Senate race? Go ahead, Tom.

No, Rick Lazio marched across the stage with a piece of paper and sort of waved it in Hillary Clinton's face. But that's what Gore did. That fired on him. Gore did that two weeks after. You thought he would have been warned. Yeah. He just figured because he was up against a male opponent, he could get away with that. But certainly that male-female dynamic will play. And given the gender divide in this election-

Trump does have to be careful. He can't do anything too aggressive. Even though she'll be aggressive against him, she's called him a predator. She's gotten as aggressive rhetorically as you can. There's just a dynamic. I'm sorry, it's there. He would be completely reckless to get in her face physically in any way, and I don't think he'll do that. All right, you guys have to get us up to speed on what these polls are saying because we had three big polls at least come out this week. And

and I know it's tight, super tight, but some of them say she's got a little bit more of the advantage in the swing states, and some say, okay, but he's winning slightly in Pennsylvania, so that erases those other advantages. These guys will talk straight to us after we take this break and tell you what you need to know. Don't go away, the RCP guys. Stay with me. More ahead.

They're back. Verizon Small Business Days are here. October 14th to the 20th. Meet with our experts. Get one-on-one advice, a free tech check, and special offers. Like a free 5G phone when you switch. Don't miss out. Call 1-800-483-4428. Or go to verizon.com slash smallbusiness. Offer available for select 5G phones. New device payment purchase agreement and select biz unlimited plan required. Credit applied over agreement term up to 36 months. Terms apply. Limited time offer.

So, guys, let's just start with this. Apparently, the god of predictions, the Karnak of elections, has come out to tell us that he knows who's going to win. It's American University professor Dr. Alan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted nine of the last ten presidential elections. He gave his final verdict yesterday.

today about the 2024 race. The only one he's gotten wrong out of the last 10 elections was Bush v. Gore. He must have been confused by all the sighing, Carl. It also could have been the very tight hanging chat race that we saw there. But he's right almost always. And he says Vice President Kamala Harris will defeat former President Donald Trump and keep the White House in Democratic hands. Well,

What do you guys think of the good professor? Well, listen, we'll see. We'll see whether, you know, his track record isn't as sterling, I think, as most people make it out to be. But look, this is a close race. It could go either way. I mean, that's the truth. And, you know, he's got his 13 keys that he uses and that's fine. But, you know, we go by what the polls show. And right now the polls show this is a very, very close race.

Politico put it at, what did they say? Knife fight in a phone booth. That's how tight it is right now. And we've had a couple of polls come out over the past few days. ABC,

And Ipsos released a poll on Tuesday showing no post DNC bounce for her, showing that they polled registered voters before and after the convention. And she was up plus four in both of them. It does show that when you zero down to likely voters, she's up six.

but that's, you know, a national poll. And then you get into this Politico state of the race as of Monday. And this is the one I wanted to ask you guys about, because they go through all of the swing states and they take your average, the RCP average, the 538 average, that's Nate Silver's old organization, which he's got some issues with now and the way they're trying to implement his old model. And then there's the actual Nate Silver, which he calls the silver bulletin average. And they compared all three of them in all of the seven swing states.

And what they showed is that it is extremely tight, but I will tell you, there's a lot of Harris leads. They're slim, but she, this is my armchair take on what I'm looking at here. Like in Arizona, again, this is going at the three of your averages compared to each other. Here's Arizona. She's

plus 0.2, plus 0.5, plus 0.5. Georgia, she's plus 0.4. Then Trump, plus 0.2. Harris, plus 0.1. Michigan, she's plus 2.4, plus 1.1, plus 1.9. That's kind of how it goes throughout except

North Carolina, which shows Trump plus 0.4, 0.6, 0.3. I know from listening to you guys, you think Pennsylvania in particular is tighter than this comparison is showing, which shows her

plus 1.2 plus 0.5 plus 1.2. And as somebody who has said, she's going to vote for Trump. I don't like these numbers. It's tight, but she seems to be leading in all of them. And I know that these polls have margins of error, but you guys are always pointing out. That's why you do averages of all the polls. So what am I missing here, Andrew? I like, is there something that's wrong with looking at it this way?

No, I think that's a good way to look at it. And I think you're right to point out that the national averages are not that important. What really matters is the swing states. Pennsylvania is the tightest of the tight. I've never seen anything like this before. Tom may know better. But the last three polls that went into the RCP average were all tied. So we have Pennsylvania totally tied up.

That rarely happens with that kind of consistency. So I think it will come down to Pennsylvania. That's what 19 electoral votes. So that's pretty important state for Trump to win. But as you know, as,

As we know, this is about as tight a race as it could be right now. I would, you know, I think we'll just have to wait and see. That's the thing. We don't know. It's frustrating. We want to know. We want the predictor that's going to show us how, and it's just not there. Like this is going to be a nail biter, isn't it, Carl?

Yeah, and I don't want to know. I look forward to election night. Megan, here's the thing. Tom and I have been talking about this going back and forth on our own podcast. In 2016 and again in 2020, six of these seven states broke the same way for Donald Trump and then for Joe Biden.

There's nothing written in stone or in the heavens that they have to break that way. It could be four to three. We could be looking, piecing together and trying more like 2000, the one that Professor Lichter missed. We're looking for two or three electoral votes here or there. But the other big question that I have going into this is, have these pollsters changed?

fix the problems that had caused them to undercount Donald Trump, both in both of those elections. They, they think they have, they say they've tried, but we won't know till election night, because remember if this thing is tied in all these swing States, it wasn't, it wasn't close four years ago, Biden had a significant lead in all these States and then they were much closer. So if the pollsters are wrong again, two, three, four points off,

then Trump's going to win. So that's the other thing we'll know election night, because these are RealClearPolitics and Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight, they're not doing their original polling. They are aggregating these polls and then Politico is aggregating the aggregators. But the big question people know, and I was talking to Doug Rivers, who does the YouGov poll, I had dinner with him Sunday night, and he says that he hopes they fixed it, but he won't know.

Hmm. The other thing that we're not talking about much at all, Tom, is they get out the vote operation and Trump has been dumping on vote by mail for.

Four years now. Yeah. You can tell when somebody smart gets in his ear and says, stop saying that we need to bank early vote. He'll have like one interview where he's like, yeah, OK, vote by mail and then left to his own devices. He's back to no, I don't know. Could be fraud. But they're going to start banking vote, especially on the Dem side, starting on September 16th in Pennsylvania. Right. 16th or 13th. Anyway, soon.

And on the Republican side, I don't really know what the get out the vote operation is other than Charlie Kirk or pal Charlie over at Turning Point USA. I like the RNC seems to have outsourced it to him and he's great. But is he enough?

Yeah, you know, I had a discussion with Sean Trendy, who's our senior elections analyst, and he's one of the smartest guys, you know, in the country on politics. And we were talking about this and he was saying, you know, he doesn't buy that. It's, you know, the hardcore voters are going to vote, you know,

Whether they vote early, whether they vote on Election Day, it's still a vote for the candidate. It's really finding those marginal voters and chasing down those marginal voters that is going to end up making the difference in these states. But just to go back to the polling for a second, Megan, because I think it is important. I mean, we just we just did a video. It's called a real quick take. And you can go find it on on social media where we analyzed it.

the 2016 and the 2020 by state in these seven battleground states, how badly the pollsters undercounted Trump's vote in 2016 and 2020. And it was obviously worse in Wisconsin. They missed by seven points in 2016 and then six points

in 2020. So on average, about six and a half points over the last two cycles. Kamala Harris is up 1.4 in Wisconsin right now. So if they do in fact get it wrong by the same amount they have averaged over the last two cycles, Trump would be ahead in Wisconsin.

And you go down these you go down these states like Arizona and Georgia, for example, in 2016, 2020, those were the two most accurate states. Pollsters hit hit them within half a percentage point. And right now, Trump's got a one percent lead in Arizona. I think Kamala Harris has a one tenth of one percent lead in Georgia. So, you know, you just go and look at these. You look at how close these states are.

And then you look at past performance of these pollsters. And then you also look at the national average, right? Hillary Clinton won by 2.1% and lost that election in the battleground states. Joe Biden won by 4.5%, the national popular vote, and just barely won. So Kamala Harris right now is at two points in our national average, two and a half points in the five-way race. So she's on the lower end of that range where if the polls were actually accurate, she'd

She would probably be come up short in these battleground states. If she can move that nationally to three, four or five points, then you're looking at a situation where she should be comfortably enough ahead in enough battleground states to win this election. But right now, it is absolutely a jump ball, in my opinion, when you look at these numbers.

Mm-hmm. It's almost like when you go to the doctor and they take your temperature and you're like, what are you doing? I have a stomach ache. Why are you taking my temperature? It's like, well, if your temperature's high, it tells me something's wrong with you on the inside. If your temperature's normal, it tells me something else about what's happening. And the national vote is like the temperature. Like it doesn't tell us what the actual thing is, but it gives us a clue as to how things are going. And she needs to get those numbers up in the national vote.

for us to believe she's going to carry the swing states. And that's what she's been saying. It's going to be tight. We need to win. We need to win by a lot. And they will have a strong get out the vote operation. Here's Steve Kornacki the other day talking about how Democrats feeling good about seeing those numbers. I just ticked off with you guys showing Harris up more than Trump in some of these states need to take a breath and take a beat.

If you take a look at the paths, the easiest path for each candidate, we'll start with Kamala Harris. All of the state polling is very tight, but the best polling, relatively speaking, for Harris and the Democrats has been in, talk about them all the time, these great lake states, big 10 states, whatever you want to call them, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Now, if Harris could win those three states, just for the sake of argument, turn them blue there, exactly 270 electoral votes for her. Now,

if she slips up,

Pennsylvania in particular is one Republicans of these three think they have a good shot at here. Let's say she were to slip up, Harris did, and lost Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the biggest of all the swing states, 19 electoral votes. Harris would have to compensate by winning at least two from the Sun Belt here. And for Trump's easiest path quickly here, it's to get Pennsylvania, it's to hold North Carolina like he did in 20, and it's to win back Georgia, which he very narrowly lost that.

would get him to exactly the magic number. Wow. When you see that, you start thinking, Andrew, why did she go with her emotional support governor? Why didn't she pick Josh Shapiro?

I think that will be a real question that will be asked the day after the election. And we'll know then whether it was a good choice or a bad choice. But there certainly is a lot of people or are a lot of people who think that Josh Shapiro might have been the wiser choice because I personally feel that Pennsylvania is the most important state. Everyone else is saying it as well. But one

One thing I'm looking at is McCormick, the Senate race there, because McCormick is doing surprisingly well. And that is another indicator. If McCormick does well, he may they may be some reverse coattails in Pennsylvania. He wins the Senate race. That would be amazing. Right. You guys have been talking about it. No one is really talking about Pennsylvania. McCormick is a possible GOP pickup that hasn't really been at the front of the tongue.

No, but Tom, you keep a better eye on the polls than I do, but he's done well in the last two polls that I saw. The CNN polls that just came out had that race tied. And he has been, excuse me, he has been, you know, pounding Bob Casey with these ads basically of Kamala Harris, her own words, talking about wanting to ban fracking and the like. So he's run a very, very smart campaign thus far, and it seems to be paying off. And he is doing better than a lot of the other Republican Senate candidates around the country.

I hear a lot of talk about the Senate and, you know, the, the analysis is basically that the Republicans are going to get the West Virginia seat, uh, that Joe Manchin is giving up, you know, by retiring and that they look good in Montana. Although, man, they're throwing everything they can at that Republican right now, trying to say he doesn't like native Americans and all this stuff that I like, they're doing all their tricks to try to take him down. I, I own property in Montana. I think he's going to win. I think the Republicans have got that one. We'll see. I could be wrong. Um, but Pennsylvania, uh,

Like that would be huge. But here's my question. There's less talk about the house. What, how, how's that looking? Because right now certain people start to get a little worried that we could have unified control over on the Democrat side. If this doesn't go the way the Republicans want, they could lose the house. They could lose, they could continue to stay out of power in the Senate and they could lose the white house. So how's the house looking? Well, I,

The general rule that I always think about at the House is that whoever wins the White House will probably win the House. It's very hard to predict the House because there's so many factors involved. But if Trump wins the White House, he'll probably win the Senate. If he wins the White House and the Senate, I would say he's likely to win the House as well. We'll see. But just came back to the Senate for a second. There is a scenario.

that Larry Hogan pulls it out in Maryland. And then, I mean, this would be someone's dream scenario that Larry Hogan is sort of the controlling vote in Maryland.

the Senate. That's not Trump's dream scenario. Not Trump's dream scenario. But it would certainly be, it'd be a lot of fun to see someone like Hogan have that much power in the Senate right now. He would be the Joe Manchin of the next decade or so. So anyway, but I'm not sure I helped you on the House there, but that's what I think. Whoever wins the presidency will take the House.

Go ahead, Carl. Well, there's always a Senate race that we didn't see coming. Andy said it might be Larry Hogan in Maryland. It might be in Ohio. Sherrod Brown is well-liked there. He's sort of pulled a Joe Manchin. He's kept his popularity up while the state's become increasingly Republican. But if you had a scenario where

Donald Trump did better than we think in some of these polls and ran up these numbers in the Republican states. Sherrod Brown, that Ohio might be in play as well. I mean, it's so crazy how much could change.

after this election. If one of the, the nation's so divided, like they said, knife fight in a phone booth. And yet we could wind up giving total power to one side or the other, which I'm just going to say as a newswoman has me saying, I will not be planning any vacations for right after November 5th. You know, you guys shouldn't either. We don't know what's going to happen even after the vote is in and counted.

Well, Megan, there's some evidence that the voters like divided government. They don't quite know how to assure it. You can't vote strategically that way. You get one vote and most of these states are not even in play. But one party in control of all three branches of government

It's a little worrisome to swing voters. I don't know how they're supposed to process that. How are they going to hedge against it? Go ahead, Tom. I was just going to say, not to be a Debbie Downer, but I do... It looks like we're headed for 2016 on steroids, where we've already got the Russia interference stories planted out there. I mean...

whoever loses is going to contest this election and they're going to say it was stolen, there were fraudulent votes, there was voter suppression, there was whatever. There will be lawsuits in all of these states that will go on for weeks and months. Mark Elias and the Democrats have already got lawyers on the ground in these states. I mean, if it does turn out to be as close as the polls suggest it is, and maybe it won't, but if it does, we're going to be looking at, you know,

sort of a rerun of 2016, it could be even worse in a lot of these states. And obviously in an evenly divided country, that's, that's not going to, uh, it's not going to be great. You know, I forgot to say this when we were discussing the whole tenant media, Russian thing in our a block. So this doesn't directly involve you guys, but they, they allege this is Russian influencing in our election, that they're meddling in our election. That's not what the indictment shows. The

in this country. For example, who attacked Russia? Was it Ukraine or was it ISIS? There's not anything in this indictment that would suggest they were trying to actually influence the election, though I'm sure Russia would love to do that, but that's not in this indictment. And this media organization for all of its news coverage in this indictment and around this indictment

got 16 million views on its YouTube channel, which is where it existed. 16 million in 10 months. I mean, we got that last week. This is not a player in the national conversation at all. Nobody even heard of these guys.

So, you know, we shouldn't overstate the the reach of this organization. Go ahead, Tom. And yet you played the clip of Joe Scarborough. I mean, look, the left is going to use this. If Kamala Harris loses this election by a whisker, you can bet that there will be folks on the left that are going to say that it was Russian meddling and that that caused this. And and conversely, if Trump loses.

by a whisker on election night. His folks will say it was stolen. There were fraudulent votes here or there, whatever. So it's just, the only point I was trying to make is just that we're, I think we're headed toward another really traumatic election and election aftermath that may last weeks and months.

But I think, Megan, you make a really good point, which is the fact that two things can be true. The Russians could be trying to meddle in our election, as the Chinese could, but their influence is so limited that it doesn't really matter the way the left would like us to think it matters. Yeah. They're annoying, and they have a goal, and they continue to try to pursue that goal. But this is a very big country, and it's...

It's very hard to actually influence an election if your name is not Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. It really is. I learned this when I was at Fox News and I would watch people with very powerful voices, especially when I was younger, go out there and really try to make like the strongest argument possible. And then we got Barack Obama anyway. Right. It's like, yeah.

I think these media personalities or outlets like to convince themselves that they really drive the national conversation and they drive votes, but they don't. You can inform people, you can keep them better informed about the news and that's a service. But to presume that you can actually influence them and change a national vote, in my experience, just it's not true. And it certainly wouldn't be true from some desk in Moscow where you're posing as Helena trying to like

edit random videos in some no-name news site nobody's ever clicked on on YouTube.com. Guys, thank you. Thanks, Megan. Thanks, Betty. A pleasure, as always. Okay. When we come back, our old pal Britt Mayer joins us and a first-time guest on this show. And there's plenty more to discuss. Don't go away.

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.

Get ready to tackle the NFL action with FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. Because right now, new customers can bet $5, get 300 in bonus bets if you win. Make every moment more with FanDuel, an official sportsbook partner of the NFL. 21 plus and present in Arizona. First online real money wager only. $5 first deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets which expire seven days after receipt.

Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342. This is an ad from BetterHelp. Unfortunately, we don't get an owner's manual for ourselves. There are no simple instructions for what to do when we feel down or when we have relationship problems or family conflicts. That's when therapy can help, and BetterHelp is a convenient way to get started.

It's 100% online, flexible, and surprisingly affordable. Connect with a licensed therapist by phone, video, or online chat at a time that works for you. Visit BetterHelp.com to learn more. That's BetterHelp.com.

Joining me now for more on the wild ride that is the 2024 electoral cycle and some of the cultural craziness going on today, Britt Mayer, founder of Rooted Wings and independent researcher and analyst. And for the first time, PragerU personality, Xavier Deruso. Great to have you guys. Thanks for having me.

Hey, Megan. All right. So at any point, did someone named Lauren Chen come to you and ask you to work for her special channel? And if so, did you say no, thank you. That was the right move. Isn't this the wildest story? It's so wild. I can clearly say on my honor, Lauren Chen never came to me and offered me a position with Tenet. So I'm, I'm clear. I'm safe.

It's so annoying though, Xavier, ex-Xavier, I know that's how you pronounce it. Isn't it so annoying though? Because to our guest's last point, this is going to be used, like this one small operation is going to be used by the left for the next several months, maybe even years as like, you see, Russia, Russia, Russia. It's like, okay.

Show me the video they edited. Show me all the videos that that changed people's minds about this election in a profound way or at all at all. That's not alleged even in the indictment. And yet, you know what the narrative will be.

Oh, yeah. We're never beating the Russia allegations after this. And it's crazy because we can actually trace how infiltrated the left is with China. I feel like all the energy that they are trying to put on us with Russia, we should be putting right back to them with their comfortability, letting China just run rampant in our politics and our society,

corrupting Gen Z and all the fentanyl that they're shoving over here. And nobody wants to talk about that. But now we are all supposed to be held accountable because Russia apparently paid a few people that they didn't even know they were being paid by Russia. So I'm not too concerned about it. I'm hoping that the left doesn't make much room with this, especially after losing so much credibility the last time they tried to overexpose the Russia issue. But we'll see what ends up happening.

Well, I mean, that's a good point because you've got Max Boot of The Washington Post. His wife got indicted for being a Chinese agent. I mean, he writes for The Washington Post. The Washington Post has barely covered this. This week, you have Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, her deputy chief of staff.

And the same thing exposed and I believe indicted as an agent of the Chinese government. You've got Iran trying to hack into Trump's campaign successfully, they said, through Roger Stone's email account, which they hacked and possibly also Kamala Harris's to try to interfere with our election. There's a lot of people, a lot of bad actors out there that would like to interfere with American elections. It's just one country, Britt, that gets all

of the ink because it reaffirms the priors of the people who buy ink by the barrel in this country. Yeah. The game is if they repeat it long enough, if they tweet it enough times, then the public

scoops it up and believes it. So they are going to run with this. They're going to run with it all the way through January. It's going to be Russian interference, Russian collusion. I am guessing the story is going to only grow because they're going, this is their linchpin. This is what they are going to cling to, to prove that once again, Russia, Russia, Russia, it's what was the, the Brady bunch? What was the Margaret? Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. Yeah.

That was before your time, but I live there. Russia, Russia, Russia. I mean, that's the game. It's lazy. It's boring, but it works. So I think we should all be prepared to hear a lot more of it.

Max Booth's wife was an agent for South Korea. So just correcting myself, but I mean, you know, we've got so much Chinese spying. I can't keep track of it all. Um, okay. So let's talk about, does this, do any of these issues filter down? Do you think like what's driving the Gen Z vote right now, Xavier? Because there's a real question about what's going to happen with the youth vote. The Democrats usually get very excited about it and it almost never turns out for them.

And right now, if you look at the youth vote more and more young men are pro Trump and young women because single women across the country are pro Harris by some like 72% of single women are pro Harris. So what do you think is going to happen with them?

You know, I think there's two drastic sides of that. You have the social side and then you have the fiscal side. Socially, you know, young people are inherently rebellious. We don't like being told what to do, what to think and all of that. And for years now, being a part of Gen Z, we have been hammered down being told, oh, you are not allowed to ask too many questions. You're not allowed to support Trump. You're not allowed to support these policies. You can't have conservative ideology. And how dare you even question Gen Z?

the notion that you're supposed to address yourself by your preferred pronouns every time you have a conversation. Gen Z is sick of that. So we have been rebelling against that. And that's why you see so many prominent Gen Z influencers and media personalities who are coming out and speaking against that entire narrative and are being more unapologetic in their belief systems. And then also asking the questions of, am I supposed to be comfortable with the fact that

Nobody can afford a home. The fact that there are illegal immigrants creating so much crime in our cities, that our border is wide open. We're being told for, we've been told for way too long that we're not allowed to question that. And now that has, it's the Barbra Streisand effect. By trying to take our attention away from the issues that matter most to us, it has made us hyper-focused on these issues. And it's waking a lot of members of Gen Z up.

Okay. Britt on the subject of illegal immigration. I know this is a cause near and dear to your own heart living in California and the people's Republic. And we actually, this week saw Kamala Harris release an ad

Describing herself as somehow pro-tough border enforcement. And in that ad, she uses imagery of Trump's border wall. She wants us to believe she's pro-wall now. Here, it's a quick clip, but look at this. As a border state prosecutor, she took on drug cartels and jailed gang members for smuggling weapons and drugs across the border.

Okay, she's all over the record as calling this Trump's vanity project, saying it's utterly useless, making clear in no uncertain terms how against it she is. And now she's strolling up, I said this the other day, like the thumbs in the belt loops, like I'm here and I'm ready to take on that border like a John Wayne cowboy. I'm gonna get them all. It's such nonsense, but that's the messaging they're going with.

I'm just laughing picturing her actually using the John Wayne accent since she, you know, she picks up a different accent wherever she goes. So I pictured it when you did that. I could, I could hear it in my ear. Okay.

Okay, so what we're seeing is the obvious recreation of Kamala Harris. Now, the interesting thing is we have 20 years of receipts on who Kamala Harris is. And she started from my state. She started up in San Francisco, then DA of California. And so when you go back to her early policies in 2004, when she was the DA in San Francisco, she was championing sanctuary cities. She has always been for...

open borders that bring in illegal foreigners that we then give sanctuary status to. And then they don't stay in California. We ship them to neighborhoods all over the United States. So for her to now say, oh, look at me, I'm tough on the border. Well,

Your 20 years of receipts and track record says that you've completely failed at the border to the point of where in San Diego right now, our count just from October is that I think we're over 253,000 illegal foreigners coming in through San Diego. So...

How is that being tough on the border? She has been in office now for almost three and a half years. But on top of that, where we've seen millions of illegal foreigners come through her broken border, we have 20 years of history that shows that she championed the exact policies that have now brought us to this place. But they are lying liars and they push propaganda to make the public believe that she built that wall.

She is tough on border. She's not, she's not. When you actually dig in, you realize that she created the mess that we are in right now.

We just saw Brit Nancy Pelosi saying what she really wants is to make all the illegals documented. She wants them. She went on Bill Maher and made this very clear because they're now pushing to help the illegals get homes there. They want the California taxpayers to help illegals get homes, which correct me if I'm wrong, but that could be considered a magnet.

Absolutely a magnet. So California legislature in their psychotic pushing of bills that are aimed against California citizens just passed. It's on it's going to be on Newsom's desk yet as until September 30th. And now to sign it, they passed, which means that our legislature.

politicians agreed and said, yes, we think this is a good legal idea to give illegal foreigners an opportunity to a $150,000 taxpayer paid. We paid for it. It's our money, $150,000 loan that may never need to be paid back. It's the writing is so ambiguous in this law. And

Here you have Nancy Pelosi asked about it on Bill Maher, and she goes so far to not only defend the $150,000 home loans for illegal foreigners, and we can't even afford homes in California as Californian citizens. She goes on to not only defend that, but then she says, you know, I think that all these undocumented should be documented.

That literally saying the quiet part out loud. This is how deranged California is. And we spit out insane politicians like Kamala Harris, who is now championing herself as something that she she never was. She'll California, the United States.

She sent out the tweet in 2017 saying there's no such thing as an illegal undocumented person. She doesn't believe that they've committed any sort of a crime. And indeed, there is such a thing. She doesn't, I guess, know that the law does not allow unauthorized entry. And if you cross that border without permission and just waltz into the country and try to stay here, you have committed a crime.

On the subject of her fakeness, Xavier, she does do, I haven't heard the John Wayne yet, but she has been busting out the accent depending on who she's talking to. We cut these soundbites the other day and played them. And it sounds very different, right? She's front of a largely black audience in Detroit and she's got, she's dropping the R's at the end of her words. And then she goes to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and she sounds like her normal self again. Here are two examples with those butted soundbites showing the difference.

Let's just get through the next 64 days. So friends, 64 days until the most election of our lives. You better thank a union member. You better thank a union member for leave. You better thank a union member for paid leave. You better thank a union member for vacation time. You may not be a union member, but thank unions for the five day work week.

Oh my God, I have secondhand embarrassment. For the eight hour workday, thank unions for sick leave and paid family leave and vacation time. What do you make of it? You know, I've never seen someone rebrand in every single room quite as well as Kamala Harris. She is going to change her dialogue, her accent, her backstory. It's all going to cater to who she's trying to pander to that day. And I don't know why she thinks that works. We don't care anymore.

at this point, what you sound like or what your accent is sounding like. We don't need to hear your black scent, quote-unquote. We want to know what you're going to do for our economy. We want to know what you are going to do to actually turn our country around. But instead, you want to try to act like this sister girl, auntie Kamala, and...

talk about how you're cooking collard greens. Like, it is insulting to us at this point. I feel like America has moved far beyond being tolerant of all of this pandering, especially after the whole Hillary Clinton debacle because it reminds me of when Hillary was saying she has hot sauce in her bag because all of a sudden she's this huge Beyonce fan. It's mortifying. And she's a chameleon and it reflects in her lack of

but really the policies that she claims to stand behind. Every time she's in a different room, she seems to have a different set of values, and that is continuously exposing itself, especially because Kamala Harris has social anxiety. I don't think enough people have broken that down. Kamala Harris, if you look at the reports, because we all remember how she had over 90% staff turnover, and if you look at what...

so many of her former staff members said about her is that she's extremely insecure. She would have to do rehearsals anytime that there was a meeting or a dinner or she was supposed to be around someone powerful. She had to do these rehearsals because she does not know who she is and she is insecure. So what she does is she tries to pander and cater to the audience because she's so desperate for people to like her and throughout her entire career, that has never been the case because she's a wildly unpopular, untalented politician.

That's so interesting and well said because it's not just her, Britt. She's whatever her issue is, got anxiety or just anxiety that she's going to be exposed as a know-nothing. And then you've got her running mate who he's just as scared as she is. He also hasn't given any interviews. And I'm sure you saw this the other day.

But somebody asked him at the Minnesota State Fair, he was taking like fun questions about the fair. And they asked him about the American hostage and the Israeli hostages who were killed at the hands of Hamas. And he ran, he ran like a chicken on the farm. Watch. He heard it.

He said, thanks, everybody. He turned and he got the heck out of there. Only later did he then release a paper statement. It was a post on X acknowledging how awful this murder was of an American hostage, not to mention the five Israelis.

He he it's shameful. He is a shameful person. He is unfit to be in it. Holding public office certainly is unfit to hold the office of vice president of the United States of America. And it's the same thing that he did to the soldiers. He turned his back and left.

in a crisis moment when he was most needed. In that moment at the fair where he's talking about, I don't even know he was talking about a chicken leg or something. Apparently that too is Walz Harris's campaign. Is there a cooking show, food show? That's what they talk about. They still have no policies on their website. So he could not be interrupted to talk about a kid who,

an American citizen who had been held hostage for one year by Hamas and was found brutally murdered with a bullet to the back of his head. He couldn't be bothered. He wanted to go back to his soft serve. And so he waved him off just like he did to the brothers that he left behind when they went to Afghanistan. He's deplorable and very shameful.

There's no courage. That's what's so telling about that clip, Xavier. He doesn't have the courage to just stand up in the moment. I understand Kamala Harris is the chief messenger on the Harris-Walls ticket. However, as a human, you know exactly what to do in that moment. You say, my God, it's awful. And I have nothing but empathy and sympathy in my heart for the families of the victims.

And I'm keeping them in my prayers today. And that's it. That's all you say. The fact that he was too afraid to even say that shows how unsteady and fearful he is, just like his boss.

Absolutely. You couldn't have said it any better. Anyone that has any kind of American pride or really is just a human being with any sense of emotion would know how to handle that type of situation. But he runs away like a coward because he had to go and get a talking point approved by the administration. And it shows how afraid these people are to stand on any sort of pretext.

principle, or any foundation of values. I am so happy that Trump is going and doing these live interviews and going on podcasts like he was just on the Lex Friedman podcast. And he is off the cuff. He's being genuine. He's communicating for over an hour. And I guarantee he didn't have an insane amount of prep because these are principles that he actually stands on. He's able to answer questions. Kamala and Tim Walz, they cannot answer questions. They can't

They can't show remorse for American citizens that are dying because they're afraid that they're going to make the free Palestine, musty terrorists crowd mad. These people are cowardly. They have no core principles. And I don't know how more Americans aren't seeing through that. If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything. And that's exactly what America will do if we have four more years of Kamala Harris in office.

You know, the Lex Friedman interview was brave of Trump. This is a very smart guy. Trump's smart too, but you just don't know where he's going to go. Sitting down with somebody who doesn't do nothing but politics all day subjects you to like, oh, it could go anywhere. Same with Theo Vaughn. And here is just a little bit of how it went when he sat with Lex. There's a lot of people listening to this, myself included, that doesn't think that Kamala is a communist. Well, she's a Marxist.

Her father is a Marxist. That's right. And she's advocating for some policies that are towards the direction of democratic socialism, let's say. But there's a lot of people that kind of know the way government works and they say, well, none of those policies are going to actually come to reality. It could come to reality. Look, I mean, she came out with price control. It's been tried like 121 different times at different places over the years.

And it's never worked once. It leads to communism. It leads to socialism. It leads to having no food on the shelves. And it leads to tremendous inflation.

Pretty good. Gosh dang. Trump is so good. He's so good there. You could not put Kamala in a seat like that unscripted for over, you know, 10 minutes. Trump's sitting for hours. Didn't he just do a live stream with another? I'm not into the whole live stream. Yes. Like Sean Ryan, too.

You know what that tells me? It tells me that Trump is real, that he knows who he is. If he's willing to sit in a chair unscripted for an hour with someone who's going to throw any random Gen Z question at him and he is unbiased,

fully prepared to just sit there and be who he is. It shows me that he knows who he is. I don't think Kamala Harris knows who she really is. I think that there are handlers behind her who have propped her up for 20 years, the same with walls. And that makes me incredibly nervous to have a leader who does not know who they are and relies on the outsiders who handle them.

Speaking of he, he knows who he is. Okay. I've got to get this in. I knew you were coming and we had to do a little culture because we haven't done any culture at all on the show for a long time. This has been all politics. Bring it. It's time. Can we please talk about the bachelor contestant who now says he's a woman, which we all know on this show is not possible, sir. Um, he is claiming that he's a woman and

But some believe it's all a big troll. Okay, he has full body tattoos, which he shows off. He has short hair, like man hair. He has facial hair. Look at this. Look at this guy. It's unbelievable what they can call a woman these days. Josh Sider, 37, former Bachelorette star. He was on season 11 of the TV show in 2015 from Chicago, Texas.

And as of this past May, claims he's a transgender woman. If you just substitute fake for trans, you can follow. He's a trans woman, which means he's fake. And he now has revealed he's not on hormone medication and is unsure if he will get surgery, but we're supposed to be treating him like he's a woman.

Woman, here's a little bit of him talking about the dangerous situations he's faced now that, now that he's one of us, Brett.

sat 34. hi everyone i just wanted to talk today about being aware of dangerous situations that women can often find themselves in now that i'm a woman i'm always aware of what's going on around me and when my guard needs to go up um the other day i was working out and a man came up to me and he made a comment about my muscular physique and that just

That just sent shockwaves through my body. Thinking back to when I used to want to look like a man and fit into heteronormative expectations for my body.

And that's not good. See, if I'm in a public space like a park where there's lots of families, traditional families with kids, and they're being overly touchy-feely with each other, that can trigger my past trauma from childhood. And I really have to be aware of putting myself into situations like that. Britt, thoughts on that?

Oh, you're coming to me hot. Okay. I saw it. And I, I fully like believed he believes he's a woman. And so I responded to it by just saying like, this is this is gross. And I

My guard is way up, is what I said. And I actually posted his little video onto my social media. And right away, people, it was so divided. People were coming in saying he's the greatest troll on earth. And then other people were coming in saying, oh, my gosh, he is so deranged. Like, this is what he's pushing. It's so sad what happened to him. I watched him when he was on The Bachelor.

And then someone said something that I thought like it nails it. They said the fact that people are torn on this underscores the insanity in modern society.

We no longer know if insanity is real or manufactured. And I thought, that's it. That's exactly it. Because how is he any different than Dylan Mulvaney? Dylan Mulvaney did his girls 360 days of girlhood, which could have been the greatest troll on earth.

But he was he was serious. He really thought that he was spending his first year as a girl. So how is it any different? It's it is so detached from reality and so insane. And I think that's the feature. It's not the bug. It's meant to completely confuse us. It's meant to make us think I don't even know what's real or what's not real anymore. So I can't say anything. And no, we should we should keep saying this is insane. It's insane whether he thinks

that he really is a woman or if he is trolling to show how insane it is, it is insane.

It's offensive. I keep thinking back, Xavier, to the whole blackface discussion. It's like, okay, everyone always knew, well, not always, but in recent history, everybody always knew that that minstrel show blackface was a hard no, very racist. But then some people said, well, you know, putting black makeup on or brown makeup to go out on Halloween, that could be something that's meant to honor somebody that's not as offensive.

is this any different from minstrel show blackface? The whole thing is designed to mock and diminish us. No actual trans person would look like that or behave like that. He's making a mockery of women. And yet we're supposed to sell it. I don't give a shit whether he's trolling or not. I don't think he is, but I, what do I know? I don't know this person at all.

But there's a totally different reaction from all those same leftists who like to lecture us normally. So I actually have some insider information on this that I've never said publicly because I've been trying to not give this too much attention. But Josh and I have followed each other for about two years. And I have seen his mental health struggles go up and down. Like one day he's super, super pro-Trump. The next day he's feeling like he wants to be liberal because he's bisexual. So he was kind of going back and forth. But I was following just for the plot.

because it was entertaining and I'm a little messy. So a few months back, he posted this really cryptic message saying goodbye. And I was concerned because I'm like, is he about to attempt suicide or something? So I messaged him just being like, hey, just checking, are you okay? Please don't do anything drastic. And he told me that he was fine and that he would reach back out to me in a few days. A few days later, he comes out as...

And told me that he was doing an experiment to see or to showcase how the left is way more intolerant than the right. And he actually asked me if I would be willing to be a part of his grand reveal. And I cannot verbally express enough how quickly I closed out of that DM because I do not want to be affiliated, associated, or entertained.

this because it is so disrespectful to women. And if anybody should be super mad about it, it's the transgender community because he's making them look that much crazier, which I didn't think was possible after Dylan Mulvaney. But all of this, it's a facade. But I will say with his mental health issues that were pre-existing,

It does seem like a combination of trolling and reality because I do believe this 100% started as trolling. But then at some point, I feel like the attention he was getting gave him the validation that he was missing because he's always looking for attention. And now I think he's going to eventually reveal that he's never been planning to transition. But I do think he is soaking up the embrace he's getting from the woke left because he should know good and well by now, no one on the right is going to entertain that insanity.

No. Oh my gosh, Britt. That plot twist. Plot twist. Now we know. We have it here on Good Authority. I have the receipt. All right. I've got 40 seconds left, Britt, in that time. There is a pregnant Mrs. America contestant. She made it into the top six. What do you think of it as a former pageant queen?

I know. I'm so proud of her. And I'm happy to see womanhood celebrated in this way. You know, womanhood can be shown and showcased in so many different ways. But I love that we have a pregnant mama who's a Mrs. America competing on the stage and just doing her thing with a big old baby bump. I love it. It gives me a good feeling. I love it. I

I agree. There's probably a different, you know, chapter of our history where she would have felt pressure to drop out or not have that baby. And to have made this choice and parade your baby bump proudly reminds us that's actually, there's nothing more beautiful. Great to see you both, you guys. Thank you so much. Thank you, Megan. What a show. I'm exhausted. Are you exhausted from listening? My God, I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

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.

Get ready to tackle the NFL action with FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. Because right now, new customers can bet $5, get 300 in bonus bets if you win. Make every moment more with FanDuel, an official sportsbook partner of the NFL. 21 plus and present in Arizona. First online real money wager only. $5 first deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets which expire seven days after receipt.

Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342.