Vetting Kamala and VP Options, Olympics Boxing Gaslighting, and Trump Lawfare Update, with Glenn Beck, Mark Halperin, and John Lauro | Ep. 855
01:37:17 Share

Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart. We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at phrma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma.

Get ready to twist and shout! From now to September 28th, MGM National Harbor invites you to journey through time with our latest kiosk game series, Retro Riches! Sign up for MGM rewards to play and explore iconic games, settings, and prizes straight out of the jukebox diner era. Win up to $25,000 in free play daily and entries into our Pops Legendary card drawing on September 28th. Learn more at mgmnationalharbor.com.

Must be 21. Please play responsibly. For help, visit mdgamblinghelp.org or 1-800-GAMBLER. 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. We have a packed show for you today. Later, we have an exclusive interview with former President Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, to go through some crucial updates in the D.C. case against him, which has just resumed. And Judge Chutkan seems ready to go, notwithstanding this immunity ruling from the Supreme Court that said he's got immunity for many of the acts he's accused of in that case. We'll get into it. And we're also going to get into the

Absolutely disgusting gaslighting the media is doing to us over these Olympic boxers. This is so effed up. They're male. Do not let anyone tell you anything different. They're male.

And the IOC and its media enablers are running cover for that fact out of, quote, inclusion concerns. Their inclusion means men get to punch women in the face for entertainment. That's what's happening in Paris.

I will get to that in just a bit. We're going to start with some politics and with the economy, which is a hot mess at the moment. And we're going to get to more of that with Glenn Beck. But it's coming. All right. Because I've been spending the week trying to correct the record on this. People are just out of their minds. We start.

with a bigger picture. And that's the latest in 2024 politics. Vice President Kamala Harris, now down to the wire on her VP pick. We think it's gonna happen any minute now. And she's expected to begin campaigning with this person tomorrow in Philadelphia. Does that mean it's gonna be Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro?

He is Jewish. And as a result of all the Jewishness continues to be the focus of attacks because in the Democrat party now that's controversial. The very fact that you're Jewish could be held against you. Now they've gone back to pull his college writings when he was 20 years old. And they're unhappy that he said things like, I don't think peace is ever really going to be possible there. Oh, was he wrong? It's so peaceful right now.

We've got a campaign against him right now from some progressive groups that's called No Genocide Josh. Why? What's the evidence that he's pro-genocide? It's that-

He didn't like when a Jewish store was specifically targeted in New York City by these rabid protesters following Israel's response. He didn't think it was right to target some American Jewish deli. So that makes him pro genocide. And he also said the protests on campus at UPenn had gone too far. Didn't that lady get fired?

For not controlling the protests on her camp? Like, okay. I mean, look, I'm not in the business of shilling for Josh Shapiro, but just so you know, that's the guy they're calling No Genocide Josh. That's where the Democrat Party is right now.

Plus, we had new bombshell reporting over the weekend, first broken by the Daily Mail, I believe, on second gentleman Doug Emhoff and his affair during his first marriage. Not to Kamala. There was a woman before her. And it's very interesting. Normally, honestly, I could be honest. I don't really give a shit about Doug Emhoff's first marriage or what happened between these two who wound up friends. What

What I do care about is his preaching and lecturing to the rest of us on what it means to be toxic, toxically masculine. And now he's going to be the spokesman to undo that. Is it, is it toxic masculinity to F around on your first life with your first wife, with your children's nanny, um, and then get her pregnant? Cause that seems more toxic to me than, you know, some of the things he might call that.

What does it all mean for the Harris candidacy? We begin today with Mark Halperin. He's founder of Wide World of News, Substack. And he's been working his sources all morning to try to break some news right here, just like he's been doing for weeks now. Some big, big scoops by Mark. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community.

change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 330 academic programs as of December 2023, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu. Mark, welcome back to the show. What a crazy time in our political landscape. And the big search is on. And, you know, for the VP, we understand she met with the final four contenders, Kamala did, and was...

had at least some suggestion made to her by her staff, or at least they were edging closer to it. And you have been closer to this reporting than anybody. So what can you tell us? Megan, good to be back. Look, picking a running mate is a fraught situation for anybody. But consider the circumstances under which this person, who is historically not a great decision maker and particularly not a great decision maker under pressure, is making the decision.

Number one, the economy around the world now is in peril. Number two, Iran could strike Israel today. Those are substantive issues that as vice president, she's got to be at least somewhat involved in. But obviously the political implications of those could be huge. Next, she's doing all this on an accelerated timeline. The process is filled with landmines because they're vetting these people quickly. And lastly, she's doing it on a weekend when something extremely personal was exposed about her husband.

And when top Democrats tell me that the big story here is not will they get the vetting right on the vice president, but have they sufficiently vetted their accidental presidential nominee? People make the mistake all the time of saying you've been governor of Texas, you've been governor of Arkansas, you've been vice president. Of course, you've been vetted. Of course, your background is clean now. Everything that's going to come out will come out.

It's just not the case. And we've seen examples of this with George W. Bush when he ran for president, Bill Clinton when he ran for president. And there's concern that no one's looked enough into her background to say with 90 days to go, could one disclosure that wouldn't hurt Donald Trump because Donald Trump and Bill Clinton play by different rules, would one disclosure threaten to have an endgame surprise that could cost them the White House? Whoa.

That's significant. So there could be something on Kamala Harris that would be problematic to her campaign. Forget the VP for a second.

Well, so it could be problematic because the public would say we don't like that. But that's less likely. Look at what happened this weekend. Right. Is it kind of crazy that the first gentleman who's one of the most visible vice presidential spouses in American history, this story never came out until now. Right. That's kind of weird. What prompted it to come out? So are we saying that nothing else that the vice president or her husband ever did?

ever did, which didn't come out before, might come out now. I just that defies history, defies what just happened this weekend. She's not a great decision maker. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, both before they were president and after they were elected, shamelessly survived things that no mortal politician could. They have no shame. They're brilliant at fighting back. The press treats them differently. You could take the exact same hypothetical story about Donald Trump disclosure. He stole a million dollars from a library.

and put that on Kamala Harris, it wouldn't be covered the same way because Trump has done everything, right? Trump has already been accused of everything. It's priced into the stock. She's not very well known despite being vice president, and she's in danger of more disclosure. And again, she's not great under pressure historically, and she's not the kind of person who's lived her life in a fishbowl the way Donald Trump has well before he ran for office.

She's really a relatively private person. Just to make clear, Mark, because they're vetting her at the same time as they're vetting the VP nominee, not because they want anything, but because they know the Republicans are doing the same thing. I don't know. I hear mixed things about whether they're doing it. What I hear concern is, hey, we're vetting all these people to put on the ticket, right? But that's not necessarily what could bring the ticket down. What could bring the ticket down is insufficient vetting of the top of the ticket rather than the insufficient vetting of the running mate. Because again, as...

as is evidenced by the fact that Kamala Harris was a candidate for vice president. They say, I don't have confirmation of this, and I don't really like when reporters just take it as truth. They say, the campaign does, that this was disclosed to the Biden campaign in 2000 as part of her betting. It wasn't publicly disclosed, but that they disclosed it to the campaign. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But this was not something that was pushed into the public realm

When she ran for vice president, right? This could have been a story four years ago and it happened already. And yet it wasn't.

And so what some people are saying is, do we need to make sure there's because remember, she didn't run for the nomination. Often stuff gets pushed out in the competitive party fight for the nomination. That's where we learned about Bill Clinton, for instance, dodging the draft and about Jennifer Flowers. That happened in the context of a competitive Democratic primary where the press and the opponents of that person look into it, whether they're Republicans or Democrats. She didn't have that. She became the nominee in about 12 hours. No primaries, no caucuses, no competitive process.

That means that even though she was vice president and vetted for that, even though she ran for vice president, we're dealing with a different standard here. And when people say to me, as some have, well, that's hypothetical. It's not. It happened this weekend. We learned something pretty big this weekend that we never knew before. I mean, it is pretty big. And I mentioned this in the intro. I'm generally of the view at this point in life, like this is two marriages removed for the guy. He gets along with the ex-wife. Whatever happened between them has been forgiven. Okay, that's...

human frailty and a very bad decision on his part. However, this is the thing. He's out there constantly playing the charming, loving husband, the guy that all women could respect and would want to spend time with, you know, not a threat at all to anybody else's marriage. And really the judger of all men, he understands everything.

toxic masculinity. And of course, the presumption is in a way that Trump and MAGA do not. They're hashtag part of the problem. Let me just play the soundbite and I'll get your reaction. It's not one. Talk about masculinity for a moment. Has being second gentleman changed your own view of perceived gender roles or what it means to be a man?

This is something I've thought about a lot and something I've spoken about a lot. There's too much of toxicity, masculine toxicity out there. And we've kind of confused what it means to be a man, what it means to be masculine, where you've got this trope out there that you've got to be tough and angry and lash out to be strong. It's just the opposite. Strength is how you show your love for people.

Okay. I, this is so annoying. So is it toxically masculine to F around on your wife with your child's nanny to get the nanny pregnant and then to have either an abortion with this woman or to abandon the child entirely? Is that toxically masculine or is it worse to send out a mean tweet asking for a friend? Let me know. Second gentleman. Go ahead, Mark.

Right. So, so first of all, I'm not sure we know for sure that the woman was, got pregnant. I don't think that's established and wasn't acknowledged. I think it is. Really? I mean, the Daily Mail has got a lot on here. It's a lot. Even in the Daily Mail story. And he didn't deny it.

Well, he didn't deny it, but he didn't acknowledge it. And even the Daily Mail story is a little ambiguous. But leaving that aside, I agree with your first two points and I want to make a third. I agree with you. Happened a while ago. Personal life, presumption of grace. He's not the candidate. I agree with all that. I also agree with your point that he is way out there on issues related to this and he should sit for an interview and explain himself.

talk about how he reconciles his public statements like the one you just showed with his own conduct the other point though and i think for just the analysis of where this race is remember the vice president now is dealing with lots of things she's dealing with israel she's dealing with iran she's done with the economy she's dealing with picking a running mate she's dealing with the convention planning there's a lot going on in her life imagine the personal turmoil this weekend

And if I'm right, that people are concerned about other potential things. It's not just how's my husband being covered? How am I being covered? That's for most Americans. What she went through this weekend just on this story would be the most pressure filled, traumatic moment of their life. Every news organization in the country more or less covering this to some extent. She's not impervious to that. She couldn't be. She wouldn't be human if she is.

And so that to me is, if you're talking about the election and who's going to win rather than making a judgment about him, which I told you, I agree with you on your two points, that to me is a pretty big deal because that's a lot of pressure. And historically, I've said it several times, I think it's important. It should not have been great making decisions under pressure. Just to go back, the Daily Mail says Kamala Harris' husband's first marriage ended after he got his children's nanny pregnant.

that the second gentleman cheated on his first wife, Kirsten, with the blonde nanny who also taught at the Children's Pricey Private School. The woman, the affair partner,

did not deny the story when approached by Daily Mail. She would not comment except to say, I'm kind of freaked out right now. A close friend with direct knowledge of the affair and the pregnancy told Daily Mail that this woman did not keep the child, though we don't know what that means. Does that mean she gave it up for adoption or she had an abortion? Yeah. Though her social media shows a video of a mysterious baby girl named Brooke in 2009, the year the baby would have been born, does not appear from what I read here that this little girl, that this

this woman has a little girl who would have been born in 2009. That little girl would be 14 years old now. So I don't know what happened to the baby, but the Daily Mail report is very clear that according to them, there absolutely was a pregnancy. I don't want to impugn the repertorial style of the Daily Mail, but I read the story really carefully. And although you read a part that said there was a pregnancy and they claimed to have an anonymous source who says there was, if you read the totality of the story, it's not clear. It's not proven within the story to my satisfaction.

If I were writing that story, I wouldn't have written it the way they did based on what they say their reporting was. There's no evidence of a human being and there's no one saying she had an abortion. So it doesn't quite add up. They have another friend. Just just just to clear. I'm not trying to argue with. I just want to make sure the audience knows what you and I know. Yeah, of course. They say another friend with intimate knowledge of the scandal confirmed the affair, but told the Daily Mail that this woman, the affair partner, did not keep the baby.

One source claimed that Emhoff, that's the second gentleman, had a financial settlement with the affair partner and that she left her school job due to the hushed up scandal. Then they say that this affair partner is currently caring for a baby and a toddler. Now, I had a baby in 2009. That baby is now 14. So there's no mention of her having a 14-year-old. So, I mean...

We're going to find out. This is all no, it's just a matter of time before we know all these facts. Megan, I'm not saying she didn't get pregnant. I'm not saying whether she had an abortion or not. I don't have any idea. All I'm saying is the way I read that story, the sourcing is not sufficient for me. And there's no baby. There's no 14-year-old. And it wasn't confirmed by anybody named in a position to know. They assert two sources in a position to know. But it's not proven to my satisfaction. I don't think it necessarily matters for the dynamics we're talking about. But

I just don't feel comfortable just acknowledging, of course, he got her pregnant because it's not confirmed in a way to my satisfaction. It matters. It matters on a couple levels. One of one of which is there's no bigger cheerleader for abortion in America than Kamala Harris.

You know, she's the only sitting vice president to go to a Planned Parenthood. And this is still a very tricky issue, because while there are many there are millions and millions of Americans who are pro-choice actively going to Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions on demand and sometimes it appears with glee, is more controversial. And that seems to be the boat in which Kamala Harris wants to row. So it just makes it a little more controversial.

I don't know, unseemly, right? Like, gee, how'd you come by your affinity for abortion? Could it have been you're super psyched your husband doesn't have this third child running around from his first marriage?

Well, I don't think that's the reason she supports abortion rights. But I take your point. I'm not saying it's meaningless if it's true. I'm just saying the bigger issues for me in terms of the distraction and the pressure on her and the question of his own need to explain his conduct in light of his public advocacy. All those are true, whether there was a pregnancy or not. Totally agree. And here's the craziness, because they've spent the past two weeks telling us that J.D. Vance is a weird misogynist.

because he's made the childless cat lady comments. What are they going to say about him now? Is he going to get the same treatment that JD Vance got for a throwaway comment for a defensive comment after all these attacks were being launched on motherhood and parenthood? And he came out and said, hey, you know, it's not so bad. I don't want to be lectured to by childless cat ladies. I doubt it, Mark.

He won't. I mean, the press has been in a two-week-plus cheering mode for the Harris ticket. They've reverted back to the normal posture they have of supporting the Democratic nominee, particularly if the Republicans don't want Trump.

the coverage of it lasted a day. And maybe, maybe the New York times and Washington post have their investigative teams on it to try to do more than just, you know, right with the daily mail road and then included Doug Amos reaction maybe, but, but I don't get the feel that this is being sustained. It was nowhere in broadcast television by Sunday and Monday. So I,

I like it wouldn't have been if this had been, you know, a Trump. Correct. Correct. Prior relationship or a J.D. Vance. Or even a Melania. It'd be everywhere. It would be everywhere. Let's talk about VP possibilities, because all this incoming on Josh Shapiro. It's crazy to me that they're trying to make it a deal breaker that when he was in college in 1993 and 20 years old, he wrote, Mideast peace will never come.

Palestinians will not coexist peacefully. They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland. The only way a peace plan will be successful is if the Palestinians do not ruin it. Absolutely every word of that is true. It was true then, it's true now. But now he has to disavow it. And he was 20. But now he's got to disavow it, saying, oh, gee, I was only 20, my views changed. Well, which part changed? Because they don't see him all that peaceful present day. Yeah.

He this is such a complicated situation. I think the bottom line for me now, even though I still think he's the most likely to be picked and there are people in his world who sent signals for almost a week now that they think they believe he is the choice and it's just a matter of time.

The first rule of picking a running mate, as you know, making his do no harm. Don't pick someone who's going to hurt the ticket. At this point, it's hard to make the argument as talented as the guy he is. It's hard to make the argument that you can pick him without risking doing harm, because if you pick him, you're going to have segments of the party upset. One person who's who's in a position to really care about this decision said, OK,

You can't have a successful convention if he's on the ticket because the left will go crazy and they'll protest inside and outside the hall. And it will ruin the momentum and the excitement around her candidacy within the Democratic Party. And she must have a good convention. And this is a person who loves Josh Shapiro, very sympathetic to him.

I think that if she doesn't pick him now, she's created, she and her campaign have created a no-win situation. If they pick him, it's going to be extremely controversial. He's not just being opposed over his position on Israel and for his religion.

John Fetterman seems to oppose him, his own senator, simply because he says he's too ambitious, which is kind of a funny thing for one politician to say about another. There's complaints about his labor record. Some people don't want him to get it because they favor one of the other prospects. There's lots of reasons there are people are opposing him. Bernie Sanders is opposed as opposed to him because he likes Governor Minnesota. But if she doesn't pick him, I think she'll face a backlash to a lot of centrists. A lot of American Jews will feel he was not picked because she caves the pressure of the left.

And as you know, one of the big issues for the next 90 days is will she stand up to the left on anything or would you stand up to the left on nothing? And at this point, she switched some issue positions quietly. But this would be a very high profile in the view of many, a very high profile concession caving to the left to say, I'm not picking the guy who would probably help me win the state. We must win because the left doesn't want me to pick him.

What do we make of this Philadelphia mayor releasing this ad on Friday? Was it it's yeah, they claimed it was inadvertent and she was just pushing for Josh Shapiro to be the running mate. But the ad definitely sounded like when you'd release post announcement. Yeah, she she was saying he's the running mate. So was this in what was this?

Yeah, well, it was just a web video. It wasn't a paid ad. I think I don't know the circumstances of that. But as I said to you earlier, there are other people in his world who are big supporters of his who work for him, who have slipped up at various times in the last week and said to people, you know, it's Josh, like, get ready. So I've heard of other ones that are unambiguous.

Although in some cases they tried to take it back or swore people to secrecy. This one, I think, I think, I think you can read the video as her simply rooting for him as opposed to knowing it was him. I find it hard to believe they told the mayor that it was going to be him and she would go make a video. I just, I just don't think they did. She does not seem like a person who they would entrust with the palace keys, but we'll find out. Actually, just, just breaking. We'll find out tomorrow. Vice president Kamala Harris expected

This is NBC News to reveal her VP pick Tuesday ahead of their first rally together in Philadelphia that evening. Do we read anything about the fact that it's Philadelphia? No, I mean, I think I thought for a while it's going to be Shapiro and I still do. So, you know, it makes sense. But they're going to all the battleground states and, you know, they're going east to west. If she announced it today and this is, I think, the reason for the departure based on conversations I had earlier.

It could literally be the third story on the news between the economy and a potential Iranian strike on Israel. It'd be unprecedented. I haven't done the research, but I'm pretty sure historically when a running mate for a major party candidate is named, it's the lead story. So if you think you're going to pick strong, you're going to ride the wave of excitement for a week,

You don't want it to be the third story. And it might still be the third story tomorrow, but it almost certainly would be the third story today if Israel is hit and given what's going on in world markets. So I don't know that they want to take that risk and that could be the reason. But the other reason could be she's not ready to pick because this is a hard decision now.

I was originally told they were going to tell people on Sunday. So my sources were right. They've already delayed it a day. And now, you know, what I was Alperin's third rule of Congress applies to Kamala Harris. No decision is made until it absolutely must be. And sometimes not even that. Just to put some icing on the cake here, the nonprofit Institute for Middle East Understanding, which is a pro-Palestinian group, is calling him actively calling him

a racist saying his very, really lately, it's such a hard word, racist comments calling Palestinians battle-minded and Arabs belligerent. Um, they've reignited the grief and isolation Palestinian Arab and Muslim Democrats feel, uh,

And then they're mad that he volunteered with the Israeli military back when he was in high school. They say when human rights abuses against Palestinians were being widely reported. Now he's trying to beg off of that saying, oh, I went on a kibbutz in Israel. I worked for a farm and a fishery. And the program included volunteering on service projects in the Israeli at on an Israeli army base.

He wasn't involved in active military activities, but he himself had said, I was a past volunteer in the Israeli army. So I hate politicians, Mark. I just, I hate them. They just, no one stands by what they earlier said. Just be all right. They all do it. Okay. Let's, let's move on though. Enough about Shapiro, Mark Kelly.

possibly dropping down on the list, according to our pal Eliana Johnson of the Free Beacon. Why? And she refreshes the Free Beacons 2020 reporting, and it has to do with his former wife. He's described his divorce from the woman he was married to prior to Gabby Giffords as amicable. But court records, the Beacon reports contradict that description.

He asked a Texas court to jail his ex-wife, Amy Kelly, for six months after she moved to a new town a few miles outside of their children's school district. And he wanted all sorts of penalties against her for that decision. That's, I guess, potentially problematic for him. And there could be more. I heard Jim Garrity over on the editor's podcast say he's working on a piece for The Washington Post with a deep dive on Mark Kelly's problems and why he's not going to make the dance. What do you think?

Well, I've heard that too and related claims about his first marriage. He also had an investment related to China that makes a lot of Democrats uncomfortable and a lot of Republicans salivate. I don't know. I have not penetrated the vetters to know where their concern was. But I know the arc of this was he was very much under consideration. I thought he was the most likely early on in this process. Then I was told he was out of contention and the two things cited were the two things I just mentioned.

Over the weekend, I was told he was back in it. And I think I think what this is not an uncommon thing. You saw this, for instance, with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. There's a clear front runner and they're sort of settling in on that. And then at the last minute, the opposition says, don't pick that person, don't pick that person. And the presidential nominee says, all right, let's look again at everybody. Let's make sure we're picking the right person. So I think he's been brought back into the mix under that dynamic.

And that, you know, they're there. It's not impossible. He'd become a fallback. But I don't believe they have a plan in place to handle those two PR issues. Bill Clinton taught me. Bill Clinton used to. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.

Bill Clinton used to say, if you want a perfect candidate, vote for someone else. There's no one perfect on this list. Everybody's going to have some things. The question is their upside. Who's got the greatest upside compared to the downside? Some people think Kelly's bio is enough and his national security experience is enough to say he's the best choice. But

He does have this downside and he's not a dynamic campaigner the way Josh Shapiro is. Josh Shapiro is one of the most, sorry about that. Josh Shapiro is one of the most dynamic campaigners I've ever seen really. And his upside is very big. The Kelly upside, people debate how big the Kelly upside is. I'm just not sure it's there.

Hmm. Um, yes, the problem with Josh Shapiro is as far as I see is he sounds just like Barack Obama, which is a problem because it's an affectation. It just seems so obviously an affect. Do we have that sound bite you guys?

where they're, Kelly McGuire cut it. All right, we're going to pull it over. I'll show you what I mean. But it's pretty remarkable how he's not playing his own game. He's trying to be like a white Obama. And it's so obvious, Mark. Well, look, everybody adopts their speaking style. To me, I hear a little Bill Clinton in it too.

But, you know, if you if you were put it this way, Megan, if you were going to be a baseball player and people said, boy, you swing a lot like Mickey Mantle, I would take that as a positive, not a negative. Or I'm going into broadcasting and I'm modeling I'm modeling myself on Megyn Kelly. Like you'd say, yeah, that's good. Go go with the success. So if he sounds like Barack Obama, he's just trying to be like Mickey Mantle or Megyn Kelly seems like a good idea to me.

But there's only one Mickey Mantle. There's only one Barack Obama. And you can't it's not like style like that. You can borrow. You can borrow. Rush. Rush Limbaugh taught me in broadcasting the power of pausing. Pausing is incredibly powerful. Right. So when I when I'm hosting, I pause all the time, just like Rush. And if somebody said he's stealing Rush's pauses, I'd say, yeah, Rush's pauses are incredible.

Amazing. So I just can't get that worked up. It sounds like Barack Obama. Those are available for the taking. Do we have it? Yeah. No, we don't have it. Okay. Nevermind. Well, eventually one day next year, we'll find it again. They're on YouTube.

Let's we, we, I have a whole set of people who cut it and put it together, which I just can't play for you for some reason right now. Um, all right. So what do you make of the final two people judge who apparently was back in the running? They said he met with her and then, um, Walt's the guy from Minnesota who you mentioned Bernie Sanders backed him, but very, very progressive. Like, isn't she trying to pretend she's actually more middle of the road? Why would she go for, even though he's folksy and he's from Minnesota, the Midwestern guy, why would she go with him? Double down on the progressiveness.

I got a hilarious email from a Democrat from Minnesota who said this guy was a complete failure in the aftermath of the George Floyd killing. He's not a very good politician in terms of his electoral results. He's been governed. He was more moderate when he was in the House. I think that the reason to go to waltz is to just it's basically the Tim Kaine model. You know, Ari Fleischer tweeted yesterday, every vice presidential nominee is treated with this extreme enthusiasm. And what a great choice they were. Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, et cetera. Al Gore.

Tim Cain, the reaction to Tim Cain was like the reaction to taking a subway ride. It just wasn't that effusive. I think if they went with Waltz, that's what it would be. Labor likes him.

Nancy Pelosi likes him. Bernie Sanders likes him. It would just be basically to say this guy's had military experience. He's got governing experience. He's qualified to be president. Check the box, move on and get probably nothing out of it. But that's a model. I mean, that's what Hillary Clinton did. If you think you don't need anything, you go with the safe choice. Now, I'm not sure it's a safe choice. I think when the left of the party sees his record on Israel issues where he's

done things with netanyahu he's done things with aipac he's not that far from josh shapiro in israel i think the left would be would be a little surprised by that when they find it but i think his the the the the uh recommendation of him despite his being liberal as a governor is he's not gonna he's gonna do no harm they think now again i think he might do some harm for some of the things i just said but that's the that's the uh that's the rationale for picking him i think

Well, I look forward to the media giving each of these guys the same treatment as JD Vance got for him. They just had cable news hits to go through for all these guys. We have years of being in the public eye, doing hits on television shows, writing books, pushing policy proposals. So the vetting is going to be super vigorous. I'm sure by all those same outlets, we finally found Shapiro Obama. Let's watch.

You shared with me your fears and you told me about your hopes and you sent me to the Capitol to fight for you. I'm asking you to believe.

Not in my ability to bring about change, but in yours. When I was on your porches and at your doors, you talked to me about making sure we could breathe clean air and drink pure water. Who made the single largest investment ever in fighting against climate change. That is the choice in this election. Everyone here in the Commonwealth.

No matter what they look like, where they come from, who they love or who they pray to should have the freedom to chart their own course. The Democratic leaders who believe that the freedom to make these intimate personal decisions belong to every American, not politicians in Washington. GSD, we focus on getting shit done here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Oh, boy. Yes, we did. Yes, we can.

Yes, he can. Yes, he can. There's only one Barack Obama. I'm sorry, Josh. Making to believe dropping the G's off your words doesn't make you into Barack Obama. All right. Let's talk about this polling before I let you go. CBS drops a

shocking poll for team Trump. I'm sure maybe even for team Harris, likely voters. So we pay extra attention. Harris 50 Trump 49 nationally battlegrounds totally evened it up 50 50. Wow. Um, and then let's look at the battlegrounds of the same poll choice for president likely voters

It's even in every single battleground state. She's erased his lead in every single one of them, according to this latest poll. Michigan, 48, 48. Pennsylvania, 50, 50. Wisconsin, 49. Harris, 50. Trump, all that's within the margin of error. Arizona, 49, 49. Arizona, 49, 49. Georgia, Harris, 47. Trump, 50. Nevada, he was up by six not too long ago. Harris, 50. Trump, 48.

North Carolina, Harris 47, Trump 50. He's still looking good in North Carolina, but that's tighter than I've seen. I mean, my only note next to this mark is OMG.

Well, I did a long tweet, an X thread today about where I think things stand. The party did a smart thing switching out Harris for Biden because Biden had one path to 270 electoral votes before the debate and after the debate he had zero. So you're going to trade up and she has moved closer. There's no doubt that she's closer in the popular vote nationally and in most of the battleground states than Joe Biden was. But she still doesn't have any clear paths to 270. She has potential paths.

but Donald Trump has multiple paths. She's not putting any new states in play.

So we're talking now about seven states. Now, she probably has taken those next tier of states, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico. She's probably put those back safely in Democratic column. But I don't think it's still after the press coverage calms down a little bit, which I think it will after her VP pick in the convention. Let's get to Labor Day, kids back to school in the Northeast, and let's see where it is then. I suspect that it's going to be close, and I suspect that it's possible that it won't be close.

It'll be close in September, I think. But I think it's possible that either candidate can blow this out. And people say, well, that's kind of a cop-out. I'm just telling you where I think the race is.

This will be determined by whether she convinces people, particularly in light of the events of the last 24 hours. Can she be a good steward of a good economy? Can she be a commanding, determined and intimidating commander in chief? If she convinces enough voters in the swing states that those things are true, she'll win. And if she doesn't, she could be blown out. And we just don't know yet whether she's going to clear the bar on those two issues.

What a moment where we're on the precipice of a possible expanded war in the Middle East, already a powder keg region. And then, you know, as well as seeing our 401ks dive down to levels that are better not checked, you know, Trump is already all over it and calling it a Kamala crash.

And we don't know where that crash winds up. How low does it go? Glenn Beck is always great on these financial situations. He's here in just a moment. Mark, great to see you. Thanks for being here. Let me know if Glenn compares you to Mickey Mantle.

I'll get back to you. Only guests who do get repeat invitations on the show. Good to see you, Megan. Do you ever think, how can I work this hard and still be in debt? The piles of overdue bills, the threatening phone calls, never having money to do anything. If you are trapped in debt, done with debt can be a way out. They have developed aggressive new strategies to end your debt permanently.

Done with debt stands between you and your harassing bill collectors. They tirelessly negotiate with your creditors to lower or even forgive what you owe, and they do it all without bankruptcy or new loans. One client said, one phone call saved us a fortune. Wish we'd done this long ago.

Done with debt has unique strategies to get you out of debt faster and put more money in your pocket every month, but you do need to hurry because some debt solutions are time sensitive and you do not want to miss out. Visit donewithdebt.com. Speak with one of their debt relief strategists for free. What do you have to lose? Accept your debt. Go to donewithdebt.com. That's donewithdebt.com. Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company.

So, hard to tell apart. We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at phrma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma.

We've got to get what's happened to what's happening over in Paris with the Olympics and this boxer. I don't know about you, but I was flabbergasted at the amount of gaslighting going on in the media and by the IOC about the true sex of these two boxers who are competing in women's boxing. They're male. You trust me. I believe you trust me. You wouldn't be listening to the show. They're male.

They have XY chromosomes. They have testes. That's male, period. The IOC doesn't deny it, and we'll get to exactly how they're trying to thread the needle, but that's what you need to know. These are men competing as women. They're not trans, from what we understand. They suffer what's called DSDs, and that's a different thing, which we'll get into, but I'm going to walk you through it, okay? I'm going to give you the facts you need to know, but a little bit of background for you. First,

The IOC has been aware of this problem in women's boxing for years, and it's done nothing because its number one goal is, quote, inclusion. And it's made that clear. It's woke. It doesn't care about women's safety or women's fairness.

It just cares about making the trans or the DSDs feel welcome and safety of women be damned. But this particular case has escalated the matter because it's now in combat sports. Leah Thomas was bad enough that was swimming, but he was in his own lane. Now we're actually endangering women. This has been banned in sports like rugby because that's another combat sport.

And the entity that controls boxing for women, the International Boxing Federation, has also said this is a no-go and disqualified these two athletes before. And they notified the IOC that these are males. And the IOC ignored it. Its only response has been to attack the Boxing Federation.

and to say, you know, hands over the ears, it's not true. We're just not going to listen. They have female written on their passports. It's insane what they're doing. Let me kick it off with what we heard from Mark Adams, who's the IOC comms director last week when this controversy first erupted with the boxer from Nigeria. There's another one from Taiwan. Take a listen to him. SOT 21.

Okay, so they're female because he says they're female. By the way, Algeria, not Nigeria.

And they've competed as females for many years. He skips over the part where they were disqualified from worlds in 2023 for being men. Okay. So basically they got away with it for a number of years. Therefore they are female. That doesn't hold up. It got to the point where the organization that oversees women's boxing, the international boxing association felt the need to come out publicly.

and say the IOC is misleading you. And this just happened over the weekend. And they explained this past weekend that this thing started in Turkey in May of 2022 when they were in competition. Tests were taken and they said the results were inconsistent with femaleness. Next thing they knew,

They had championships in 2023 in New Delhi, India. The world championships come in New Delhi, India. Female world championships. There were 324 boxers from 64 nations. It was a 10-day competition. And Taiwan's Lin Youting and Algeria's Emman Khalif were two of those 324 boxers. Now, they and others. This is not that uncommon. It's not common, but it's not unheard of. For people participating in this sport and others like it,

to be concealing that they suffer from what are called DSDs, suspected differences of sexual development, differences of sexual development. We used to use the term hermaphrodite. Then they changed it to intersex. Now they go by DSDs. And what it means in this case is you're someone who's a male, you have XY chromosomes and testes, but you don't have descended testes and sometimes you don't have a penis. But then when you hit puberty, something might start growing.

But there's no doubt that in the vast majority of these cases, the guy knows he's a guy, at least by the time he hits puberty. And certainly these two know because they had an XY chromosome test done repeatedly, including a blood test, according to the officials in that world championships that told them they're men. They know they, according to the experts, would not have any female interior organs

you know, internal organs, no uterus, no ovaries, no fallopian tubes. There'd be no period, no breasts would grow. And that's consistent with what our eyes show us when we see these two compete, but they do have male testes that usually are undescended. So when they are born, they may look female in the genitalia. And therefore many of them are raised as girls in the beginning by well-meaning families who don't understand what they have here.

And then it becomes apparent later on as they continue to look more and more like boys. And then they hit puberty and often the testes do descend and something approaching a penis could start growing. And all of that deserves empathy and understanding and kindness and non-bullying. And I think we're all there. However, it gets a lot trickier when they enter female sports, especially combat sports, and then remain in them after they know. Because this is not a question of elevated testosterone.

They have perfectly normal testosterone for men, for men. They haven't done anything to manipulate their testosterone. It's not a matter of doping, you know, in a way it's a matter of biology. And this would be the same thing as an Olympian going and competing in the Paralympics.

That's not allowed. They have able bodies and you can't compete against people who don't have those same physical advantages. It would be unfair. We would recognize it clearly in that context. We choose not to hear because the IOC is woke. Let me go back to the facts. They were asked to take these further blood tests. They did. They demonstrated chromosomes. This is from the IBA, International Boxing Association presser, that we refer to as ineligible results. That was further ratified and they were removed.

He said, we've got a document that was sent to both boxers, refers to the blood test. We're not able to give the actual blood test results here due to medical privacy. But both boxers signed our letter to show receipt. They had seen the X, Y. Both had the opportunity to appeal. The Taiwanese fighter chose not to appeal. But Iman Khalif did appeal. And he said, we had further discussions with Iman and we paid for most of that appeal. But Iman dropped it.

And therefore it was never actually adjudicated. Now I ask you, if you were an actual female, why would you drop your appeal? You were deprived of boxing in the gold medal round. You had made it through all the other rounds. You're about to fight for gold and they DQ you for being male and you drop the appeal. Why?

Why isn't that in all the reporting? Wired. You've been absolutely disgusting. You're a tech magazine. For the love of God, stick to writing about computers because you don't know shit about fairness in sport. The IBA then sent a letter to the International Olympic Committee on June 5th, 2023, informing them of the test results. Summary, abnormal. Interpretation, chromosomal analysis reveals male karyotype, which means chromosome. Male chromosomes have been found.

What happens with the IOC? They come out and double down. They don't care. They couldn't care less that the Boxing Federation is saying they're men. We tested, it's a blood test, and we told the IOC, here is the IOC again trying to gaslight us. Thomas Bach, the worst. He's the president of the IOC on Saturday. Let's be very clear here. We are talking about women's boxing. And we have two boxers who are born as women.

who have been raised as a woman, who have a passport as a woman, and who have competed for many years as a woman. And this is the clear definition of a woman. There was never any doubt about them being a woman. And how can somebody being born, raised, competed and having a passport as a woman

cannot be considered a woman. That man sitting there knows that they tested positive via blood test for XY chromosomes. He's a liar. He's got an agenda. Moreover, the IOC at that presser came out, the same guy, and said, I repeat, this is not a DSD case. It's not a DSD case. Okay, so he's trying to say, no, they're not intersex, etc.,

This is about a woman taking part in a woman's competition. And I think I've explained this many times. Guess what happened after the presser? The IOC had to issue a paper correction. The correction reads as follows. He said, I repeat here, this is not a DSD case. What was intended was, I repeat here, this is not a transgender case.

That's it right there. That's the admission. It's a DSD case, which we know because they have XY chromosomes. They are men. It's not about elevated testosterone. It's about them being actual men, XY chromosomes, which you cannot get around.

The doctor for the IOC who's on the board of it is not the IOC, the International Boxing Federation. Dr. Ioannis Filippatos came out and said it explicitly. Listen to this. I try to say that the medical result, medical result, blood result looks and say the laboratories that this boxer is male.

So he gave it up, even though the first guy who spoke for the IBF was like, oh, it can't be specific because of privacy. Then on comes the doctor who's a board member for the Boxing Federation and says they're men. You've got not for nothing, but a guy named Alan Abramson, award winning sports writer, prior sports columnist for NBC News, saying he's seen the test himself and the letter, which the IBA concluded showed the boxers were male.

and said it shows that Iman Khalif has the DNA, which is that of a male consisting of XY chromosomes. The lab results for each athlete depict the XY chromosomes photographically, and on and on it goes. The proof is overwhelming, and the IOC was told.

There is no way around this. I am sorry that these two got all the way to the medal rounds. Now they're both guaranteed to medal because they've been beating women over and over and they did so well that they're going to win. I'm sorry that they were allowed to do that and were falsely led to believe it would be okay. It's not okay. It's not okay. The one woman who was defeated by one of these over the weekend, you saw her hold up the XX with the fingers XX trying to say, I'm a woman. This is a woman's competition.

And that's how it must remain if we are going to protect the safety of American women and all the other women who have to go into this already dangerous sport. This is not one of the risks they assume. Look at her right on. But you know what really needs to be done? I'm sorry. Don't box. The Italian woman who was defeated by a main Khalif last weekend, she wound up issuing an apology. Charlie Kirk predicted it. An apology.

for speaking out against him. If the IOC let him play, I guess it's fair. Well, no, it's not fair. And I'm sorry, I guess these women have to worry about blowback to themselves, but they should also be worrying about the women who come up behind them because there too are in danger and someone's going to get killed. The Boxing Federation and the boxing officials who've been polled, one of the old female world champions, former, said Iman Khalifa's not even a very good boxer. He's winning because he's male.

And female pronouns are inappropriate in this context. The co-founder of the Independent Council on Women's Sports condemned the IOC. The cover-up and championing of male athletes in women's Olympic sports is the greatest sports scandal of our lifetime. Heads must roll within the IOC to account for this unthinkable justice against women. Couldn't have said it better myself. We're back in a moment with Glenn Beck.

Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart.

We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at prma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma. Sometimes I see him dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will.

And that was the great Joan Cusack in the movie Working Girl trying to explain a basic premise of how you can play pretend, but it doesn't change reality. Joining me now to discuss it, Blaze TV's Glenn Beck, author of the New York Times bestselling children's book out now, Chasing Embers. It's YA and it's really good. It's about pushing back on an overly controlling tyrannical society that tells you to do something you know is wrong. So very timely. Glenn, you remember that movie, right? Yeah.

That's basically the lesson that the IOC needs to hear. You know, everybody needs to hear this. I don't know if you heard the story from Missouri this weekend, but the Lifetime Fitness Center is now being sued by the attorney general of Missouri. Thank goodness. Listen to this post. This is a guy who claims he's a woman. He walks into the ladies locker room.

And he says, a woman, very Karen, confronted me in this locker room this morning saying it was inappropriate for me to be in there. Well, I answered every challenge when she eventually accused me of having parts with little girls being around when the reality is there is no one ever naked in there and neither am I. So immediately I went to the GM and I had a conversation about the club's policy to make sure I was supported.

That's when I learned that there had been they had fielded a bunch of calls from the previous day, which was leading to a multi club meeting to figure out what to do. Net net. The club is on my side and will attempt to educate their membership. I'm so sick and tired of people educating me. I'm an educated guy. I think I got it down. I even think I even think I could get away and say, if you're saying that that is a chick.

uh, you're, you'd be insulting science. And that would be me. You're insulting me and you're taking on science. This is science, man. This is so easy. And it's just, people have got to stop. I so agreed with you and Charlie Kirk last week when I heard you guys talking and saying, uh, you know, the, the, the girl, you know, she, she turned around and she didn't

She's like, I'm sorry. I apologize. No, no. I know you have to make a stand because nobody's going to stand for you. Nobody.

They're so worried about blowback. And look, I'm hopeful that in time she'll get it. Look at Riley Gaines. You know, Riley was the one who tied her fifth with Leah Thomas and didn't speak out in the moment. We knew that she was the person forced to let Leah Thomas pose with the with the trophy, not her. At the time, she didn't say anything. She's on a team where there's pressure. And then Paula Scanlon was on the team with Leah Thomas, didn't say anything. And

And then shortly thereafter, they did. Shortly thereafter, they were like, wait, what just happened to me? So sometimes it takes a while for you to realize how badly you've been wronged. But this is like, now that it truly, Glenn, it's in combat sports, it's downright dangerous. And it's dangerous for the media to play along. They're all calling them she and women.

It doesn't matter that it's contact sports. Soccer. Wasn't there a girl that is now partially paralyzed because she was playing against a guy who... Yeah, volleyball. Yeah. I mean, jeez.

I don't know. There's maybe something to this whole science and biology thing. And, you know, everybody is living in this dream world and it's just enough is enough. It really is. And until the average American.

will stand up and go, yeah, no, that's a dude. And if it is a woman, a very ugly woman, but it's a dude. That's the gaslighting, right? Look at these guys. They have no breasts. They are built like men. They are 5'10". They look like a man in every single way that you can look like a man. And we are just being told,

to say it's a woman, it's a woman by a media that wants us to just go along out of kindness. But the kindness only runs one way, not to the actual women, only to men who say they're right. And I don't know how women don't see that you, you know, you really do have a man with his thumb on you all the time now.

He's just calling himself a woman. And now he's made himself the head of all women's clubs. He gets special treatment. He gets to tell you exactly what you he needs. He gets to educate you. Does that not sound like an abusive relationship? Does that not sound like everything the women's movement has always said? They're trying to get trying to get away from the man who's just keeping me down.

You know, I got somebody who's beaten on me. I can't fight back. I'm built differently than he is. Can somebody help me? Now we've just said, no, no, you have to take it. You bigot. Yeah, you have to take it. That's not a man. That's a woman.

What kind of craziness is that? And you say, thank you. And if you complain about getting punched in the face by a man, you apologize or we will ruin you. Here was Trump addressing this matter on Saturday at a rally in Atlanta.

Harris is a radical trans activist and she is the candidate of letting men beat up women in the name of tolerance. But you look at what's happening over in Paris. It will never happen here. I will never let it happen. I will get all males off your daughter's soccer teams and volleyball teams and get them out of your locker rooms once and for all. That's going to be cleaned up and we will fight to make sure that the L.A. Olympics protects women and protects girls.

Good point, because it's coming here next. He's getting better at this issue, Glenn. He is. I just, you know, I was in L.A. this weekend, and I just, I walked away going, there's no way to...

reach these people anymore. There's no, there's, you are putting the most radical Senator in our history. Somebody who's on record saying crazy things that every Democrat rejected the last time she was around. And now because of Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, they'll put her in and they think that that's less dangerous than

than Trump. And there's no talking to them. There's no talking to them. There are parts of this country where it's mass delusion and a mental illness. It really is a mental illness. You go up to New York and you talk to anybody with masks, they're still wearing them. People are still wearing them. And oh, somebody's got COVID. Right. Right.

Okay. Ooh, they have COVID. I'm not afraid of COVID. Why are you still afraid of COVID? And why are you wearing a mask inside your car alone? That's truly not well behavior. That's like, I don't know. It's crazy stuff. All right, wait, let me shift. I want to get, we talked about that a lot. I want to get to the markets, Glenn, because you're so good on this stuff. And this is, I mean, we're in a situation right now where we're looking at population,

possible expansion, to use a mild word, of the existing war in the Middle East as Iran is getting ready to strike Israel back, as the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah amps up. And at the same time, our markets are in freefall after what happened in Japan, where there was a 12% drop in their Nikkei index.

Um, they say the market response is a reflection. This is a director of financial services for Monix group. The market response is a reflection of the deteriorating U S economic outlook. What happened in Japan? He said it was a New York sneeze that forced Japanese pneumonia. And now we're over here dealing with, I don't know, like catastrophic COVID. I'm not sure where it is now, but it's terrible. It's at least COVID.

The situation is getting worse and worse because we are just spending all of this money. The Fed is doing this lie.

that they expect people, well, they do believe it, that they can help inflation by sucking some of those dollars back in through higher interest rates. That's how you do it. You take it in and you then burn that money. That's the way it used to be. You'd burn all that extra cash and that would bring down inflation. But what they're doing is they're just taking the money from the average person

And then stacking up in a little pile and saying, here, Congress, you guys can have this and we're still printing more for you. The only ones that are hurting are the American people. They're having to pay higher interest rates on everything and they're

That money is being sucked and hoovered out of their wallet and their purses and then given directly to an out-of-control government that is adding even more to what they've just taken from the American people, put it on the American people's tab, and then trying to convince us that, no, we're working on inflation. No, you're not. You're not working on it. You are the reason it's happening.

And until they until Washington has somebody that is actually going to stand up and sees the people, hears the people and knows that it is the people that should be his first concern.

you're not going to get anywhere. But in fact, we, Joe Biden has done so many things that kick in beginning in 2025. And when you see those things kick in, if you think our economy is bad now, it's going to be worse in 2025. And that's without war. That's without any, you know, big shock to the system. And I don't know about you, Megan, but

You know, I've said before that these are the birth pangs of the things to come, which means we're getting ready to give birth to something that I don't think we want to see. And they'll get faster and faster. It feels like we're in constant labor pains right now. We're getting close. We're getting close to something.

There's a reason all these tech giants and Wall Street giants one by one have come out and endorsed Trump. They understand that this so-called recovery that we've been told we're experiencing, but the average Joe just doesn't feel it and is holding the Biden-Harris administration responsible for it, that we know it's not real, that we can see. And they've been manipulating the inflationary economy.

indicators so that they take out the most problematic ones to make the numbers look better. And the job market responses or the increases in jobs every month are also manipulated. They always come out high. And then when you're not looking a month later, they reduce them significantly. So the jobs that they added are lower than they said they were. That happened over the past two months. And then this month, they were way lower. They had to admit they were way lower than expected. And so now we seem to be on trend.

for few jobs, increasing unemployment. People still can't pay their bills. The stock stock market is tumbling. And that is why president Trump is out there today calling this the great depression of 2024. You can't play games with markets, Kamala crash. This absolutely could become an actual election issue. And, um,

I don't know. Like, if it doesn't, they can do the propping up in the next hundred days to hide it. You can't. If it doesn't, if it's just a mini crisis, I think we'll get through it. If it is a if if this is the one that brings it down and I don't think it is war.

If war gets serious and we're all going towards war, that will be the final straw. Hopefully that won't happen before November because I just, I don't know what people will do. People have been lied to for so long. You know, what's happening in great Britain right now, that is, that is a microcosm of us. What's happening on the streets right now is being so spun and so misunderstood by

By the elites. And then the elites will educate the people what they're really mad about. And, you know, they're just mad because they're racist. That's not true. And that's not what's happening over there. They're about to go into civil war. England in civil war.

Well, that's what's coming our way if we don't correct this from the leadership side. You can only take lies so long. Eventually, everybody sees it. And that's when usually guns come out and you're going to shut up. You're going to do this. You're going away. You're going to be silenced because you're

You have to go into the Russia state or the Stasi state of East Berlin where everybody knows the truth, but you don't speak it. You say something else and then you whisper it maybe to your wife at night. Yeah. Like I want to show you and the audience something. Joe Biden.

was welcoming home the prisoners, the American prisoners who were in Russia's custody on the tarmac.

You know, our actual innocent Americans who'd been accused of crimes they appear not to have committed, welcomed back in exchange for actual criminals, an actual assassin among them to Putin. I guess, I mean, we're happy our Americans are back, but we don't have to celebrate this as a good deal, as an effective negotiating tactic or deal by Joe Biden. Nonetheless, he gets out there and listen to what he said. Let's play Sot 4. Sot 4.

I cured the economy and the environment. And a few other small things. The question was, what do you want your legacy to be? That I cured the economy and the environment and a few other small things. I cured the economy, Glenn, as we're now, I mean, you know, we went back and just pulled the numbers, you know, 1.9 trillion in the COVID-19 relief when he first took over, 1.2 trillion infrastructure investment in Jobs Act, which was

nothing of the kind, followed by 1.85 trillion inflation reduction act, which was a true misnomer that was focused on green energy, 369 billion for a climate initiative to reduce greenhouse emissions, promote energy technologies that no one wants. And he wants us to know he cured the economy. Tell it to my 401k. Think of the arrogance of that. Just think of the arrogance that it has to say. And, and that I cured the environment.

I don't even have the arrogance to think that all of us put together could destroy the earth. I think the earth would destroy us. It's a living organism. It will purge itself of us before we could kill it.

Can we do some damage? Yes, we can. Can one man cure the environment? Can one man in 350 million people and entrepreneurs and people with ideas and people who are mowing the grass and coming up with a new idea on how to fertilize that and the farmers and the meat packers, really? You cured the economy. You did.

Wow. Well, thank you. I you know what? We should all go back a bit because it only takes one man. They should get that on a campaign sign. No. But meanwhile, speaking of delusions, he's out there with his delusions of grandeur. And here's Kamala Harris. I mean, this is beyond measuring the drapes. She appeared in Houston to eulogize the late Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who died of pancreatic cancer, sought to.

It was Sheila Jackson Lee whose bill made Juneteenth a federal holiday. Which as a United States Senator I was proud to co-sponsor and then as president, as vice president it was my honor with the president, with the president.

OK, she's not the president. She may have been secretly acting as the president for who knows how long. We don't know. But now we're looking at possible expanded war with Iran in the Middle East, Glenn. And we actually do kind of need a commander in chief and we need to know who it is.

Can I can I just tell you, why do you think those hostages were that hostage deal was done? Kamala and and Biden think that it shows them as great negotiators. No, Putin wants that deal because he wants them, not Trump. That's why he did a deal with them. He doesn't want Donald Trump.

That's just another another way of saying you guys are great for us here. I'm going to make you look good in your papers. You guys run with it. Tell me the world leader that has it out for America that would like to see Donald Trump return to office. Do you think China does? I don't think so.

Do you think even Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Taliban? Do you think Iran? The mullahs are like, geez, if we could just get past Biden, man, he's so tough on us. Do you think Syria, Russia, anyone, anyone that is our enemy is looking at those two saying these are tough cookies? I thought Trump was bad, but boy, these guys got us on the ropes.

Not at all. Well, let me add a little color to that. Here she is more at Joint Base Andrews where, again, same thing, tarmac. For the first time in a while, since I think she became the nominee, presumptive, she had a chance to speak extemporaneously, not on script, not on prompter. And this is what she said. Thought three.

This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy and strengthening alliances. This is an incredible day. She said nothing. She said nothing. However, however.

You know, her her father was a Marxist professor. She grew up in Berkeley. Tell me, average Americans, if you voted Democrat, but you've never been like on board, like, hey, I'm with Hamas and you're just a regular Democrat that loves the country. I believe you exist, but you haven't really popped your head up at all. Yeah.

Does it sound like a good idea that somebody who grew up with a Marxist professor at Berkeley as their dad and then when says things like, you know, we just have to if we can unburden ourselves from those things of the past, we'll be able to see the future, whatever that is, that that's you know what she's saying?

She's saying, let's just forget about everything we've ever learned. Let's forget about science. Let's forget about all this foreign policy nonsense. Let's we could just do anything. Let's do anything. You know what? You're a girl and you're a girl and you're a girl and you're a boy, but you can have a baby. No, you can't unburden yourself from the past.

It doesn't mean you drag it all along, but you use it as a reference from time to time going, wait a minute, didn't we just do that before? Don't unburden yourself. That's a Marxist statement. She is a Marxist.

There's an ex account called Real Developments that I reposted it today that tweeted out, your 401k is getting unburdened from what has been. Well said. Good point. She was with Joe Biden. I mean, between the two of them, does anyone trust them to handle this, the economy, what's happening in the Middle East? I mean, I certainly don't. You've got him looking off into the distance. He has the mouth, all of it. She's making no sense with her word salad. And then-

Now, some are saying that's not what he was doing, but he boarded the plane that the hostages got off of. And it certainly looked like he may have confused it for his plane. He wanders off from the group. He goes over to the plane. He goes up the short steps in the middle of the plane.

And he comes out two minutes later and everyone online was saying, did he think he was getting an Air Force One? And it's very possible with this man. Then some push back, including the White House, saying, actually, he just went on board to say hello to those who had remained on the plane. There were some who didn't disembark. I don't believe that. I have to tell you, since when did they let the president wander around?

an airport hangar or an airport in general on the hangar and just randomly go and be without any security force with people on board a plane. That doesn't happen every day. And I think

People should be pressing a little harder in response to the White House being like, it was totally planned. They're like, oh, you know, the White House said he was visiting people. And there was a reporter who said, yeah, there were still people on the plane. That doesn't speak to it at all what his intention was. He was lost again. And he has to handle our Dow, the Fed, Israel, Iran, et cetera. Russia. By the way, have you have you read Annie Jacobson's book, Nuclear War? No.

You need to, or at least have her on. It is the most terrifying thing. You know, we haven't thought about nuclear war, at least since I was a kid. Aren't I reading and cheating, chasing embers next. That is the Glenn Beck young adult that I want to read first chasing embers and then nuclear war. Yes.

Well, they both have embers in the storyline. But she takes you through minute by minute what the president has to do from launch from, in this case, it was South Korea or North Korea. Thank God it was North Korea. And all of the decisions that he has to make in six minutes. There is no way this guy is capable of making those decisions.

I don't care if he could run a campaign. He cannot he can't run the water to take his own bath. He is not capable of being president. And all that that means at this time in our nation's history, when will people start bursting this little bubble of theirs of, well, it's always been this way. It'll always be this way. Oh, I don't like him, but it's going to be fine.

What reality do you live in? What kind of bubble do you think covers the United States from insanity?

Yeah, who's going to decide whether we want to step in and fight Iran? Who specifically? I want a name. Jake Sullivan? Because I didn't elect him. No one elected him. And by the way, with this whole nonsense, like, oh, he just wanted to go on board. Why didn't Kamala go with him? If it was like, hey, don't forget the other people were on board this plane, why wouldn't she have gone as well? The guy was wandering. He's got a history of wandering. And the media has a history of lying to us about the wandering. I just don't.

I don't believe it. And speaking of media, Glenn, let me take you to this. It's not just the left wing press. Peggy Noonan, who I have a lot of respect for, but my God, what a just pile of poo in her column this week. She's writing about Kamala Harris. All right. Let me give you an excerpt.

She's a born performer. She knows what she's doing when she's campaigning. She's less sure of what she's doing when she's governing, but she gets a race running for the 2020 Democratic nomination. She wasn't good at strategy or policy, but the part involving performing and being a public person and speaking with Mary conviction, she gets that and is good at it.

She's beautiful. You can't take a bad picture of her. Her beauty plus the social warmth that all who have known her over the years speak of combines to produce her radiance, radiance. It is foolish to make believe this doesn't matter. I love Peggy, but she clearly has missed the reports about the bully she is. I...

I know. And I believe radiance is what Charlotte used for Wilbur as well. So and sure, that's a terrific. These people, it is I you know, I remember growing up with the old Soviet Union and thinking, how do people believe what Pravda says?

How is it that these people believe all of these crazy things that we know are not true? Let me ask. Okay, so Pravda's here again. It was there in 1516. Trump won.

2020 was extraordinary because of COVID. But now here we are in 2024. Nothing is unusual. The press is running cover for Kamala. Yes, it's going to be another basement campaign, which did work in 2020. But it is different kind of basement. They allow her not to give interviews, not to debate, not to be one on one with the, you know, with a press conference, et cetera. And they try to get us to the point of early voting, at which point, you know, the horses left the barn.

Republicans have won before. Donald Trump won, notwithstanding all of that and more in 16. So how are you feeling about 24? I was feeling good when it was Joe Biden, obviously. But after my trip to California, I had a very good friend that I really, really respect. And he just said to me, Glenn, please, do you really think Donald Trump is a good man? And I said, no.

Actually, I know him. I've not always been his fan. I don't like some of the things that he does. But yeah, I think he's an extraordinary man who never shows that side because he thinks it shows weakness and weakness.

And it's wrong. And I've talked to his son about just that very thing. And even his son is like, Dad, no, you please. When you meet him, he's a very good man. He's a really nice guy. He's a showman. He's, you know, he's the guy who would sit at the end of the bar with a little mustard on their shirt and be like, I got to tell you what.

And but that's that is who he is. Yes, I do believe he is a guy who cares about our country. On the other hand, I don't think that Kamala or Biden doesn't even know where he is, but or or Obama actually cares about the country if it's burdened by what has been.

They can see a new utopia that they want to create that none of us have voted for. They can see that and they like that America, but that requires all of us to change everything. I don't, I don't know how people don't see that, but I really don't think they do. Um, it's going to be close and that's bad because then we turn into Venezuela even more than we already have. Can I tell you something about Trump? It's a small story, but, um,

My son has a buddy named Leo, who's a big golfer. He's only 14. And he goes down to Mar-a-Lago and he does some golfing there. And he saw Trump on the golf course and said, hey, Mr. President, and he introduced himself. Well, a few weeks later, he was down there again. And he went into the store on Mar-a-Lago property to get something related to golf. And the president was in there. And do you know Donald Trump remembered his name?

and said, hey, Leo, how you doing? And they struck up a conversation immediately. I'm sorry, but those those you never hear those stories told by like, that's so sweet. It's a 14 year old kid. He doesn't know it's going to be important to him. Biden doesn't he walks into a room. He doesn't recognize Jill.

So, I mean, it's like, yeah. And when he's and, you know, I think you should end that story with and Donald Trump never before or after that sniffed Leo's hair. So, oh, my gosh, Glenn. Crazy. I don't mean like it now seems like a really good time to pray for our country and each other. And I'm going to do just that, my friend. It's lovely to see you. Good to see you. Thank you so much.

Don't forget to buy the book. Okay. It's called chasing embers. It made the New York times young adult hardcover bestseller list. It is quote an Epic story of two teenagers faced with a life altering decision. Do you comply with a tyrannical regime or do you choose freedom and liberty? Sounds like a good thing to have your kid leaf through. No chasing embers by Glenn B.

We're going to be right back with the latest on a key case of lawfare against Donald Trump. That J6 case just resumed and that judge is determined to make something happen. We have Trump's lawyer here next.

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,

I'm your host, Megan Kelly.

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. Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart.

We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at phrma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma.

Get ready to twist and shout. From now to September 28th, MGM National Harbor invites you to journey through time with our latest kiosk game series, Retro Riches. Sign up for MGM rewards to play and explore iconic games, settings, and prizes straight out of the jukebox diner era. Win up to $25,000 in free play daily and entries into our Pops legendary card drawing on September 28th. Learn more at mgmnationalharbor.com. Must be 21. Please play responsibly. For help, visit mdgamblinghelp.org.

There is movement again in Jack Smith's federal election case against former President Trump. Yes, they're still pursuing that. Just one month after the Supreme Court issued its landmark immunity decision, the lower course got the case back and wasted no time restarting things. In a rare weekend decision, Judge Tanya Chutkan not only rejected the Trump legal team's effort to dismiss the case, but she also set up a hearing for next week

Joining me now, one of former President Trump's attorneys in the D.C. case, John Loro. He's the owner of Loro and Singer. John, welcome to the show. Great to have you. Welcome. Good afternoon. So, boy, Judge Chutkin, while she's supposed to have been on break, you know, in the pendency of the Supreme Court's decision 30 days after, was writing decisions and getting ready to resume with a fervor against Donald Trump. What did you make of her decision over the weekend, refusing to dismiss it for, you

well, what was the term? Malicious prosecution? Yeah. I mean, we sort of expected that this case would be put on a fast track again once it came back from the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court decision was just an outstanding one by Justice Roberts. And it was really brilliantly written. I know that President Biden has criticized it and has been trying to politicize this issue and really attack the Supreme Court unfairly. But we think this

opinion was sound, certainly supported by the Constitution. And most importantly, it protects the presidency in times of great challenges and enormous issues, both domestically and internationally. So it was a great decision.

We also had previously moved to dismiss on the grounds of selective prosecution because objecting to an election is something that Democrats have done for years and it's never been prosecuted.

We wanted to preserve that issue. As you mentioned, the judge did not agree with our position. But again, that's something that ultimately could be decided going up on appeal. But right now we're focused on executive immunity. That's the main issue that the court has to deal with. And as you mentioned, we'll be back in front of the judge on August 16th.

So the problem that Jack Smith, the prosecutor, has, he has a couple of problems. Number one, he's got the immunity decision, and that may greatly affect the J6 case, which was decided in the Florida case that Trump was immune. But it may affect the J6 case, too. It's also a federal case, same prosecutor. So it's very possible Trump will be immune in the J6 case, too, for a large portion of the acts he's accused of. Secondly, Jack Smith is the same federal prosecutor in both cases, and he was DQ'd down there

because she said you didn't have proper authority to bring this case. You're not, you're not a constitutional officer with the, uh, you know, the blessing of any, anyone in the U S Senate or the president specifically. So what's going to happen next? Because I think most Trump fans were hoping the J six case would go away for one or both of those reasons, but it hasn't. There's a number of issues that the court will have to decide. The first one, which you've, I

identify is whether or not Jack Smith is a legitimate prosecutor and whether or not his appointment is in accordance with the Constitution. Justice Thomas recently wrote a concurring opinion in the US v. Trump case where he said that Jack Smith is not a legitimate prosecutor.

because he was not confirmed by the Senate. He didn't go through that vetting process. And moreover, his appointment violates the appropriations clause since he can spend a lot of money without any congressional approval. So that issue is also going to be important in the Washington, D.C. case.

There's an appellate decision that's against us in Washington. On the other hand, there's no such opinion like that in Florida. So we may have a situation where we have two competing courts making different decisions on whether or not the prosecutor is legitimate, believe it or not. And in that situation, ultimately, it may be up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not we even have a legitimate prosecutor, one who's able to prosecute a case.

But now what about immunity? Because the court found that a president has immunity for a whole host of acts, his core constitutional duties and some of his official acts. And now the dirty work of figuring out what he's accused of in this J6 case begins. The team, the legal team admitted at argument some of the things he's accused of.

are not official acts. They gave a few of those away. And I know Andy McCarthy has been saying all along, why wouldn't Jack Smith just re-indict the case with just those few items? Because you and I both know he's desperate to get a trial, if not before November, then at least before January. So why wouldn't he just do that?

I can't speak for Jack Smith, but I think if he did that, there would still be issues relating to executive immunity that would have to be developed and decided by Judge Chutkan, who I believe will follow what the Supreme Court has indicated. So the chances of a trial before November are nonexistent. That's just not going to happen.

If Jack Smith decides to get a new indictment, that's something we'd have to deal with. But the bottom line is that the most important issue right now is the parameters of executive immunity. The reality is that a lot of government officials, judges, prosecutors, police officers have

have degrees of immunity. That's nothing new in the law. What the Supreme Court said is based on our Constitution, we have to give similar protection to a president. So a president is not restricted in some way from acting appropriately in exercising his executive function. And the Supreme Court, I think, struck a brilliant balance on how to do that. So as you say, Megan, some issues are absolutely immune. For example, when the president is faithfully executing the laws,

when he or she is engaging in some kind of foreign activity, all of that is immune. There's other areas that might be presumptively immune when a president makes policy statements or is using the bully pulpit. And then there's areas that are completely not immune, which are personal acts. You know, President Clinton lying during a deposition, in a civil deposition, that's personal.

So all of those things have to be sorted out. But as you say, it's going to be a massive undertaking over the next several weeks or several months, candidly. So what is likely to happen? Because we've been watching and wondering all along because Jack Smith seems so determined, and frankly, so does Tanya Chutkin, the judge, to get some sort of verdict against Trump ASAP.

What's likely to happen next? Is there a realistic chance that they could get something tried? Some either a slimmed down, reindicted case, or they're talking now about like a mini trial where they would just be parading terrible witnesses for Trump in front of the judge for the next few weeks. Just to remind people, January 6th was bad. Just in case you didn't know it was bad. It was super, super bad. And Donald Trump is bad, too.

What are the odds of either one of those things taking place before November? And then let's do the expanded before January is I know there's been speculation that he won't stop. If Trump wins, that won't stop him. He'll continue trying to get a guilty verdict before he's sworn in.

That's a lot to address, but you've hit all the important points because number one, there are democratic operatives out there, many of them are former federal prosecutors like I am, who are making really, I think, outrageous statements and unfair statements suggesting that

that there should be a mini trial to try to embarrass President Trump in some way and use it as an October surprise in the election cycle, which I think would be totally inappropriate and adverse to every principle of the Department of Justice policy. And then there are other Democratic operatives, including

You know, a congressman Raskin was saying he wants to take this all the way to January 6, 2025. And when President Trump wins the election, he wants to challenge that election in Congress. So we're dealing with political operatives that very much want to use the court system to their advantage.

I believe that our judge will follow the mandate of the Supreme Court, which was very clear, the court was very clear that these issues have to be dealt with deliberately, carefully, and transparently. And there's no rush to judgment here. So there's a lot of issues that need to be decided, a lot of issues as to whether or not an act is an official act or an unofficial act, but it's got to be handled within the four corners

of the Supreme Court's decision and not based on any political agenda. What is striking here is that traditionally the Department of Justice has not taken any action during a campaign season that might influence an election. So I'll be interested to see what the department's position is, or I should say the special counsel's position is with respect to whether or not they want to litigate during a campaign season.

But candidly, that's the reason why a special counsel should be vetted in the Senate and subject to Senate confirmation. So senators can ask these types of questions. Are you going to use your power for some kind of political process? Are you going to use it in accordance with the Department of Justice guidelines? Are you going to do something different? None of that was. I think I know the answer to this question.

I think the answer is it's, you know, pedal to the metal and to get Trump. That's obviously been their goal all along. But can I ask you, because Judge Shutkin has been going along with it. She seems very excited and gung ho to keep going as fast as possible. She even said she would cancel her European vacation if necessary to try the case.

But she's just gotten her hand slapped by her big, big bosses, not just the ones right above her, but the ones who have the ultimate say on all matters legal. Those nine justices are at least six of them, which is a majority who said this cannot be rushed through. They basically said what you just said, that this must be a deliberative process. And it wasn't like she didn't do it. So now do you think realistically she could do

fast roll it through to some version of a trial between now and January. Well, you're never going to get me to criticize the judge I'm appearing before. So I'm not going to do that. But what I will say about her possibilities, her possibility, objectively, what could she do?

What I will say, first of all, I think she's going to scrupulously follow the Supreme Court decision. And what the Supreme Court said is that we need a full record before we can make this call. This is the first time in our nation's history that there's been a prosecution like this. So we're in uncharted waters. But the Supreme Court said very clearly, we want to do this deliberatively. What we need is a full and complete record

that we can look at to make these decisions. So undoubtedly, this case is going to be back before the Supreme Court at some point with a full record. The difference is that when you had the J6 committee, no one cross-examined any of the witnesses. It was political theater. Maybe Adam Kinzinger was there. Liz Cheney was there, John.

Well, you know, they didn't have me there, Megan. They didn't have me cross-examining. So it's going to be a different environment. But the one thing that I'm struck by in litigating this case for a year is everything that Jack Smith wants and Jack Smith gets turns out to be beneficial to President Trump running for president. So we'll see what he asks for next.

I don't know what that's going to be, but if it's a hearing, we'll certainly be prepared for it. But suffice it to say that this time around, there will be thorough and complete cross-examination, even if it gets to that point. I've got less than a minute left, but I got to ask you this. It seems to me the lawfare campaign has been a disaster for the Democrats and the prosecutors. In a nutshell, why do you think that is? Well, I

I think what Americans want is for this election to be decided in the ballot box, not in a jury box. And I think Americans are looking forward, not backward. And they really want the issues to be discussed rather than legal cases that somehow

take candidates off the campaign trail. So I think the bottom line is that many Americans feel that President Trump has been treated unfairly in these proceedings. When you look at what happened in New York, when you look at what happened in Georgia, there's a real sense that the state and local prosecutors are simply using these cases for political purposes, and they're just not comfortable with that.

Mm hmm. So much so that it makes me wonder whether they really will pursue them hard because they've just blown up so badly in terms of public opinion. John, thank you. It's great to have you on. Please come back. Thank you. Good to see you. All the best. And tomorrow we're staying in the legal arena with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on the show. How about that? Very cool. Don't miss that. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda and no fear.

Hi there. I'm a PBM. I'm also an insurance company. We middlemen are often owned by the same company. So, hard to tell apart.

We control what medicines you get and what you pay at the pharmacy. That's why today, more than half of every dollar spent on medicines goes to middlemen like us. Middlemen are driving medicine costs, and you don't know the half of it. Get the whole story at phrma.org slash middlemen. Paid for by Pharma.

Get ready to twist and shout! From now to September 28th, MGM National Harbor invites you to journey through time with our latest kiosk game series, Retro Riches! Sign up for MGM rewards to play and explore iconic games, settings, and prizes straight out of the jukebox diner era. Win up to $25,000 in free play daily and entries into our Pops legendary card drawing on September 28th.

Learn more at mgmnationalharbor.com. Must be 21. Please play responsibly. For help, visit mdgamblinghelp.org or 1-800-GAMBLER.