The Megyn Kelly Show
RFK and Tulsi Coast Toward Confirmation, and Trump's Legal Fights Ahead, with Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis, and Sean Stone | Ep. 999
Tue, 4 Feb 2025
Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard getting good news and most likely being confirmed soon, the absolute meltdown about it from the left, the corporate media, and some on the right, Trump's disruptor cabinet taking shape, and more. Then legal experts Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis join to discuss Trump’s executive orders against DEI and whether they'll hold up in court, the difference between private companies and public universities when it comes to DEI enforcement, Trump’s legal efforts to stop "gender surgeries" and “gender affirming care” for minors, Democrats in New York pushing back against it, the harmful long-term effects on children, the legality of Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy admitting he's harboring an illegal immigrant above his garage, his attempt to walk back the story now, why you shouldn’t mess with Tom Homan and his team, and more. Then Sean Stone, director of "All The President's Men," joins to discuss why Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel are disruptors who are shaking up the political landscape, why this scares the establishment, the truth about the conspiracy against Trump during his first term, his life and upbringing as Oliver Stone's son, the JFK files release to come, and more.Aronberg- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZl9z2UMvN9mwpUoU9-E9bADavis- https://article3project.org/Stone- https://www.seanstone.info/Prize Picks: Download the Prize Pick app today and use code MEGYN to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup!Firecracker Farm: Get 10% off with code MK at https://Firecracker.Farm/ Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshowTax Network USA: https://TNUSA.com/MEGYN
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're in day 15 at the Trump presidency. Can you believe that? It's only day 15 and the news cycle is still moving at a frantic pace. The Finance Committee just approved Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
's nomination to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. This means it will go to the full floor of the U.S. Senate, where now he's expected to be confirmed. The big question was whether he would make it out of committee.
And with every single one of the 14 Republican senators falling in line, all 13 of the Dems voting no, he appears at this point to have the votes he needs to get through. It's amazing. It's a great day for America. They're melting down over him, not just on the left, but at some more conservative, traditional Republican places because they cannot get over his, quote, anti-vaccine positions.
Well, you're going to have to try. Try. Go listen to the two hours I did with him on the vaccines. Do your homework. Figure out just how anti-vaccine he really is and whether some of the questions he's been raising about them make sense. And then...
No matter what your answer is to that, push it to the side and come to terms with the fact that Trump has said he will not be banning the MMR vaccine. He's not going to be banning any of these vaccines. He will object to some of them if he finds some to be problematic.
Obviously, he's on record as funneling a lawsuit, a couple lawsuits to law firms against Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, which many parents declined. We did a whole show about that with a fair and balanced debate, pro and against. he'll say so. But he's made clear it's really not about his personal views.
But in that position, would he be in a position to say, you know what, you might want to take a second look at this one? Yes, good. That doesn't mean your kid won't have access to it or you won't have access to it. But some of us have become a little bit more vaccine skeptical in the wake of COVID and this HPV vaccine, which has injured some.
Um, we did a whole thing like, you know, the end conclusion of that HPV vaccine thing that we did was, uh, the one woman was saying she, she landed on doing one shot instead of two shots, whatever you make your own decision. But the point is you can have a debate. You can have a debate.
And the fact that the news media, the left, and this portion of the right that's so pro-vaccine has shut down any discussion of it. I told you when I was on Fox, you were not allowed to entertain any claims that there was something wrong with the MMR vaccines. And I'm fine with the MMR vaccines. I gave them all to my kids. Thank God all my kids are fine. Wonderful things happened.
They gained some immunity and they didn't have any adverse reactions. But Why can't we talk about the people who had a different result? How is that dangerous? People can make up their own minds. RFKJ is going in there to deal with the public health crisis that is happening in this country right now. It's not about vaccine. Would you just zoom out from your obsession with vaccines, RFKJ critics?
Would you spend two seconds looking at the way we eat, the way we treat patients who get disease, who get obese, who we funnel through a lifetime of pharmaceuticals and additional medical procedures without pausing to say, what's making you ill? Why do children have autism now at a 1 in 30 rate as opposed to 1 in 10,000 30 years ago? Why do children have so many allergies?
Why are children getting ADHD in record numbers? Why are children suffering from tics? Why are all these children getting Tourette's? We're just not supposed to ask those questions. We're just supposed to go about our business and consume all the dyes and the chemicals in our food that's not the Europeans.
Eat the pasta that has the wheat that's been sprayed with this toxic chemical as a pesticide. Just... Ignore the farmers who are dying from cancer from the pesticides potentially that they're spraying. All that should be looked into. Should it not? Is it not fair?
to actually kick the tires on public health and figure out whether not only have we just accepted living this way, which is totally unhealthy, I mean, literally unhealthy, making us sick, but it's being pushed on it. It is an active part of the game for too many of these industries. Do you think big pharma wants us all to get better like that?
Do you think big ag really wants any sort of mandate that requires them to change the way they do business? RFKJ had to promise that he would work with farmers and ranchers to push regenerative agriculture, which is better for you, retilling the soil and so on. And he said he would, but why can't we have the discussion? That's on the Republican side.
They protect the farmers and the ranchers and the Dems and everybody else wants to protect big pharma. That big pharma ads were all over Fox when I was there. It's not just a leftist thing. The point is this has gone on for too long, too long. Stop with your obsessive focus on vaccines, which are not in danger. Listen to what he actually wants to do. And on that front, thank you.
Thank you to the Republican senators who got him through this committee vote. It's not done yet again, but who got him through this committee vote. Thank you to Senator Cassidy, whose office we targeted. There's no question in a totally legit way. You guys all called. You made it so that that line, that phone line was basically no longer good because you just kept calling. I called personally.
I called myself. I didn't do anything I didn't ask you to do. and emailed and said to him, please, please do this. We hear your concerns, but we're not worried about the same things you are. Please hear us on this guy. And if he turns out to be the kook that the critics say he is, Trump will fire him. All right.
Have you ever seen a president more comfortable with firing bad actors or people who turn out to disappoint him? Fear not. He's not afraid of firing and replacing. So there's always that backstop. Just relax. He's trying something different. That's why he was elected. And you can make exactly the same argument on Tulsi Gabbard, who appears to have the votes as well.
Her committee vote is today at 2 p.m. And the news is all good. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who seems somewhat skeptical. Remember, we talked about her answer. Like, I'm happy with her answers. What does it mean? We took it as a positive. Well, she's she's going to vote yes. And so is Senator Young. Something bizarre happened, though.
Senator Todd Young, he he gave it to her pretty good at her confirmation hearing. He was clearly not a fan. Clearly, he's a Republican. And in the interim between last week's hearing and today, she had to write him a letter. I mean, it's amazing the hoops they make these candidates go through. They basically have to genuflect and tell him all the things.
I'll give you everything you want on your Santa's wish list. Here it is. So she wrote him this letter. I'm honored. Okay, I'm committed to working to restore trust in the intelligence community. And then she says, as requested below are the list of commitments you asked that I make to you in this letter. You wanted it in writing.
I commit to holding accountable and seeking justice against any Intel community employee contractor or subcontractor who is suspected of making or facilitating an unauthorized disclosure of any Intel program. I will not advocate for any protections, which should only be extended to lawful and legitimate whistleblowers.
So this is basically saying, if we have another Snowden, are you going to run cover for him? And she's saying, no. Okay, fine. And she said at her confirmation hearing over and over, what I'm going to do as soon as I get in there is create a meaningful avenue for any would be Snowden to come to me and to say, this is what we're doing.
And I will make sure it is meaningful and we won't have to have another Snowden. And this is the second piece of it saying, and then if somebody doesn't obey this process and goes outside of it and goes to the news media in the way Snowden does, I will commit to holding them accountable.
Then the second paragraph, I commit to working with the committee to evaluate whether existing laws, regulations, and policies are sufficient to deter an Intel community employee, contractor, or subcontractor from making an unauthorized disclosure of any Intel program.
I will have confirmed, communicate explicitly to the Intel community, my commitment to holding accountable and seeking justice against any violator of existing laws, regs, et cetera. They're really, really focused on Snowden. that I will not, contrary to a statement on X on June 3rd, 2019, protect any Intel community employee, contractor, or subcontractor who commits an unauthorized disclosure.
They do not want any alleged whistleblower getting any sort of protection. I mean, the truth is it's more complicated than they're making. I mean, of course, you're sitting here thinking, well, I don't think I want that. I don't want to blow our secrets. I don't want to endanger our spies. But as you know, it's more complicated than that.
You know, some of what Snowden revealed or turned over to journalists is very controversial. We talked about that with Glenn, but some of it was exposing a program that we had our top officials lying about that did capture within its net Americans. And our metadata, things about like where we were and so on, very controversial.
And you had, you know, people like James Clapper under oath lying about it. So that's what, you know, the Snowden situation is complicated. They're wanting assurances from her that would apply to a case that's extremely clear cut, right? Where the person is about to violate our confidences and endanger our spies and there's no reason to do it. I'm not sure about these assurances.
I know she had to give them. Believe me, I'm probably more against Snowden than I am on the Glenn Greenwald side of things. Tucker and Glenn and all these people have been advocating for a Snowden pardon. I'm not there. But I understand Tulsi's position and I understand why he did what he did. And I don't know that there should be this hardcore rule that we're never going to
consider like the real whistleblower status of somebody if they want to do a Snowden, if they want to pull a Snowden. Again, I'm not on his side for the record, but... whatever. And then they go on from there. The bottom line is Tulsi looks like she's got the votes. We're going to know in a couple of hours. And this is all great because Trump is trying to do things differently.
Again, it just goes back to Trump is trying to do things differently. Tulsi's right. They do not trust the Intel community. The American people do not trust the Intel community. They've proven themselves to be extremely political in their operations and their maneuvers. And We need an intel community that we actually do trust and believe in.
Like, why did the CIA in the course of 24 hours change from the COVID virus came from a pangolin to it came from a lab over the course of 24 hours from Biden's presidency to Trump's? Why'd they do that? Why were they saying they believed it came from an animal, from a natural resource? And then 24 hours later, after Trump takes office, they say, okay, it came from a lab. Hello, we don't trust you.
We know you're being manipulated. You're pushing somebody else's business. I mean, there's been a lot that's happened with our intel services. And if we can get somebody in there who is almost slightly adverse to them, okay? She's not, but in a way she is. She's not on bended knee to them. And she's not above questioning them. then good, good. Maybe that will lead to real reform.
And again, if it doesn't, if Trump is dissatisfied with his presidential daily brief, if he thinks Chelsea's falling down on the job, he will fire her. So just calm down. Yeah, I'm thrilled. I'm thrilled that these two look like they're in. Kash Patel is obviously going to get in.
And that means Trump should have all of his nominees and it should happen pretty quickly because he needs them in place. You know, we're we've already seen confusion over OMB. You know, we saw the terrible plane crash. Thank God Sean Duffy had been confirmed. But it's like he'd been confirmed earlier that day. If something were to happen in the intel field, God forbid, we had a terrorist attack.
He needs his people in place. We all know that he's going to get his people. Republicans should not drag their feet. He has a mandate. Let's go. All right, let's go. Trump's been firing off these executive orders by the day. As you know, they're beautiful. Love, love the Trump EOs. But as a lawyer, you get paid not to look at a situation and say, ah, that'll never happen.
But to look at a situation and say, that's absolutely going to happen. And how do I protect against it? And that's the purpose of the next discussion we're going to have. What how are the Democrats going to challenge these executive orders and how will Team Trump protect against it? The ban on DEI, his order against gender transition procedures and end to birthright citizenship.
That's already been challenged in court and more. And for all of that, we've got two of our favorites back with us in a whole new era of political legal news. Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, managing partner of Dave Ehrenberg Law and host of Court Authorities on YouTube. And Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3 Project.
Okay, listen up, football fans. It's Super Bowl time, and it's now or never. Don't miss out on football action with PrizePix, the best place to win cash while watching and to have a little extra fun while you do. Especially when your team's out of the hunt, PrizePix is a way to get involved and have a rooting interest.
Pick some of your favorite players to score and enjoy the game on the edge of your seat. If you sign up today, you will get $50 instantly when you play with five bucks. You don't even need to win to receive the $50 bonus. It's guaranteed. Then you can make your PrizePix. Doug and I are going to be at the Super Bowl this weekend, rooting for the Eagles. That's his team.
So maybe he will pick some players on Philly to score touchdowns in the game. Prize picks adds a little spice to the viewing experience, whether you're there or not. Download the app today and use the code Megan to get 50 bucks instantly after you play your first $5 lineup. Again, download the prize picks app today and use code Megan, play five bucks and instantly get 50 from this promotion.
Guys, welcome back. Thank you for having us. So Dave, now former Palm Beach DA, what happened? Did you lose an election or did you step down? What happened?
No, I'm the rare Democrat who did not lose an election this cycle, Megan. I decided not to run again. It's been 12 years, I believe, in term limits. So I self-imposed one after 12 years at this job. Also, I got married, as you know, and I wanted to buy a house.
You need some money.
Yeah. Yeah. So I went into the private sector and, you know, that it doesn't mean I can't do more TV and shows like yours. I love doing it. So I'm excited about the next chapter. Just means I'm no longer state attorney. More of a has been, but excited about what I'm doing next.
Awesome. Well, good for you. And thank you for your service. Dem side or not, I greatly appreciate you doing the job because it's not easy. Certainly not easy to be a DA. A lot of responsibility. Okay. So great to see you both. You're the perfect team to talk about this with. I confess, Mike Davis, that with each EO, I'm like, yes.
And then I'm like, because you can you can feel the filings coming down against them. And that's where they're all they'll all play out. Right. Like each one of these is going to get challenged. All right. So where to begin? Let's start with the Trump executive orders that target DEI. Um, that's the most sweeping one.
It's the January 21 ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit based opportunity, which by the way, is the perfect name for it because we already have laws on the books that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. And that doesn't mean you can discriminate against whites. It means you can't discriminate against anyone based on their skin color, based on their race.
period, which is why I've been saying from the beginning, all this DEI stuff is illegal. This is illegal. You cannot make hiring promotion, firing decisions based on the fact that somebody is a white guy or a black woman. It's not okay. So what he's really saying to me, Mike, is he's just now going to enforce this.
He's going to now go around and find the places who have been flouting the law and threaten them, potentially deprive them of their federal money. Um, okay. Trump ordered agencies under his control in the executive branch to apply the civil rights laws, of which I speak, against private sector DEI programs.
He also ordered the attorney general to issue a report within 120 days that includes strategies and policies to combat DEI in the private sector, including possible litigation and identifying large organizations to target for investigation. The order specifically allows for teachers at federally funded institutions of higher education to still investigate advocate for DEI.
They can, they can, I want to get the right words. They can advocate for DEI, endorse DEI and promote DEI, but they cannot use race and sex based preferences at these universities for hiring, for admissions, for promotions, et cetera, but they can still have classes on DEI.
So you tell me whether this is going to withstand legal challenges that say it's somehow a crackdown on free speech or a factor of race that may or may not be the determinative factor and whether this is likely to stand at the end of whatever litigation comes, Mike.
Well, remember what President Trump did with this executive order on DEI is he repealed President Biden's day one executive order on DEI, where President Biden essentially ordered these executive branch agencies to promote this Marxist ideology called diversity, equity, and inclusion. And the problem, as you said, Megan, is DEI runs... directly contrary to our federal civil rights statutes.
It is illegal. It is a federal crime. It's a civil violation as well to discriminate based upon race, right, and sex. And so what you're seeing with DEI is that you have the federal government under Joe Biden intentionally discriminating, which is clearly –
So President Trump's executive order is very carefully crafted, and it essentially tells his executive branch officials, like the director of the Office of Management and Budget, his director of personnel management, his attorney general to find these programs and eliminate these programs to the maximum extent that law allows, right? So he's not just waving a wand and making all DEI go away.
He's telling his executive branch officials that they have to follow the law to do it.
So within the executive branch, that's why we're seeing video or that picture, for example, at the Pentagon of them taking down the DEI mural on the wall. Like within the executive branch and the agencies that Trump has control over, he's saying remove the DEI paraphernalia, remove the DEI classes, remove the DEI language.
And then in the private sector, he's saying in particular, when it comes to large corporations and nonprofits,
I want my attorney general to submit a report within 120 days with recommendations on who needs to be sued, basically to force compliance with the civil rights laws, publicly traded corporations, large nonprofit corporations, foundations with assets of $500 million or more state and local bar and medical associations and institutions of higher learning with endowments over $1 billion, Dave.
So he's saying, well, For those groups, he wants the DOJ to actually start enforcing the civil rights laws if they are unlawfully discriminating on the basis of race or gender.
Yeah, Megan, he has more power when it comes to the purse. When it comes to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, that's where universities get financial assistance. And that's where the federal government does have a lot of power. And the universities thus far have been slow in responding to the Supreme Court's decision.
Because there is a loophole that Chief Justice Roberts allowed that you can talk about race and how it has affected you in your essays. And you have universities like Harvard and others that said, OK, Johns Hopkins actually asked you that very question. How has race impacted you? Absolutely.
So universities know that as long as it was the Biden administration there, that the anti-DEI would not be pursued, that the Supreme Court's decision would not be aggressively enforced. Now there's a new sheriff in town, and I would think the universities are now going to start erring on the side of being more careful than they perhaps need to be because they don't want to get sued.
They don't want their Title VI funding cut. I think it's a tougher question when it comes to private institutions. I saw that Roger Goodell of the NFL said that they're going to continue with their own DEI practices of the Rooney rule to interview a black candidate for a head coaching position. They don't have strict quotas.
And so you're going to see individual institutions like Costco to continue to proudly have DEI. I don't think there's a lot that the federal government can do on that. They can, though, the federal government can wield a big ax when it comes to colleges and universities.
Here's the other thing though, Mike, I've mentioned this on the air before. I've never named the bank out of respect for my friend, but my friend is a senior guy at a very large bank in Manhattan. And he told me that he needed to get rid of some people because, you know, they were cutting back and whatever, finding efficiencies. And he was specifically told it has to be three white guys.
And he was upset because the three people who were the weakest on his team were either black or women. And if he had to turf people, he wanted to turf the weakest ones. And it just happened in this case that they had been DEI hires and they were not strong. And his best performers happened to be white guys. But he was told by his boss that you have to pick amongst the white men. That's illegal.
That's exactly the kind of person who should call Team Trump in a whistleblower or anonymous situation and say, you need to come investigate my bank. And this has happened to me. And then they come and kick those tires because there is a way of the federal government coming and involving itself against a bank if it's if it's violating the civil rights laws in this way.
Yeah, I mean, Harmeet Dhillon is President Trump's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department. And she is very well versed on all of these federal civil rights statutes. And not only are these private institutions potentially exposing themselves to tremendous pressure,
civil liability for violating the federal civil rights statutes, you also have a criminal component to the federal civil rights statutes. And so these banks, these institutions that think they're going to be woke and discriminate based upon race, even though The executive branch is making it very clear that they're going to enforce the laws. I think they're doing this at their own peril.
And I would say to these executives at these publicly traded companies, remember, you have duties to your shareholders to make sure that you're not running your company in violation of federal civil rights statutes and exposing the company to astronomical civil liability along with criminal liability.
Okay. Let's talk about the next one because it's getting, it's getting interesting already. Um, protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation. That's the name of the EO. This speaks to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries on minors in the name of so-called gender affirming care, which is a I believe this should be banned nationwide. This is child abuse.
This should not be allowed on any child. I don't care if the parents consent to it. A parent can't consent to take out a child's healthy stomach because it would kill them. It would be child abuse. And so they shouldn't be allowed to do this either. Absolutely not. This should be banned on a nationwide level. This is barbaric that it's happening anywhere. And so what Trump is saying is,
It is the policy of the United States to not fund or promote child gender transitions. It will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called transition of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures. Organizations that receive federal education or research grants...
can no longer perform these procedures. He writes, end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children. And it goes on to say the HHS secretary is also to use the following tools to end this, including Medicare or Medicaid conditions of participation, meaning you can go ahead and continue performing these procedures on children, random hospital.
You just won't be able to take any Medicare patients anymore. Medicare will no longer be available at your hospital, nor will Medicaid. I mean, That's they're all going to comply that that's their bread and butter. Um, it also prohibits coverage for child gender transitions in insurance plans that federal workers have, including any military worker.
And here again, it has a directive to the department of justice. The attorney general shall convene all States attorneys general and other law enforcement officers to coordinate the enforcement of of these laws, of laws against female genital mutilation across American states. So that speaks to the red states that have already banned this.
Shall prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end deception of consumers by any entity that may be misleading the public about the long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilations. That's through like... advertising through medical disclosures.
If you don't tell the people, tell the families, tell the children explicitly what exactly is going to happen to them, then we can privatize investigations against you. And it goes on from there. So, oh, and by the way, there's one in here for Tim Wallace in Minnesota.
He says the Department of Justice shall prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end child abusive practices by so-called sanctuary states that facilitate stripping custody from parents who support the healthy development of their own children.
That's a complete reference to Tim Walz and what he did in Minnesota, making his state a so-called sanctuary where they will remove custody from parents who don't believe in these procedures, put the child in the care of the state and then have a stranger take act as their guardian while they chop off their healthy body parts. It's sick. Okay. So likely challenges to this one, Dave.
And Megan, I think a lot will be told when the Supreme Court rules on that case that came before it in December. This is the case out of Tennessee where there was a challenge to Tennessee's Republican-backed law that banned the transgender surgeries for women. young people, for underage people.
In fact, the conservative courts can be very skeptical of the challenge, meaning that they were likely to uphold the law in Tennessee. And I think that if they do uphold Tennessee's law, which is not just banning medical treatments, but also the hormones for people under 18 who are experiencing gender dysphoria.
And so if that is upheld by the Supreme Court, then I think all the other states will have their laws upheld.
I think, Dave, I think it's I think if I'm not mistaken, that case is about the hormones and not the surgical procedures.
Right. But if you can have a law that says that parents are not even allowed to let their children take the hormones, then certainly you're allowed to have a law that says parents are forbidden from having their children get the surgery. So that's why this case is so important. I think that the Supreme Court is going to resolve this matter for us.
And it looks like they're going to allow bans to take place.
Um, here, okay. So here's, here's what's already happening though. Today in New York, you have, um, there's news that NYU Langone, which is a great hospital. Um, unfortunately they've been doing these procedures or at least the hormones because there's a report, I think it was in the
that they, in the wake of this executive order, because they are an institution that does receive some federal funds, denied or canceled two scheduled injections of puberty blockers. I guess you get like a thing in your arm, almost like a birth control pill as a woman. And they were about to do these on two 12-year-olds, which is not a surprise because that's when you start puberty.
It's disgusting. Like a 12-year-old could ever possibly consent to to what these drugs do to him or her. In any event, NYU Langone canceled two of the procedures, and then there was a protest outside of the hospital last night by these far-left loons led by Cynthia Nixon, who is... as far left as that.
Yeah, it was the group, the Democratic Socialists of America, the ones who were cheering all the dead Jews after 10-7, right in the middle of Manhattan, like, yay, yay, yay, dead, right, burned babies. Yeah, we're in favor. That's the Democratic Socialists of America. So she parades out there with them.
And I'll show you her soundbite, but more important than Cynthia Nixon is Letitia James, the Attorney General of the state of New York, who
responded to NYU Langone saying, you better do these procedures because if you offer puberty blockers for so-called cis kids, which is a disgusting term to just kids, to any kids, you can't deny them to quote trans kids or you have violated our anti-discrimination laws, Mike.
So that's now Leticia James is putting NYU Langone and all of our other hospitals who are trying to comply with the Trump EO in a very difficult position.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what these Democrats are trying to accomplish here.
Democratic socialists, Mike. Democratic socialists.
There you go. There you go. I mean, think about this. They want to create an industry where children have their healthy genitals cut off and they're giving life-destroying drugs. pills and surgeries at a very young age, 12 years old, 13 years old. And then they want to have patients for the rest of their lives where you're spending several hundred thousand dollars trying to maintain a
The this gender affirming care that these pills and surgeries that destroy the lives of kids. Look, gender dysphoria is a very sad, tragic mental illness. But we're not seeing an explosion of gender dysphoria in this country. This is a social contagion where these kids think it's cool.
To be trans and then their psychotic parents are actually going forward and allowing them to have these life destroying pills and surgeries. I'm with you, Megan, that this should be outlawed across the country and it should be criminalized. And if you're a doctor or a parent and you're doing this to a kid, you should go to prison.
Yes, 100%. These doctors are the problem. What these doctors are making money, hand over fist, performing these bizarre surgeries. And if you want to do that as an adult, there's that weird clinic down in Texas where you can get all of your genitals removed. You can get your belly button removed. You can turn yourself into some sort of cyborg if you want. I don't support it. I don't like it.
I think you're weird and gross, but it's really not my business. But when it's children, it's a totally different matter. But Dave- I think you put your finger on it because what Tish James is saying is if you comply with the Trump executive order hospitals, you are behaving in it. You're discriminating between sort of regular kids and these kids who say that they're trans.
And that's exactly what they argued before the Supreme Court in the case that you referenced challenging the Tennessee ban on these surgeries for minors. They tried to argue that the proponents of these procedures, the people who don't want it banned, They try to say it's sex discrimination to go in there and say that
You can get a puberty blocker if you're an actual girl, but you can't get one if you're a, quote, trans girl, meaning like fake girl, meaning boy, that it's somehow sex discrimination. And the Supreme Court did not seem at all inclined to buy that. And so Tish James's objection really could be dismissed summarily, depending on how the Supreme Court rules within a matter of months.
It's interesting, Megan, because they did make an equal protection argument under the 14th Amendment. And I think it is a legitimate legal argument to make that if the hormone drugs are available to juveniles who are not trying to transition or don't have gender dysphoria, but they are not available to juveniles who do have gender dysphoria,
And that is an interesting equal protection argument to make. And I guess then it's a question of do we as judges put ourselves in the position of being medical experts or do we put ourselves in the position of being judges where we defer to the legislators. And right now, the judges are saying the latter. We are not going to try to know what's best and put ourselves in the shoes of dockers.
We're just going to defer to the legislature because we don't want any part of this. And I think that's where it's going to fall.
I agree. But I think this same type of argument was scoffed at in open court when they tried to make it. And Mike, it's like you can't, you know, Take Ozempic. Any adult, maybe Lizzo wants to use Ozempic. I don't think most people will give her a hard time on that. But if you want to give Ozempic to a six-month-old baby, that's abuse. You'll be in prison. You will be behind bars very quickly.
We have different formulations based on who wants the medicine and for what purpose. And this is, I mean, for some, it could be in essence a vanity project to have these puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones injected into their child. For some, it could be a form of conversion therapy because in too many cases, they don't want a gay boy. They don't want an effeminate gay son And they're bigots.
They tend to be leftist bigots who would rather have a girl. You're not a gay boy. You're a girl. And they push their kids down this road. And their son would have grown up to be a totally fine, well, gay man. But they manipulate him into doing. So it's just it's sick. It is like giving the Ozempic to a six month old. So I think Tish James will lose her challenge.
And that leaves me, though, with Cynthia Nixon, who we all agree, Democratic Socialists of America is a disgusting, vile group. And they think they have the moral high ground here, Mike. She went out. She was, of course, one of the stars of Sex and the City. She had the following to say.
Most importantly, I am here today as the mother of a proud trans man.
That means a woman, a daughter.
I am here today as the aunt of a proud trans man.
That means her niece.
My best friend's kid is trans. And my kid's best friend is trans. My trans kid had his top surgery at NYU.
His top surgery. Her breast removed.
Those doctors were fantastic. His surgeon was the best we could have imagined. And the idea that this city is filled with young people who thought they had a place to go where they could receive the highest care, and that place has now been shut to them, sickens me. Sickens me to my core.
I'll tell you one thing. She's right about one thing. She is sick. She is sick. And to your point, Mike, about social contagion, did she not just make your point?
I mean, it is truly sickening. Again, gender dysphoria is a severe mental illness. We should protect them. We should treat them with compassion. We shouldn't celebrate this and turn it into a social contagion where kids think it's cool to go be trans and then have their psychotic parents like that woman be
move forward with transgender surgeries, these life destroying pills and surgeries that changed them forever. I mean, these kids can't even get Tylenol at their schools, but their parents think they can get transgender surgeries. I mean, is it, what, What would happen if a mother said, we're going to cut off the arms and legs of my healthy child? People would say, you can't do that.
That is butchering your child. You can't do that. So how the hell do we let these crazy parents cut off the genitals of their healthy children?
Yeah, exactly right. But what do you make of it, Dave? Because it just, I mean, it's barbaric. And for her, you know as well as I do, 30 years ago, it's not that there were all these trans people in hiding. She's like, it's her daughter. When you say trans, if you substitute it in the word fake, it actually gets you to the right result. It's very confusing for people.
So she has a daughter who had her breast chopped off At NYU and like so many other people, she wants to feel validated in her choice and her kids choice by having other kids do the same thing. And so she's going to go out there with the Democratic. It's no accident that she could only find those loons to go march with her, Dave, in trying to make her point.
Megan, she ran for governor against Andrew Cuomo in a Democratic primary, and she got 35% of the vote. That was a left-wing challenge. That was probably 34% more than she deserved to get. She's spoken out against Israel and seems to care more about Hamas than the dead Israeli children that are the victims of terrorism. But as far as on this issue, look, I am...
I'm glad that Mike said what he said, too, because gender dysphoria is a real thing. And I think that it's important to treat these children with compassion. I do agree that it's different when you're a child as when you're an adult. But at the same time, about 1%, about 1.5% of our country is identified as trans.
And I do think that a lot of the conversation we have is inflating that number to make it seem like they're in every corner alley, they're coming to get you. And I think that It's important to realize we're talking about a very, very small group of people. I worry about discrimination against them. At the same time, I hear you.
I think when you're a juvenile and you can't make the decisions for yourself under the law, that perhaps we shouldn't be allowed, children should be allowed to have that surgery. Now, the hormone blockers are a little different. I get it that parents should generally have the say in their child's health, and lawmakers may want to curtail that when it comes to this area. But
That one's a little more confusing to me. I just think it's clear, though, on the surgery that should be when you're an adult.
And just FYI, because a lot of people don't know this, but if your child goes from puberty blockers right into cross-sex hormones, he's sterilized or she is sterilized and absolutely no hope of sexual function. So you have basically chemically castrated your child and they will never achieve sexual pleasure ever.
I mean, how can you argue that an 11-year-old could ever consent to that they have no idea what's going on? what that means, what that portends for their life. It's like people sue over this, the lack of consortium from a spouse because they're no longer able to perform because they got so depressed after the car accident.
You're guaranteeing lack of consortium for your child for the rest of his or her life just by the hormones. Forget the surgeries.
Megan, it's interesting you bring up 11-year-olds. As a prosecutor, we do differentiate under the law an 11-year-old from a 17-year-old. We're not even allowed to direct file an 11-year-old into adult court in Florida. You can direct file, obviously, a 16, 17-year-old. And so perhaps that's where it should be, where there could be different rules in place
for an 11-year-old compared to a 17-year-old. But I get it. I understand as a parent why you are concerned. I just think since the gender dysphoria is real, and I'm not a doctor that I just wish we could come to some sort of common ground on this rather than where we are right now.
All right. One quick question for you, Mike, on Trump's order that transgender people, you know, so-called honestly, I just I really don't think there's any such thing. There's people who have gender dysphoria who say they're a sex other than the one they are. That's just too much of a mouthful. Anyway, he says they can't serve in the military anymore, like at all, not even a desk job.
And I was asking myself, you know, in light of the opinion by the Supreme Court that it's illegal to discriminate against trans people in hiring. You know, they've been given protected status when it comes to hiring and firing at the job site, at the workplace. Could this be challenged? But then you hear you can keep somebody out of the military if they have asthma.
There's a whole bunch of things that you can keep if they have the wrong tattoos. So is there any question that that is a legal order by Trump?
Well, I mean, there's going to be a challenge. There will be a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. We, you know, we fought a civil war and we passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to outlaw slavery, to free the slaves and to provide equal protection and due process to the freed slaves.
And, you know, the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause has been interpreted as Since then, more broadly than freed slaves, I guess the question is going to be for the Supreme Court whether we fought a civil war over transgender surgeries on kids.
Oh, man. OK, let's do birthright citizenship, because this is a big one. It's in the Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment. Speaking of the Equal Protection Clause, and it reads as follows. All persons born or naturalized in the United States. OK, so if you're born here, just go with that. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. are citizens of the United States, et cetera.
If you're born here and you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you're a citizen. So Trump issued an executive order saying, no, you are not a citizen. You or the mom is here lawfully, but she's not a citizen and she's only here temporarily.
So he's basically just trying to get it, mostly he's trying to get at illegals who come across the border, they have their kid, and then their kid is an American anchor baby with all the benefits of citizenship. Now, Dave, there is precedent, as I understand it, saying that
that subject to the jurisdiction does not create some loophole that's as big as the one Trump claims and that we've been doing it right. Illegals who sneak in and have a baby, their kids do get to be American citizens. But there are at least two cases on the other side suggesting maybe not, maybe it's not as clear. So walk me through your analysis of it.
Trump is hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns centuries of precedent here and redefines the 14th Amendment. And he's got a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, so it's always possible. But they liken themselves to originalists. And if you look at the plain language of the 14th Amendment, it says what it says.
Birthright citizenship is there, and if you want to undo it, you've got to amend the Constitution. Now, I understand that conservative lawyers are saying, well, this is like foreign diplomats. Foreign diplomats are not entitled to citizenship either. That's what an undocumented immigrant is, and their children, therefore, are not citizens.
But that's not the way that the courts have been interpreting the 14th Amendment for many, many years.
Let me just jump in. Like, if a diplomat commits a crime while he's in New York City for the UN meeting, we don't arrest him, right? Because he's got diplomatic immunity, because he's not really subject to the jurisdiction. And if a diplomat has a baby while she's on US soil, her baby does not become a US citizen. It's still a citizen of whatever country the diplomat is from.
So you're just saying you cannot analogize between an illegal person who's here and diplomats like Trump is doing.
Right, right, because, yeah, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted since 1898 in a case by the Supreme Court that says exactly what we've been saying, which is if you're born here, you get citizenship, and the only way to undo it is to change the Constitution.
And as for what happens to diplomats and their kids if they commit crimes, according to my sources, which is the movie Lethal Weapon 3, I think, you get all diplomatic immunity unless Mel Gibson shoots you to death.
That is my legal authority as well. Mike, do we all concur?
No, I actually disagree. I just wrote an opinion piece on this in The Federalist.
If you look at that Supreme Court, that was – No, I'm talking about the joke on the film, not about this adage.
Mike, you just walked right over our joke.
I'm sorry.
I missed your joke. I'm such a nerd. I apologize. All right, stand by.
I know you have a very strong argument on the substance that you want to offer, and we're going to do that right after this quick break. We'll pick it up. This is actually a really good, this is a juicy one. I thought it was kind of a joke. And the more I looked into it, the more I was like, hmm, Trump does have a legal leg to stand on.
And this one's going to be very interesting as they really get into it. I've got some good news for you, and it's called... Firecracker Farm hot salt. This small family business is making waves, and if you have not yet tried it, it is time to change that. This was the gift to give and receive this past Christmas. It's delicious, and it elevates everything it touches.
Eggs, avocado toast, grilled chicken, and more. It's got a kick, but it's not overwhelming. The flavor enhances food without overpowering it. The best part? It comes in sleek, stainless steel grinders that are easy to take with you anywhere, unlike messy hot sauce that runs out quickly. Firecracker Farm hot salt lasts and lasts, providing hundreds of servings from just one grinder.
Way more bang for the buck. There are plenty of blends to choose from and refills are available. So for those who find it a bit too spicy, keep this in mind. If you mix it with some regular sea salt, you will tame the heat perfectly. Do yourself a favor and head on over to firecracker.com. And here's the kicker. Use code MK at checkout for 10% off your order. Don't wait.
This offers only for a limited time. Firecracker.farm and use code MK for 10% off. Okay, so just to reset, we have the 14th Amendment, which reads in part, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and of the state wherein they reside.
Okay, so Trump comes out with his executive order that says, well, your kid is not a citizen if he is born here. If you, the mom—let's assume the dad doesn't have citizenship—if you, the mom— are here unlawfully, or if you're here lawfully, but temporarily. So if you're over here on some visiting student visa and you have a baby, it doesn't apply to your kid.
And certainly if you sneaked into this country or overstayed your visa, it does not apply to your kid. Well, 22 states immediately sued, along with some pregnant ladies, to say that executive order needs to be halted and that it violates the 14th Amendment. And on January 23rd, they got what they wanted. The U S district court judge, John. Koffenauer temporarily blocked the EO.
He's based in Seattle, but he's a Reagan appointee. And he wrote, there's a strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will succeed in the merits of their claims that this executive order violates the 14th Amendment. The New York Times reports that he said in court, this is a blatantly unconstitutional order.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind. Now the debate is what does that term subject to the jurisdiction of the United States mean? And Trump's DOJ argues it does not mean you're simply here and subject to our regulatory power. Like you'd have to obey our laws.
It means you're here and you're subject to our quote political jurisdiction and have quote direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. So you're subject to our political jurisdiction. I don't know what that means. Does that mean you can vote here? And you have direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. Now,
Go ahead, Mike, because before we get to this 1898 case, Wong Kim Ark, there were two other cases that are in this Claremont Institute's John Eastman article in which the Supreme Court seemed to be suggesting, albeit in dicta, meaning not in the relevant sort of holding the important part of the case, that Trump's interpretation is correct.
But then, as I understand it, we had a case in 1898 that, while not exactly on point in to those two pieces of his executive order provides the best fodder for the other side saying, no, it's a sweeping interpretation of who gets citizenship. You go.
President Trump's executive order is not only right, it's clearly constitutional. He has this power to interpret the Constitution under Article 2 to make sure that the laws that he is enforcing as the president of the United States are constitutional. And essentially what he's saying in this order is if you are –
If you are here lawfully, if you're here as a lawful permanent resident, you can get birthright citizenship. But if you're here illegally, if you're here temporarily, you cannot. And that is exactly where the Supreme Court should land on this case. That Chinese exclusion case from over 100 years ago dealt with lawful permanent residents.
And that was back before we really had the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration that we have today. But even if you follow that Supreme Court precedent, remember, this clause was passed in the 14th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision. It dealt with citizenship for freed slaves and their children.
And it was expanded in that case over 100 years ago to lawful permanent But it's very clear that you do not have birthright citizenship for ambassadors and their kids. You don't have birthright citizenship for invading armies and their kids. So why the hell would you have birthright citizenship for, for example, Mexican cartel members who came here or Venezuelan prison gangs who came here?
You wouldn't. It's a silly argument. And I think the Supreme Court is largely going to side with President Trump.
Here is President Trump opining on some of what you just outlined in Sat 12. I think so.
Yeah.
Look, birthright citizenship was, if you look back when this was passed and made, that was meant for the children of slaves. This was not meant for the whole world to come in and pile into the United States of America, everybody coming in and totally unqualified people with perhaps unqualified children. This wasn't meant for that.
This was meant, what it was originally done, for the children of slaves. And that was a very good and noble thing to do. And I'm in favor of that 100%. But it wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States. I just think that we'll end up winning that court in the Supreme Court. I think we're going to win that case. And I look forward to winning it. This has been going on.
We're at that level. We're the only country in the world that does this. There's no other country at this level. There's no other country in the world that does it. It's crazy.
So, Dave, here are the two cases that precede that 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, which will be used by the president's challengers, Wong Kim Ark. But as Mike points out, that case is distinguishable because it involved two permanent resident aliens. They were not... temporary lawful, but they were not lawful, but temporary. And they were not unlawful. Those are the two things that Trump's order covers.
So even in that case that went to the Supreme court, they wouldn't have been bothered by Trump's department, uh, department of Homeland security. They would not have been, um, told that their son was not an American citizen. Okay, but here are the two cases that are cited in that Claremont Institute piece.
They say, first of all, it all comes down to what does it mean subject to the jurisdiction thereof? And the argument is, is it a partial temporary jurisdiction that applies to anyone here temporarily except for diplomats who are subject to our laws while within our borders?
Or do they mean if you're in order to qualify as like subject to the jurisdiction, do they mean just those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power? And they say that we don't have to guess because the drafters of the 14th Amendment unambiguously stated that they meant complete jurisdiction.
And they say the following. The Supreme Court confirmed that understanding, albeit in dicta, meaning not the actual holding of the case, in the first case addressing the 14th Amendment, noting in the slaughterhouse cases in 1872 that, quote,
The phrase subject to its jurisdiction was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States. It then confirmed that understanding the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, holding that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase...
required that one be, quote, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
And he points out that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants or even temporary, temporary lawful visitors are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by birth, by virtue of their birth in the US.
So, Megan, there's a couple of factual things since this is a show about facts. Facts first. President Trump says that we're the only country that has this. There are 35 countries who have birthright citizenship, including Mexico and Canada. Number two, I made a mistake earlier when I said that it was lethal weapon three.
And Mel Gibson, who shot the diplomatic community, was actually lethal weapon two. And it was Danny Glover who then said immunity revoked. So facts first. Appreciate that.
We are relentlessly factual here on the MK show. Appreciate it.
Yes, we are. So here's the thing, Mike, and everything that's said so far is right. President Trump's right that this debate stretches from the time of slavery and the 14th Amendment passed because they wanted to make sure the children of slaves are citizens because they're born here, they're citizens. And then later on in the 19th century, we have the question, does it include the Chinese people?
And that's when the Supreme Court ruled in 1898, which is after the ruling you cite in that case, Wong Kim Ark, that yes, Chinese too, if you're born here, you are a citizen here.
And I'm just coming at this from a legal matter where you have that Reagan appointed judge saying that if you make this argument in court, you perhaps should have your bar license revoked because the constitution says what it says. And therefore you'd have to get the Supreme Court to either overturn
hundreds of years of precedent, or you gotta have a new constitutional amendment that undoes the 14th amendment.
I'm not sure. I've got to be honest about this. I started off when I interviewed Trump back in September of 23, I, I can't remember actually whether I raised this or didn't. It was on my list of questions. I know that. And I remember kind of laughing at the argument. Like I was like, this is so clear. It's so clearly against Trump being able to do this. Um, I think I did ask him about it.
I have to go back and look. Anyway, my point is I started off where you are, Dave, but I wound up where Mike is. Like the more I looked at it, the more I'm like, this actually is not that clear. You say there's hundreds of years of precedent. There's really only that one case that's been on the books since 1898, but they haven't been like reaffirming this over and over and over.
This is the case. But other federal courts have. I mean, the other federal courts have ruled consistently with that case. And until that case is overturned, then that's the law. That's the rule. But the Supreme Court. That's correct. That's correct. But that case has, through other federal courts, appellate courts, has been reaffirmed that way.
They have recognized that there's not a conflict among the circuit. There's no current conflict amongst federal courts that say- Right, but there's about to be.
There's- As you know, there's going to be. Because somebody's going to... They've got these challenges filed in Seattle, and that'll go up. And probably Team Trump will potentially orchestrate a different challenge in a more favorable jurisdiction that will go their way, and then you'll have a conflict.
Or maybe they'll just ride it up through the Seattle system, which I think is Ninth Circuit, and they'll get an adverse ruling to them. And then they'll appeal to SCOTUS, hoping that they've got enough, they've got four, who will say that they should hear it. I just... What does the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Like, what's it doing in there?
If they just wanted to give citizenship to everybody, you know, who was born here, why wouldn't they have just said all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.? Why did they put in and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
So they're trying to exclude the foreign diplomats and their children. So if you are a child of a foreign diplomat, you also get immunity. And that's what they're trying to separate. That's different from a child of someone who is in this country illegally. they still get the privileges and immunities. They still get protection under the law. They still get due process.
At the same time, they get citizenship. So they're trying to carve out this exception from children of foreign diplomats who may be born here, but they get diplomatic immunity who are not subject to our laws. They retain the citizenship of the country that sent them. So that's the difference.
Now, if you want to try to say now they're all the same, that would be a dramatic change in the interpretation.
Well, I just don't know. I mean, if I if you look back at the Supreme Court's actual like we have to look, what did the Supreme Court say closer to the time that the Constitution was enacted and the 14th Amendment? And, you know, you go back to that 1872 case and they say in its dicta again, but they say that phrase subject to its jurisdiction intended to exclude.
children of ministers, consuls, those are like foreign diplomats, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States, intended to exclude citizens of foreign states born within the United States. I mean, it wasn't so clear to the Supreme Court in 1872 that they were talking about more than diplomats' children. They were saying you're born to parents from another country,
You don't get the provisions of this. And then again, 1884, a similar case. And then you had that case that's problematic for Trump. But that that did not have the same fact pattern that had two people who are here legally and permanently. I just think anyway, if you if you come at it the way I came at it and you've just been told over and over and over again, this is no brainer.
I guess I just want people to know maybe not. I don't know whether this judge in Seattle has gotten neck deep in it either, but he's going to. OK, speaking of illegal immigration. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, who is disgusting. I'm sorry, but the COVID overreach and the destructive, awful windmills are reason enough to dislike Phil Murphy.
He made this announcement just casually the other day that he's harboring an illegal. Now, he didn't say it explicitly, but there's really no other conclusion to reach from what he did say. I'll play it again. Here he is on Saturday.
Tammy and I were talking about, I don't want to get into too much detail, but there's someone in our broader universe whose immigration status is not yet at the point that they are trying to get it to. And we said, you know what, let's have her live at our house above our garage. And good luck to the feds coming in to try to get her.
Okay. Okay. So you tell me why the feds would come to get her if she's not an illegal. It's a very clear admission. He's harboring an illegal whose immigration status is not yet at the point that she's trying to get it to, but it's at a point at which the feds would try to get her. So it's an admission. He's definitely harboring an illegal, in my opinion, based on what he said. Now you tell me,
Who in their right mind, Mike Davis, would take a look at Tom Homan and say, that's a guy I would like to mess with. I would really like to tempt Tom Homan to come after me because I think he's a weak, feckless man. This man, just for those of you playing at home, here's Tom Homan.
We have seen one estimate that says it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year.
I don't know if that's accurate or not.
Is that what American taxpayers should expect?
What price do you put on national security? Is that worth it?
Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?
Of course there is. Families can be deported together.
Who looks at him and says, I'd love to tempt the bull. I'm just going to take out my red cape and I'm going to wave it to see if Tom Holm is paying attention. Well, he is because he responded, this is on Hannity Monday night. It's not 13.
Well, I think the government's pretty foolish saying what he said because I've gotten old of it. We'll let it go. We'll look into it. And if he's gnarly, gnarly, harboring, concealing an illegal alien, that's a violation of Title VIII United States Code 1324. I would seek prosecution or the secretary would seek prosecution. So maybe he's bluffing. If he's not, we'll deal with that.
And as far as suing sanctuary cities, well, get in line because the Trump administration is going to do that already. Sanctuary cities are sanctuary for criminals.
Mike, thoughts?
I would not mess with Tom Holman if I were anyone. He's probably the only person on the planet who I fear. And so I would mess with that guy. He's deadly serious. And I would say to these Democrat governors who want to go on and admit that they're committing a federal felony by harboring illegal immigrants, that's probably not the wisest thing you should be doing.
He really is one of those guys who you wake up like, am I legal? I'm legal, right? I'm good. I'm definitely legal. I don't have to worry about Tom Homan trying to get me out because he's getting you out if you're here unlawfully. Now, a Phil Murphy aide, Dave, tells the New York Post that the governor...
was misinterpreted that Murphy was just referring to a legal resident who's in his circle of friends and was worried about president Trump's return to the white house. That's all totally legal in the circle of friends.
And I guess maybe not in the apartment over the garage and with an immigration status, not yet at the point that they're trying to get it to and worried about being deported by Tom Homan.
Well, Megan, of course, if that were the case, why did he dare Tom Homan to go get him? Why did he dare them if she wasn't living in his house? But OK. Right. So this is why pencils have erasers. The governor just made a little mistake and now he's doing cleanup on all nine to mix a metaphor.
No, you mean that the mistake was the admission he screwed and so is his upstairs neighbor.
I'm advising the governor to cease using his mouth to talk about this any longer because it's not helping him. I think, you know, there's a lot of emotion on my side of the aisle and a lot of anger. And I think that he just got caught up in the moment and was saying this stuff. Now, if he really is an undocumented immigrant living above his home, then he's going to be in trouble.
He's committing a felony. Well, you don't want to mess with a guy that even Mike Davis fears. I got that. So I'd say that he needs to backtrack and make it clear, as his aid is, that there is no such person living in the house. There's nothing to see here. He misspoke. He was referring to a friend in his circle who's legal and was worried about getting caught up in the deportation.
He's so dumb. He already flagged it. He already read flagged it for Tom Homan. It's too late. Tom Homan's going to see what's in that upstairs apartment. I have no doubt of it. And honestly, if he finds an illegal in there, apparently she'll flee. I imagine she'd flee by the time Homan gets there. He's going to find out. Who was it? You can't avoid this. He's going to find out who it was.
The governor probably just insured that woman's deportation. And guess what else, Mike? The governor could potentially face felony charges. Here's the statute. 18, no, sorry, 8 U.S. Code Section 1324, bringing in and harboring certain aliens, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Quote, any person who knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, any such alien in any place shall be in prison not more than five years.
So pretty good argument there, admitted by the New Jersey governor that he knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that he had an alien there, an illegal alien, had entered the United States in violation of law or remained in the United States in violation of law, either one, was concealing, harboring, and shielding from detection, one of those, anyone, harboring, he harbored, that's it, or attempting to harbor,
has to be in prison for more than five years. You tell me where the governor should be hiring a lawyer right now.
I would advise the governor to hire a lawyer because, again, Tom Holman's not messing around. And I imagine there will be ICE agents knocking on the door of that garage to see if there are illegal immigrants in the governor's garage. And that's so not smart for him to do this. But you're raising a more important point, Megan, which is this statute, this federal harboring statute.
This applies to a lot of people who are... aiding, abetting, harboring illegal immigrants in this country, including corporations that hire them.
He harbored. He admitted to the harboring. He was proud of the harboring. He tried to show a little swagger against Tom Holman and his illegal friend, and he are going to pay the price. She's the least of your troubles now.
Only if they catch her there.
Oh, he's going to be like, she's my illegal from Canada, George Glass.
She's not living there anymore. If she ever lived there, I'm sure she's gone. You'd have to actually find her on his property. The fact that he said it isn't enough to prosecute him.
Which is more pathetic, Dave Ehrenberg. He had an illegal up there and he had this stupidity to threaten Tom Holman or he never had an illegal up there. And he's just tried to act like a badass, making up an imaginary illegal to try to look like a tough guy in front of Tom Holman.
I think it's probably the latter. I think that he was trying to get some street cred by saying, yeah, come and get it, Homan. You'll get in my property over this dead body or something like that. You know how they say with the Second Amendment, you have to pry my cold, dead hands off this gun if you're going to get it from me. So I just think that was too much bluster.
We all need to tone down the rhetoric.
Oh, my gosh. Either one is a humiliation for him. But my money's on. There's an illegal up there. I don't know if she's still up there. But they'll find out who she is. I mean, I think you and I could, in about an hour, make a few phone calls at this point and figure out who's up there, who was up there, where'd she go.
And certainly if they ever got him interviewed by an FBI agent or somebody who has the authority to prosecute you if you lie to them, Philip Murphy would be giving her up like that, like a New Jersey ice cream cone on an August day. Gone. Guys, thank you both so much. A pleasure as always.
Thank you.
Thank you, Megan.
Thanks, Mike.
All right, let me ask the audience that. Do you believe Phil Murphy is harboring an illegal immigrant in the apartment above his garage? Or do you think he made it up to sound tough, like he could challenge Tom Homan? I am 100% in favor of he's harboring. He appears to have committed a felony. And now we should just get our popcorn to see what happens from here. Megan at megankelly.com.
That's how you email me. Coming up next, filmmaker Sean Stone is here. He has made a really interesting series and it is about the deep state. He happens to be the son of Oliver Stone, a filmmaker in his own right. He was in some of your favorite movies as a child. We'll show you some of that.
And he is blowing the whistle on just how deep the rot runs in his government when it comes to the hatred for Donald Trump and those around him. And frankly, what Trump is going to be up against in trying to clean house second time around. Stand by for that. The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and it just stepped up enforcement for 2025.
If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't wait for the IRS to come to you. Thank you. Simply avoiding your tax troubles is the worst thing you can do. Getting ahead of this is the smart move, but you might not want to contact the IRS alone. You could turn it over to the team at Tax Network USA. Why? Because not all tax resolution companies are the same.
Tax Network USA has a preferred direct line to the IRS, which means they know which agents to deal with and which to avoid. Tax Network USA has proven strategies that are designed to settle your tax problems in your favor, whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million. Their attorneys and negotiators have resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. Speak with one of their strategists for free.
And stop the threatening letters, stop looking over your shoulder, and put your IRS troubles behind you once and for all. Call 1-800-905-8000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Megan. That's TNUSA.com slash Megan. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn 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 Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura. I'm back. Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly.
You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.
Go to 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.
We've talked a lot about RFKJ, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel over the past week. Their status as disruptors is a key component in the reasons why the D.C. establishment cannot stand them. And that brings us today to filmmaker Sean Stone. Sean's latest documentary series is called All the President's Men, The Conspiracy Against Trump.
It is streaming right now on our pal Tucker Carlson on his network, the Tucker Carlson Network. Here's a clip from the series showing Kash Patel.
When did you realize the first time that the government was not what you were taught?
Honestly, you know, I grew up and I'm still that way. You know, cops are frontline workers or firefighters or military. All of them are the greatest people on earth and we'll do whatever we can to support them. But I also learned as a public defender that not all of them are incorruptible. Unfortunately, some of them, and a very small number, lie. And some of them break the law.
And so as a public defender, I would come into this courtroom and I'd be like, wait a second, this cop just lied on this affidavit. What are you doing? You're a police officer. You know, it was inconceivable to me. And that sort of started the path, the conversation to the level of corruption in Washington, D.C. was not wholly new to me, but I also didn't expect it at that level.
The series is a deep dive into the coordinated efforts by administration insiders and the media to take down Donald Trump during his first presidential term. It provides great insight into Cash, Tulsi, and RFKJ's agendas. Sean, welcome to the show.
Thank you, Megan. It's a pleasure to meet you.
What a great idea and obviously very timely. So what was the biggest surprise to you in going after the story?
I mean, how can I say I was surprised, having lived through what we did through the first administration, and actually the series goes actually all the way up to after January 6th and the fallout from that event. So I started this project in 21, but in many ways I was – tangentially connected to it since 2015 and 16. I was actually working for Russia Today in 2015.
I went to Moscow there with Michael Flynn, General Flynn, when he was at a dinner for a celebration of RT's news channel. And that famous dinner became part of the basis for the whole accusation that Flynn was a Russian agent.
So because I was working for Russia Today with great journalists and hosts like Jesse Ventura and Chris Hedges and Tom Hartman and so many others, Abby Martin, I understood this whole narrative of Russian collusion. is pretty thin because you're, you know, they're out there.
The intelligence community assessment is saying that RT, which is a bunch of Americans like myself doing news and journalism and, you know, giving our perspective on, on the, you know, on matters, you know, we are, we are the Russian agents. I mean, that's how I understood that there was something very wrong with the narrative.
And obviously as we dug deeper into the stories that we focused upon, we were able to show how the conspiracy was not, Russian collusion. It was really U.S. and Five Eyes intelligence conspiracy to try to paint a picture of Trump as a Russian puppet.
Can we talk about the Five Eyes situation? Because in about a half an hour, we're taping live right now on Sirius XM at 133 in the east. We're going to get, I believe, a positive vote on Tulsi Gabbard out of committee, which is great. But
Some of the things that that she's spoken out about when it comes to the distrust of the Intelligence Committee right now amongst the American public did not go over well with the senators in that room, left or right. They all seemed adverse to her. They all seemed like, you know, I think they'd all wish that Trump had nominated somebody else.
But can you just give people a flavor for what you're talking about? And so they know why. Why did Trump go with such a nontraditional pick?
Yeah, yeah.
Well, you know, Tulsi's, as you know, a lot of us have shifted political positions over these years, because we're trying to find, you know, I think, what might be more of traditionally become kind of a traditional American centrist position, trying to figure that out in this insane time that we've been living through, where a lot of us were critical during the Obama years, all of a sudden found ourselves outside the democratic fold, you know, who
at one moment we're criticizing the Bush administration for unwarranted surveillance of Americans, the Patriot Act, things like this, right? The endless war agenda. We went from criticizing that to then the Democrats supporting it under Obama and a lot of people being disenchanted by that. I think Tulsi who served, you know, her served her country, served abroad, you know, came back.
She was Democrat. She was, basically kicked out of the party for not going along with the rigging that went on in 2016 when the Democrats gave the nomination to Hillary, right? So she then basically says, well, I'm standing on principle here and kind of gets isolated from the party. I mean, she stays with it, obviously, until 2020, if I recall. She was part of that primary debates.
But essentially, she realized the party's gone in a different direction. It's gone extreme pro-military industrial complex, national security state, endless war agenda. The only person who's come out swinging against that since 2016 is Donald Trump. And Donald Trump has reshaped the Republican Party around that, you know, what people call America first, right?
But American interests first principle, which really is an old, you know, it's an old Republican principle. And I don't know if it was ever a Democrat principle because the Democrats are always actually the ones who started the wars. World War I was a Democrat. World War II was a Democrat. Vietnam War was a Democrat. So people forget this.
And I think that Trump took it back more to this Republican route of, hey, let's focus on our country. Tulsi obviously rallied around that.
So, yeah, giving perspective, when you're talking about a massive military, industrial, national security state apparatus that is costing trillions of dollars, I don't know about annually, but certainly over the course of years, then you're talking about a lot of money. And it's circling through what General Flynn talks about with China.
This sort of this why Washington and the counties around Washington are in the top 10 wealthiest counties in the country, right? Because you're talking about massive contracts and things like this. So those that have been there like Flynn and Tulsi who've seen it firsthand and said, hey, I want to stand on principle, not on profit, they end up becoming targeted and accused of being –
I don't know, Russian puppets because they're opposed to an endless war.
Right, that's what happened in Tulsi. Yeah, exactly. So one of the interesting characters, I mean, we play that soundbite of Kash Patel, but one of the things I've just made a mental note of is he was working with Devin Nunes. They were looking at this Russian collusion nonsense saying like, this isn't right. This stinks. Right. And Cash is like this firebrand fighter.
He's a very colorful character. If you talk to him, he's just kind of fun to talk to and he doesn't mince words. I like him, but he's kind of fun and he's got flair, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And on the other side really was like, Robert Mueller, you know, James Comey, like these distinguished, respected old school prosecutors. Right.
And so when, when there was this battle of like, who's telling the truth, you know, like is Trump a spy? Is Trump, does he have a server from Russia in Trump tower where they, as Don jr said, we couldn't even figure out how to order French fries, nevermind how to order the Russians around. Um, And then you see Cash is like this, like, yeah, this is bullshit. What's happening?
Like in Devin Nunes, he was kind of like a low level congressman. He was never even that high up. It's like but they were right. They were right. And it's really the reason why Cash Patel is about to be our next FBI director. You have something in the in one of the episodes about Cash figuring out. who is behind the vaunted Steele dossier?
You know, the one that talked about Trump's ties to Russia and how he had the prostitutes urinate on the bed. Trump, the germaphobe, wanted somebody to pee in front of him. Okay.
There was a time where we were believing all this, or at least asked to.
And here's a bit of that, of how that went down, from episode four, SOT29.
to break through the walls of DOJ, literally, to go and get access to a FISA when I heard that, through our sources, that a Trump campaign official was being monitored. And I was like, what? I was like, are you kidding me? I was like, I got to go read this thing. When we first read the FISA, half of it was blacked out.
And then we had to go and fight for the redactions to be lifted just to read it. And then we figured it out. I was like, dude, this Steele dossier is in this thing.
So the Steele dossier was the basis of the FISA?
The whole basis of FISA. It wasn't just the FBI. You can read the dossier and read the files and know there's no way it was just these guys. Somebody else is in on it. And so we actually were running a separate investigation outside of the DOJ-FBI bubble into how this thing was put together. And we had our own sources, and one of them told us
The money for this thing came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. And this is one of those moments where you're like, never forget. So I run into Devin's office. It was like nine in the morning. I was like, dude, I figured out who paid for this. And he's like, huh? I'm like, the Steele dossier. He's like, I figured out who paid for it. And I was like, Hillary Clinton.
And he goes, if you're going to start drinking at this early in the morning, get out of my office.
So just for the people who haven't been consuming Russiagate recently, they're talking about how the Steele dossier This made up piece of alleged intelligence was the basis for getting a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. It was like they used this made up piece of intel to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
Yet another reason why these FISA warrants became controversial and were mentioned repeatedly in the Tulsi Gabbard hearing as though they're totally vaunted. They're above reproach. You have to love them. You have to support them. You know, she's expressed some reservations about how we've used FISA in the past. So have many others. Anyway, this is all the background to that in part.
And then him asking, well, who's behind the dossier? I don't trust that. I definitely don't like the warrant. And I don't trust the dossier. That was the basis of the warrant. And oh, my God, it's the Hillary Clinton campaign. Like he says, the the aha moment, the moment you will remember where you were.
Yeah. Well, so it's so interesting with the Steele dossier. In Rudy Giuliani's episode, he talks a bit about his sources in the Ukraine saying that the dossier that Steele cooked up was cooked up in the Ukraine. Now you start to understand. When you watch the series, you start to get part of the bigger picture.
Not the full picture, but part of the bigger picture of why Ukraine has played such a key role in our foreign policy the last 10 years, going back to 2014 in the Maidan coup, right? And how we've basically escalated that conflict to the place where it now is in war with Russia.
But you see how this dossier was part, how do you say, was concocted through channels and allies of the Democrats there in Ukraine and basically then Steele himself being a former Russian intel guy I'm sorry, former British intel on the Russia desk, but had not been to Russia for a long time.
The steel and the fact of also Papadopoulos, who was also targeted by the FBI's investigation, having this meeting with an Australian ambassador in London, a lot of... The cross channels going through this investigation all indicate that there's not just CIA, US intelligence, there's also British intelligence having its fingerprints on this setup of Trump. And why British intelligence?
Well, this is an old game as far as we have to recognize the British are not Our friends, the British, strategically use America. They've been using America for over 100 years, going back to before the First World War. But you think about it, they use America.
Just think about the Iraq invasion most recently when it was British intelligence that was handing us the allegations, remember, about enriched uranium coming from Niger and things like this. That was a lot of British intelligence was handing that over. The British are very...
dangerous people i think american patriots have to recognize just like we are now recognizing hey maybe canada is not necessarily like our friend you know it's trudeau and company are not necessarily on the same page as we are the british likewise you have to be very careful about because they will use us to play their games to be the instrument of their war agenda to preserve what you know was formerly their empire now we you know we are sort of
the champions of it, right, in terms of these zones of influence and trade and economics. But again, I just caution Americans to recognize that this special relationship already conveys a globalist or New World Order agenda, which has been talked about for decades. Openly, I think people have said, like Biden have said, New World Order, called it that.
And so the fact that the British intel guy, Steele, was the basis of this dossier should be an indicator for those that are paying attention.
very interesting, very interesting perspective. I, I know that. So we, I mentioned in the intro, you are a stone, you are the son of Oliver stone. And I just permit me this one moment because your dad has made some of the greatest movies, including wall street. I loved wall street.
We'll talk about JFK, but I didn't realize you were in wall street, little, little you, uh, as an actor and you played Gordon gecko's son, Rudy, here you are in this clip.
now why would your dad include in the final cut oh a take of you picking your nose at the beginning and then throwing a strawberry in somebody's face at the end
It's action, you know. Directors, you know, are interested by actions, right? So there are different actions that give some dynamic to the scene.
Do you have any conscious memory of that movie, being in that movie?
I have memories of being on set. Yeah, like very, very early memories of being on the sets. And, you know, starting from, I don't remember, maybe even, it's hard to remember because it blurs together. We were in Philippines for Platoon and then for Born on the Fourth of July. We were in, you know, New York and Dallas on talk radio, Wall Street, Born again, Born, JFK.
You know, it was just it was a wonderful time in life to go between going to school, you know, having some level of normalcy, right, elementary school. And sorry, my do not disturb song. But anyway, so going to elementary school, and then going from that to a film set, you know, it's, it's, it's kind of a fantasy life, right?
Yeah. Oh, that's a sweet picture of the two of you together. And you're over the camera. One more, and then I'll stop with this torture. But you also played the son of Kevin Costner's character, Jim Garrison, in JFK. And in this following scene, you're being held by Sissy Spacek. No lines, but you're in this. Watch.
Show this world that this is still a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Nothing as long as you live will ever be more important. It's up to you.
Okay, so who do you remember as nicer, Kevin Costner or Michael Douglas?
But, you know, honestly, they're both very nice to me still to this day. You know, it's funny because it's like my two fathers, both very sweet, very sweet people. At the time, I was, you know, I would play a little bit like Michael, you know, with his son and we played tennis, you know, in his house in Santa Barbara and then You know, we played baseball with Kevin and his daughter or daughters.
I can't remember how many kids he had at the time, but I remember like playing baseball with them in the backyard in New Orleans. So, you know, it's one of those things where you just think of, yeah, it's just life, right? These are people. And then for others, they never met them. They look at them as almost like, you know. the modern, uh, aristocracy, you know, Kings and Queens.
Um, it's, it's, it's, it's frankly, it's bizarre living the way I've lived on both sides.
But if you like them, it's a very good testimony on their behalf because kids, they have a radar for disingenuous people, people who are pretending to be cool or like be good with kids. They just sense they can see right through it. So if you have a good feeling about them, they probably are good guys. Um, Your dad, obviously there's a reason he made JFK.
And this has been one of the preeminent films of the past 50 years. It's just one of the biggies. It's legendary. It got so many people reconsidering the JFK assassination. And now one of his first acts as president by Trump was to order the release of the remaining JFK files. They say maybe there's 3% that has yet to come out. There's a reason it's been withheld.
I imagine you're very curious to see what's in there, but you tell me.
Yeah, I mean, it's one of those things where I don't think my dad or anyone's holding their breath expecting to find smoking guns within the documents. At the same time, as you said, why have they been withheld for this long? What is that going to indicate? Because when you are people that are doing this professionally, researching, looking at all the connections, right?
You need as many puzzle pieces as possible. We're never going to get all the puzzle pieces to fill it in. I don't think. But we will at least have more to hopefully indicate what went down that day. It's one of those things where I wonder if there was – was there ever a meeting that took place or was it really more operational orders, things that are –
kind of implied chain of command type of things. Only one person knows what they're supposed to do and where they're supposed to be, right? And one person above them knowing to tell them that information. I mean, it's really difficult to fathom how this went down because those of us that don't operate as conspirators have a hard time understanding how conspiracies work. And yet they do work.
They have worked. Conspiracies are part of life. And I think that if nothing else, I just hope that this doesn't become like, oh, now that files are out, we don't have a smoking gun. We can shut the door on this. That's my only fear of the establishment.
People don't generally write the smoking gun down in writing and keep it in a record. They usually hide the smoking gun. Last but not least, I must ask you, because looking at your biofacts, I love this. Sean Stone starred in and directed his first feature film, Greystone Park, in 2012, based on his real-life paranormal experiences in a haunted mental hospital. What?
What? You know what? You've never been to Jersey? Come on. Jersey's full of haunted stuff.
I have a property under there.
Wait. Well, then you should know.
You were a patient in a haunted mental hospital, or you went to document what was happening, and you experienced the paranormal?
So it was an abandoned place called Greystone Park. And if you've seen the new Bob Dylan movie, Complete Unknown, the opening of the film, he goes to visit Woody Guthrie, who was a patient at Greystone. Greystone was a very famous establishment. It was there since right after the Civil War. And they finally shut it down after over 100 years. There were 3,000 plus people that were buried there.
There were tens of thousands of patients that had come up to come through the doors. And it was notoriously haunted. So we went ghost hunting. My friends and I, we broke in one night. We kept going back and documented a lot of stuff. And some of it is in the film. You'll even see moments that are genuine. It's a fictional reenactment. It's a docu... It's a mockumentary, I guess you'd call it.
It's styled like a documentary. But no, we had a lot of paranormal experiences. That would be a whole show in itself.
That's the whole other one that we have to consume. That actually really sounds fascinating. But first, you've got to check out his latest venture for Tucker Carlson on the Tucker Carlson Network. I mean, it's doing what's been out there for a while, right? And it's called All the President's Men.
Of course, a take on the famous other film by that name, All the President's Men, the Tucker Carlson Network. Congratulations, Sean. That's awesome.
Appreciate it, Megan. Yeah, you know, it's been up for a couple months now, but it's still relevant because as you mentioned, Kash Patel, our next FBI director, you know, tells who we talk about and just the overall conspiracy.
If we don't understand how conspiracies work, right, then we can't understand, as you say, we can't really understand the nature of our reality when it comes to politics if we're not willing to look at real conspiracies.
You can't be so dismissive of them that you miss the ones that are real and are there before your very eyes. Sean Stone, thank you. See you soon. Appreciate it. Fascinating. Check it out. All the President's Ben over on the Tucker Carlson Network. We're back tomorrow with the fifth column. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.