The Brian Kilmeade Show

This show proudly sponsored by Real American Freestyle Wrestling. Recently, a close friend of mine experiencing unexpected loss, watching their family struggle emotionally and financially, made me stop and think seriously about my own family's future. As the primary provider, I know how important it is to make sure that if anything ever happened to me, my family would still be able to manage.

So, I realized that without life insurance, my family would be left with overwhelming financial burdens. I looked into coverage before, but the process always felt complicated, got endless forms, phone calls, and medical exams, made everything take weeks.

So, that's why Ethos stood out to me. Their process is simple and 100% online. There's no medical exam required, just a few health questions, and you get a quote in as little as 10 minutes. In many cases, you can even receive same-day coverage without ever leaving your house. Ethos offers up to $3 million in coverage with some policies starting as low as $2 a day, billed monthly.

It's a trustworthy company that's changing the way people think about life insurance.

So, protect your family's financial future with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com/slash. Brian. That's e-thos.com/slash Brian. Application times may vary, rates may vary.

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Hi, everyone.

So glad you're here, and thanks for being with us all week long. It's an impactful week. It's a week in which we're back to work in Congress and everywhere else. This hour will be joined by Griff Jenkins, getting set for Fox and Friends weekend, fresh off filling in for Lawrence Jones. And we have Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

And he's going to weigh in on the Letitia James case. He's going to weigh in on the James Comey case. And now the Eric Swalwell case, also his speculation on what's happening with tariffs, interacted with the president a little. And he's, like everybody thinks, concerned about what the Supreme Court's going to do. And before we get to Griff, let's get to the big three.

Number three. Here's why the presidential focus, the 2028 focus, I think is bad: is because if you wake up asking yourself, what's good for my future a few years down the road, you're not going to do a good job right now. And that is JD Vance speculating on running for president. And he says, I'm not going to even think about it until after the midterm elections, and I'm going to sit down with the president first. Not too soon to talk about 28.

It reveals the game plan that JD is going to put in place. Who else will be on that debate stage, if anyone? And what about on the left? We'll talk to Griff about that. Number two.

The socialist fever in the Democratic Party seems to be spreading after Zoron Mom Dani's win in New York City. Over in Seattle, they have just elected a socialist mayor, Katie Wilson, an inexperienced far-left radical who got financial support from her parents. Kaylee McInaney, aftermath of the shutdown, has revealed a political bloodbath on the left, and the rise of socialism cannot be denied. Let the nonviolent civil war begin. Number one.

We are doing phenomenally well. This is the greatest economy we've ever had. They're talking points, oh corsai, corsair, by the way, the only thing is beef. We're going to take care of all this stuff very quickly, very easily. It's surgical.

It's beautiful to watch. But they are. It is more than beef, but he's attacking all these items, including coffee. They get it. A week removed from a terrible off-year election.

The Republicans show the administration reveals they know affordability matters. It's a key to winning the midterms. We'll review their plans and answers, and it shouldn't and it isn't shoveling free money to people. And that's, by the way, I know the president loves the idea of giving some tariff money to people. I don't.

I know the Secretary of Treasury told me on Wednesday on Tuesday Wednesday. That he says, I'll just give, we're thinking about $2,000 of tariff money to people at a certain income, so not everybody. Griff Jenkins joins us now. Griff, I can't believe how many practical measures they're speculating, they're putting in place and thinking about putting in place that legitimately can affect people's lives. Yeah, and listen, you know, we talked a little bit about this on Fox to Friends this morning, and I'm going to say it again here.

I really think that one of the things that has so distinguished President Trump were the giant rallies was the fact that he was constantly out in America, where people are actually impacted, not in New York City, not in Washington, D.C., but in towns across the country talking about the issues that matter. And for guys like you and I, Brian, you know, we were in our early 30s when we bought our first home and barely could do it and scrambling to figure out how to make it happen. And then now, by now, we've gotten older, and you know, that's been a benefit to us. And any really person back in the 80s and 90s were able to buy that house. That doesn't exist now for the young 25, 30-year-olds.

One of the reasons was a little bit. In the 90s, about the bad, you know, about the bad loans. Hey, you don't have the income eligibility yet, so we'll give you an adjustable loan. You don't have to put as much money down, and it all blew up. We didn't even, and then they would give you the mortgage and then sell it to another bank, and then when everything fell apart.

You could find out, we couldn't even find the loans. Like, what bank actually had your loan? Right, you know, thinking in retrospect, sometimes we got those mortgages and we shouldn't have. Right, right.

So now we've really buckled down, and people are saying, wait a second, no one's selling their homes in their 40s and 50s because the interest rate was so great.

Now it's at six, it was at three.

So that's why I love the idea we discussed yesterday about portability. Take your 3%, 3.5% mortgage to that bigger house. I don't know how the banks liked it, but if the president met with all those banking CEOs the night before, don't you think he came up with Jamie Dimon and company? Oh, you bet it did. And again, you know, owning your home is the cornerstone of the American dream as we talk about it.

I've given President Trump the name for his nationwide tour, should be bringing the American Dream Back and talk about the affordability. I'll tell you another thing that was mentioned that would make a lot of sense, and that is right now you cannot take out more than $10,000 out of your 401k. But if you are someone that had been trying to buy without a penalty and who wants to pay, you know, 40% cap gains tax on taking money out of your 401k, it just makes no sense. It's just financially a terrible idea. But if you could increase that to say, 30, maybe 40,000 that you could take out of your 401k.

There are, I think, probably in this country, and I'd love to know the number, a large number of 35,000, 36, 37-year-olds that have since gotten married, that probably even have their first or even second child that have been deferred because of the conditions during the Biden administration. They couldn't buy a house, they're paying rent. That could help them right now. It could help them tomorrow to change the trajectory of their household's economy.

So here's E.J. Antoni. He's writing for The Economist. This is what he said Gen Z is facing now, where I think the number is 3% of Gen Z have their own home. Wow, cut five.

And I think if we look at, for example, the financial habits of Gen Z and we compare that to millennials, Gen Z is actually much more uh uh conservative financially speaking. And yet the affordability for them is terrible when it comes to something like buying a home.

So while you might find individuals in literally every generation who are not financially uh very responsible, right, I don't think we can paint a broad brush with Gen Z and say that somehow it's their fault. I think this is a systematic failure. System and just the situation you find yourselves in right now. Uh, there's only there's a lot of very few houses for sale proportionally in the country.

So, if you have a short supply, obviously the homeowner wants to get maximum for their house. People are paying over the price everywhere on Long Island that I know. Part of it is people want to move out of the city, and everybody wants to go outside New York City. Or if you're listening in Chicago or Philadelphia, of course, you want to be in the suburbs if you can.

Well, and it's a supply and demand thing, and you're right. I mean, as Mayor Mom Dunny comes in, you may see even more people want to get out of New York City for the obvious reasons. But what's interesting is that in the interview with Sean, Vice President Vance was talking about the fact that you can't forget we've got 10 million plus illegal aliens across the border. Many of them were given opportunities in this country, and you know what they did? They're smart, they're conservative, they bought a house, and so the supply was even impacted by the border crisis.

I know those on the left have really downplayed that, but that's an actual factor. You look at the big picture, you got a supply and demand problem. You've got people that shouldn't have been here in the first place that got these homes.

So this is what they're here's what President Trump told Laura this week on this cut one. This is the greatest economy we've ever had. They're talking points, oh corsair high, corsair, by the way, the only thing is beef. Beef is a little high because the ranchers are doing great. Coffee.

Coffee, we're going to lower some tariffs. We're going to have some coffee come in. We're going to take care of all this stuff very quickly, very easily. It's surgical. It's beautiful to watch.

But our costs are way lower.

So that's what the Treasury Secretary said. He said we're going to look to lower tariffs on Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador, Argentina. He's back and forth on Brazil because of the political situation there. But all those people have all those countries have items that we want here, but the tariffs Are jacking up the price. They're putting it on the consumer.

Some companies didn't, but these countries are, and I guess the grocery stores are reflecting that. But is this on some levels showing the President and the Treasury Secretary giving in and kind of acknowledging that tariffs do up the price on the consumer?

Well, to a certain extent, but on the flip side, Brian, I think it's also the fact that this administration, President Trump, Vance, Besson, others, are realizing, hey, Mom Donnie won, because he's out there talking about affordability and people wanted to hear it. The administration has got to do a better job in messaging about the things that have gone down because of the inflation under the Biden years that has extended. But look, at the end of the day, they're saying, hey, eggs, gas, energy, those are going down. We'll see what happens with the coffee tariff. I mean, you know, by the way, can we just be honest?

When I hear about high prices of coffee, I have no idea. How a tariff is or isn't going to impact the fact that I'm going to buy a PSL pumpkin spice latte at Starbucks, and that just keeps getting more and more expensive. Can I just say this? Since when do you abbreviate? Uh, pumpkin spice latte.

PSL, yeah. Really? Yeah, you just walk into Starbucks, like, hey, PSL, grab me. Yeah.

Well, put it this way: I got this thing where I ordered uh a pecan latte. I don't think pecans were seasonal.

So I show up, I did it on the app, which I rarely do. And I see my cup there, and And it's empty.

So what do you think that means? What would that mean to you? That they don't have pecans. You would know that right away?

Well, I would think that.

So I'm just saying to myself, I'm going to wait it. I'm waiting out. I wait another 10 minutes before I go, excuse me, are you going to put anything in this cup? And they go, oh, yeah, you're the guy. We don't make that.

I'm like, why isn't it? You're the guy. Yeah, you're the guy. Yeah, we can't make that.

So you just leave it empty. I mean, you can't just, can someone even acknowledge that I've been here? Because they put your name on the board now. Yeah.

They put your name, we're working on it, we're done with it. My name's on, we're working on it. You know, I feel bad with the other people because it seems like I'm the only one they're working on. Just can't get no production. Just give the pecan guy an oat milk vanilla.

He won't know the difference. Right. I mean, but I just understand why some places decide to season things out and others don't.

Well, I think, you know, Starbucks really is the reason why we started doing it because everybody was like, October, here we go, the pumpkin. And then they wanted to branch it out different. All right, a couple other things. I want to talk about 2028.

So I thought that. J.D. Vance, the one thing the president does not want, I know he's never experienced this before, he's been the number one guy, but after the midterms, we're going to be talking about 2028. And that president that's term limited out often doesn't get the spotlight. J.D.

Vance, so smart. This is what he says his strategy is going to be when it comes to politics. And he's not going to focus on anything yet. CUT 15. Here's why the presidential focus, the 2028 focus, I think is bad, is because if you wake up in my job or anybody else's job asking yourself, what's good for my future a few years down the road, you're not going to do a good job right now.

The question that I try to ask myself is, what is good for the president, the administration, and the American people right now? That's what I have to be focused on. And I think so long as I do that, again, politics will take care of itself.

So he says he's going to meet with the President after 2028 and say, these are my plans. How do we work together? And that's the key. From what I for do you know the President, the last thing he wants is to be old news. And the last thing he wants is not be a part of this process.

And if he could say that's my guy, he's checking with me all the time. The other thing is, JD Vance plays a valuable role in that administration. He really does. And the president wants him in on everything.

So if he's all of a sudden out campaigning, That's a loss to the administration. And especially, I could see the president getting frustrated with that if he doesn't do it the right way. And you don't want him going, you know, maybe JD isn't the right choice. Yeah, what a great question. By the way, talking about Vance's importance to the administration, the contrast between Vance and Kamala Harris, the borders are given thankless tasks that were never going to succeed.

And you had to. But I don't think the borders are as thankless, do you? That was an opportunity. If you're the vice president, you welcome the opportunity to get a signature issue. But they didn't let her do anything on the border because Majorkis was given the direct orders from the White House to basically open the damn thing up.

And they said, we'll send you down to the Northern Triangle, to Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua. And you can talk about root causes. She was destined to fail. But compare that to the case.

So you think that's the scenario? You think that she was going to do something that Majorkis had more control and she didn't, then she decided differently? There have been a number of nuggets of reporting coming out that while, you know, Harris. Was pretty open about feeling undermined and complaining about the way the Oval Office and the White House staff were not supporting her and setting her up for success, rather, setting her up directly for failure. But there's been a number of nuggets reporting that really Majorkis had way more control than Harris, and that's why she was trying to distance herself from the Border Czar title to begin with because she knew she wasn't given.

I give it if that is the case, I give her a little bit more credit now. I thought she just was a no-show, didn't want the job. She says it's like you said, thankless. And Majorkis, by the way, if you're the Border Czar, you look at Tom Holman, how much power he has. If you're the vice president of Border Czar, you come in there and tell Majorkis, this is the back of my baseball card.

What are you doing? You know, what's going on? Why are you look at these? Look at the NGOs. This thing is overflowing.

Look at the flood of people under that bridge. You're making me look terrible. But that's what I would do because Joe Biden's clearly not working more than four hours a day. This is what I'm going to get judged on this. I'm going to sit down with 60 minutes and have to justify this.

Forget it. I got to tell you, Brian, in the wake of President Trump coming in without a Senate immigration bill, by the way, which is what all the Democrats and previous administrations said, we needed to shut the border down. Can't do it. President Biden said, I can't do anything more. It's got to be Congress.

Wasn't the case. Obviously, we saw the president shut the border down. We've had six straight months of zero releases in the country when it was hundreds of thousands every month under the Biden administration. But the number one comment when people see me in the airport and stop me is they say, hey, you know, I appreciate, love the weekends now. Congratulations.

But by the way, you're reporting at the border. I got to ask you, was it intentional? And it is hard to come up with a and I don't know, but it's hard to come up with any other conclusion than in some ways it was it was intentional because we now know they literally could have done it with executive order. And it all goes back to what did Biden know? Because as a senator, he wasn't pro-open borders.

No. And he didn't get elected to open up the border. Whose idea was that? Griff, thanks so much. Who's coming on this weekend?

We got speaking of the border, we've got Border Patrol Chief Mike Banks. He hadn't been out there much. He's going to be out there now, and we're about to see, you know, CBP heading to Charlotte, North Carolina. We've got Laura Trump, we've got Kaylee McEnany, and we've got biohacker Brian Johnson. That's going to be interesting.

Oh, yeah. He's trying to make us all live longer. Griff Jenkins, great job today. Glad we'll be watching all eight hours over the weekend. Thanks, Brian.

Don't move. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Killmeat Show. What if your home security could stop a break-in before it even begins? That's not science fiction.

That's Simply Safe. And right now, their early access Black Friday sale is changing how we think about protection. Traditional systems wait until someone's already breaking in. Simply Safe's active guard outdoor protection powered by AI detects threats before they reach your door. Real security agents jump in instantly, confronting intruders, letting them know they are on camera and the police are on their way.

And if needed, setting off sirens and spotlights. It's proactive protection that stops crime before it happens. And here's the best part: no long-term contracts, no hidden fees, and you can cancel anytime. It's been named best home security system by U.S. News and World Report for five years straight.

And with a 60-day money-back guarantee, you can try completely risk-free.

So, if home safety has been on your mind, this is your moment. Right now, my listeners can take advantage of their biggest sale of the year with this exclusive early access to Simply Safe's Black Friday sale and save 60% on any news. System by going to simply safe.com/slash Brian. There will never be a better time to get real security for your home. Go to simply safe.com/slash Brian.

Stay protected and stay one step ahead with Simply Safe. The more you listen, the more you'll know it's Brian Killmead. And we saw that he had hit a record low in his approval ratings because of his actions in this government shutdown, literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry children to fund tax breaks for his billionaire donors. And so the fact that National Democrats let him off the hook and didn't get anything in return, to me, just feels like uh political and legislative malpractice. This is the congressman who's running for Senate, uh who came out.

His name is James Talarco Talarcro? Talico? Tellerico, and he was the one who made such a good impression with Joe Rogan. But he was saying that. When the president came out and said, no, we're not going to be taking emergency funds out to play the snap program.

Why? Because he said the Democrats did this. Why should we be taking out emergency funds that we don't have to pay for this program? If they cared, they'd open up the government. He says that we should have kept the government closed.

He said that to Jon Favreau in a podcast. You know, so this is what Chuck Schumer's dealing with. But this is the bed that he made. It's just terrible tactics. Evidently, in March, according to other Democrats, they came out and said the thing about March and continuing to fund the government was not as much as that he did it, is that he didn't tell the House that he was going to cave.

So the House takes a hard vote. Everybody sticks, except for, I think, Jared Golden. And then they hand it over to the Senate in March to not go off on the continuing resolution. But of course, they had the majority in the House.

So they had the majority in the House.

So they were able to get the CR to the Senate, at which time Schumer said, oh, yeah, we're not going to shut down the government. It was the communication. That was not relayed, so people were taking a stand and talking about the need to not get those 60 votes. And he basically gave eight people permission, nine people permission to go across the aisle.

So this time in September, he didn't give anyone permission, but he had no game plan. And he was all over the place. No one really thought, if you look at the subsidies from the pandemic that were substantial enough to shut down the government, it looked like he was grasping his straws for a reason. And remember the original reason? I want to restore USAID.

Oh, you know what? Not many people are going to go to bat for, I don't know, different programs in Zaire. That's not why you shut down the government.

So in the end he had no reason. You could say that he helped with the off-year elections. Every day, America's first responders stand ready: firefighters, law enforcement, paramedics, doctors, dispatchers, and people who put themselves on the line for public safety. But keeping them connected in moments of crisis has not been easy. That's why Congress authorized a nationwide network for public safety.

Today, that promise is fulfilled through FirstNet. It's the only nationwide network built with and for first responders.

So, whether it's a big city, world town, or remote tribal community, FirstNet helps ensure no call for help goes unanswered. It gives first responders priority access, never throttles their communications in the U.S., helping them to connect across agencies when it matters most. This isn't just a network, it's a lifeline, a bipartisan commitment to America's public safety, built to serve those who serve us all. FirstNet is the backbone of our nation's emergency response and will continue to be in the future. FirstNet, built with ATT.

Learn more on firstnet.com/slash publicsafety first. Mm-hmm. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead.

So, with me in the studio, we never get a chance to see him in studio. Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General. And by the way, Tom, you're one of these guys on every channel. You know, so you are like a free agent, so you'll be used on any topic on any channel that has a legal angle. Why is that important to you?

Well, there's a lot in the news. I mean, from my perspective, what's really interesting is that so many of these legal and constitutional issues that I've literally spent my life and career studying and thinking about are now kind of at center stage in just our nation's political debate concerning what the president's powers are, how far the president can go, consistent with the laws and the constitution, what Congress's role is, what the proper role of the federal courts is.

So, all of these things that I've studied and litigated and advised on over the years have now really come to center stage and are in the spotlight in our nation's debate. You know, what were you thinking? I did, you were on a lot when they were going after the president for about two and a half years, from the Georgia case to everything that Jack Smith was pulling forward to what we saw in New York City resulting in his conviction. When you were seeing these legal cases come together, What portion of that felt to you like political targeting, and what portion of that felt like just justice? Yeah, let's see.

A lot of it felt like political targeting, candidly. This is the New York, right? I was going to say, I mean, as we know, Tish James, somewhat infamously during the campaign, basically said, elect me because I'm going to get Trump. Isn't that dumb?

Well, or is that typical? I never remember someone running to go against a guy that didn't do anything. That's the thing. I mean, look, she obviously was trying to excite her base. She was obviously trying to get elected.

There are a lot of people in her political base who like that sort of thing, saying, run for office. I'm running for office. Elect me because I'm going to put the guy that we don't like in jail. Totally inappropriate, 100% inappropriate for a law enforcement official to campaign for office on that basis.

So, yeah, when I look at what the prosecutions that went forward, certainly I would put the Tish James one at the top of the list.

So it looks like we have another mortgage case. We have a mortgage case with Adam Schiff using, saying, primary residence, rental property, Letitia James. And we have one with now Eric Swalwell on mortgages. First off, on the Letitia James case, we had her future opponent, the Republican, on, and say she doesn't deny it. That she wrote that as a primary residence, does a deal with her dad, said it was her spouse.

But she thinks it's targeting prosecution. What do you think? I think that there is a very Strong case that she did violate the law when she filled out these mortgage forms. I mean, as you point out, she hasn't exactly denied that she filled out the forms in these ways. Her lawyer haven't exactly denied that she did what she's alleged to have done.

I think the challenge here for the prosecutors is really persuading the judge and maybe ultimately a jury that this was a case worth bringing given the size and scope of what was at issue. Look, the Justice Department prosecutes mortgage frauds a lot.

So to say that, oh, this is not something that everybody prosecuted, that's not true. But what is true is that the scope of this is different. It's smaller than what the Justice Department typically prosecutes when it brings these types of mortgage fraud cases. What about the rules she passed that she could use taxpayer funds to defend herself? That I don't quite get.

In other words, I get that it can be appropriate for.

Well, Cuomo used it, right?

Well, sure. And look, I think the issue here is that it's appropriate or it can be appropriate for elected officials to use public funds to defend themselves if they are accused of doing something wrong in their course of their official duties, right? In other words, public officials get sued all the time, and we don't make governors pay out of their own pocket to defend themselves if they're alleged to have done something wrong, again, in the course of their official duties. But I'm a little hard-pressed to see how what is alleged here falls on the scope of her official duties, right? If we're talking about the mortgage fraud case, that was not something that she did as part of her role as Attorney General of New York.

That was something she just did as a private citizen. And a private citizen couldn't draw on government resources to fund their defense.

So there, it's a little hard for me to see how that looks like.

So, what do you do? Do you challenge that if you're the government? Do you say, who's paying this? Who's paying your bill?

Well, sure. Well, you could do a few things. I mean, the first thing is that the legislature could. Take an interest in this. I mean, if she's trying to actually get some sort of law or regulation or policy enacted that would fund her defense, that's something that the legislature presumably could override.

Right. So that's typically how you would do it. You know, I mean, I don't think, I don't see the prosecutors necessarily looking into that because it's a little kind of off base from what they would be charging. From what you know about the Adam Schiff case. What do you hear?

Same thing with mortgage, saying something's your primary residence and it's not. Exactly, exactly. I mean, look, the fact is, when any time you apply for a mortgage, you have to make all sorts of statements and assertions that you sign really under penalty of law. In other words, if you check the wrong box, arguably that could be a federal crime. I think in a lot of these mortgage cases, the challenge is, number one, proving that it was an intentional deception or fraudulent act as opposed to just something inadvertent, right?

You know, we all fill out many forms all day, and if we just happen to check the wrong box on a form, God forbid that leads to a federal prosecution. They typically, the prosecutors would typically have to show motive and intent to defraud as opposed to an inadvertent mistake. Right. So that may be what some of these cases end up turning to. Eric Swalwell, yesterday, if you did, I don't know if you had a chance to look at it yet.

I haven't seen the evidence that they have underlying it. My understanding is that it's along similar lines. In other words, it's a mortgage fraud case, and they're basically saying that he made false representations in connection with obtaining the mortgage. What do they have in common? They've all targeted the President verbally or politically over the last six years.

Which doesn't look great, but as a human being, I thoroughly understand it.

Well, look, I agree on both fronts. I agree it doesn't look great, and I think that is going to be a challenge for the prosecutors in these cases because judges read the papers, juries read the papers, they follow T V, radio, they will know the backstory here. And so I think the prosecutors may have a slightly more uphill battle than they would in the ordinary course because there very well could be some jurors who come to this case and say, is this a politically motivated prosecution? Yesterday, the Letitia James case, and I believe the case against Comey, was in court because they wanted to prove that Lindsey Halligan should not be allowed to bring this case forward. Meaning, if the wrong person brings the case, they shouldn't have a case.

Who made the stronger case yesterday? Let's see. From what we know. Yeah, so from what we know, I think that these arguments challenging Halligan's appointment, I think, actually probably have more legs than some of the other arguments that we've seen coming from the defense. The defense in both of these cases have basically thrown the kitchen sink out there, right?

They have attacked these indictments on multiple fronts. I tend to think that the challenges to Halligan's appointment. Kind of in the spectrum of things, probably are on the stronger side of the arguments that we've seen. Because there is a decent argument that you can't kind of successfully appoint these interim prosecutors in, you know, like I've done.

So, yeah, exactly. And that's what we've seen in other cases. I mean, other federal judges have looked at similar types of things and said you can't do this. And I think for a judge, frankly, dismissing a case on that basis would be a far easier lift than dismissing it on the grounds that, you know, Trump was vindictive and hated Comey or what sort of that. They're also doing that.

That's right. And that's why I'm saying that I think if you're a judge and you want to throw the case out, it would be easier to do it on the basis of an invalid appointment rather than getting into this whole business of whether Trump was being vindictive. I don't think a judge is going to want to go to the corner. And if you know, it's okay because there's so many cases going, but do you know anything about the judge? Yes, yeah.

So the judge who's deciding this was brought in from another district. She's a senior judge. I believe she was a Clinton appointee. Served for a while. You know, and look, I think she is going to call it as she sees it.

I mean, my read of the situation is that even conservative judges who look at the law say there are limits on how often you can do these sorts of interim appointments.

So if she ultimately says this appointment was invalid, I guess I wouldn't necessarily read that as kind of a political cram down or view. I think they're reasonable arguments.

Well, the case are over then.

So the cases would be over if. I guess they want to bring it up again.

Well, I guess a couple things. One, yes, the cases would be over, assuming that we're talking about where Lindsey Halligan was the only one who signed the indictment, yes. But can they bring it up again?

Well, maybe, although in the Comey case, it's not entirely clear because you'll remember they charged Comey. Yes, like the day before the statute of limitations ran.

So they could have an issue with recharging Comey. See, I always thought with the Comey case, they're going to build it.

So they had the one thing where he maybe used Ted Cruz and said the wrong thing to Ted Cruz.

Okay. But I sense that they're still researching that case. And I found that there was a document that indicated that was hidden away that this current FBI director was able to find, that James Comey knew very well that they were going to trump up a case against Trump with the Russia hoax, and he knew all about it. And so there's more information that could come forward. Am I right saying that you could charge someone one thing and then add to that charge as you have more discovery or no?

Well, it it depends. You certainly could add more evidence that you didn't have in the original indictment. There's no question about that. It would be harder to bring brand new charges if you've got a statute of limitations put.

So you couldn't do that. But the evidence could come in, right? And look, and that was one of the things that jumped out to a lot of us when we saw the Comey indictment was that it was fairly bare bones. I mean, we've seen indictments that are 40 pages and tell a long story. This was three pages.

This is the opposite. Yeah, it's like the Cliff's Notes version, right, of an indictment.

So here's the biggest story. Actually, before I get to the biggest story, what happened in Chicago when that judge ruled that now, because they didn't like the way the illegal immigrants were picked up, scooped up and jailed or detained, they now have to let out six hundred In Chicago.

Now, what I can't see in any of these stories is Now they're staying in for now until the third week in November, just to give people some time. And, you know, it just goes to reason that some of these people are legitimate criminals. Maybe some of them have just overstayed their visas. But how could one judge decide this? Why wouldn't they appeal the process?

Well, I think I suspect they will appeal the process, right? What's going on in Chicago right now is we have a situation where a district judge is exercising very close, and many would say excessive supervision over an actual ICE removal operation. And the point about just releasing people en masse, absolutely. I mean, it does suggest that maybe this has kind of gone to the... Do you expect an appeal on this?

Absolutely. Yeah.

So I don't know where the appeal is. This is an emergency.

So, well, if you're talking about the cases that are being litigated in federal court in Chicago, the appeal there would run up to the federal appellate circuit, the Seventh Circuit that oversees Illinois and other states. Then it would potentially run up to the United States Supreme Court.

So that's the appeal change. We have never seen anything like this. We've never seen anything like this. And look, I promise you, the Supreme Court is not looking to get involved in ICE removal operations either. This is not why they have their judgment.

Jobs. And I think it's the sort of thing where I suspect that the appellate court, as we saw, you may remember in the Ninth Circuit, where the Oregon judge was issuing similarly aggressive rulings, and then the Ninth Circuit came in and said this is going a little too far. We could see the same dynamic playing out in the Chicago situation, too.

So we know about the tariff. Last week, the big story was the tariff negotiations. Is it constitutional for the president to use tariffs the way he's using them? And the president's argument was the reason why he's using tariffs, which he says maybe technically might be something that Congress would approve, would be. What was his argument?

Well, the president's argument is that he has the power under this statute that has a kind of a funny acronym called AIPA. And it basically gives the power, president, the power in emergency situations to regulate importations and the like. But the courts have never really defined how far the president's power extends under this law. I mean, the law has been on the books for decades. No president has used it as powerfully and as aggressively as president.

President Trump has.

So we're in a bit of uncharted legal territory. But the president's argument is basically that Congress has given him the power to impose these tariffs in emergency situations. And that's what the Supreme Court is deciding: whether or not the president's power extends as far to justify the tariffs that he impose. And the plaintiffs, multiple states, including individuals, that said they don't have this power. Congress has the power to tax, and tariffs are a tax.

That's right. This was challenged by coalitions of two plaintiffs. One were a group of small businesses that got hit by the tariffs. American businesses got hit by the tariffs. The other was a group of states.

It was led by the state of Oregon that also challenged the tariffs. The Supreme Court heard both arguments together. And look, they're going to decide this case in a very, I suspect, important, long-lasting way because what the Supreme Court says here is going to govern how all future American presidents can wield this tariff power if they in fact possess it. And what about the tariffs that are already in place? How do you land that plane?

How do you undo time?

So here's, and you tell me what this means to you.

So we're able to listen to the audio of the Supreme Court. And this is the moment where there's a lot of different interpretations, but here's Amy Conan-Barrett asking the plaintiffs. What happens if these tariffs are proved to be unconstitutional? Listen. If you win.

Tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean, you're saying before the government promised reimbursement and now you're saying, you know, well that's rich. But how would this work? It seems to me like it could be a mess.

So she's worried, she's asking a question. I'm not just going to rule, I'm in this world. My ruling is going to have a big-time effect. And I can't just say the law is the law.

So isn't that similar to what John Roberts was thinking with the overturning of Obamacare? He tried to land the plane and basically tell redefine what Obamacare was. That's a fascinating analogy, and I think it's spot on. What was particularly fascinating to me about Justice Barrett's question is, and it goes to your point, that. We often think the Supreme Court's job is just to figure out what the law is and apply it full stop.

But here she was asking about the practical consequences of a ruling, meaning if we were to invalidate these tariffs, what happens? Is it going to be chaos? Are there going to be refunds? Can you put the toothpaste back in the tube? And what did he admit?

He admitted. I don't know.

Well, it's going to be chaos. It's going to be a mess. It would be a challenge, certainly, to try to kind of process refunds just on an unbelievably massive scale to give tariff money back to people who paid it. But what it suggests to me is that Justice Barrett, when the court sits down to actually deliberate and figure out how they're going to decide this case, may be looking for a practical resolution to this case along the lines of what the Chief Justice did in the Obamacare case.

So could there be a world where the court says something like, we are going to invalidate these tariffs going forward, but we're not going to try to undo what's already happening. Do you expect it? You know, I think I've always thought that the Supreme Court's likeliest outcome here. might be to split the difference in the sense that I could see them upholding the narrow tariffs, but maybe striking down broader tariffs. That would be one possible way they could go.

The other thing they could do is they could just strike down all of these tariffs, but underscore that by striking down these tariffs, they are not barring the President from imposing tariffs under other authorities he has. All they are deciding is whether he has the power to impose these tariffs under this particular statute he invoked, but he has other tariff powers. When do you expect the decision to come? I think we're going to get it in the next few months. Normally I would say end of June, but they put this case on a fast, expedited schedule.

So I think they're going to speak sooner rather than later. Tom Dupre, you handle it all. That's why you should do this law thing full time. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree, thanks so much. Thank you.

Back in a moment. Real American Freestyle is the first ever unscripted pro wrestling league created by Hulk Hogan, Chad Bronstein, Israel Martinez, and Eric Bischoff to give elite wrestlers a real shot at a professional career. Real American Freestyle is where Olympians, world champions, and NCAA legends come to compete, not in a cage, not in a script, but on the mat in front of fans around the world. This is Real Wrestling. Reimagine for today.

The first event kicks off August 30th in Cleveland, featuring matchups with some of the best wrestlers on the planet. You've never seen wrestling like this. Learn more at realamericanfreestyle.com. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

A few weeks ago in New York. Uh He pronounced that during Climate Week that this was a con job. This is a scam. No. Mr.

President, you are projecting again. You are the conjob. You are the scam. You do not believe in science or responsibility or anything, and it's all about the money in the pocket of your friends and billionaires, as we have seen even with health care. She's so bitter and angry.

So, the thing is, President Trump saw the greening of the economy, the scam they'd had to do with that, the money that poured into that, the unsettled science that they used to yell at you for questioning.

Now, everyone's come full circle, including this guy named Bill Gates, who told us the planet was going to end. And Gal Gore, they got an Emmy for a movie that said we should have all been perished by now. I'm talking about the Earth, not just Americans. And now, when the president says, Yeah, you guys keep your little Paris climate change, I'm done. Half this stuff is a scam.

We also know that you licensed your whole future to China, giving away batteries and solar panels. We didn't do a good job on that. There's definitely a role. Renewables, definitely a role for green technology, but not to shelve our entire economy like California did, upping the price of gas and everything by stopping the drilling and the manufacturing, the refining. As well as the mining and the rare earth.

And she is just bitter that her legacy is one of a loser. It helped herself and her husband. That's it. Shut up. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show.

Brian Kilmead. Everyone from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, where we're a month away from having our first communist mayor. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. I guess I can hear the bands pulling up and filling up. As a lot of people just said, listen, this is the last draw.

I'm out of here. Especially when they make it clear, they met with a. Do you know Mom Dami met with Elizabeth Warren yesterday? That's just her chief consultant. And what they came out is say: basically, we're going to tax billionaires.

And we don't want to hear seed billionaire tears, if I had to paraphrase what they said. What is your problem? Number one, she's a multi-millionaire since you became a senator. Go explain that. This hour, we're going to be talking to Shannon Breen.

Excuse me, we're not. I'm forgetting what hour it is. We're going to talk to Mark Thiessen, who's standing by, and Congressman Tom Emmer. He is the House Majority Whip, and he knows what exactly went on behind the scenes to put the government back online.

So, before we get to both those great guests, let's get to the big three. Number 3. Here is why the presidential focus, the 2028 focus I think is bad, is because if you wake up asking yourself, what's good for my future a few years down the road, you're not going to do a good job right now. That, of course, is the Vice President of the United States. Not too soon to talk about 28.

As J.D. Vance reveals his game plan and running against friends, who do you expect to join the GOP for a? Number two. The socialist fever in the Democratic Party seems to be spreading after Zoron mom Donnie's win in New York City. But we're in Seattle, they have just elected a socialist mayor, Katie Wilson, an inexperienced far-left radical who got financial support from her parents.

Exactly. And Bernie Sanders has another protege. Aftermath of the shutdown has received a political bloodbath on the left. And the rise of socialism cannot be denied. Can the Nonviolent Civil War, let this nonviolent civil war begin.

Number one. We are doing phenomenally well. This is the greatest economy we've ever had. The talking points, oh corsair high, corsair. By the way, the only thing is beef.

We're going to take care of all this stuff very quickly, very easily. It's surgical. It's beautiful to watch. Yeah, beef, but there's also mothers. There's bananas, there's coffee, and there's other things.

And guess what? The president knows it because he's addressing it. They get it, a week removed from a terrible off-year election. The Republican show, the administration, reveals they know affordability is the key to winning the midterms. We'll review their plans and answers, and it isn't shoveling free money to people.

That's usually the Democratic's answer. Let's bring in Mark Thiessen. Mark, as a former speechwriter for W, a guy that had to handle a myriad of major topics, some controversial during your years there, now AEI fellow and Fox News contributor, Washington Post columnist. Welcome back. The President and his team seem to have learned from the mid-off-year elections.

Don't you agree? Yeah, I think they do. And by the way, I'm the guy you get when Shannon Bream's not available, right? I just got I went to her prematurely. I blame myself only.

Exactly. I'm okay to be in Plan B premier for Shannon Breed. That's fine. Look, yeah, of course they've learned something, but I think it's also we got to be careful not to overlearn because this was an off-year election with low turnout in a bunch of blue districts, right? And so I was looking at, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I was looking at like the turnout statistics.

So like New York City, they had like something like almost 70% turnout in the 2024 election. And in this election, they had like 39% turnout, right? California was like almost 70% turnout.

Now it was like 49%.

So off-year elections tend to benefit Democrats to begin with. Then they were all in blue districts and blue states and blue cities. And so I think the bigger danger is for the left. Which is that they look at this and say democratic socialism is the wave of the future. We need more Mondamis.

We need more people like this to win elections. And that's not going to work in swing states. That's not going to work in a lot of these other districts.

So I think that they're overconfident and we're a little bit overworried by the results of what happened.

So I'm going to bring you to this number then. 36% approval rating on the economy. And it's even lower when it comes to inflation.

Now, you could always say the polls are terrible, and maybe they're a little bit off, but it does show he doesn't have the same numbers as the first term.

So that's what I think they're looking at. Yeah, so I mean, and part of that, and what you're seeing now is that they're starting to say, well, we're going to lift tariffs on some of these things and like, you know, these products that the prices are going up. It's like, yeah, because tariffs raise prices for American consumers. And I understand what he's trying to do with the tariffs, which is to deal with some structural problems in the economy, particularly when it comes to China, which is stealing our intellectual property and doing all sorts of nevarious things on the tariffs are a useful tool for that. But I think they went a little bit overboard with the tariffs in terms of saying, oh, it's going to bring in all this great revenue and it's going to do all this great stuff for our economy domestically.

And tariffs are a great, great tool for forcing people to the negotiating table to get trade deals. But then when you start doing these sort of 15%, 20% baseline tariffs that get passed on to consumers, not directly, but indirectly through over time. At some point, people may not raise their prices right away because they don't want to trigger more tariffs, but they're But over time, it gets passed on.

Somebody's got to pay the price. It's like, you know, there's no magic in the economy.

Well, remember, I told you that they're taking action. This is what I'm talking about. Scott Besson told us really what was coming. Cut eight. Brian, imagine two lines.

There is the... Inflation line, we've got that under control, it's leveled out, that is going to start turning down. Then there's the income line, which under Biden, because so many of the jobs were government jobs, you can't. They get real wage growth from a government job. Real wages are going to increase, and I would expect in the first quarter.

Second quarter of next year, those two lines are going to cross and the American people are going to start feeling better. But look, this has been a tough period. And they point to the fact that he has already said, okay, we're looking at the grocery store, and we're happy with the eggs, happy with the dairy, not happy with the beef, not happy with the fruit. Where's that coming from?

South and Central America.

So he's immediately, I think, as early as today, they're going to be cutting back on the tariffs on El Salvador, Ecuador, Argentina, minimum. And maybe more, maybe Brazil. I don't know, because there's a political element to that.

So he's already taking some action already to get the prices down on imports. Your thoughts?

Well, I mean, it's an admission that the tariffs are costing consumers money and raising prices. That we probably shouldn't have put those tariffs on in the first place.

So, look, I think this may cause a broad rethinking of tariff policy, which may be inevitable because if the Supreme Court ends up revoking or sort of limiting the tariff authority, then they're going to have to do it anyway. But look, there seem to be three camps in the Trump administration when it comes to tariffs. There's a camp that says this is a tool to force people to the negotiating table to negotiate free trade agreements. And there's a camp that says this is a tool to bring in revenue for the American economy. And there's a camp that's more protectionist that says this is a tool to reshore American manufacturing, and particularly in some sectors where we have national security reasons why we want to do that.

And the first camp I'm perfectly fine with. I think using tariffs as leverage, both for trade and national security, is great. I don't think it's a great source of revenue. And again, the revenue. You bring in gets offset by higher prices.

And if your goal is to use them to reshore, then that means you're going to have to suffer some pain for a political goal of reshoring certain manufacturing. And what you're basically saying is we are willing to accept higher prices for things to make them here at home because our national security requires it.

Well, then you can't be upset when you have higher prices. That's part of the deal, right?

So I think that the first camp is the best camp when it comes to using tariff authority. I think the second two are sort of coming back to bite the administration.

So the president's got some ideas for practical purposes to unstick the real estate market. They brought up 50-year mortgages. He also said, What about a portable mortgage? You got that low, the Thiessen family's got a 3% mortgage, you're not going to move. You're bursting at the scenes, but you're not going to move because now the rate's going to be six.

Now you could take that 3% over to that mansion or compound that Mark Thiessen really deserves.

So if you could do that and you get the bankers on board with that, that seems to be a boon. Allowing crypto-packed mortgages using an alternative credit score known as Vantage Score. And the administration is apparently trying to pull multiple levers to cut costs for Americans announcing four trade deals late Thursday, which were the trade deals I mentioned with El Salvador, Guatemala, Guatemala, El Salvador, I forgot the other country, oh, Argentina.

So he's right away going to reorganize that.

So you might be feeling that in the supermarkets with lower prices. Ecuador's yeah.

So, first of all, you're absolutely right. I do deserve a compound, and I think we can probably buy compounds next to each other and hang out on the weekend. I just can't afford it. Not what I make.

Well, I mean, you know, with all these tools that the administration is giving us, we can both afford it, right? Yes, that's true, absolutely. We have fifty year mortgage, we don't have to pay it off, right? Fifty year, it's it's five dollars a month I gotta pay. Exactly.

Look, I remember when I was in the Bush administration and I was working on a speech on housing policy and they wanted me to write a speech explaining the zero the zero down payment initiative. And I was like, zero down payment? What's the difference between that and rent? It's a terrible idea to have no skin in the game in your house. 50 year mortgage seems to be an equally bad idea on the other end of the angle.

Because you never pay it off. You never actually end up having owning your home. And the amount of interest you pay on the house over that period of time is probably double what you would have paid on a 30-year mortgage and certainly more than a 15-year mortgage.

So I think the goal of trying to find a way to make housing more within reach is good, but I think that's a terrible way to do it. See, what I think a little bit differently, you're betting on yourself. You get in that 15 right now, you get in a 30-year mortgage. You don't really think you're going to, usually, people don't really pay out that 30-year mortgage. You move, you keep going.

So instead of paying that target, affordability might be a good idea. I think there's some things that can be done, but I also think that part of this is like, you know, when I was growing, when I was a young person, I was, you know, my wife had an apartment with some friends and she literally lived in a futon in the dining room. Like I was living in a, I was living in a crappy apartment until I was like in my almost 30 years old and got married and finally bought my first house. It's like, and I couldn't afford it. I probably still couldn't afford an apartment in Manhattan.

Yeah, no, no one can. It's like, it's like, you know, if you want to, you know, you have to, people have to make decisions about their priorities. And part of the, you know, part of the decision sometimes is moving somewhere that's more affordable. There's lots of places in America where you can live well and own your home and get paid well and have a prosperous life. It just may not be on the Upper East Side.

You know, it's like, I think people have to, I think the expectations that among some Young people that they're going to live like their parents early in their careers is kind of unrealistic.

So I think there needs to be a little bit of recalibration of expectations and what if you know, there's lots of things that would be more affordable. I'd like a Porsche. I'll give you an idea. I wish those were more affordable. This is what the president's looking at.

He said in 2022, not that far ago, it cost $84,000 to qualify for a medium-priced home. $84,000 you make. In 2023, it went up to 99. All right. In 2024, it went up to 103,000.

So he's looking at these numbers. And if you, you know, I could actually picture you on that staff someday before his four years are done. But if you're in there, you say to yourself, Mr. President, if he says, guys, give me some ideas. How do we do this?

Because I got 6% mortgages, but I got a country that's used to 3.5% mortgages. How do I do this?

So you can't. I think saying what you're saying is very practical, and I probably agree with it. But if I'm trying to solve problems on a stuck real estate market, so what would you do?

Well, I think he's right to be frustrated with the Fed for having interest rates as high as they are. I mean, that's part of the problem as well. You know, this sort of vindicates his concerns about the Federal Reserve. You know, yeah, it's very hard when you have 6% interest to buy a home. You know, when we were buying our first home, the interest rates were much, much lower than that, and then we refinanced it when they went down.

Getting the interest rates down is hard. And that's unfortunately that he's not going to be able to deal with that until early next spring when the Fed chairman retires and he can place his own person in there. But look, spitballing ideas, having your team come up with ideas. Not all of them are going to work, but portability sounds like a good idea. There's some things in there than that list that you had that are good.

They also talk about taking some federal land and incentivizing developers to develop some of it and then start attacking the $4 million and have $4 million. They say we need 4 million new houses. And we're not, no one's building right now.

So, the one idea the New York Post had today was to get some federal land, incentivize construction companies or developers to develop that land, and start developing communities, almost like the villages. We saw that come out of nowhere, you know, come out of the swamp.

So come up with the villages elsewhere where we have some federal land. Lastly, I cannot talk to you not talking about international relations and foreign conflicts. It looks like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Kane, has presented military options in Venezuela for the President of the United States, one of which was brought up by an admiral yesterday on this show, saying if we're serious about it, we will take out the processing plants where they're making the drugs. I mean, what do you expect to be in that, and how do you legally? Get the backing to take on some type of operation in Venezuela if that's his choice.

He has all the legal backing he needs. He's the commander-in-chief. It's in the Constitution, number one. And all the people running around saying he doesn't have the legal backing to do this like that, all the Democrats saying this. I'm sorry.

Barack Obama launched 560 drone strikes against al-Qaeda terrorists during his presidency, including killing an American citizen, Anwar al-Alaki, and who was the leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. I don't remember them all getting all hot and bothered about Barack Obama violating the law and not having the legal authority to do this kind of stuff. He did. Trump has declared the cartels foreign terrorist organizations. He has every look.

It makes no difference if you're killing Americans by flying a plane into a building or by poisoning them. Understood. What about hitting them on land? Would that be a major escalation? Would you support that?

100%. And also, the other thing that people need to understand is that you're never going to and I think Trump understands this, that the problem is Maduro, right?

So Venezuela is a socialist country and it's a basket case because of that. But at the elite level, they're not socialists, they're narco-capitalists. The entire regime is in the drug trade. They're all taking a cop. They're all deeply enmeshed.

They all have offshore bank accounts where all this drug money is. This is a government, the cartels are government entities. And until you deal with the government entity, you're not going to solve the drug problem. Though you can certainly bat it down with military strikes for sure. But I think the long-term solution is having a government that isn't in the narco trade.

And they got one that won an election, just can't take power because he's in control of the army.

So maybe it is about time we do the Monroe Doctrine and put some muscle behind it. Mark Thiessen, thanks so much. Have a great weekend. You're next, your calls. Breaking news, unique opinions.

Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Joe.

So remember, the Syrian president came to the White House, at which time they're posing for pictures, and he offers the Syrian president his cologne. I want you to hear this exchange from the Oval. This is men's Men's fragrance looks like It's the best fragrance. It's going to be affectable.

So, what we'll do is just take that gel, put it in. And then the other one is your wife. I think it's a good idea. That's a small talk. At the very end, he goes, How many wives?

One? Oh, I never know. You never know. Got to keep asking.

So that's pretty funny. It's not insulting. Have you ever asked that of somebody? I mean, no one would ask me, like, oh, are you wife number one? Do they say that too when you're with Donna, or do you your other wives?

You never know. Well, I do think, you know what they ask? I bet you Mormons get it. I think they get it. I think someone told me that they're Mormon and they get that all the time.

Do they? Yeah.

That doesn't surprise me. Because originally they were doing that. Yeah.

And the shows that are the shows at the end. Exactly. But does that work, by the way? You know what? I'll have to tell you from my experience at some point.

We should do a study. Is there a Gallup study? Maybe a Harvard study on that. Hey, when we come back, we're going to be joined by Tom Emmer. He's gonna be in the studio.

Man, has he been busy? He's the whip on the majority side. Outside. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

Hey, we're back and it's our privilege to have in studio a guy that's uh Pretty busy, and he found some time to come to New York and be here.

So, if you're watching the stream on Fox Nation, go ahead and pop it in. Congressman Tom Emmers here. He's the House Majority Whip, and what a job he has. I mean, when you talk about a slim majority, you cannot, there's almost no margin for error. And that's what's on his plate on a daily basis out of Minnesota.

Congressman, it's kind of, I was going to apologize for how cold it was here this week in New York, but you don't care. This is like tight top weather for you. It's beautiful. I walked over here. It's awesome.

Right. Yeah, which is good. I mean, a little bit earlier, but are you used to it? I mean, is Minnesota as cold as they say?

Well, for me, it hasn't been. We've had two wimpy winters in a row, but yes, we'll have a stretch in the past few years, with the exception of the last two, where you get to, I remember. It was raining on Christmas Day. This is within the last five years. And for the next six to eight weeks, the temperature was somewhere around 20 below.

I mean, it just stayed there, right? And everybody's thinking, oh, it's global warming. We're not going to have this. And then, boom, it's so cold that your tires will freeze where they sit.

So when you start driving the next morning, it'll be a little bit of the thump-thump until it warms up. Wow. I mean, that's incredible. I remember during the Super Bowl that you guys hosted, they would tell our reporters, you cannot take off your gloves, whatever you do.

So, and you got to cover your face or whatever. But you guys are tough by nature.

So it's great to see you. Did anything surprise you about the final tally? I talked to you in the morning before the final vote on the CR that you got back from, got back from the Senate. Tom Massey didn't vote for it, but you lost Greg Stuby, too.

Well, and I never had a chance to talk to Greg. We tried, but Greg was part of a larger group that we ran into a problem that we didn't expect. And you may not be surprised to know. That the Senate snuck a provision in the the when they did it, at the night they did it, they put in a provision which on its face made sense to clarify a certain Senate uh statute that applies to senators when you are uh taking or taking records or getting a subpoena. There's a statute that, as I understand it, says the senators are supposed to be notified.

And as we know, Jack Smith in his Arctic Frost investigation I took, I think it's eight senators, went and got their phone records without their knowledge. We just found out Kevin McCarthy, too.

Okay, well, the House doesn't have these protections because it was also Mike Kelly. But there is a statute that actually is supposed to protect senators from the standpoint they're supposed to get notice even when there's a subpoena.

Well, they clarified that statute because apparently it wasn't clear if it applies to cell phones, other things.

So they did that. But then, Brian? They put a private cause of action in it and said damage is not less than $500,000 per occurrence. We almost had a complete jailbreak over that. Our guys were so frustrated by that because, one, it looks bad.

Two, I'm not sure why they think they're going to get half a million dollars or more for this. But think about this: the frustration in the House, which is kind of a lunch pail blue-collar institution compared to the silk stockings in the Senate. Jack Smith didn't just go after members of Congress. He was serving subpoenas on American citizens and American organizations outside of Congress. Why is it that people in Elected office are entitled to greater protection than people that he was attacking.

Bad message and an unnecessary message. And we are going to fix it. But that, I think that's how you lost him. Right. So it did pass.

You got a few Democrats to cross over. Tom Massey is just on another planet. He's got a personal problem with the President of the United States.

So we'll see what happens where we go from here. People keep saying, well, didn't you just postpone? The next shutdown that's going to happen January 30th. And I thought one way to solve that would be to get your appropriations bills done. Get everything done ahead of time, you don't have anything to negotiate, right?

That is exactly right. And I, you know, people, it's mostly the media. And I, God bless you, Brian Kilmead, for recognizing that this is about getting back to a regular order appropriations process. It's not about, oh, we're going to report. You just have the next shutdown on January 30th.

No, no. What we were doing in September. Was getting back to this regular order of appropriations. There were three bills, and now you've seen them, because they came across with the same CR that we had sent them on the 19th, with the exception of that January date.

Now, those three bills, they were ready to close them back in September. I'm told there's another six, up to six, right now that are that close. And on the House side to get to the Senate or the House? House and the Senate. The House passed all twelve out of our appropriations committee.

We passed a handful off the House floor. But you'll remember, it's probably old news now, at the beginning of September, both the House and the Senate made motions on their respective floors to go to conference on those first three.

So these conference, the communications between Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate have been going on since September, Brian. We get those. The appropriations chair in the House, Tom Cole from Oklahoma, who I mean. You can set your watch to Tom. He believes that he can get 10 of the 12 done in short order, and it'll come down to, for instance, the defense appropriations bill and the labor housing bill.

So let me ask you: do the Democrats, I know for the longest time when you guys were in the minority, you felt like you had no voice in those committees, do the Democrats get do they speak up? Do you guys work together when they're in committee? Do they have a role? If you are a reasonable left-of-center Democrat who wants to govern, and there are some, right? You had six that crossed over to open the government in the House the other night.

Franz Wazi, Jared Goldie. Yeah, I mean, you got people who want to do that kind of work. And there's more than that, by the way. There are just others that feared their violent left, I think, more than these guys. Yes.

People work together, believe it or not, to get these things out of committee, to get them across the House floor. And now that they're doing conferences, you know that formal conference committee, Brian, I was told that hadn't happened since 2019. How crazy is that? It's just there are good things happening. But I think that with your role too, because this is your job.

I think that you should be doing a lot of that defining. Like, there's a lot of people, they're very smart people, they just have no idea the political interwork because they haven't taken American government since 11th grade. Just say, guys, here's the goal: it's the goal is to hash it out in committee. The minority has a voice. We get that bill forward.

We meet in a conference. We haven't done it yet. And I wonder too, because I know you stayed so late to do the big, beautiful bill, but did anyone consider working through August? I know you guys can't do this and stay away from your families. Everyone's got vacation, but I knew that Chuck Schumer couldn't possibly keep his job if he didn't.

refused to do your CR after the blowback he got in In Sept uh in Nov in March.

So that was happening let's just have done. Did you guys discuss that at all, staying in August? Oh, there was definitely discussion. Uh and the issue though i and it happens every time you run into this impasse and you're getting to the end of July. The issue is the calendar is set.

Like in the next two, three weeks we will all get a calendar that Steve Scalee's the majority leader and before that it would have been uh uh Stenny Hoyer. They will publish a calendar for the next year. And the closer you get to that August date, the harder it's going to be for you to change that because people are setting. But reality, and this is just one man's opinion, not the whip's opinion, because this is as a member. You should change that.

We should do something about the August recess. It's in the wrong place. And by the way, you should also think about changing the September 30th funding deadline. Put it on a regular year schedule like most businesses are. I did not know that we weren't shutting down the government until 1978.

Do you see a way the Congress can function? Without giving either side that shut down option. Can you put that into language? Because it really hurts people that have no business being hurt. Like for example, the airline industry, like for example, TSA, air traffic controllers, 1.4 million federal workers.

And your staff. Is it possible or you don't think that's think that's ever going to happen?

Well, first off, I'm going to put it in these terms. I've been saying this for a couple of weeks because I get asked who won the shutdown? Nobody wins shutdowns. And Democrats who did this this time should have read the book because Republicans wrote the darn book on shutdowns. You cannot leverage your policy agenda from the minority by shutting down the federal government.

It never works because of what you just said. You are harming everybody that has no there's no reason to harm 42 million low-income Americans who rely on SNAP. There's no reason to shut down the airspace because our air traffic controllers aren't getting paid and TSA and our Capitol Police, et cetera. But I'm a little different. I believe we're going to have to grow up again.

You've already said you've got a lot of people who are very smart people, but they haven't studied civics, American civics, or how it works since the 11th grade. We've got a lot of people coming into Congress that are going to have to learn very quickly, and the American public's going to have to hold them accountable how the art of constitutional governance is supposed to work. This is what has been lost over the last 30 years as we have gone farther and farther. It's an omnibus, you just fund it, we don't know what's in it. You're in and then there's Christmas.

Yeah.

And we go, What's in this? And Trump said the first time, What the hell is going on here? Basically, I'm new to this. I'll never sign this again. Yeah.

So you're trying never to give him another omnibus, and I think that's great. I want you to hear what AOC said that she finds Republicans are saying to her: cut 28. I'm sorry, cut twenty. I fully welcome. Trump voters into our coalition.

And I know that sounds crazy to some people, but Just hear me out. I cannot tell you. It just happened to me like two weeks ago. I can't tell you how many times someone has pulled me aside. and said either.

I was once a big Trump voter and a Trump supporter, and I watched Fox News every day, but then I started to kind of expand. My world and where I got information, and now. I've learned, and now I've changed, and I'm with you, and I learn from you.

So That's what she's experiencing in Radio Bay. She wanted to say that they wanted MAGA people, wanted to try socialism.

So The chances of these people really sincere, number one, that they exist, or number two, that they're saying that. I could see. MAGA people saying, you know, I like this about Trump. I don't like that about Trump. I could see that.

But I never thought AOC was an option. What about you, Tom Emmer? Ms. Akasio-Cortez is smoking crack because she's not telling you. That is not happening.

I'm sorry. She lives in a fairy tale world that, you know, money grows on trees. And, you know, she and Bernie Sanders et al. and now this Marxist communist. Yeah, this guy is crazy.

These guys are not living in reality. There is a reason why 77 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Do they all love our president's pugnacious behavior? No, but they recognize the ideas we're talking about, which is individual freedom, economic liberty, safety and security, a country that's a country because you've got a secure border and getting the worst of the worst, the murderers, the human traffickers, those that have committed sexual assault, getting them the heck out of our country. Country, Brian.

That's what Americans are excited about. And Ms. Acasio-Cortez is probably like all these other delusional, dem socialist, communist, whatever, that think that the Tuesday night a week ago or whenever the elections were in Virginia and New York City and New Jersey, they somehow are trying to spin that as a big win for themselves when, in fact, they won where they were supposed to win. And Jack Chitterelli, he had gubernatorial turnout. Trump's not on the ballot, and he got 100,000 more votes than he got with Trump on the ballot or the last time he ran.

But do you also agree that affordability is a message that you want to take away from that? I would love to have affordability be the message. That's where it's going to work. With affordability on mortgages and other things. I don't know what legislation would do, but we just got to find a way to unfreeze the market while we wait for rates to come down.

If Tom Emmer has a 3.5% mortgage and you want to get a bigger house, it doesn't make financial sense for you to go to a 6% mortgage and make that move.

So no one's making that move. Therefore, we don't have. The starter homes available to the next generation. This is the economic theory we're hearing. Yeah, well, affordability is going to be the issue.

I love the fact that Donald Trump thinks outside of the box. I mean, talking about a 50-year mortgage. Why not? I mean, there have to be creative solutions. And by the way, the Fed has got to wake up soon because the current Fed chair has been slow to act all through this.

And now he's indicating he's not going to cut. And that's why the market's taking ahead. It's just, it's petty. It's petty. And I know that the president has looked at this and been very vocal about it.

It'll change by the spring. And guess what, Brian? We passed that bill with the largest middle-class tax cut in the history of this country, largest cut in spending in the history of this country, and permanent tax policy that told the money that was sitting on the sidelines last July, you now know how you're going to be treated, started in January of 2016. We don't know what the Big Beautiful Bill does yet because it's not there. It's passed, but now it's not going to be.

Your governor is a piece of work, Tim Waltz. Listen to what he said yesterday, Cut 23. Because I had spent some time in China. I taught in China. You might have heard that last fall.

Yeah.

God forbid your vice president would like to know China and could speak a little Chinese. You know, that would be a horrible thing to have happen now to actually understand China. But Gwynn always joked and said, Tim, you did your Peace Corps time in China. I'm doing mine in Nebraska. Let's move back to Minnesota.

So she moved us to May and Cato, Minnesota, where her family's from. And we started teaching school there. Because Mao Setong and Xi had their policies. The Chinese Communist Party agree with Tim Walls. Frankly, I wish he would have stayed living there.

It would have fit him much better. He is getting reelected.

Well, if you want me to go into the mechanics, the problem is 87 counties in Minnesota. His last re-elect, he got 52% of the vote. He only won 13 counties, the 13 metro. The 74 that he lost, which includes his former congressional district, Brian, he got 37% of the vote. He is not a well-liked man.

In the 13-county metro, I would argue it has a lot to do with some discrepancies when we go through our campaign process. But more importantly, it's the corrupt media that never holds this man accountable. For $2 billion in fraud under his administration, I mean, this is insane. If you see how it's mismanaged, he took a $18 billion surplus and in a span of a year has put us on, or two years has put us on a trajectory for a $5 to $6 billion. Shortfall.

All right, listen, we got about 90 seconds on the other side. Don't move. Congressman the Majority Whip is here. Back in a moment. It's Brian Kilmade.

It's Will Kane Country. Watch it live at noon Eastern Monday through Thursday at Foxnews.com or on the Fox News YouTube channel. And don't miss the show. Listen and follow the podcast five days a week at FoxnewsPodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts. The talk show that's getting you talking.

You're with Brian Kilmead.

A few more minutes with the House Majority Whip. We're lucky to have him in the studio, normally in Minnesota and or Washington. Congressman Tom Emmer.

So, when you guys get back next week officially, what's going to be on the agenda? I know the appropriations bill to finish this up. I got it. Then what? Yeah, well, that'll take a lot of the time.

But in addition to that, as I was telling you off-air, we're going to have to do this permitting reform. We talked about the permanent tax policy that's going to stimulate economic growth, but to get these projects moving, Brian, we can't have people waiting 10 to 20 years to get their project approved. Permitting reform is 30 years overdue. I think, as I was telling you, I do a lot of work in the digital asset space, and people who are listening are probably familiar with the Genius Act that created the rules of the road for stable coins in the United States. There's another one, the Clarity Act, that both the Banking Committee and the Ag Committee in the Senate are working through right now.

They both notice those to get marked up before Thanksgiving. The goal is to get that done before the end of the year because that is the other half. Of the coin. You can't have a stable marketplace for stable coins and then have chaos for every other digital asset.

So the two of them are necessary together, and the White House wants that done before the end of the year. I know you want it, but the chances it keep that slim majority after the midterms and buck American history, essentially, outside George W. Bush, who were coming off 9-11.

Well, I think you'll agree. I think you'll agree. History is an interesting point of reference, but since Donald J. Trump showed up, history is being rewritten as we speak.

So I know what it says over the last hundred years. But mechanically, Brian, we're in a place where we're positioned to keep the majority. They have 11 of their members right now in seats that Donald Trump won in the last election. We only have three. We're in a great place to do.

We're going to have a convention, and it's going to seem like almost a presidential year. That's another thing that 47 is going to be doing. Congressman Tom Nemmer, thank you. Thank you, Brian. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division.

It's Brian Kilmead. Hi, everyone.

Brian Kilmead here in front of the final hours of the week, who's been a really busy week. And I appreciate everybody listening all week long or watching as well. As you know, you could be seen on the stream on Fox Nation. This hour, we're going to be joined by two very important people: Tommy Laron, co-host of the Big Weekend Show, and Shannon Bream, anchor of Fox News Sunday. Before we get to them, let's get to the big three.

Number three. Here's why the presidential focus, the 2028 focus I think is bad, is because if you wake up asking yourself what's good for my future a few years down the road, you're not going to do a good job right now. Yep, that is true. If you're talking 2028, it is not too soon. JD Vance was asked about it.

He reveals his game plan. I'll explain it. And who I think is going to join him on the debate stage when it's time to run for president. Number two. The socialist fever in the Democratic Party seems to be spreading after Zoron Mom Dani's win in New York City.

Over in Seattle, they have just elected a socialist mayor, Katie Wilson, an inexperienced far-left radical who got financial support from her parents. Yup, that's the way socialism works. The parents will be replaced by the government. Aftermath of shutdown has revealed a political bloodbath on the left, and the rise of socialism can't be denied. Let the nonviolent civil war begin.

Number one. We are doing phenomenally well. This is the greatest economy we've ever had. They're talking points, oh corsai, corsair. By the way, the only thing is beef.

We're going to take care of all this stuff very quickly, very easily. It's surgical. It's beautiful to watch. They get it. A week removed from the terrible off-year elections, the Republican show administrations reveal.

They know affordability, key to winning the midterms. We will review their plans and answers, and it isn't shoveling free money to people, and that's pretty clear. I'm also watching some footage of what's going on outside the ICE facility in Chicago, these irresponsible mayors and governors letting everybody know that ICE are the bad guys, even though there are people hired amongst us. Who are federal police officers doing a certain job along with Border Patrol, FBI? And they're there str scooping up illegals.

And adding to what I think is an incredible record of cutting down carjackings, murder, shootings, and robberies. That's all they've done. And I'm being sarcastic. That's extremely effective. But now, some idiot district court judge has decided that it's not right that they detained illegal aliens to the tune of over 600 and wants them all released.

My hope is we get a quick appeal on that, and everything stays on hold until we get a rational judge. Let's bring in Shannon Bream. She's got a great legal degree. She uses it all the time. She's anchored at Fox News Sunday and our chief legal analyst.

Shannon, welcome back. It is great to be with you, Brian. Shannon, could you explain to me why in these stories that I read about the judge that decided that without a warrant, these men and women shouldn't have been detained, now have to be released? Where's the appeal? Shouldn't the administration or Department of Justice appeal this already?

Yeah, I think that will happen pretty quickly. I'll be surprised if it doesn't. And, you know, almost everything ends up on this fast track to the emergency docket at the Supreme Court, where there are still issues pending dealing with the Trump administration. You saw some quick moves on SNAP within the last few days. But there are other issues that are pending there about use of the National Guard and everything else.

So I just stand by that nothing is going to go by normal procedure, and it's probably just going to end up on emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

So when you see what's going on with the new case the newest case, and that's Eric Swalwell with mortgage problems. Letitia James, too, Adam Schiff has gotten on that. Your thoughts about those cases? And Eric Swalwell says, well, I was expecting this, no big deal. Yeah, and listen, President Trump is very familiar with being on the other end of this.

He knows what it feels like to be on the receiving end of multiple indictments. No, we're not there with any of these cases.

Well, you know, a couple of things that are in the stratosphere of former Trump critics, you know, they are two indictments. Others are just under investigation. But, you know, kind of the old saying is, well, if you haven't done anything, then don't worry about it. Others will say, you show me the man, I'll show you the crime. I mean, they think that this is very much kind of the use of lawfare and warfare.

But the President said many, many times during his campaign that what his revenge would be would be his success.

So we'll see. But listen, for any of us, if we've committed mortgage fraud or tax fraud, as some of these allegations are, we should be worried about getting in trouble. And if not, I trust our justice system would clear these folks. Unbelievable. Yeah, well, I guess we'll see if there's nothing there or not.

For one thing, I'm pretty shocked that Letitia James is able to use. uh taxpayer dollars for defense. Yeah, I mean, that's part of being a public official, and there'll be debates about that for ages to come because some will say, listen, this wasn't an official act that she was doing as the Attorney General. I mean, these are private business affairs. Should she be allowed to use this money in defense?

Of course, she says it's all political in nature, and so this is part of her job, is that she went after President Trump because he had quote unquote committed crimes, and that this is retribution for that.

So, you know, I can see her arguing this as part of her official duty. But clearly, these were personal business transactions that are under investigation with her. Right. And the President, of course, really concerned about the tariff situation. When do you think we're going to get?

Feedback on that or a decision based on the pressure? I do think it's going to be sooner rather than later. You know, sitting through the arguments, I saw it's going to be a very heavy uphill battle for President Trump. I think it's going to be a heavy lift to win this case. There's plenty of skepticism, and really from nearly almost every justice, at least eight of the nine had some serious probing questions for the president's attorney, John Sauer, the Solicitor General.

It's not unwinnable, though, and they could narrow this, which, you know, when Chief Justice John Roberts gets his way, that's what they do. They do a very narrowly tailored answer to the case. But I think we get it sooner rather than later. You know, they booted other cases, moved them around off the calendar.

So it's been expedited by Supreme Court standards. And I don't think this is going to be like we're waiting around in June with all the big headline cases for this. You know, there were justices who Justice Lito and Justice Barrett talked about from the bench, like, hey, every day that this goes on, it's creating a bigger web that we're going to have to untangle if we rule against the president.

So I think they very much are aiming to get you something in weeks, not months. I understand that.

So, the other big story is in the big push from the administration. They seem to have learned from the off-year elections and think affordability matters. And now they're coming up with different maneuvers on mortgages, different things when it comes to lowering prices, on imports, maybe reducing tariffs. What's your take on this new move from the administration?

Well, it suggests to me that they realized that last Tuesday those elections were a problem for them because our Fox News voter poll showed that the economy was clearly, or something connected to the economy, whether taxes or something else, that was clearly the number one concern for voters. And for voters who said that was their top concern, they went 2 to 1 for Democrats.

So I think Republicans have had a wake-up call that as much as the president's had all these successes on the international stage and Democrats and Republicans alike have praised him for a lot of those things, they know that when people go to the voting booth, it's quote, about the economy, stupid. Right. Even though the President would argue that a lot of these deals have everything to do with the economy. He's here's E. J.

Antonio talking about the problems of the next generation. If the President wants to retain the under thirties, Cut Five. And I think if we look at, for example, the financial habits of Gen Z and we compare that to millennials. Gen Z is actually much more conservative financially speaking. And yet the affordability for them is terrible when it comes to something like buying a home.

So while you might find individuals in literally every generation who are not financially very responsible, right, I don't think we can paint a broad brush with Gen Z and say that somehow it's their fault. I think this is a systematic failure. So we're finding that too. Also, they expect the unemployment for To be almost double what the national rate is for new graduates and next year's graduates too.

So these are some headwinds the next generation is facing. Yeah, and I remember when I was coming out of college back in the 90s that we were not in a great place economically. It's one of the reasons I decided to go to law school. And in all honesty, because I was like, ooh, this job market doesn't look very good. Maybe I should just get some more education.

I don't know that that's always the best outlook. But it can feel discouraging to feel like you've fought through college, whether you've taken on loans or however you've done it, if you've worked, you've invested in something and now you're being told you played by the rules, but you're maybe not ever going to get a house or be able to get married and have kids in the way that you thought you were.

So there are big economic issues that have to be addressed. For young people, they feel very discouraged. And when there's a lack of hope, I think being disgruntled drives people to the polls more than being excited or happy about a candidate. It's really the unease and the unhappiness that will make people get out of bed, go find their polling place and vote. Yeah.

So the other big story is the Civil War going on on the left. I'm not sure how you're going to tackle this this weekend, but it's almost impossible to avoid and to see. And now we see that everyone's turning on Chuck Schumer. They think he's the bad guy, but he tried not shutting the government down. That didn't work.

Then he shut the government down, set a record. That didn't work. Here's what Chris Matthews says about the party, the Democratic Party, CUP 14. Democrats were an urban and a rural party. They're still at.

Are they a rural party? The people that didn't go to college are voting for Trump. Why? Because of snobbery and attitude. He doesn't usually say stuff like that about a party I believe he's a part of.

Well, and the thing is, all of the polling shows us is that people view the Republican Party at least a couple months ago in the polling as they are the party of the working class now. And that the impression is, and some of these deep dive studies that took months in the months following 2024, two big polling surveys have come out from Democrat or left-leaning groups that have said we are now viewing Democrats as the party of the working elite, of the coastal elites, of the people with super high education. And that's, you know, that's not going to be as big a coalition as what President Trump put together in 2024. It was a really special thing. He lost some there, if you say he, meaning the GOP, they lost some of that ground with some of these elections last week.

So they have to really see, can you hold on to what you picked up with younger voters, Hispanic voters, black voters? It was a really unique coalition, and can other Republicans do that without President Trump on the ballot? It's going to be key. Shannon, who do you have on this weekend?

So the speaker is with us exclusively to talk about what comes next. Are we going to do this again in January when the money runs out? We've also got Republican Senator Rick Scott, former healthcare executive, and we're going to have a conversation with him along with Democratic Congressman Ami Barra, who is an MD.

So we know that our system is broken. I think the shutdown showed a light on that.

So where is there common ground? How do we fix it? Can we? And I think it's going to be a great show.

So I also think the other big story is what's happening with the BBC for the longest time. I don't sit there and watch a lot of it, but we know it's on our cable system or at mine anyway. And you see about how biased it was. I thought it was front and center with the war in Gaza. Where all you saw was Palestinians.

You never heard about October 7th. And people over there say, well, that's what you got to expect.

Well, it's government-run news. But when they took on Trump and mischaracterized his speech and actually took it out of context, 60-minute style, they have now issued an apology. For those people who don't know what I'm talking about, here's Donald Trump on January 6th. This is the BBC edit, Cut 32. We're gonna walk down.

to the capital and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore. Really? That was taken out of context.

Here's the unedited version: Cut 33. We're gonna walk down to the capital. And we're going to cheer on. Our brave senators and Congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for Some of them.

Because you'll never Take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress Do the right thing. And only count the electors who have been lawfully Slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building.

to peacefully and Patriotically make your voices heard.

So the BBC sent a letter out and apologized for this. And they fired a couple of people. The president seems as though he's still going to sue. Your take on the President's case, especially in light of 60 minutes in ABC. Yeah, I'm so glad that you played those because for people who don't know, remember, even if there ever is a correction, we've got this apology now from the BBC.

The corrections people almost never see.

So the millions of people who saw these BBC cuts think that's actually what President Trump said.

So even if there's an apology there, you know, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Now, my understanding is the threatened lawsuit would be in federal court in Virginia.

So you may have some venue issues. This other side's certainly going to argue this doesn't belong in a U.S. courtroom. You know, the documentaries didn't air in the U.S. Clips of them have now aired.

So you may have some venue issues there. And listen, defamation laws are different in the U.K. than they are here.

So different standards of proof. It'll be interesting to see whether the threat of that lawsuit actually Create some action beyond an apology. If there's some money there, if there is an on-air formal editing apology showing this is what we did, but this is what it said. I mean, I think that's more than the BBC is going to be willing to do now. But remember, this came to light by their own internal investigation they had after some allegations of bias.

So they know what they did. They know what they did. And you know, it's not just him. And I just hope that in the big picture, Shannon, that the BBC and CNN International that's carried, they think that's what's happening in American news. The one thing I always get from people is: why can't I get the Wall Street Journal overseas?

You know, of course, you can download it, but people still there still read newspapers more than us. And number two is it's so hard to get Fox News because they think that we all believe what CNN is putting out and have put out. And then the BBC, their national network, is going out of their way. This is not a one-off. You know, they have probably never said something good about Trump.

Well, I would probably agree with that. I can remember the first time I really traveled overseas for any period of time and turned to my hotel in Europe and would see CNN International, not to just name check them, but I was like No wonder the world hates us. Yes. I mean, I literally was watching their product, like, wow, this is so anti-American. I just thought it would be sort of neutral, but it clearly was not.

And I was like, this explains a lot. If this is what you grow up watching, this is in your homes and hotels and bars and whatever, you're going to think America's terrible.

So, you know, foreign media outlets are not, you know, real complimentary of Republican presidents when they're the ones in the White House. Understood. Shannon, thanks so much. Can't wait for Sunday. Oh, what am I going to see for you on Sunday?

Oh, Sunday night. We're going to have Kev McCarthy, the former speaker on the shutdown. He's going to know what's going on. Yep, Naftali Bennett, the prime minister in the past and maybe in the future. We're going to have Billy Bush on the change of tone in Hollywood and Tommy Lahren.

We're going to be coming your direction. And your dance party. Yes, if I have time. I'm going to keep asking every week. And it's absolutely what I feel like is going to make it happen.

But I also have more on what made America great.

So five more episodes are dropping this week.

So I'm going to maybe have to sacrifice the dance party for some promos there.

Well, I I demand a recount. Shannon Bream, stay safe. Bye. Back in a moment. Increasing your intelligence quotient.

What the hell did you just say? It's Brian Kilmead. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. I've been pretty interested in all of this for a while because when Zoron Mamdani was on the upswing, I looked around and I said, guys, it's coming to a city near you.

I mean, look, yes, in Minnesota, he tried but failed. But in Seattle, I was interested in this race because the guy who was, the other guy that was running is a. an immigrant diverse guy. Who grew up with nothing, worked very hard, worked his way up. And she again borrowed money from her parents to do all of this.

She and her husband choose to live in a 600-square-foot studio apartment with a toddler. And she says, you too can live like me. Right. And now but the other democratic choice, and it it's not that the guy who worked really hard and worked his way up was a Republican, he's not. He's a Democrat and he's sitting there looking around going waiting.

What Wasn't I supposed wasn't I like the poster child for what we were going to be? The DSA has been quietly and systematically working to build their troops. And that is what Dana points out is 100% true. The DSA, which is a socialist organization, association, they not only have candidates. They have agendas.

You gotta see, they published it a couple of days ago, right here in New York, about what the mayor is expected to do now that they got him elected. Mayor Mamdani, and it's even more severe than what he ran on. Don't you think it's going to be the same thing in Seattle? They provided this woman who was penniless with a whole foundation, and she won. It almost happened in Minneapolis too.

Bernie's loving it. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. When you consider Some of Donald Trump's behaviors and policies, like deploying federal forces to U.S. cities, undermining the Department of Justice's independence, attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Does that not Trouble you deeply.

Well, of course. I was really the tip of the spear in the twenty twenty election in Pennsylvania, but I think at this point right now, we are not in an autocracy. You know, we're in a democracy, and that's why we they were able to shut our government down. Ity Korak. Just is incensed by Donald Trump being alive, let alone be president, and took on John Fetterman, who wrote a great book.

And it's a very self-deprecating book, just about what his life has been like, how he got to where he's gotten. You're not gonna see much positive. John Fetterman had a very tough childhood, and then we know what happened with his stroke. And now he is somebody that's moderate and reasonable. And as he does his book tour, he's getting huge pushback from places like where Katie Couric, whatever she's on, and the view.

Tommy Lahren knows it now. Tommy, do you think it's a surprise to a degree center Fetterman that he's getting this type of pushback on the left? Not at all, because they will eat their own. That's the new era of the Democrat Party. It used to be they would all fall in line.

That was under Nancy. Nancy kept everybody in line. Back in the days of AOC and the formation of the squad, Nancy was able to get all of those women and all of those men, all of them. She was able to whip them into shape and they all fell in line. But now it's just no man's land.

It's the lord of the flies over in the Democrat Party.

So if they see somebody that's a little bit more moderate, by the way, moderates actually win elections for Democrats, not the far left, they will go after you. They will shame you, berate you, bully you. That's what they do, of course, to Fetterman. And it's not going to end anytime soon. I want you to hear a little bit more.

Here's Fetterman and Couric talking about Charlie Kerr, Cut 26. I just chose not to take the opportunity to argue his views after Children lost his father in the most. Violent public way. We have to turn the temperature down. Extreme rhetoric makes it easier for extreme reactions or to justify them.

I think some people might say Charlie Kirk's rhetoric was extreme. You know, I think that's the conversation that happened. People condemned political violence, but they also felt a great deal of discomfort with his language, suggesting that. These kinds of words. lead to violence.

I don't know.

I'm just kind of sharing my observations as I saw the conversations unfold. Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think we agree that we probably didn't agree with much of what he said. But and I think we I'm sure we both agree that you shouldn't shoot people. You know, and you shouldn't execute them in public.

And that's I think that's two things must be true. That free speech, I'm an absolute free speech guy, and you have the right to say these things, and you definitely also have the right not to get shot by sharing your views.

So he's trying to put her in place. What's she talking about? Can you make sense of her point of view?

Well, it's clearly Trump derangement syndrome, and that's not just for Donald Trump, by the way. That's just anybody associated with America First, the mega movement, doesn't matter. But what was she trying to get at there with those questions? That's what I'm really trying to figure out. Are you trying to say, well, you know, it's awful that he got assassinated, but look at all the things that he said.

Yeah.

That's what she, I mean, really, that's not, we don't have to do a lot of digging to figure out that that's exactly the point that she was trying to make. That, you know, if you say things that make people feel uncomfortable, then, you know, maybe your assassination isn't as tragic. That's really, if she was being honest, she would have just said it like that. And I love when she says, that's what many people are observing. No, that's what you're observing.

Just say it. Just say, I don't like him, so I don't really care that he was assassinated and that a woman has lost her husband and two children have lost their father and an entire movement has lost one of their leading voices. Just say that. I'd have more respect for her. Katie Couric used to be a respected journalist, right?

Like many people that have gone down this route. And now she's a joke and she's a farce. And honestly, with this interview, I feel like she's just maybe not that great of a person. Right. Well, I mean, one thing is pretty clear: she has everything you just said.

The other thing is, she was reading those questions. I've been thinking to myself, you can't come up with questions off the cuff on John Fetterman. You're pretty much outraged by Charlie Kirk.

So, my feeling is, too, and tell me if you agree with this. is that she's got an algorithm that goes way left. And they're probably one of these people. I don't go to TikTok. But one of these people that just only getting what they think is inflammatory statements out of context from Charlie Kirk.

And she's like, oh, did you see this? Did you see this? Did you see this? And I'm wondering, because they skew popular opinion. That's one of the main reasons I want TikTok out of here and any foreign entity out of here when it comes to a news service.

They can skew public opinion by what you see. And being that they already label her a left-wing left wing journalist, is she only getting the stuff that she feels as though that Charlie Kirk, if taken out of context, would be inflammatory? Does she not know what a Charlie Kirk speech is actually like? I'm sure not. I don't think she's probably gone in and done her own research on that.

But what I find so maddening about all of this is that they often deem Charlie Kirk, President Trump, people like you, people like me, we're always controversial. The things that we say are always inflammatory.

Meanwhile, on the other side, they just elected Jay Jones in Virginia, right? They believe there are 72 genders, men can be women, and white men should take the place of even black women in their own locker rooms and spaces. We saw that even in California. But we're controversial at extreme. We're inflammatory.

That's what I don't even care to buy into that narrative. Even if you want to pick apart Charlie Kirk and you want to take him out of context and you want to take bits and pieces, even those bits and pieces, to me, are not as egregious as the full statements that we're hearing from Democrats that they're not apologizing for, that we don't have to take out of context because they're quite proud of them. Look at Virginia. There is no floor. The Democrat Party has no floor.

I don't want to hear about inflammatory on the right anymore. Right. When those text messages, Are exposed. They know who this Republican's family is. I want to shoot them all basically and kill the kids.

And this guy still won. Have you thought about how he won? Like, do you can you make sense of how Jay Jones won?

Well, I think we heard it earlier in the year from some of the folks on the Democrat base. I think it was an Axios article that said they want blood. They want resistance to President Trump. They want their Democrat leaders to be willing to put their lives on the line to fight President Trump.

So there's really not a big jump from that to let's elect the guy that was talking about peeing on someone's grave. I don't think there's a big jump. That's where they are. It's pretty crazy. But, you know, Virginia had some, but plus, this guy, the one they had in power, is doing a great job.

Jason was doing great.

So I want to talk about what J.D. Vance was did. He gave a great interview with Sean Hannity yesterday. One time he just opened up and he said about 2028, he's going to sit down. And he's gonna talk to President Trump about 2028 before they do anything.

Right now, he's gonna spend the next year trying to get to the midterm elections and make sure they don't fail. And indicating that Rubio is a friend. and his best friend on the cabinet My thing is there's no way Rubio's running if J.D. Vance is running. I don't want to play a side.

I just want to get your take. That's a summary of it. Your thoughts about J D Vance's approach to running. And would he is he going to be essentially looked at as an incumbent and very few except for fringe running against him? I think it's his if he wants it.

I would like to see Rubio, but I think that that's going to end up having to be a joint ticket. And I'm not mad at that. I think it's a great one. I think that we need to figure out what's going to happen in these midterms, by the way. I think they should run as incumbents if we still have the mega movement strong.

But what we saw a couple weeks ago is that if Trump's not on the ballot, Republicans don't show up.

So the Republican Party is going to figure out how to remedy that. Is that with J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio an extension of President Trump and MEGA? Perhaps. Let's see what midterms look like next year, though.

Can Republicans actually get out when you don't have President Trump on that stage and on that ballot? And could you see Governor DeSantis running? Can you see Christine Noam running? Can you see Governor Juncken running if J.D. Vance is in?

I think that Ron DeSantis is probably so scarred from what happened to him in the primary and the way MEGA really turned on him. I think he's the most effective governor in the country and he has been for quite some time. By the way, I would like to see him run, but I don't think he's going to do that to himself again because of what the conservative movement did to him when he dared to challenge President Trump.

Now, I think President Trump and Ron DeSantis have a good relationship. We know President Trump forgives people. And look at J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio being two great examples of that. Mark Zuckerberg.

Yeah, exactly. I don't think you're going to see a Brian Kemp. I don't think we're ever going to go back the way of the McCain's and the Romneys. I think it's going to be much more in the realm of the Rubio, the Vance. And I think the one thing J.D.

Vance is so smart at two things. Number one, don't get in front of the president, even when he's in his last two years. He's not going to like that. And number two is I'm going to have him. informed every step of the way.

Because you don't want to get out in front, you do an interview, and you say, Well, maybe I wouldn't have hit the Iranian nuclear sites. That type of thing will set. The president will do an interview the next day and goes very disappointed to hear that J.D. Vance said, I could see this scenario, and I think J.D. is too smart for that.

Tommy, who do you have coming up this weekend? We've got a lot coming up. We've got six hours of content. Plus, I'm joining you on Sunday night. Yes.

So for a media, yes, an immediate segment that I'm very excited about.

So I'm going to go to the next one. 10 a.m. 10 p.m. 10 p.m. Yes.

And I'm heading over to Outnumbered in a little bit.

So. We're going to see you in 15 minutes. Yes. All right, same outfit? Yes.

You don't have time for a costume change. No, I don't. Back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. Brian Kilmead will be right back.

From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead. You think maybe they should have held out for like another couple weeks, another month? I think we should have held out till we got what we wanted, which was not only. you know reinstating The snap cuts and making sure that hungry kids and working parents had enough to eat, but also making sure that health care premiums weren't going to skyrocket for millions of Texans and millions of Americans. That's our job as Democrats is to fight for working people.

And if we're not doing that, then we shouldn't Wonder why voters don't trust us at the ballot box. A couple of things. Do you realize what this guy just said? This guy wants to be a congressman. He's a congressman in Texas.

I guess he wants to run for Senate. Democrat. He's telling Uh Farvra, what's his name? Forgot his name. Yeah, Jon Favreau, the former speechwriter for for Obama.

He's saying we should have stayed and fought, fought for SNAP. The only reason there was no SNAP benefits is because you shut down the government as the minority. Fighting. Fighting means you fight in the appropriations process. And I say this to Republicans too.

You go out there and you make a speech. I'm so disappointed the Republicans locked me out. I'm looking to add more money to Obamacare, whatever your issue is. In this case, it's maybe USAID and these people are starving in Zaire. We should never have stopped that program.

That's how you do it. But just holding your breath and having a temper tantrum. And you're saying the old my only regret is that I didn't hold my breath longer? I mean, that's the guy that you want leading your party. You talk about unhinged.

I gotta play this Nancy Pelosi.

So, this is a little off topic, but everyone goes up to her nonstop. Wherever she is, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, she's 100 years old and she's retiring, right? And she's afraid of a transgender person who's running against her in her district. She's being primaried, but I guess she's just going to quit. How many millions of dollars can you make with insider trading before it's enough?

And she's asked about the president not showing up for the climate conference, CUT 13. A few weeks ago in New York, He he pronounced that during Climate Week that this was a con job. This is a scam. No. Mr.

President, you are projecting again. You are the conjob. You are the scam. You do not believe in science or responsibility or anything, and it's all about the money in the pocket of your friends and billionaires, as we have seen even with health care. She's so angry and unhinged.

And by the way, now it doesn't seem well. She's 85. But she has not said anything to move this country forward. And if you think about her legacy, she wants to be the first. She's a mini KJP.

She was the first woman to ever be speaker, and then she stuck around and was speaker again.

Okay, congratulations. But what did you do? You kept your conference together, but you didn't help the country. In fact, you're the one who pushed Barack Obama to not give up saying you don't have the 60 votes on Obamacare. Let's do reconciliation.

He still didn't have enough 50 votes, and she rounded him up for him to get Obamacare. Guess what the problem has been? Even though it's gained popularity since being unpopular for the first four years, It is unaffordable. Nobody wants the insurance. In order for it to be sustainable, there needs to be additional subsidies for it.

And now you had to put money into the private industry, but you instead of giving it to the people that Trump wants to do, you gave it to the insurance companies who turned around and said, thank you very much. I'll jack up rates. That's what anti-Peloti has done. What I think a great legislator is, and it hasn't really happened much in my lifetime, is someone who said, Yeah, to pass that bill, I had to go get 12 Republican votes, and she was able to do it. But to me It's not a great feat to keep Democrats together.

Republicans have a hard time doing it, but I think it should be pretty much. Everyone's got their own agenda and their own beliefs, but it shouldn't be that big of a deal. To me, a great legislator is somebody that loses popularity points because they reach across the aisle to do what's possible. Instead, they try to cheat to do the extreme. And does that sound like a woman?

Who understands who won president twice? She just can't believe it. She just can't get her head around it. I love what Chris Matthews said about the Democrats as he knows them too, Cut fourteen. Democrats were an urban and a rural party.

Are they a rural party? The people that didn't get to college are voting for Trump. Why? Because of snobbery and attitude. It's true.

What about the attitude you just got?

So if you're a. I don't know, a plumber, a tradesman, construction guy. And you say, well, the global warming thing. I don't buy it. I don't see it.

You know, it's freezing one day, cold the next. It's cold, the weather. You were ridiculed, you were mocked, and that's what she's doing. She's mocking the president. Because she thinks he should be wasting his time over in Brazil working on green projects for a doomsday that's never going to come.

And more and more people are going to the way of Bill Gates. Be responsible, come up with renewables, build a better electric car, make the electric car more desirable than a gas car. Go do it without putting market forces involved. He could do that. We care about the environment, but no one's subscribing to that again.

I would venture the guess, even on the left. Even on the left. Where I think when they go through their primary process starting in 26, 27. I don't think they're going to be bringing up green energy, where it was the fundamental plank: we're getting rid of gas cars, I'm going to do it quickly, and we're going to have these carbon taxes. I don't think they're going to bring it up.

I know Gavin Newsom's having a great time acting like he's the president over in Brazil and like a real hero. But no one believes it. No one believes. Anyone who knows what's going on here knows that this guy, no one's listening to him. And there's a documentary out, and I saw about 20 minutes of it.

It is devastating about what happened. That allowed those fires to do such devastating damage in California, how they were let down and ignored before, during, and that we can't get to after everything's rebuilt by the mayor who's an abomination, Mayor Bass, and by a governor who says, not my problem. That's not a guy that's going to win.

So also the party's changing.

So far there's, at my count, eleven House Democrats, six Democratic Senate candidates, three Dem sitting Democratic senators who all say that Schumer's got to go. One of the reasons, and the Wall Street Journal did a great job breaking this down, is that for the most part, he's been impossible to figure out. When those riots started happening on Colombia and around the country, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel riots, he didn't say a word. When it was time for us to stand up for Israel and say, well, you know, I'm Jewish. I'm the highest ranking Jewish politician in America.

I am calling for An election to get rid of Prime Minister Netanyahu, totally silent as President Biden cut off aid. Instead goes after Netanyahu. Kept his mouth shut. It was his genius idea that used the filibuster to stop Gorsuch from getting confirmed. It forced the Republicans to get rid of, for major court nominations, the filibuster.

So they were able to get Gorset, Kavanaugh, and Amy Cody Barrett by simple majority votes. Think about that bad tactical play. And now he says, without informing the house, I am going to keep the government open in March. Got everyone so angry in September. He actually says we're going to keep it down, only to find out that he loses control of his conference, and eight cross and they open up.

It's hard to imagine a guy with great political instincts to get him where he got, to have it all fall apart in real time. He also allowed the ultimates in, I think, for the Democrats. He allowed the socialists to take over. Don't forget One Nation Sunday at 10 o'clock. I'm going to have Kevin McCarthy on with me, Naftali Bennett, former prime minister, maybe future prime minister of Israel, along with Billy Bush.