GOP battle for 2024 heats up as Trump's legal hurdles mount

It all started with the brutal murder of a young married couple.

Now, more than 40 years after the couple was found, investigators and forensic genealogists are cracking the case wide open to uncover a stunning second mystery. Where's the baby? I said, well, wait, he had a baby? What happened to their baby daughter, Holly? Where's Holly Marie?

Where's Holly? What about Holly? Get early exclusive access and ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus. Visit FoxNewsPodcasts.com to get started today. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show.

Brian Kelmead. Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for listening. We are back in New York after three wonderful days in Hollywood. Florida.

Then one day at Myrtle Beach, thanks everyone for coming out and saying hello. We appreciate it. Also, Susan Page is going to be on this hour. Abby Hornisek, I'm all out there signing the President and Freedom Fighter, now out on paperback. And we're following all the big stories.

For example, England is now leading in the same group as. Our American team, they're leading around 3-0 with about 54 minutes into the game. I think that's important. The USA team, Fox covering it all, pregame starts at 1. Post-GameStore 2, the actual GameStore 2.

We'll discuss that. But right now, let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three, sponsored by Crunch Fitness. Interested in owning your own business in a growing $30 billion industry? Check out CrunchFitness at Crunch.com. Number three. To wind up with, is here's a United Nations that's telling us we need to trust them.

And our president says he's going to put 20 billion of our dollars into this slush fund. Trust us with your money. And we're going to let these countries that the United Nations itself said they can't trust with that. Yeah, forget it. That is Wayne Christian with the Texas Railroad Commission talking about what's happening at the Egypt Climate Conference.

The religion of climate change is demanding American dollars in order to truly repent. And let's just hope the GOP can stop billions from leaving our accounts. The details on this proposed global slash fund, which has China on the reconvene uh on the receiving end of our payments. Number two. We're behind the times, and we have to be honest with ourselves.

Joe Biden turns 80 years old tomorrow. Happy birthday, Mr. President, but it's time for a younger generation to lead across the board. And Nikki Helly could have been talking about President Trump. 2024, the GOP battle beginning to heat up as more and more Trump team members are about to become opponents, and as the former President's legal hurdles mount.

Number one. In the House of Republicans, we actually won the majority. It's not the size of the gavel, it's the power of the gavel of who holds it. We'll end up with 222 members, exactly the size of what the Democrats have now. Right.

Kevin McCarthy talking on Maria's show on Sunday, Congressional Leadership Shuffle. Both parties have major changes in leadership. They are outlining their goals and agenda. We'll look at the plans and agendas and the likely clashes. Keep in mind, Clive Byrne is stepping aside, Stanny Hoyer stepping aside, and so is Nancy Pelosi.

But they're stepping aside, but they're not stepping out. They're going to be there looming over all of them the way. Bill Belichick would have had Parcells looming over him with the New York Jets. That's why he went to the Patriots. I think the analogy is exactly right.

Even if you agree with that, that's just the way it is. Kevin McCarthy still doesn't have 218 that he needs. He's missing Matt Gates. He's missing Andy Biggs. I think there are some others that aren't going to vote for him, but I think he'll get it.

He is the logical choice, the only one that could get that way. But what will he have to give up? In order to get that type of support, I'm not sure. Here is Kevin McCarthy talking about Congressman Biggs refusing to support him and others. Cut to we need to work as one because if that continues to move forward, all the investigations we ask to happen, the securing the border, the stopping the movement, none of that can move forward without.

Andy Ran inside the conference, and we had that debate. And I think that's a healthy debate, and I think that's a good debate. It's worth being challenged and make sure competition's there. But we have to work as one conference because if four want to vote one way, four can vote another. We have to unite as Republicans and understand the commitment we made to the American people.

Yeah, well, and what part of that commitment is what are they going to do? Right away, they admit investigations that Joe Biden, not just Hunter Biden, the Biden family had deals going in 50 countries, 50 countries. You have more details coming out. They're going to talk about investigations, but as I mentioned on Trey Gowdy last night, at the same time, by, I don't know, next week, how are they attacking inflation? Not with rhetoric.

But with actual proposed legislation to do it. What did Reagan do when inflation came upon him that Jimmy Carter left in his lap? What he did is cut spending as well as force to raise rates. Right now, you have a battle going on with the Treasury Secretary and the Fed about raising rates and then flooding the market with more money.

So they're really treading water because these two can't agree or because they're getting pressure from the president to not raise rates to the point where the housing market falls apart. Hakeem Jeffries will be running things on the Democratic side. How does he feel about what's going on? And what will he do now replacing Nancy Aplosi, which is all but a formality? He says he really has no relationship with Kevin McCarthy.

He doesn't like him. Steve Scalise, he does seem to get along with, but he, of course, is talking about Republicans and extremism. Cut seven. I haven't had a conversation with Leader McCarthy Carthy recently. I do have.

I think a much warmer relationship with Steve Scalise. Look forward to working. whenever and wherever possible. But of course we will fiercely And vigorously oppose any attempts at Republican overreach and any Republican extremism. And I'm hopeful.

That the Republican leadership will take lessons away from the rejection of extremism by the American people all across the land and not double and triple down on it in the next Congress. I don't know. Extremism? Is Dr. Oz extreme?

I don't know. Is Carrie Lake extreme, wanting to force the border? None of them were extreme. Whether it was Trump baggage, I'm not sure what goes on. I have no idea what the people of Pennsylvania did.

No, I can never get my head around that. But Dr. Oz is not extreme.

So I don't really know what you're talking about. The Senate. What could the Senate do? Number one, win the Herschel seat. Number two, make sure that they put out proposals agreed to by the House that puts pressure on Democrats in energy-producing states to start producing energy.

And understand that when you're paying $6 like they're doing in California right now for gas, it's because of decisions your politicians are making because they're on this religion called global climate change, which was global climate change. global warming. But they realized the globe wasn't warming and it wasn't obvious that winters were still happening, so they had to quickly change it to climate change. That could mean absolutely everything. Anytime there's a hurricane, cli that's because of pollution.

Anytime there's an earthquake, that's because what America is doing with the combustion engine.

So what's going on there? I don't know. I do want to not forget about the runoff election with Herschel Walker. Herschel Walker is a guy that they decide to attack his intellect because they can't attack his person. They go after things that are in his book and say that it's the the this is A smoking gun.

When he's already addressed almost all of that, his family and everything coming out, that was like so five, six weeks ago. But now they have Brian Kemp and the lack of a Libertarian candidate, they hope they'll get some of the Kemp voters into the Herschel camp and some of the Libertarian voters into the Herschel camp. That should make up the 35,000 vote deficit they would hope. You don't need 50% in the runoff. Here's Kemp in Cobb County, where the pres where Herschel Walker did not do well for a Republican, cut nine.

But look, we We cannot rest on our laurels, everyone. We have got more wood to chop. Who do you want to fight for you in the United States Senate? Represents our values like Hearsa Walker, or do you want somebody that stood with Joe Biden 96% of the time? That is what the question is.

And that's just it. That's what he's got to paint it. And what they're trying to do with Al Sharpton, everyone says, say Herschel's being used. Listen to Al Sharpton, because a black man is running in the Republican Party. Of course he's being used.

Cut twelve. Every time I see Herschel walk, I bow my head in prayer. Because I just don't want him to be used. In a way that is embarrassing. He was a good football player.

He is not. Equipped to be a U.S. Senator, and anyone that puts him there. Has no respect or regard for the people of their state. Really?

Al Sharpton, who ran for president with nothing but grift on his background and questionable charities on his resume? Al Sharpton doesn't like that Herschel Walker beat Raphael Warnock clearly in the debate, is extremely confident on his feet, is worshipped by lawmakers and military men and women. What he's got to do is convince the African American vote that he is going to go to bat for them because of his background. This guy wants to get involved in agriculture. He is an entrepreneur.

Who's overcome a lot in his life, believe me?

So I just can't believe they go after his intellect and capability as if there's no fear that that would be a stereotype that African Americans have worked so hard to shed themselves of that if it was somebody saying Raphael Warnock doesn't have the brains to do it, people would seem racist. But if you say you don't have the brains to do it and you're a Republican named Herschel Walker, they say, well, yeah, that seems okay because it's a Republican. You could say whatever you want. Not in my world. 2024 was also on everyone's mind, including the GOP.

Over the weekend, a major Jewish organization asked for leading Republicans to come down there and speak. The president, former president, spoke via Zoom or via some remote. A lot of other people showed up. From Pence to DeSantis to Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo. And they all basically took shots, without mentioning his name, at Donald Trump.

Here, for example, is Nikki Haley. Tell me if you could read between the lines with her at Cut Twenty One. Republicans spend as much time fighting each other as we did the Democrats. It is time to quit eating our own. The truth is Americans weren't trusting the state of our party.

They don't want chaos. They want strength and stability and unity. We didn't have that. We have to look in the mirror. The Republican Party has lost the popular vote in the last seven out of eight presidential elections.

That's saying something. We're behind the times, and we have to be honest with ourselves. Joe Biden turns 80 years old tomorrow. Happy birthday, Mr. President, but it's time for a younger generation to lead across the board.

See, across the board, Joe Biden turns 80, the former president 76, who told us on this show that there's ungratefulness. He said it's ungrateful. uh disloyal for anyone who worked for him. To run against him.

Well, that's going to happen. Three national polls show DeSantis beating the president: 46-39. 3426 is Stevens' Ledder Organization. Ledger 4543, youGov at 46.39, I should say. Club for Growth had.

DeSantis beating Trump 56.30 in Florida, 5237 in New Hampshire, 55.35 in Georgia. A crowded field will help Trump. But Nate Silver of 538 says it looks at DeSantis as well as Trump as co-favorites. I was surprised at this. I'm not saying it's wrong, but just noteworthy.

Mike Pompeo, the president's former said of the CIA and Secretary of State, said, We were told we would be tired of winning, but I'm tired of losing. As are most Republicans.

So that is significant. Everything he said about using Trump's name. Chris Christie says: use Trump's name. I think the only risk is not so much President Trump's wrath, it's the followers. If you go out and outpoint or outspeak or outtweet or out-truth social Donald Trump.

And you may be get ahead of a pole, but you lose his base, you are lost in the general. His base is not enough to win the general, but you don't win the nomination without it.

So figure out a way. And just blasting you away at Trump not going to be the way. 1-866-408-7669. We'll talk about climate change and the folly that is. You'll listen to the Brian Killmee show.

So glad you're here.

Okay. Challenging conventional thought and wisdom. You're with Brian Kilmead. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. I'm Janistine, Fox News Senior Meteorologist.

Be sure to subscribe to the Janistine podcast at FoxNewsPodcast.com or wherever you listen to your podcasts. And don't forget to spread the sunshine. Precise, personal, powerful. Is America's weather team in the palm of your hands? Get Fox Weather updates throughout your busy day, every day.

Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. To wind up with, is here's a United Nations that's telling us we need to trust them. And our president says he's going to put 20 billion of our dollars into this slush fund to go to countries, and they're going to select it in the United Nations.

Those places that have those rare earth metals are controlled by mostly dictatorships and untrusted governments, which will waste the money anyway.

So here we're going now with this study saying, trust us with your money, United States taxpayer, and we're going to let these countries that the United Nations itself said they can't trust with that. They say we're under a climate crisis. That crisis doesn't exist. It's an energy crisis they're causing.

So that's Wayne Christian. He's an expert in climate. He also is Texas Railroad Commissioner.

So he was just speaking out, saying how ridiculous this whole Egyptian conference was. They go out and say the world's burning up. It's all going to end unless the industrialized nations come together and help those struggling countries. Really? So we have to write big checks to countries that already have shown that they're not economically solvent because of things that we did that what caused tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods.

That is so unproven and so wrong. They say that we've already committed a billion dollars. This is why we got out of the Paris climate change.

Now it's the Egyptian climate change. China is going to pledge to do zero. And guess what? They currently are listed as a developing nation so they get some of our money while they're polluting the world. They have double the carbon footprint of us.

India and China have built 288 coal plants just this year together, while at the same time rigging the game, building solar panels and windmills and batteries. And we're paying for it. You believe this? Yet, we have lithium, we have cobalt, we have a lot of the essential metals. Metals, but we don't want to do it because it's too economically detrimental.

We'd rather have the Congo do it, which is controlled by China, other areas of Africa do it. It is a joke what they're saying. As Bjorn Lumberg told me today, the best thing they could do for green energy is let the developing countries develop. Cut 25. If you look at the number of people actually die, From climate-related disasters.

100 years ago, on average, over the 1920s, it was about half a million people that died each year. Since then, it's not gone up, as most people would imagine, it's gone down dramatically, so that in the 2010s, the number was down to 18,000 people per year. Last year, at the year we heard the most about climate, It was down to below 7,000. We've seen a reduction in the number of people dying from climate-related disasters by more than 99%.

So 200 countries have agreed to write checks. We'll probably write the most. We give out half as much carbon emissions as China, and they're going to pledge. Oh, let me see. I wrote it down here somewhere.

Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. They're the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

So give me a break on this. And by the way, Congress better have a say in it. Remember, it wasn't too long ago where they were telling us that global warming was really global freezing. An ice age was coming. The year was 1978.

Leonard Nimoy, then a hot actor on Star Trek, was saying this, CUT26. If we are unprepared for the next advance, the result could be hunger and death on a scale unprecedented in all of history. What scientists are telling us now is that the threat of an ice age is not as remote as they once thought. During a lifetime of our grandchildren, Arctic cold and perpetual snow could turn most of the inhabitable portions of our planet into a polar desert.

So, you see what I'm talking about? Does anyone remember that? It was the cover of the Time magazine in the 70s. That was 1978.

So, now we wanted to avoid the ice age. Then, we wanted to avoid the boiling age of global warming.

Now, they realize they can't control the messaging if we're freezing or we're boiling.

So, they say, I have an idea. Let's just call it climate change and write big checks. We have to put a stop to it. That's another reason why I think it was great for Donald Trump to do, while at the same time, be open. If an electric car can burn clean and is effective and I can save money, I can get it.

If I don't have any pickup, if it doesn't have any duration, if I have to worry about a charge, I will not get it. Give me a free market. That's what we ask. Right now, the sales of electric cars are going great. Guess what?

The pickup truck that I drove in, the Lightning, they have reservations, plenty of reservations. They're turning them down because they can't build them fast enough. They don't have all the material and they don't have the chips. That's forcing. free market capitalism, which is And that is against everything that America was for.

Susan Page will be on next, talking about her book, Madam Speaker, by Nancy Pelosi, and the lessons Democrats and Republicans can learn, if any. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. I'm Ben Dominich, Fox News contributor and editor of the Transom.com daily newsletter, and I'm inviting you to join a conversation every week. It's the Ben Dominich Podcast. Subscribe and listen now by going to FoxnewsPodcasts.com.

Hey, It's Will Kane, co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend. Join me as I share my thoughts on a wide range of topics from sports and pop culture to politics and business. The Will Kane Podcast. Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com. Information you want, truth you demand.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. And with great confidence in our caucus, I will not seek re-election to Democratic leadership in the next Congress. For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect.

So with that, Nancy Pelosi steps aside in her 80s, along with James Clyburn, Stanny Hoyer, leaving Hakeem Jeffries all but anointed to be the minority leader. And if Democrats ever get the House back, Speaker is considerably younger. Susan Page joins us now, the Washington Bureau Chief of USA Today. She's also a best-selling author, and her latest book, Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power. Susan, were you caught by surprise by that?

Were you expecting that announcement? Hey, hey, Brian, it's great to be with you. You know, I wasn't surprised that Speaker Pelosi decided to step back from the leadership. She promised to do that four years ago at this point when she had a really reasonably serious challenge to being reelected as Speaker in 2018. I was a little surprised that she decided to stay in the House.

I'm not sure. You may know history better than I do. I'm not sure that's ever happened before, that a leader has stepped on his speaker and then remained a representative representing their home district. She'll have, I think, still a pretty special role in Congress, but it won't be that power at the top that she's been for so long. Of course, she'd be.

And James Clyburn's going to do the same thing, right?

Well, we think Clyburn is going to be the new number four, an assistant speaker. The person who was the odd man out was Stenny Hoyer, the congressman from Maryland who had had a lifetime of aspiration to become Speaker, to become Democratic leader on his own. That did not happen. He's stepping down, going back to chair a committee.

So this Hakeem Jeffries, do you see anyone blocking him? No, I think his election is assured. And who knew that Democrats would order up this way with almost no dispute?

Well, Republicans continue to have a fight on their hands for the election of Speaker. Democrats are not usually known for being quite such an orderly party, but in this case, this has been pretty seamless. What do you think her impact? I know you have great respect for her. You did studied her.

And Democrats think she's the greatest thing ever. And Paul Ryan had nice things to say about her. But in terms of polarization, there's no way she helped that. Yes, I think that's right. I mean, she's a a leader of great consequence.

She did big things as Speaker, but she did not ameliorate kind of the hyper-partisanship that we have i in this country. And she continues to be a very partisan figure now. I sat down with her with a small group of reporters Thursday, right after she made the announcement that you played the clip of, and one of the reporters asked her if Kevin McCarthy had what It took to be speaker. And she said, Well, why are you asking me that? Do you think he's going to make it?

So she had a little needle there for Kevin McCarthy even on her way out the door. Right, basically they k she Kevin McCarthy looks to have basically the same distance. Between the majority and minority. I think it's going to they think the Republicans are going to get to 222. They're at 218 right now.

So it would be exactly the same majority, slim majority, that Nancy Pelosi had to navigate and kept the Democrats all together on that. I don't think that Kevin McCarthy has any threat because there's no one legitimately a threat to him. That is, if Steve Scalise turned around and said, I want that shot, that would be something. But he has not said that. And Jim Jordan came out and said, he's my guy.

You know, Brian, you may be right, and you know more about Republican politics. You've forgotten more about Republican politics than I know. But I'll just say one thing. The election for Speaker of the House is a little weird because you do not need to beat somebody with somebody. Kevin McCarthy will stand for election for a Speaker, we think, and he'll need to get at least 218 votes.

But if you had some Republicans defect, and you just need five Republicans if you're at 222, you'd only need five Republicans to defect to not vote for him, to vote for somebody else. To cost him that 218 number, that means it goes back to the Republican caucus to figure out what to do next.

So perhaps he'll be elected, maybe they'll hold together, but these very narrow cushions are tricky for leaders. Yeah, well I guess we'll see what happens. You write in your column on I think we're on the publisher today. About how Joe Biden's popularity amongst Democrats has surred since the midterms. They lost the House, but look at they're going to hold on to the Senate.

So at 80, he'll be 82. They expect him to run again? Can you give me an idea of what you're saying? This was an interesting poll we took with Ipsos that, as you said, is out today. What it showed was that when we asked, we ran the same poll in August.

And in August, only 60% of Democrats said Joe Biden could win re-election.

Now that's up to 71.

So that's a significant lift for Biden in terms of confidence among Democrats that he can win. And that's because Democrats did so much better than they expected in the midterms. Trump took a little bit of a hit in our poll, a little less popularity among Republicans, although he is still more popular among Republicans. than Biden is among Democrats. Interesting.

So Biden, if he wants to run again, do you see anybody mounting a run against him? Man, that's the question of the day, because there are 106 Democrats who would like to be President. But so far we have no sign that any of them will challenge him if he chooses to run again.

Sometimes you can't predict that. You know, Jimmy Carter had Ted Kennedy, for instance. You had George H.W. Bush had Pat Buchanan.

Sometimes you get a challenge you don't want. But at the moment, I'm not sure. who that would be in the Democratic Party.

So when you look at, let me say, let's say he said I'm not going to run. Could you give me five names that would pop up in your mind first? Oh, I could give you ten, but the five I'd start with, I guess, would be Kamala Harris, the Vice President. But I don't think she's a shoe-in. I think she'll have to fight for it.

Pete Budigich, the Transportation Secretary, who has become really used his platform in that cabinet job to extend his profile nationally. You know, I think the governor of California would like to run. I think the governor of New Jersey would like to run. I think Amy Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota, would like to run.

So there's five just for starters. Wow, and then you have to go to the US. you definitely have the governor of Illinois who wants to get in there, and there's talk about governor of Colorado being more of a moderate, so it would be interesting.

So for Trump takes a hit after this, is that safe to say? Yes, I think the midterms were disappointing for our supporters of President Trump.

Some of his the candidates he recruited and campaigned for and was most associated with lost. I'm thinking of, for instance, Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania. That was a very disappointing defeat for Republicans. And in Arizona as well, where we think where Democrats have won both that Senate seat and also the governorship.

So I think that that was disappointing for Trump supporters. And I think some Republicans, even those who support Trump feel like he was a distraction For midterm candidates who wanted to talk about things like inflation, when he came out and talked about, again, the 2020 election, which was looking back, you know, one thing we know with voters, they, as a general, will want to be looking forward. Yeah, absolutely. And I can't tell you how done I am with the 2020 was stolen conversation. I think most people are.

Bill Maher, who I find interesting because there's no doubt about it, he's a liberal, but he seems to be calling out both sides. Here's an example from this Friday, Cut 45. 47, I'm sorry. I really think, look, we are, I think when historians look back at our time, they will not divide us into red and blue and Republican, Democrat. They're like the things that were wrong with us were wrong with both sides in different ways.

I do think they manifest in a more dangerous way on the right. But on the left, there is a rot. and it comes from academia and it filters down. Do you understand where he's coming from with that? You know, I do.

And one of the interesting things that we saw in the exit polls from the midterms was that. Most Americans, a majority of Americans, identify each party as too extreme, as more extreme than I am. That was the question in the exit polls, which means that I think there are a lot of Americans who feel like there isn't a party that represents them, and they're choosing the lesser of two evils when they go in to vote. And that's not what you want to see in a democracy. You want people to say, here's I'm voting for a candidate who I like, who believes what I believe, who I trust, as opposed to the candidate who is less bad.

Here's what he said about Republicans, Cut 49. And thanks to decent Republicans like Brad Raphsonberger, who defied Trump and won. Yes, in 2022 against everybody's predictions except Michael Moore. The deniers lost and the defiers won. And America showed the world that the reports of our death were slightly exaggerated.

Republicans showed they could dump their baggage and independents showed they could actually be independent. You Usually they're just closet Republicans, but this year they did what they never do in midterms. They came out in droves for the party in power. and told the party that ran on a platform of fing elections, go f yourself.

Okay, that's not your language or my language, but you know what he says. But the other thing we found out, too, is Republicans made gains in the Hispanic community. Marginal gains in the African American community. And in New York, they're finding out this might be nationwide, but the Asian community went heavily for Republicans. They feel the security matters, and what they were doing with schools and stop with meritocracy mattered.

What's your take on that? I haven't seen if the USA Today did a national look. Yes, we've taken the look especially at Latino voters because the change there has been the most significant. And we've seen Republican candidates like George W. Bush do well among Latino voters in the past, but now we see the whole party doing better.

And President Trump has done pretty well among Latino voters himself. This is to the dismay, I think, of some Democrats who have counted on voters of color, on black people, on Hispanic people, on Asian Americans to Who Default to the Democratic Party. And that is no longer happening in the same way. And I think, I mean, in my to my view, I think this is a good thing. I think it is a good thing when we have a kind of robust democracy where both parties are seeking voters on different demographic groups in our country.

Right. So over the weekend, too, as if things weren't picking up steam enough, the President, former President of the United States last week says, I'm running for reelection.

Okay, that's big news. And then Merrick Garland comes out a couple of days later and says this about the investigation into Mar-a-Lago, and I believe into January 6th, CUD 28. Based on recent developments. Including the former president's announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election. And the sitting president's stated intention to to be a candidate as well.

I have concluded that it is in the public interest To appoint a special counsel.

So here we go. Is this going to be like the Mueller report? Every day a different leak and different conclusion, and the Trump camp is nervous, and the Trump camp is confident, and he's going to prison. He's exotic. Is this going to be that back and forth?

Well, I I hope not. I mean, this is an effort by the Attorney General to make things less political, not more political, to make it clear that while the Justice Department is supposed to be independent, that he's adding another layer of independence. And the special counsel he named is not somebody I know, but he has a reputation as a serious prosecutor.

So I hope we get in a situation where there's the kind of investigation that Americans can trust. To be fair and to be nonpartisan. But we've never been in this situation before. We've never been in a situation where the former president is the target of multiple Investigations, criminal and civil, and where he is also running for another term. This is really just uncharted territory for us.

I have no idea, Susan Page, why you would think that this is going to be apolitical. I mean, this was appointed by a Democratic Attorney General who's been acting very partisan when it comes to the school. We just saw what happened with the The student councils, the the uh Why am I blanking on this? On these educational boards? the school boards.

We we saw how he act political there. We see the way he goes against these pro life movements, but not against the pro choice movements. And now the Attorney General is going to say, okay, I'm picking this guy because I want him to investigate a Republican president independent.

Well, I know that that's been the point of criticism by some of the appointment of the special counsel, but I've got to say the experiences I've had with Merritt Garland and seeing him make decisions and looking at how he handled his nomination to the Supreme Court, which of course did not end up going anywhere with a Republican Senate. With his work on press issues with at the Justice Department, that he seems to me to be. a very cautious, judicious A serious person who's doing the best he can to take this really. Inflammatory situation and lower the temperature as best he can. But, you know, the fact is, no one's above the law in our country, including presidents and former presidents.

So these investigations are going to go on, and it's going to be a factor we're going to have to deal with for the next two years, like it or not. Susan Page, thanks so much. Madam Speaker, pick it up. Put Nancy Pulsey's career in perspective. Thanks, Susan.

Hey, thanks, Brian. You got it. When we come back, your call is Abby Hornisek joins us. Don't move. Expanding your knowledge base, it's the Brian Kill Meat Show.

From the Fox News Podcasts Network, in these ever-changing times, you can rely on Fox News for hourly updates for the very latest news and information on your time. Listen and download now at Foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead. Welcome back, everybody. That's Susan Page, just a really great journalist, the Washington Bureau, Chief of USA Today, best-selling author.

As you heard, just to put in perspective, Nancy Pelosi's career. Spent a lot of time with her, putting it together. I mean, put it this way: powerful, yes, but in terms of working in a bipartisan way, when she ripped up the president's State of the Union address. That's where she pretty much uh lost me. And that's very That's when I realized That's when I realized that She she is um She's more of a problem than a solution.

She's good for Democrats. But I mean, can you tell me the prop uh legislation he proposed to make anything better? What you did is help Democrats. You helped Obamacare pass.

Well, how'd she do that? Barack Obama was ready to give up on it. He said, Listen, I don't have the votes. He said, I lost the Ted Kennedy seat.

So um and he was about to lose 63 seats in the House in a year. They lose it to Scott Brown. And before Scott Brown could take over, they jam it through. And with fifty-nine votes or something, and they go have all these types of promises, Nebraska Compromise, whatever they had, and they have all these compromises and they get it through. And it's so unpopular, so ineffective, they lose 63 threes in the House and more seats in the Senate.

And if the Republicans had their act together then to put together electable candidates, don't blame Trump for that, he would have lost the Senate, too. How could a charismatic historic president who had paid 68% of the vote after his inaugural one year later lose that? That's Nancy Pelosi. I mean, if you ask me, that's Nancy Pelosi.

So if Nancy Pelosi doesn't jam that through, so now you have Obamacare. Please tell me how Obamacare works. Every year, every time there's a budget, you've got to have more subsidies for Obamacare to work. Nobody really wants to take it in the medical field. And give somebody people somewhat of a cushion.

Uh the m Medicare or Medicaid? Uh but for the most part The deductible so high, it's ineffective. And that's really her legacy. I mean, and it also. The squad, I guess, went along with her to get her nomination because they said, Promise me you're going to leave.

And at 82, She's going to leave. Went out of her way, she said. To defund the Iraq war at a critical time. It was not going to fund the surge. He says it would never work.

And they ended up finding funding. The surge actually did work. And she was disparaging George, one of the classiest guys in politics, and that's George W. Bush, the 43rd. President of the United States.

You'll listen to the Brian Kilmey Show.

So glad you're here.

Go to BrianKilme.com, find out where I'll be around the country. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Thanks so much for being here, everybody. It's the Brian Killmeat Show, 1866-408-7669.

Coming back to you from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan. Heard around the country, heard around the world. In a matter of moments, Michael Goodwin will be joining us in the New York Post, and Talmidge Boston will be with us, a presidential historian and lawyer. His upcoming book, How the Best Did It: Leadership Lessons from Our Top Presidents, will be released coming up shortly. And he's also putting in perspective historically with our polarization.

Keep in mind, we at one point had Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton. We were pretty polarized, believe me. Jefferson Adams didn't speak for decades until they reinvigorated their friendship when they ran against each other.

So let's get to the big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. To wind up with, is here's a United Nations that's telling us we need to trust them and our president says he's going to put 20 billion of our dollars into this slush fund. Trust us with your money and we're going to let these countries that the United Nations itself said they can't trust with that. Yeah, it's a joke.

That's Wayne Christian, Texas Railroad Commissioner, talking about what we got ourselves into at this Egyptian climate conference. The religion of climate change is demanding American dollars to truly repent, and let's just hope the GOP can stop it.

Meanwhile, guess who listened as a recipient of this money? China. These idiots at the UN think they're a developing nation. Number two. We're behind the times, and we have to be honest with ourselves.

Joe Biden turns 80 years old tomorrow. Happy birthday, Mr. President, but it's time for a younger generation to lead across the board. Yep, 2024 GOP battle beginning to heat up as more and more Trump team members are about to become opponents as the former president legal hurdles mount. Number one.

In the House of Republicans, we actually won the majority. It's not the size of the gavel, it's the power of the gavel of who holds it. We'll end up with 222 members, exactly the size of what the Democrats have now. Congressional Leadership Suffle. Both parties have major changes in leadership.

They are outlining their goals and agenda. We will look at the plans and agendas and their likely clashes.

So let's welcome in Michael Goodwin. Michael, welcome back. Thank you, Brian.

So first off, I noticed your column over the weekend that you really feel as though essentially the former President is getting boring and these legal challenges are mounting. Not a good combination. No, and I I think that Yeah. Stuck out for me last week, Brian, was The Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of a special counsel on Trump. I mean, I just think it's a devious move.

There's no explanation. He said the reason was that now that Trump has announced, and Joe Biden says he plans to, it effectively creates a conflict of interest for the Justice Department. Therefore, you have to take it out of Maine Justice. Although, all the people who are on the case now will continue to probe Trump over both January 6th and the documents issue in Mar-a-Lago. And so I.

I don't buy this argument. I think it's made up. If there was a conflict of interest created by Garland dealing with Trump, it began long ago. It began when Joe Biden aides told the New York Times in April that Biden wanted Trump prosecuted and that he was furious that Garland was moving so slow.

Well, Presto, within a couple of months, Biden's words are Garland's commands, and you have not one but two investigations of Trump that take place after that. That's a conflict of interest. And then you have this whole thing with Hunter Biden, right? There's another conflict of interest. Here you have the Attorney General supposedly investigating the son of the President who appointed him to that job.

How is that not a conflict of interest? How can you possibly trust the outcome when it's so glaring?

So Garland's use of a special counsel to resolve this new conflict of interest that he sees but never saw any before, I think also has other implications. It really takes the power away from the house.

Some people have speculated, and I think it makes a lot of sense, that the new prosecutor, Jack Smith. Is investigating the January 6th. Everybody there, he could indict. anybody he wants. All the Republicans who signed these letters to decertify their results, who voted in certain ways, staffers who did things.

I mean, this has the potential to be a full-on prosecution of the Democrats' opponents. And then of course you throw in Mar-a-Lago with Trump again.

So all of this sounds to me like this is a power grab by Garland. Once the Republicans win the House, He takes the power away from the House on January 6th and transfers all of the documents, presumably all the evidence, all the witnesses, go to the new prosecutor. And it'll be interesting to see if Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan and Comer from the and the others can actually get access to those documents because now they'll say, well, it's under investigation. It's confidential. I think this is a devious power play by the Attorney General.

I do. I have no faith. I wasn't clear at it immediately. I thought this was just over Mar-a-Lago. This is over January 6th as well.

Yes. Yes, he i uh he appoints him for both cases.

Now don't forget, Garland had started investigating Trump. He had taken it to the grand jury over january sixth. And so both of these things are the writ that Garland outlined at the press conference with his public statement. He wouldn't take any questions.

So both of these issues are there.

So when he takes over January 6th, he says Trump and others. whether they violated any laws in the run-up. And the January 6th event itself.

Now, who are exempted are those people on the ground who actually entered the Capitol. They are being prosecuted by the Washington, D.C. United States Attorney.

So that's not what Smith, the new special counsel, will investigate. He will only investigate, in effect, the politics of it. He will investigate Trump, which they're already doing, and all other Republicans. On the hill who did things that he says were a crime, were unlawfully engaged in overturning the election or obstructing government per performance. I mean, this is a very broad canvas.

And by giving this to the special counsel, Garland has walled it off. from the Republicans who now hold the majority in the House. I think this is a was an amazing stroke. And for Garland to pretend he's doing it out of fairness and quite the opposite. He's doing it out of a partisan nature.

Merrick Garland, as I say in the column, Brian, is a partisan hack. He is a bitter partisan hack. And what he has done here, I think, sets the stage for two years of investigations of Republicans by a special counsel. And you know what? It's the same thing, the same thing with Mueller.

There was a report today that they found this, this, and this. There was a rumor yesterday, and it gives Anderson Cooper something to talk about and Joe Scarborough something to rant about. We've seen this movie before, and it ends badly for the people going after it because there's no they're there. We already know the investigation January 6th and all its sensationalism has not linked back to Trump. We know the problems.

He didn't speak out enough, but he didn't say proud boys go take the Capitol or else it would have been discovered already. And nor is this guy up the speed yet. Listen to what Rod Rosenstein, of all people, said, the former Deputy Attorney General yesterday, cut 31. I'm concerned about the timing. Obviously, the new special counsel, Jack Smith, needs to get up to speed in the case.

He's not even in the U.S., so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. He may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts, to review the circumstances. And then there are other potential delays as well. You know, one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel.

Now, that has always been upheld by the courts, but litigation can impose additional delays.

So I think there's a fair chance that this is going to drag in well into the campaign season. And he says he basically told Margaret Brennan later in the interview: I wouldn't have done this. Right. This is a guy that did the Mueller report. Yeah, well But but Brian, I think the Mueller report for the Democrats succeeded.

It helped them win their midterms in in 2018, right? Even though Mueller found no evidence of any cooperation, any collusion with Trump, and he found that long before the 2018 midterms, Mueller held it back. He and Andrew Weissman, the hitman, they held it back until after the midterms, which is when the House went to the Democrats. And and the Senate uh I'm sorry, the House went to the Democrats. Pretty soon you have all the impeachments happening.

That's what they're trying to do again. Keep this in the news until the next election. Keep Trump in the news. But when you go back and you take a look at what Garland actually said, about uh Jack Smith's writ. In terms of january 6th, It covers all of the things leading up to it.

So, all of the machinations that Trump was doing with the lawyers, what if we do this with the certification, what if we do this, all of that, he is going to have all of that evidence and re-examine it and bring it back. possibly to a grand jury. All those lawyers who were advising Trump what to do, they're not off the hook. They could all be indicted now by a special counsel. appointed by a partisan hack attorney general.

So, the thing that the Democrats might not fully understand is that the Republicans are not really going to go to bat for him. He's not their president. They're all going to compete for that nomination now. The whole fight has begun. They might be weakening their best chance at holding on to the presidency.

Yes. Uh but I think they're also thinking that they could divide the Republican Party. That everybody will be forced to take a side. Are you with Trump or are you against Trump? And when you do that, you split the Republican Party in half, maybe not completely 50-50.

But I think any time Trump looks like a victim, it increases his popularity among some Republicans and Independents. And so I think that would make it impossible. for the Republican candidate in twenty twenty four to win. the presidency. And so I think this is that's why I think this is a Partisan power play, a grab of that Republican's power in the House.

They will not be able to find out what's going on. They won't know the evidence, for example. One of the things, Brian, we've all talked about is why weren't the Capitol Police more prepared? Why did we see video of the Capitol Police opening the doors and welcoming some of the first people in? That was never covered by the January 6th Commission.

I mean, that guy, Ray Epps, right? All of the things that Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney didn't do.

Now we will not know what evidence they had, I believe, because the Republicans will not be able to get control of those documents. Jack Smith will have them, and he will say, I'm doing an investigation that's confidential. These documents must remain confidential. I mean, so they've really, I believe, taken the thunder, taken the power, a big piece of the power, away from the new Republican majority. Here's more from Rod Rodenstein Cut 40.

If they're to bring a case against the former president, you'd want to make sure they had a lock-solid case and they were confident both of conviction and of prevailing on any appeal. I'm concerned about the timing. Obviously, the new special counsel, Jack Smith, needs to get up to speed in the case. He's not even in the U.S., so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. He may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts, to review the circumstances.

And then there are other potential delays as well. You know, one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel.

Now, that has always been upheld by the courts, but litigation can impose additional delays.

So I think there's a fair chance that this is going to drag in well into the campaign season. So there you go. And he sees what's going on here. It's just non-stop. There's, oh, we never said we're done with the special counsels, and here it goes again.

Yeah. Yeah. Um he you know, Brian, I I I just think it's um intentional. And that's what is most troubling, I think, that this is This is Merrick Garland doing this intentionally. Because it it It it just takes the power.

And in effect, it shows how the Department of Justice has been Put into the service. of the Democratic Party. There's just no way around what Garland is doing. Um He is clearly if you just look at the Hunter Biden probe. Um Any you know, he clearly has been slow walking that.

How could it take this long? But you can't he can investigate Hunter Biden because that leads you to Joe Biden. It's inevitable. Right? It is inevitable.

And what Jim Comer said on Sunday is very interesting. He said, I almost don't want them to indict him on tax evasion and gun charges because that would stop my investigation. That's right. Uh Brian, if I could, uh can I just read a qu a quick ex uh excerpt from what uh Garland said, which goes to this heart. He said that the special counsel Jack Smith would take over, quote, The investigation into whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the twenty twenty presidential election or with the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about january sixth.

That so that means he can investigate everything done from the November election through january sixth. Anybody and everybody. And they're playing it like he's being non-political. He's being so political. Michael, thanks for outlining it brilliantly.

Appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you, Brian.

Your calls next. Brian Kilmicho. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Researchers have found that rats have similar rhythm to humans.

And like music from Lady Gaga and Queen, Although rats hate Lizzo because she never drops any food. Jeffrey Dahmer's father revealed in an interview what he thinks may have led to his son to becoming a serial killer. He says it could be from smoking concerning cops found all those butts behind his couch. Yeah. What?

That is a little of a uh La Friday's edition of uh The Gutfelt Show. The leftovers. Yeah, the leftovers. Hey, Roger, you'll see in Tennessee. Hey, Roger.

Hey, how you doing? Good morning. We'll tell you why. Why don't the House, now that it's taken over by the Republicans, Do an investigation on the DOJ for interfering into our elections. better our elected Congress do that.

Than the DOJ do that. And then maybe they can get all the information that the DOJ gets for what they're trying to do. Yeah, that would be interesting. I would say a couple of things.

Now I found out this just came across. This is unbelievable.

Now they say the New York Times is reporting that they're starting to reinvigorate an investigation into paying off Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election or after he was elected. This is the investigations on Trump and on the other side are absolutely asinine. People are done with this. The local, New York, national, federal, it is a joke. They are obsessed.

Our radio is a very important thing. show like no other. It's Brian Killmeade. I really think, look, we are. I think when historians look back at our time, they will not divide us into red and blue and Republican, Democrat.

They're like, the things that were wrong with us were wrong with both sides in different ways. I do think they manifest in a more dangerous way on the right, but on the left, There is a rot. And it comes from academia and it filters down. And that is Bill Maher. And I bring him up because he just seems to be taking a logical look at things while never giving up the fact that he's a left-wing liberal.

And I think it's so weird that that is such a rare voice these days. Talmadge Boston joined us now, presidential historian, lawyer in Dallas, an upcoming book. It's called How the Best Did It: Leadership Lessons from Our Top Presidents. Talmadge, you wrote a column that really was resonating for many people. And you talk about polarization, putting it in perspective.

First off, how would you rate the polarization today?

Well, I think it's extreme in that both parties seem to be so locked in, so few people. Seem to be interested in the word they think compromise is a dirty word. They seem to have lost sight of their responsibility upon being elected of actually getting something done. as opposed to committing to extreme positions that will never be accepted by the other side.

So in terms of the the attitudes in place, enhanced by social media, enhanced by strong media, newspapers and television networks, it's a very serious divide.

So, in perspective, though, you said it's not the first time we've been this divided. You go back to 1858, right?

Well, I go even before that. I start with eighteen fifty eight because that's when Lincoln Talked about a house divided two years before he was elected, and of course, soon thereafter came the Civil War. But the real house divided began during John Adams' presidency. The two parties had formed during Washington's presidency. Adams was a Federalist, led the Federalists.

Jefferson led what was then called the Republicans, who ultimately evolved into today's Democratic Party. But when Adams was president, with Federalists controlling both houses of Congress barely. They passed the Sedition Act. which made it a crime punishable by incarceration. For anyone to publicly criticize Adams or any Federalist policies.

And so people were actually thrown in jail. Obviously, that was totally unconstitution in violation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the First Amendment. But because we did not yet have Marberry versus Madison, The courts didn't have the power to strike down an unconstitutional law. That didn't happen until 1803. But uh if you can imagine uh Comparing that to today, what if people who criticized Joe Biden were at risk of going to jail?

Or during Donald Trump's presidency, people who criticized Donald Trump? being threatened with going to jail and going to jail.

So we have much in our nation's past where there's been major divides. Fortunately, what John Adams and the Federalists did in his presidency is. Is long gone. We now have strong courts that protect constitutional rights. Of course, during the Civil War, we had the Great Divide where one side of the country was murdering the other and wounding the other and ravaging the nation.

Uh above and uh south and north of the Mason-Dixon line.

So we have a rich history of polarization and extreme reactions. But because we're all living on our phones and social media and watching 24-7, 365 news. The message gets beat into our brains. Hourly, daily, yearly, and it accentuates. The divide.

No question. And you talk about it, though. Number one, people should feel heartened to know we got through it. Yeah, Jefferson and Adams not even speaking to each other after Adams lost the race, didn't even show up at the inaugural. And then.

Obviously, Jefferson was his vice president to begin with. We also had Madison and Aaron Burke excuse Madison, Hamilton and Aaron Burke shooting each other in a duel.

So things were pretty extreme for a while. And Washington did predict this, didn't he? He absolutely did. In his farewell address, he warned of. uh polarization and partisan discord.

In Washington, there's a reason why he's rated as our second greatest president. He could see the future. And obviously, he had tried during his presidency to bring people together, but without much success. He did succeed in making a deal whereby the nation's capital was put where Washington, D.C. is to please Jefferson and the Republicans, while at the same time he got Jefferson and the Republicans to agree to.

uh a strong uh uh federal uh Bank banking system. And national economy.

So there was a big trade during Washington's presidency, but it was about the only one. And he became more embittered with each year of his presidency. And he was glad to go back to Mount Vernon once his second term was over. Right. He knew half the country would be against him and half would be for him.

And he predicted that. And sure enough, Adams takes over, and that's what he found. He was a one-term president. You also bring up the fact that almost every major issue at these major wars, World War I and World War II, there was a big push in our country to not get involved. And we were not ready to fight either one of those wars.

It got ramped up in the middle. Where's this isolationist tendency come from, and is it healthy?

Well, uh It all boils down to what is America's place in the world. should we be an active force for trying to make the world a safe place and where freedom rings? And if that's where you come out, then obviously, that's a major international commitment. On the other hand, as it was during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, the nation was in the big middle of a depression. People struggling to eat.

and they wanted all the attention focused on on our national problems. And because our role in World War I had been criticized, for losing a whole lot of soldiers and wounding soldiers and then The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations was not adopted and Woodrow Wilson became a really unsuccessful and dying president during his second term. Charles Lindbergh and the isolationists led the movement to advocate America's staying out of the. the world's troubles. And Franklin Roosevelt could see the threat of Hitler.

And that he, in fact, would, if given the opportunity, take over more and more of the world and ultimately would threaten the United States. And so FDR played it extremely well. and took step by step to move the public uh Uh needle toward recognizing our international responsibility. And so we see that today, with at least some Republicans saying we need to rethink our responsibility. uh in Ukraine and uh And so it's as the old saying goes, nothing changes under the sun, it just changes decade by decade, century by century.

but the same issues always seem to come back. And they do. And there's a pushback now. And I just think if I was to, I firmly believe that Ukraine's success is America's success. Do you see it that way?

I sure do. I saw that President Bush, George W. Bush, last week. spoke up really for one of the first times since he left the White House about America's responsibility in this regard. Of course, George W.

Bush no longer speaks for the Republican Party. In fact, It may well be that more than half of the Republican Party today is highly critical. of any opinion by George W. Bush. But nonetheless, I certainly agree with him.

I agree with you. Putin to me is like Hitler. If you walk away and let him have his way, Then bad things are going to happen worldwide, and the world will be an increasingly unsafe place. And he'll be stronger. And he'll be more belligerent, and then you're going to owe a huge apology to the next generation who's going to have to fight a much stronger Russia than they are right now.

They're being exposed, and Ukraine's doing all the fighting. We're just supplying the weapons, and they're exposing them for what they are: thugs. Uh Talmadge uh Boston, pick up his column. Oh, where do we get it, Talmadge?

Well, i it ran on the front page of the opinion section of the Dallas Morning News. You can find it there. It's also on my website, TamageBoston.com. And uh It was, in fact, I was asked to do it. The morning news is.

Promoting a series called The Middle Way and Trying to Find the Middle. the American middle. And all the great presidents understood that that's the only way you succeed is by finding you don't associate with either extreme. You you try to find w uh what's going to make the most sense to the most people, and that's going to be in the middle. I mean, look at George McGovern, disastrous candidacy in 72, an extreme position.

Look at Barry Goldwater in 64, disastrous candidacy, an extreme position.

So you look at the areas that are in conflict today, thank goodness. John Cornyn from Texas and others. put through and made the law, a new law on gun control. And so I think as you look at these issues, where is the middle way? Is there a middle way on immigration?

Is there a middle way on abortion? Is there a middle way on doing what it takes to control federal deficits? I believe there is. but you can't do it if there won't be a middle way. If people's ears are closed and their eyes are closed and they're so locked in on their position that they're willing they're unwilling to consider alternative positions that in fact would appeal to the majority of the American people.

Talmas, thanks so much. Great points, and we'll see what type of leader will come out there will emerge from the fray. They're beginning to line up now for 2024. I've not seen much of a healing, much of that middle ground from Joe Biden, even though that's how he was labeled.

Well, and that's really a shame because I really think he had an opportunity. That was the basis on which he was elected. He was not elected so that he could Um Focus his energy on supporting the extreme left, and yet that for the most part is how he's ruled. but his whole career, he's never been a a leader. He's always been a follower.

He's His opinions have blown with the wind and the political winds.

So, anybody who's ever thought Joe Biden had the horsepower to bring the nation together. was kidding himself and not mindful of of his past history. And of course, Donald Trump did nothing to bring the country together either.

So it's going to be interesting as we look toward twenty twenty four. uh is uh are the parties going to move more and more Following their pattern of supporting people who speak to the extremes, or are they going to recognize? You know, everybody complains about polarization, but everybody also has the opportunity to do something about it, and that is. To recognize that neither extreme is going to win, only a middle way is going to have any success long term, and that means you've got to come off some of your locked-in positions. In order to come up with something that the country can support.

in those wonderful times in our history when there was a sense of unity. We all know how great that feels. You know, right after 9-11, the energy that came together, right after we won the wars. We know how great it feels to be unified, and we each need to take personal responsibility to contribute to that going forward. We'll hear it.

Tommy Boston, thanks so much.

Okay, Brian, great to be on your show. All right, you got it. Coming up next, we talk about Yellowstone Park, a new true national treasure. It's 150 years since it's been rounded up and preserved and really been discovered and pioneered. Abby Horneset goes with her series Parked, American Arenas, and she does everything, as you know.

She's going to be with us next to tell us what her feature that now drops today on Fox Nation is all about. Don't move. Learning something new every day on the Brian Kill Meat Show. The more you listen, the more you'll know. It's Brian Killmead.

There are over 10,000 hydrothermal features in this national park, and this one is one of the most notable. It's called Grand Prismatic Spring. It's the largest hot spring in the United States, and it discharges 560 gallons of water per minute. That water is 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Just to give you context to its size, the spring is bigger than a football field and deeper than a 10-story building.

But something you can really recognize is the colorful rings around the edges. Those are multi-layered sheets of microorganisms. Components that dictate those colors are the amount of chlorophyll and the temperature. In the summer, the mats are typically orange and red, and in the winter, they're more of a dark green. That's Abby Hornisek doing an incredible job on her series Park now looking at Yellowstone Park.

And it's 150 years old. It's the 150th birthday of it. Yeah, it was there before time, but we just discovered it and roped it off. Abby, welcome back. Thanks, Brian.

Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it. And so I cannot wait to watch this because I would be curious about it had I not been there. And I just said, you know, this is one of the things I want to do. I went to Yellowstone Park.

I still think about that trip and know how little I saw of it, even though I spent, I think, six days there. It's crazy. It is massive. By the way, you haven't watched it yet. I thought on Fox and Friends this morning, you said you were going to watch it on the commercial breaks.

You know what happened? England was playing Iran in the World Cup, and I bet Pierce Morgan $5,000 that the U.S. would beat England, so I was scouting them. That is That's a big bet. Honestly, I don't blame you.

No, I'm just kidding. I know you said that you had been to Yellowstone before, and it really does draw you in. And like you said, it's so massive. And you could spend, it's one of those parks, you could spend a whole week. You go to different parts.

You go to the Old Faithful part. You go to the Grand Prismatic Spring part. There's Mammoth Hot Springs, which is also kind of a far drive.

So the fact that it still exists where it is, and you have those pioneers all the way back in the day that stumbled across the land. And like you said, it's been around for even longer than that. We just roped it off, but it's truly spectacular. Right. So, I mean, it borders two states, right?

Yeah, it's two states, and it actually is in three states, just barely, but it does go into three. It's larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

So if you just look at a map and you put those two together, you can see how large this place is.

So let me ask you: so, what do you try to tackle in this knowing what you're up against? I mean, this is legitimate wildlife that is taking place from you have bald eagles, you have buffalo, you have cougars. I mean, you can watch a buffalo get attacked while it's drinking water in a river, and you don't have to wait for a wild kingdom. Right, right.

Well, I think so. We see a lot of stories out of Yellowstone in particular about bison attacking people because they get too close. And what I learned about bison while I was there is that their eyesight isn't that great.

So if you're getting close, it doesn't, it can't decipher whether or not you're a threat or you're just a tourist taking a picture.

So people get lured into this false sense of security because there are so many animals there and you're so used to seeing them. It's like, oh, it's they're domesticated. It's fine, but they're really not. They are wild animals. But you get, you hear of bison jams, elk jams, because in some of these areas like Cayden Valley, for instance, where you can see a large concentration of bison, people stop their cars, but there's only one road that leads through it.

So it's pretty neat though. It's one of the best parts about this park is that other parks you go to, you hear about wildlife, but you know, they're tucked away in kind of the abyss of the park. But this, you know, they're walking across the road. roads. Abby, so when can we see it?

How many episodes is it? Is it just one? Because I know Kevin Costum's got his too, right? Yeah, so the new season of Parks Park Season 6 is five episodes, plus the special that played on the channel last night. You can catch all six of those episodes on Fox Nation.

Kevin Costner is a separate Yellowstone 150. He kind of walks in the path of the Hayden expedition who discovered this land.

So you can watch both of those on Fox Nation, but they are two separate things. Gotcha. We'll watch it. A lot of Yellowstone. Abby, congratulations on the series.

Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks so much, Brian. All right, and you can catch it on Fox Nation. You'll be glad you did. You might want to do it before you plan your next vacation because it probably should be your visit this year.

It is crowded. I mean, I cannot believe how crowded it is. But I mean, you can get access to everything, but it just goes to show you how special it is. Most Americans, people from around the world, still want to come. You'll never see anything quite like it, and the colors are amazing.

Thanks for listening to the Brian Killme show. Don't forget, the president and freedom fighter out on paperback. Grab it, BrianKilme.com. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

Thanks so much for being here, everybody. It's the Brian Kilmeat Show, 1-866-408-7669. Harold Ford, a matter of moments. As you know, he hosts the five tonight. Andrew McCarthy, too, who looks at all these probes and investigations into the president.

What this special counsel actually means. It's anything but apolitical, and I think we all realize that. He's going to talk about all of them. Also, there's another report that came out 20 minutes ago. The New York Times has it, that says Alvin Bragg, the useless attorney, district attorney here in New York City, in New York, he's decided to reinvigorate the probe into the Trump organization and the payoff possibly of Stormy Daniels after he got elected.

Are you kidding me? With all the chaos, the anti-Semitic would-be attacks that they just had the mayor just announce, all the assaults that take place by these people that have zero cash bail and just don't spend any time in jail, you're going after the former president for something that may or may not have happened four and a half or five years ago. Big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. To wind up with is here's a United Nations that's telling us we need to trust them and our president says he's going to put 20 billion of our dollars into this slush fund. Trust us with your money and we're going to let these countries that the United Nations itself said they can't trust with that. Unbelievable.

That is a Texas Railroad Commissioner who happens to be a climate expert, climate change expert enthusiast, says the religion of climate change is demanding American dollars. In order to truly repent, let's just hope the GOP can stop the billions from leaving our accounts. The details of this proposal, this big slush fund, has China on the receiving end because they're listed as a developing nation. Number two. We're behind the times, and we have to be honest with ourselves.

Joe Biden turns 80 years old tomorrow. Happy birthday, Mr. President, but it's time for a younger generation to lead across the board. And that is Nikki Haley 2024. GOP battle beginning to heat up as more and more Trump team members are about to become opponents.

I think she's one of them, as the former president's legal hurdles mount. Number In the House of Republicans, we actually won the majority. It's not the size of the gavel, it's the power of the gavel of who holds it. We'll end up with 222 members, exactly the size of what the Democrats have now. Let's see, they're at 218 right now, congressional leadership shuffle.

Both parties have major changes in leadership. They are outlining the goals and agenda. We will look at the plans and agendas, too, as the clashes are about to begin. Harold Ford, welcome back. Uh thanks for having me on, brother.

Glad to be back. Hey, Aaron, what do you think of a leader Hakeem Jeffries? It looks like he's going to just be coronated. Everyone's getting out of the way for him.

Well, I've known the new leader to be for several years. We're not great pals, but we're certainly friendly. I'm happy for him, and I hope he's able to. I hope he's able to work not only with Democrats, but I hope he's able to work well with Republicans to try to address some of the real issues the country's facing.

So I wish him nothing but the best.

Well, one thing is pretty clear. He's making it clear that he doesn't really he's not a big fan of Leader McCarthy, cut seven. I haven't had a conversation with Leader McCarthy Carthy recently. I do have. I think a much warmer relationship with Steve Scalise.

Look forward to working. uh whenever and wherever possible. Uh but of course we will fiercely And vigorously oppose any attempts at Republican overreach and any Republican extremism. And I'm hopeful. That the Republican leadership will take lessons away from the rejection of extremism by the American people all across the land and not double and triple down on it in the next Congress.

So, w why is it that do you have any idea why he might have a better relationship with Scalise and McCarthy? I have no clue. But, you know, it's just like when a guy gets traded from one team to another team, be it football, basketball, baseball, who they might have been a competitor with, and they're having to play with them. This is not necessarily oranges and oranges and apples and apples here, but he's now got to work with Kevin McCarthy because they're the respective, presuming that Mr. McCarthy is the new Speaker of the House.

But I'm glad he has a relationship with Scalise. That's a positive also. Scalise will be the majority leader. And with the way, you know, at least the way the reporting is, some of the disarray, or disarray may be a strong word, but some of the disagreements and some of the concessions.

Some of the disagreements within the Republican Party and concessions that McCarthy's having to make to gain votes within his caucus. It could very well be that Scaleese plays an even bigger role than a normal majority leader does.

So I'm happy that's that. And look, I give people the benefit of the doubt, you know me. And until they prove otherwise, you know, neither Jefferies nor McCarthy have been in the roles they're in, and those roles require a different approach. To leadership than their previous roles. Let's see if they both are able to rise to the occasion.

And I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. Right, Harold Ford with us now. Harold, I want you to hear this one thing I knew was a problem, and I might have even expressed to you on the five: when they took Marjorie Taylor Green off her committee because of stuff that she may have said even before she was a candidate, I thought, man, there's that precedent again. Taking them off a committee, even though the minority wanted her on a committee, cut four.

Now, Kevin McCarthy answers back. Yes, I will. I'll keep that promise. And one thing I said from the very beginning, Eric Swawel cannot get a security clearance in the public sector. Why would we ever give him a security clearance in the secrets to America?

So I will not allow him to be on Intel. You have Adam Schiff, who had lied to the American public time and again. We will not allow him to be on the Intel committee either. And you look at Congresswoman Omar, her anti-Semitic comments that have gone forward. We're not going to allow her to be on foreign affairs.

Listen, those are solid reasons, but this stuff never was happening, correct? I mean, you basically put people on the committees that the party wanted them on. Yeah, I mean, I don't recall when I was in Congress. People being taken off committees by the other party. But then again, the kinds of things that people are doing and saying now.

I mean, I'm only 52. I feel like I'm 92 talking this way. Those kinds of things were not happening back when I was. There was just some. Boundaries and some guardrails in terms of decency that people never cross.

Look, I think this payback on top of payback on top of payback on top of payback, I've said it before, it never ceases until someone. is willing to stand up and say, let's put it behind us. Whenever I think about being angry about something, I think about the great late Nelson Mandela, who was in jail on Robbins Island for the simple crime of wanting to vote and wanting freedom and wanting his people to work. When he was released after almost 30 years of captivity, he said, look, we've got to put all of this behind us. I'll put it behind me and let's move forward.

One of his great lines, he said, resentment is like drink you drinking poison and thinking that's going to hurt or kill your enemies. Uh, at some point, you got to realize you got to move on. And I'm, you know, who am I to say that McCarthy or Jeffreys or whomever has to move on? But I know if I were there, I want to move on because the country, the Country doesn't need these petty squabbles. It needs legislating as much as it needs, should say at least legislating on key issues more than anything else.

Harold Ford, our guest. Harold, the other big story, and I still think it's big, is December 6th. For the Republicans to get a win, they get the majority in the House, even though they wanted a wave, they didn't get it. And then if they could take December 6th with Herschel Walker and have 50-50 again, they would take that as a win where they wouldn't have Brainbeat before the election. You know Al Sharpton well.

He's been putting down the intellect and the abilities of Herschel Walker nonstop. I'm not comfortable with it, but it didn't stop over the weekend either. Cut 12. Every time I see Herschel Walker, I bow my head and pray. Because I just don't want him to be used.

In a way that is embarrassing. He was a good football player. He is not. Equipped to be a U.S. Senator, and anyone that puts him there.

has no respect or regard for the people of their state. Really? I mean, I understand politics, but instead of just saying it doesn't have the issues, it doesn't have the ability. Look, Reverend Sharp is my friend. And you can agree and disagree with your friends.

Look, I'm not for Herschel Walker because I believe that he doesn't stand for the things that I stand for. And I've listened to him talk about issues that I'm not sure he has the full command of. And voters will have that opportunity to weigh in down in Georgia about that. I think, look, I look at things in their most favorable light. Brian, you know I do.

And Reverend Sharpton, I don't think he was saying anything other than he didn't think that. That he doesn't think that Herschel Walker has all of the experience and all of the mastery of the world. He was putting down his intellect.

Well, I didn't read it that way. I've heard other people do that, and I think they're wrong to do that. I mean, I'm never look, you qualify to run for the U.S. Senate if you meet the age requirement, you meet the U.S. citizenship requirement, and you meet the residential requirements, residency requirements.

So you're obviously you're eligible to run. But every campaign is based on when that voters think that you're ready and prepared to go be a senator or a congressman or a president or a governor or a state representative.

So but voters down there will have that chance. You open this by saying the 50-50 Republicans may take that as a win. Look, I think both sides should learn from what happened a week and a half ago. There's no need to try to sanitize this. Republicans thought they were going to win a bigger majority in the House, but I would agree with you, the real thing is to win the majority.

And many thought they would have a many of them professionals thought that they would have a majority in the Senate and maybe even a multi, you know, three, four seat majority in some out people who were thinking really enthusiastically.

So if it needs to end up 50-50, and it could end up 51-49, as we know, but if it ends up 50-50, one thing we do know, Democrats will maintain control of the Senate, majority of the Senate. Both parties need to step back and understand what the voters were saying. My interpretation, Brian, is that voters want people, they want politicians to do things, not do things to one another, not an act of retribution on one another, but to represent and help voters, help Americans, everyday Americans, live out their aspirations and overcome the kinds of things that are confronting them in their lives, be it inflation, be it crime, be it concerns about the border. And the only disturbing thing, the unsettling thing I hear from everybody in Congress, but I always place a little more blame on the party that's in charge, as I have done my party. I call balls and strikes on my own party, is that I don't hear them saying we're going to hold hearings on the border.

We're going to hold hearings on the best practices on crime across the country so we can employ them everywhere. We're going to hold hearings on what's happening in Ukraine in terms of the defense systems they're using of ours and how we have to fund our Defense Department. even more so with the ones that are working the working the best. I hear them wanting to investigate Hunter and all of those kinds of things. And I get that.

That's politics. But at some point, At some point, when you've been entrusted with the majority, you got to behave like that. And I don't, again, I've not called, I've not been afraid to say that about my own party. And I hope that Republicans are willing to do that now that they're in the majority. And I hope they understand, I believe, hope they understand what I believe the American people were saying a week and a half ago, be two weeks ago tomorrow, is represent us.

Stop fighting with one another. Represent us, defend us, and ensure that our lives can be better. That's what the focus should be. I hear you. The other thing would be: there's a story today in USA Today by Susan Page saying that since the midterms, more Democrats are now in favor of Joe Biden running for reelection.

You're a Democrat, Harold. What are people telling you? Look, I think that over the next six months or twelve months, how the President performs will have a next six months, Pickle will have a big say in how and what Democrats wish him want him to do. The fact that he's eight, I heard you playing something, I think, from Ambassador Haley about the new generation. But Nancy Pelosi obviously has inspired or catalyzed and accelerated this conversation with her standing aside to allow for a new generation of leaders in the Congress to emerge.

But with President Biden, everybody talks about his physical and mental acuity. If his policy acuity improves over the next six to nine months, You know, I think people may have a different opinion about whether he runs or not. But I take the president at his word. He says he intends to run. He has not said that he's definitely going to run.

And if he does not run, I can assure you, there'll be a number of Democrats that will throw their names in the fold. And if he does run, I think it'll be because he believes that he can win and believe that he because he needs to continue the agenda that they've promoted. But this conversation, Brian, about the President Biden's future in the next six months will be more relevant than today. Right. Who, if he doesn't run, Harold, could you name five people you think would?

you're almost positive we'll be in. I don't. I mean, the names that I would only be able to name the names that are out there. I will say this. I thought, I mean, that'd be Gavin Newsom, I think, has mentioned that he wants to run.

Obviously, the vice president would likely run. The Secretary of Transportation, Pete Budig, would probably run. Like I say, the people who I have my eye on, regardless of what happens, whether they run, whether it's 24 or 28, I think this governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, is someone that we should watch very closely politically and substantively. And she's got to continue to progress and continue to advance policy there in Michigan. And I think we would obviously make ourselves, it would be smart for us also to watch some of the younger faces in our party who've been around a bit, but still are younger faces from the Mark Warners and even to Tim Ryan who lost the race in Ohio.

And I would even put in there Val Demings, who lost in Florida, who ran a great race. She was in a tough, tough state with arguably the most popular governor in the country. Really? the top of the ticket. But again, this conversation is more relevant in six months, I think.

Yeah, but I think that I would imagine you've got to get your team up to ba up to up to speed if you're the even the President of the United States. Um lastly, uh real quick. This whole writing billion-dollar checks to this Egyptian conference, the new version of Paris Peace Accord, the Paris Climate Accord. Is that problematic? I cannot tell you how disturbed I am by it, knowing that we have no idea where this money is going, developing nations to help them with their canals and with their hurricanes, I guess.

And the fact that China is still on the list to receive this money while not committing $1. I mean, Harold. You you cannot be for this, are you? No, at least the reporting I've read, I have some concerns. They probably mirror yours, particularly about China being on the list and being eligible for some of the funding.

What I'm not opposed to, because I think this has to be a part of how we think about our own hemisphere as well, not from a climate change specifically or narrowly climate change, but just in terms of development. I mean, you think about countries that are ravaged by natural disaster. You know, when we're ravaged by, unfortunately, the generosity of our country and the largesse of our country, we're able to help our neighbors in Florida as they, obviously, we're dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. Those of us at Fox tried to be helping around the country. There's some countries that don't have that benefit.

You look at our own hemisphere and how it's been ravaged by natural disaster and hurricanes just over the last six months, let alone the last 16 years.

So that kind of help is good. But I would agree with you, Brian. I think that not to dodge your question, China being on that list, someone's got to explain that one because I don't quite understand that. Harold, maybe on the five. Greg will do it.

Harold Ford Jr., thanks so much. Thanks, Gibbon. Back at you. Back in a moment. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it.

You're with Brian Kilmead. I was relieved that you didn't lose your shirt because America does not need to see you shirtless. I think they do. That's where you're on.

So Stop. Take it off! Take it off! Put it on! Put it on!

I never thought John Rift would be chanting, take it off. It's not a fantasy come true.

So that was a little of the Greg Gutfeld in front of a live audience. I guess he's always in front of a live audience now, but in front of a Hollywood. Florida audience on Friday.

Now, I keep questioning myself: why do I want to do that show again? It was very fun, though. It was you, it was, you know, Kat and Greg, John Rich, and oh my gosh. Dave Rubin. Yeah.

I mean, it was a. I you know, actually got to sit there in the audience. I mean, it was a bigger crowd than he normally has here in New York. Huge crowd, right? It was huge.

Everyone was thrilled to be there. And I think you could tell everyone was excited that it was Friday. It was sort of like the last thing they were doing for the week. Right. And then we had A few more hours left, right?

And then we had to catch a plane. Then we went to Myrtle Beach, and that was great. That was fantastic. All the people there, the station WRNN, and then all the fans at Barnes Noble. Great signing.

Right, and then next up, December 2nd in New Jersey, New Jersey Performing Arts Center, go to BrianKillme.com, and I'll be joined by Pete Hagseth, Rachel, Campo Stuffy, and I. I guess Carly, because I've heard. She doesn't have a baby by then. That's true. Radio that makes you think.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Based on recent developments. including the former president's announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election. and the sitting president's stated intention could be a candidate as well. I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.

And there it is. A.G. Garland trying to be apolitical to appoint a special counsel just to keep politics out of it. What a relief. Finally, we'll get an honest investigation.

And McCarthy joins us now. He wrote a whole column on this. I saw in the New York Post, it's probably syndicated. Andy, welcome back. Brian, how are you?

Happy Thanksgiving. Good. Aren't you relieved that Andy McCarthy kept politics out of it by launching an independent investigation? Against the red. Oh, that Garland, yeah.

I think it's amazing that there's so much clearer. A conflict With respect to the Hunter Biden investigation, Where he's been adamant. That he won't appoint a special counsel because the Justice Department can handle this. The usual special counsel situation, Brian, the conflict is where there's a clear basis. for a criminal investigation, number one.

And number two, there's a conflict of interest that makes it impossible for the or very difficult for the Justice Department to conduct the investigation.

So the classic situation is when The president is under investigation for some reason. And his own Justice Department is called on to do the investigation. In that situation, since the Justice Department answers to the President, the Attorney General answers to the President, the conflict is obvious. And yet, there's no special counsel. in the Biden investigation.

Whereas now with this. We have a special council, even though the conflict isn't obvious to me. It's one that You know, Garland is um I I I I just I think this whole thing is an exercise in theater because ultimately in this system our constitutional system. Prosecution and investigation are executive tasks. The Constitution reposes all the executive power in the President Jack Smith, the guy that they brought in to be the Special counsel, his authority comes from Biden.

He answers to Garland. You know, they can't do anything about that. That's just a fact.

So They are going to look at January 6th.

So, now that there is no January 6th committee, since they've been disempowered, they lost power in the House. And they're going to look at the investigation into Mar-a-Lago, right, at the same time? Yeah, well I Yeah, I've, you know, Brian, when we talked about this when they first did the search at Mar-a-Lago. I think I said at the time that Obviously, January 6th was part of their agenda in doing the search. And part of the reason why that search warrant was as broad as it was, because if they find or found evidence that was relevant to them.

Like a receipt for the Proud Boys to rate, this is how much you get if you storm the Capitol. Aha. Right. Yeah, sure. Or just even like notes of conversations that they had with relevant people or whatever.

And not just, not necessarily President Trump's notes. They could be, you know, anyone who's relevant, right?

So. They could They could use that. For the January 6th investigation. And January 6th is the thing I think that has always been their top agenda item. But so I o I've always thought that it was ridiculous for people to say these investigations are totally separate.

They you know, one has nothing to do with the other.

Well, if if they're totally separate and one has nothing to do with the other, how do you assign them both to the same prosecutor? Right. So he's going to handle both of them. There's no problem with uh with handling both of them, but I don't think there would have been any problem with the Justice Department handling both of them. Do does anyone believe l let's I mean, if you just do a counterfactual, this makes it an easy one, I think.

Let's say we had a Republican administration. Where a Republican Attorney General appointed, you know, a special counsel appointed me to investigate. Gavin Newsom. You know, who might be a candidate in 2024 for all we know? Do you think anybody?

Let's say Trump was president. Do you think anybody would think That Trump didn't have anything to do with that investigation or any Republican? Of course.

So I want you to what Peter Baker said on Meet the Press over the weekend, wrote just a killer book against Trump with his wife, New York Times guy, cut 29. Garland had no choice, probably under the rules as they are established. He felt that it was an obvious case for a special counsel. But the idea of a special counsel is to make it seem like politics is not involved. And of course that was never going to work.

Of course, Trump was never going to let that be a non-partisan figure. He immediately attacks a special counsel as a political partisan witch hunter, the latest in a long string, in his view. And therefore, we're right back where we started, which is that the investigation is seen through the lens of partisan politics. Right. He's absolutely right.

And he's right to, and Trump has every right to say this is politics.

Well, of course he does because there's a fraug you know, I mean, the investigation is fraught with politics. I would I think Peter is right in his analysis of that. I would be more I'd be interested to know why he hasn't said the same thing about the Hunter. Biden investigation. If he has, I apologize, but I read the Times and I haven't seen that.

But, you know, leaving that aside. Whenever you're doing an investigation, Brian, of political corruption, let's take Trump out of it for a second. If you're investigating a political figure, like Senator Menendez is now under investigation, according to what the you know, again, according to what the press says, they always say it's political. They always say, you know, even under circumstances where it's not obviously political, when you're dealing with political officials and they're under investigation by the Justice Department, that's what they say. That's what you're always going to say.

And I always think that the thing that matters in these investigations, because they're unavoidably political, is Are you investigating something real or not?

So, for example, if this investigation of Trump was Russiagate, Where the claim was without any evidence whatsoever that he was an operative of the Kremlin, then I think people would see that as a political abuse of power. If by on the other hand, it turns out that there's real Criminal misconduct here, and the Justice Department explains that, or the special counsel does, if and when the time comes that they file charges. Then I think people are going to look at it differently. But that's the issue. It's not whether it's the politics is unavoidable.

The question is: is it a meritorious investigation or not?

So This story came across a half hour ago, and it says this. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has moved to jumpstart his criminal investigation into Trump and this whole paying off. Alvin Bragg is doing it, the whole paying off of Stormy Daniels back in 2017. How unbelievable is that to you? Knowing there's another attorney general investigation right now over Trump organization practices where the banks where they're saying they overvalued properties, even though the banks got paid back and they never complained.

What do you think about this? I mean, with everything going on in New York City, they're going after Trump for something in 2017 that may or may not have happened? Brian, this is the investigation he closed a few months ago, which Fox News actually covered that, I thought, very Well, when they, you know, when remember, there were these two prosecutors that they brought in to do it, and they quit because Vance wanted, I mean, Bragg wanted to run. This is the investigation that started with Michael Cohen and that Cy Vance, who was Alvin Bragg's predecessor, went to the Supreme Court twice to get Trump's financial records over.

So they dropped it, now they're reviving it. But what I would say about this, Brian, is You know, Letitia James, who you just mentioned, the Attorney General, the Democrat Attorney General of New York. Alvin Bragg, the Democrat progressive District Attorney of Manhattan. Fanny Willis, the progressive Democrat in. uh Georgia in Atlanta, who's who's doing an investigation of the twenty twenty election.

Trump is like the the white whale of the Democratic Party, and every prosecutor is Captain Ahab. I mean, they all want a piece of it because in Democratic circles, they want to see this guy get indicted.

Now That's not a defense of Trump. If he'd committed crime, he doesn't have immunity from committing criminal misconduct just because a lot of his enemies hate him and want him to be prosecuted. But I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't think every single progressive Democrat in America who is a prosecutor running a prosecutor's office, if they have any inkling of venue over some conduct that Trump was involved in, they're going to be evaluating it and seeing if they can become stars by. Investigating him in a very public way and charging him if they can figure out something to charge him with.

So far, do you think he's in legal trouble, Trump? Out of all of them, where where's the most serious? The I think the documents case is very serious. Um because the you know the the Classified information, the mishandling of it, and also. if what they've put out is true, and I don't have any reason to believe it's not.

the misrepresentation to the grand jury that on june third, when the Trump lawyers met at Mar a Lago with the Justice Department guy and the FBI guys, when they gave him an affidavit that basically said we're giving you everything. And it turned out that they still had hundreds, or Trump still had hundreds of documents or at least over one hundred documents. That's pretty serious stuff. And I think they think they have that. In the bag already.

What they're hoping is they can get the big enchilada for them is January 6th. I don't think they're going to make that case. I don't think you make that case without criminalizing. a frivolous legal theory, which I have to say, if criminal if frivolous legal theories were felonies, I could have indicted five of them a day when I was uh well I'm sorry, just to get clarity, what's a frivolous legal theory? John Eastman's theory that Vice President Pence had the constitutional authority not to count state certified electoral votes.

Um That's what they're trying to turn into a crime. I think it's one thing to say. I can look at that and say That's a preposterous legal argument. But but I there's a lot of preposterous legal arguments. We don't turn them into felonies.

And I think that case that they're trying to make. Let me just be clear if I have a second, Brian, on January 6th. The Justice Department, if you walk five minutes from Capitol, where the January 6th Committee was having their hearings, where they said Trump is the root of all evil. He caused everything, he directed the riot and all that stuff. If you walk five minutes from the Capitol to the courthouse, Where they're having the trial right now of the Yoath Keepers, the seditious conspiracy trial.

In that case, Trump is not an unindicted co-conspirator. They don't raise him as part of the defense. The Justice Department's position is that he has almost nothing to do with it, that he's just a pretext for something these militia groups were going to do anyway. And if they hadn't done it over the twenty twenty election, they'd have done it over something else.

So all you have to do is walk five minutes. And when you get to the place, Where people who are accused have lawyers and get discovery and get to poke holes in the government's case. The Justice Department isn't even alleging that Donald Trump had anything to do with the violence of January 6th.

So it's a very different thing that you hear there than you hear at the January sixth committee. Hearings. And I don't think they're trying to make the Justice Department is not trying to make a violent crime case against Trump. I think they've already pretty much implicitly acknowledged that there is no violent crime case against him. What they're trying to build is a case that he conspired to obstruct Congress's counting of the electoral votes.

By this legal theory. And I don't see how you do that without You know, you have these very fraught constitutional questions of so that John Eastman theory, which you think is out there without basis, is still a theory.

So you could say, hey, I saw a lawyer. He said, do this. This is what I urge Pence to do. Pence said, I can't do it. The conflict happened.

The rage, you know, you have your investigation on who's at fault. There was no sense that he pre-planned it. Hey, Proud Boys, take the left flank. Hey, Oath Keepers, take the right flank. Hey, really angry people in red hats, take the middle.

There's none of that. Yeah, and here's the easiest way to understand it, I think, Brian. And when I try to explain it to people, I think people get it this way. The Justice Department basically has pretty much said that Trump didn't have anything to do with the violence, right?

So here's my question: if there hadn't been a capital riot, Does anyone think conceivably that they would have prosecuted Trump or John Eastman Over making an argument that Trump that Trump shouldn't count the votes. No way on earth, right?

So the only way that they're the only reason, the rationale for this is the Capitol riot. But the Justice Department is basically saying he doesn't have anything to do with the Capitol riot.

So I just think I don't see a case there, but I think he's got a problem with the documents. Just lastly, but when you put this guy on it, this new special prosecutor on it, is he going to look freshly at it and say, let's see, let's look at the riot, let's look at the footage, let's see what the oath keepers say, let's see what the QAnon says and all these lunatic groups. Are they going to look at it freshly? Are they going to hit the ground running and say, this is the testimony I could take?

Well, what happened with the Mueller investigation is to get up and running, Mueller ended up. Hiring on staff a bunch of people from the Justice Department who were involved in those investigations.

So I imagine this guy will do the same thing. It would be very complicated at this point, Brian, for a prosecutor to suddenly change his mind and say that Trump was behind the violence. Because they've already taken the position in court that Trump wasn't behind the violence. To all those people who weren't allowed to raise that as their defense in the 800-plus cases that The Justice Department has brought, that would cause them endless grief in all those other cases.

So I don't see that conceivably being revisited. You're always right about this stuff. You always stay ahead of it. Andy McCarthy, thanks so much. It's just, one thing is pretty clear: it's going to hamstring Donald Trump's ability to get his campaign going, right?

Yep, for sure. Andy, thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks, Brian. All right.

I mean, it's amazing. In between when we booked him. And when he actually came on, there's another would-be launch of an investigation in New York. And to me, totally unfounded, especially when you see all the problems in New York. You listen to the Brian Kill Me Show.

Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. I know this is going to be shocking to you, but not everything is like Fox and Friends. Right?

What do you mean? Do you just wake up and wing it, huh? You know, just rely on Deucey's charm and Ainsley's beauty. Can you just say something? You have never seen Fox and Friends.

I never. You have no idea. We even have a morning show. I actually never saw it and I hosted it once. Right.

And you hated it. You complained the whole time. It was the worst experience of my life. Right. You're like, when's this going to end?

That's not a good way to say, wake up, America. Yes. It was the worst anti-morning show host. Yeah, one of the bosses at Fox said that I looked like a child at a funeral.

So they gave me a phone show at night.

So that was, and he did. And there's certain people that don't like the morning show. I remember Greta was just on the morning show at Wednesdays, and Geraldo, the same thing, was just like, why is the show keep going? Because he's used to In N Out, plus, no commercials. He pre-tapes.

Great god, Phil. Yeah, so when you do an hour pre-tape, you just go and you have fun with everyone sitting around. It's definitely a different animal.

So you know the US team plays soon against Wales. And do you know they play Friday against England? Yes. And then next, the following week I guess to run.

So I bet today $5,000 to Pierce Morgan. That the U.S. will tie or beat. Britain. Uh do be the UK.

Are you pretty confident about that? Yes. Okay. But they were 0-0 against Iran with 30 minutes in. They ended up winning by a lot.

But you got tire beat.

So, I mean, you sort of have the edge, right? Yeah. Uh because you gotta walk away with a point. At least a point.

So, my feeling is they're going to beat Wales today. My hope, it's not going to be easy. And believe me, all these experts who watch all these national team members, I haven't watched all of them, like they have. They said it's going to be a really tough game, even though it's embarrassing. Look at the size of our country.

Look at the size of Wales. It's embarrassing. Yeah, we're com but we have the young team right we're up on coming Yeah, we have a 23-year-old captain. How are you a 23-year-old captain? It's incredible.

Hey, we'll find out if I'm going to owe $5,000 to Pierce Morgan. And will it be in pounds? And is it worth it? And how are you getting each other the money? Did you decide that?

We have not. I told him to Venmo me, but I'm going to give mine to charity. I don't think you have. You can't? It might be too much.

All right, what if I Venmo Eric? And Eric can do it. Is it because of my credit problems? Exactly. Put the power of over 100 meteorologists and the worldwide resources of Fox in your hands with the Fox Weather Podcast.

Precise, personal, powerful. Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.