Trump legal team hopes for DC change of venue; Georgia set to indict for 4th time?

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian Gilmead. Hope you had a great weekend. We're back in action today in a very rainy New York City. I'm not sure where it is, where you are, but I'll tell you what, the weather has been fantastic around here.

In fact, I was able to go to Italy two weeks ago, and even the weather broke out there.

So, again, If you're in the middle of a heat wave, I apologize, but I just feel very fortunate that I'm not. Byron York's going to be with us shortly. He is under the impression the best thing the Republican can do is to push for answers with the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden link. Jonathan Turley's standing by on the legal challenges of one Donald Trump.

So let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three.

Well, it underscores a relationship that China and Russia certainly have established, and something we have to take very seriously. I mean, we haven't faced two powerful nations like this that have joined together since World War II. We got some allies too, taking the fight to Russia. Bridges blowing up, Crimea tankers exploding over in the Black Sea. Buildings targeted in Moscow.

The brutal war of choice. Finally, as Russia is paying a price at home, we'll discuss as China and Russia try to intimidate us off the coast of Alaska. I'll bring you the details. Number two. Archer himself said that Hunter Biden was really trying to pitch the illusion of access.

Again, there's all of these threads of conspiracy that the Republicans have been unable to tie together in their political investigation designed to embarrass the president. Believe me, they're tied together. Any reasonable person. Worse to come for Hunter. But more importantly, Joe, as banks will begin to confirm what Archer and Bobolinski and others and the laptop say, Joe Biden knew very much what Hunter was up to and benefited.

Number one. This is creative prosecution. The creativity shows that this is just ends justify the means. This is just a group that has decided even if we don't have the evidence that we were hoping for, we're going to come up with something. That is Jim Trustee, of course.

Trump on trial. The offense and defense taking shape as the fourth indictment looms. We'll talk about it and what it means today. And what about the significance of the ruling that has to be in by 5 o'clock? As the Trump team tries to make it clear, they want the public to know exactly the evidence against their client, and that is Donald Trump.

With me right now is Jonathan Churley. Jonathan, welcome back. Thank you very much. Welcome back to you. Yeah, some of them, yeah.

So I was very impressed with John Laurel, his his comfort comfortability with the case, with his client, and what's he up against? What about you from a lawyer perspective?

Well, I think he's got a daunting task with a client that's being really pursued all over the country. We're about to see a yet another indictment come down. But I think he's handled it well. I think that his objections, his latest indictment, are spot on. They're basically what some of us have raised, which is that this indictment is effectively criminalizing what is viewed as disinformation.

It would it would it would have a sweeping impact on free speech in the United States. And frankly, I'm surprised. I have a long friendship and a lot of respect for Bill Barr. He and I disagree on this. He doesn't view this as a threat to free speech.

I think it most certainly is. I mean, I don't see any limiting principle at all in this case. Basically, what Smith is saying is you spread lies, people believed them, and tried to challenge the election.

Well You know, Democrats have opposed certification in past years. There's even been alternative slates of electors that have been submitted. Those weren't criminal matters and they shouldn't be. Right. Here is a little Bill Barr, the give and take on Faith the Nation, cut one.

From a prosecutor's point of view, is this a case you would have brought?

Well, from a prosecutor's standpoint, I think it's a legitimate case. From an Attorney General's point of view. But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I've also said consistently: really, the Rubicon was passed here when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don't bring the case, are really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor, and I think at that point, the decision was: if there's a case, we're going to bring it.

That's when the Rubicon was passed. And he does not think this is a free speech case, and he keeps saying it, which makes him a darling of the anti-Trump press, which is most everybody. He also said he would testify. The one thing, can you tell me legally the role this plays? Everyone's debating whether Donald Trump knew he lost or not.

And to me, that's a debatable question. Everybody around him thinks he believes he won. And that he was cheated. There might be one or two people who stood up and go, Well, I think he knew he lost. or his attorneys told him he lost, the the White House attorneys.

Have you met Donald Trump? He makes up his own decisions and then went to a different set of attorneys and they felt differently. What is the significance of whether Donald Trump knew he lost or not? Oh, I think that's being overplayed. I ran a column in The Hill on Saturday.

That I pointed out that even if you were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what Donald Trump was thinking. It wouldn't remove these constitutional problem.

So the Supreme Court in a case called Alvarez Said that a politician who knew he was lying about his military decorations and other parts of his background. was still protected under the First Amendment.

Now it's true that some lies can be fraud, they can be forms of conspiracy. But those are generally cases where you use lies to get some pecuniary or financial benefit. What we're talking about here is Donald Trump saying what millions of others believe, that the election was rigged, that there were problems, irregularities and fraud. That would have altered the outcome. I don't happen to believe that.

I don't agree with. what Trump was saying on january sixth about Pence and others. But that's not the issue here. The issue is can we disagree? Can Donald Trump reject the advice?

Of an albeit larger group of lawyers and follow the advice of a smaller group of lawyers? And the answer, in my view, is yes. Right. Yeah, he can. He can be wrong.

It doesn't mean he's a fella. Right. Now people say, well, that's fine, but then you don't go out there and maneuver and work to get an alternate group of electors in Michigan and other places. What do you say about to those people who have a huge problem with that?

Well, that's the the electors issue, I think, comes closer to the mark. I still think it misses. There have been electors slates of electors submitted previously. It was done in the eighteen hundreds. It was also done around nineteen sixty with Hawaii.

One can distinguish those cases. But part of the problem here is that even if Donald Trump did not believe some of the things he was saying, like, suitcases filled with ballads in Georgia and places like that. By He still has a right to challenge the election If he believes that some votes were improperly counted or some were not counted. The Democrats have done that for decades. You know, Mark Elias, you know, who's one of their favorite lawyers, challenged the machines in New York and said they were flipping votes.

To overturn an election in a congressional district. People didn't say you're attacking democracy and you should be. Charged criminally, you're allowed to go to the courts to see if legally the outcome can be different. Take Georgia. Smith talks about this conversation.

about eleven thousand votes. Once again, he says that he suggests that Trump was saying basically invent 11,000 votes. That's not how I read that transcript. I mean, the transcript seems to me Like Trump is saying, it wouldn't take many votes to overturn the results. I only need 11,000 votes.

That's why I want to do a statewide recount. That seems to me entirely appropriate. You know, you can you can d you could disbelieve a lot of things you have said, but you could still believe that there was the eleven thousand error rate. In a state the size of Georgia, too.

So, John Lauro, I want to get this out of the way, too. By 5 o'clock today, the defense has to put up a defense that says why they should be able to talk about all the evidence against them. And it looks as though, if I'm correct in explaining this, the prosecution wants a limit to that. The judge says you have till 5 o'clock today to make your case, defense. What should they say?

What is law? What should Laura look to say? And what happens if the judge rules against him?

Well, you know, I personally have always opposed judges. Who micromanage to this extent the evidence? I think the evidence should go to the jury. The party, this is a person's liberty at stake. They should be allowed to present their best case.

To the jury, the court can give instructions if he thinks if the court believes there's something misleading. The problem is I think that Trump is making it very difficult. For judges to vote in his favor. His social media. Uh postings.

this weekend. I are really hurting his cases in both. jurisdictions. I mean, he you know, his his posts have already been raised by Jack Smith. I pre many of us predicted they would.

And saying that You know, you went after me, now I'm going to go after you. That's not a really smart move. I mean, and it went immediately in front of the court, and the court is given a deadline on whether a protective order should be filed. Those types of s of postings have always undermined Trump's cases. And I think he's playing a dangerous game here.

He's making it difficult for his lawyers. He's making it difficult on these courts.

So when you say protective order, it's not security. At first I heard this, I thought, is he afraid of being attacked? It's not security. What exactly do they mean by security? What do they mean by what they're looking for?

A protective Smith would like to limit the evidence that Trump can see or cite or talk about. There's also gag orders. All of those are in play in the pretrial setting. This is the worst possible time. For Trump to engage in this type of hyperbolic language.

It is the worst possible time. He's conveying to the courts that he. And that's going to push these courts in saying, look, even when you're asking for more ability to see evidence and to speak publicly, you're making comments that seem threatening. I and that's not going to help. I think very s I feel very sorry for his counsel in that sense, but I don't know what Trump thinks he's doing here.

I mean, they only have to stick the landing on one count. you know, to be an existential threat to a person of this age. I I don't understand. A lot of times, when it comes to the tweets and now the truth, it's a little crazy. Also, the fact is, it looks like Mike Pence says, I'll testify if asked.

And Donald Trump came back and said, wow, it's finally happened. Little Mike Pence, a man who is about to be ousted as governor of Indiana until I came along and made him VP, has gone to the dark side. I never told a newly emboldened, not based on his 2 percent poll numbers, Pence, to put me above the Constitution, or that Mike was too honest. He's delusional, and now he wants to show he's a tough guy. Could this be witness tampering?

It's not in my view, it's not witness tampering. I think that these courts have got to. look at these cases as unique. This is the Department of Justice has decided that they want to try Donald Trump in the midst of a presidential election. That comes with costs.

It means that the cases will become part of the campaign and it will be subject to political rhetoric. I once again strongly I disagree with Trump's language. I strongly disagree with how he's treated Pence. In my view, Pence has no alternative. to do ex uh what he did on January 6th.

And, you know, but these but I do feel like these Uh these judges are going to have to accept look You know You can't just treat this like it's a slip and fall in Cincinnati. You're trying to criminally trying to convict. The leading candidate for the presidency in 2024 who has opponents. Right, and that's going to be a matter of public debate, and that means he's got to be able to talk about it, and he's not going to be nice about it. Lastly, he said over the weekend, John Lauro, that it'll take usually two to three years to get ready for a case like this, let alone a third case and possibly a fourth case.

How much time do you think They are now. How much time do you think he should need, and how much time do you think he'll get to get ready for this trial? I agree with John there. I've spent most of my career as a criminal defense attorney. I think this is laughable to say that you're going to force him into a a trial uh before the election.

You've got a documents case which is filled with classified documents. I've been in national security cases as the only clear to lawyer. I'll tell you, it moves at a snail's pace. He's being indicted all around the country. All of those require preliminary hearings.

At some point, these judges are going to have to show a modicum of concern for the defendant's rights. And they're gonna have to say, Well, all right, just stop. We have an approaching election. If we were to schedule this trial, it would come very close to the first votes being cast in these elections. And this defendant would have to basically run a presidential election, but more importantly, prepare in four different major criminal cases at the same time during the same period.

Enough. We're going to move these dates past the election and spread them out. I think that's the only way to do this and be fair to the defendant. I talked to a U. S.

prosecutor who tends to be on the conservative side on Friday, and he said in his view, and he's in disagreement, but he says in his view, He believes. that Donald Trump will be campaigning from jail. that he says in DC With these charges and this judge, he sees no other outcome. Does Jonathan Turley? I'm not so certain.

The biggest problem with the judge is, first of all, I don't think you're going to get a recusal and I don't think she's going to change venue. She does have statements that are very concerning, but it's not going to be enough. The biggest problem is that she can make it difficult to bring these constitutional questions to the appellate courts and the Supreme Court before trial. She may argue, I want. this thing tried and then you can make any arguments you want.

uh as to whether it should have been tried at all. I think that's a mistake. I think that there are cases where you should have an interlocutory appeal of the phone. This is it. I mean, this is a unique case.

For God's sake, if this case is not supposed to be brought, it shouldn't be brought. And the appellate and Supreme Court should take a look at it. Jonathan, always educational, always informational. Jonathan Turley, thanks so much. Thank you.

You got it. We can come back. Your turn. You have a lot to say. It's been a whole weekend.

1-866-408-7669. 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.

He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. Republicans are reading this indictment through a purely political lens, Republican leaders. And they're making a calculation that they have to, with few exceptions, like Mike Pence, because of his direct involvement in this, they have to keep an arm's length from this. They can't look at this and make a judgment on the merits of it because it would hurt them politically.

That is white that is Julie Pais looking at the rest of the field. and wondering uh why people haven't spoken out more Uh but sp spoken out more about Uh Donald Trump. going after him and why they haven't come in and say, hey, he's been indicted three times, go after him. The only two people that have done that is Will Hurd. and Chris Christie.

The rest have been measured. You know, hey, guys, he's been indicted three times. He's been targeting the weaponizing government, but that's why I'm a better choice. But no one has figured out a way. To win over Trump voters.

While beating Donald Trump. And that to me is the most interesting thing to date. I love when these experts come on. That was Julie Pace, by the way, so of the AP. I love when these people come out and go, if you want to beat the guy, you got to go insult the guy.

You have to understand something. It's not a one-on-one to fight in the octagon. This is a fight to win over voters. most of which he has. that approve of him, that liked his presidency.

So It's a very subtle Delicate formula. And I don't think anything's gonna... Anyone's figured it out quite yet. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

What we saw from the Archer testimony was a very unflattering portrait of Hunter Biden's judgment and business dealings, but no material involvement from Joe Biden himself. Again, no material involvement from Joe Biden himself. It is smoke, it is smoke, it is smoke that the Republicans are trying to gin up, and yet no fire. And they're desperately trying to redirect Americans' attention away from the most important indictment in American history, which is Donald Trump's. Not trying to look away.

You're trying to get somebody to pay attention to how ridiculous all of Joe Biden's claims were in 2020 and to think. That this Congressman Jake Auchincloss on Fox News Sunday, Democrat from Massachusetts, really wants people to believe no link to Joe Biden. When Devin Archer said flat out he had come in at least twenty times over the last ten years and called in or showed up at a meeting with these other officials that would be business partners of Hunter, and you continue to say that it's about the weather, small talk or mourning over the death of Bo? Nobody thinks that. They're thinking logically and not politically.

Byron, York, chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner, Fox News contributor. Byron, the Democrats are are they going to continue to say this? And will it have little less and less credibility? Yes and yes. Look, they have to say it.

because they have to protect Joe Biden. And as a matter of fact, I think what's been interesting here is that they they are now in a fallback position. I mean, the position before had been that the president knew absolutely nothing about his son's business dealings, had never discussed his business dealings with his son. And this was all completely made up, might even be Russian disinformation, but certainly made up by Republicans for political purposes.

So now that you have testimony that the Democrats seem to accept as factual that Joe Biden spoke on at least 20 occasions with his son's shady foreign business partners. They're in the fallback position. They're saying, okay, well, maybe he did, but there was absolutely no substantive involvement. They just talked about the weather, there's no problem. I think Republicans clearly have momentum here.

And the thing that Representative Comer as well as the others should do is just keep pushing. Here is what Raskin said in the pushback yesterday, cut 19. I have repeatedly asked Chairman Comra on the Oversight Committee for us to look at that in a serious and substantive and methodical and nonpartisan way, but he's instead decided to just pursue the Hunter Biden thing as a one-off, as a way to score cheap political points. He doesn't want to talk about Jared Kushner, who brought back $2 billion, not million, $2 billion from Saudi Arabia to a company he created the day after the Trump administration ended, when there is still blood all over the Capitol. Couple of things.

Number one, if you want to look at Jared Kushner. He was business before. Four years later, he's in business again. You want to look at Donald Trump. He puts his name on everything he buys.

There's no secrets. You know, Ivanka Trump trying to get a patent in in China. That's her choice. You can make your judgments. But no one's hiding anything.

They're not saying we discovered the Jared Kushner deal. Jared Kushner was always looking for international financing for his different projects. Read his book, it's all in there.

Well Also Republicans are in charge of the House now.

So the opposition party, they investigate the party in power. And Democrats were in charge of the House and Senate. And when the Trump administration was in power, and they investigated Trump. They investigated his children too, by the way. Donald Trump Jr.

had to I think testified a number of times. Uh before Congress.

So, this is just the way it works. I mean, Representative Raskin, when as. As Republicans are finding more and more about the Hunter-Biden business dealings. Representative Raskin is just jumping up and down saying, Well, what about Jared Kushner? Let's do that.

Let's do Jared Kushner. I mean, they're trying to change the subject because that's what you do when you're on the losing side of one of these things.

So, you know, the thing is, everything that Peter Schweitzer said in his book has really come true. And I thought it was brilliant for Comer not to go for anybody's taxes, but to go for the shell companies. And now you have Archer backing up.

Well Bobolinski So, you have Hunter Biden's laptop backing up all this stuff, and now you have a situation where the show company showed the people he was doing business with, that was just one bank.

Now, as they go find the other banks, they can start filling in the blanks with these business people, his locations, and Joe Biden's location, for example, in Washington, D.C. in 2014. What about him hopping on Air Force 2 and going to Mexico and be with Carlos Slim? Why was the vice president so engaged on that?

So do you see the noose gradually tightening? Yeah, I think you're pointing to the right direction for the Republicans, which is to keep diving into these documents. keep finding more connections here. Because the entire democratic effort now is directed toward protecting Joe Biden. It's really not toward protecting Hunter Biden, it's protecting Joe Biden.

And it often seems at the moment. because of the way the evidence has been structured. That Joe Biden was maybe the only member of the Biden family who didn't profit. From Hunter's overseas business dealings, and you ask yourself, is that really true? Especially since we have.

documentation in the laptop. And when Chunner actually complained about having to pay a lot of his father's bills, So, I think that Republicans have made enormous progress. The Devin Archer deposition was a huge step forward. And by the way, I don't think it's been remarked enough, but Devin Archer's lawyer did say this. He's testified before a grand jury before.

So the Justice Department has kind of looked into this. But we know from the IRS whistleblowers. That the Justice Department has completely resisted looking into any Joe Biden connections. The Justice Department did things like when the IRS wanted to search a storage unit, they not only blocked that search, they actually informed the Hunter Biden defense team about it.

So um the the The Republicans obviously cannot depend on the Justice Department to do anything here, but they're making a lot of progress on their own. I want you to hear what Peter Schweitzer said because this is it that when you want to know what Joe Biden was up to, was he trading on his power in Washington, using his son to generate that money, but he was the one making things happen, making it rain for maybe his son's clients. Number two is: is it affecting his policies now? As it relates to Ukraine, there was business done there. As it relates to China, here's what Peter Schweitzer said yesterday: Cut 26.

This is the problem when you're dealing with a political figure that is facing these allegations, and I would say truthful allegations, of corruption and influence peddling involving foreign nationals. Let's remember, this is not somebody back in somebody's congressional district who wanted a government contract. This is foreign global corruption. And in the case of China, they're aware of the financial commitments, the financial transfer of funds that have been made to the Biden family. And keep in mind on the Ukraine side as well, Maria, that F 1023 document, the allegation of burisma bribery, if you read that document, Zlachevsky, the head of burisma, is making those allegations to the confidential human source.

So that is something that has been confirmed by Devin Archer. He didn't know anything about it, but as Bobolinski would tell you, a lot of the business transactions would just leave him out and would just go Jim and Joe and Hunter.

So maybe he was finding this out. What is your biggest revelation to come out of Devin Archer? Oh, well, the biggest thing is that it completely obliterated Joe Biden's story about not knowing about his son's business dealings, about not having spoken to his son about his business dealings, about not having spoken to his son's shady foreign business partners about his business dealings.

So the White House, as you know, has had to backtrack too, so that because of these revelations, they no longer talk about the President not having any knowledge or never having spoken with his son. They say that Joe Biden was never in business with his son.

So everybody's in backtrack mode in the Biden camp. And that should tell Republicans that it's really that they're really making progress. But the biggest single headline. is that Biden's story has just been completely demolished. And yet, how many people are paying attention to it?

I see the four Pinocchios from The Washington Post who basically in twenty twenty said the laptop was fake anyway, and we know how much credibility they have, but that's his hometown newspaper. But besides that, Do you see anybody getting traction on this? Like, do you see. Meet the press saying, you know, there's some really disturbing allegations here. Face the Nation doing that, MSNBC grabbing that.

At this point, it doesn't matter. When you say traction, the Republicans have a lot of traction. They found out all sorts of new stuff that they're now investigating, which is sending them toward even more new material.

So it's traction in terms of substantive progress. We've learned more stuff. It's not whether Meet the Press gives them good coverage or not.

So what Republicans have to do is simply keep at this. And at some point, maybe Meet the Press will cover it. Maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be just the last dead enders. claiming that nothing ever happened.

But the point for Republicans is to find out what happened. And we've just seen, I'm sounding kind of optimistic here. I mean, we've just seen this enormous amount of progress. True. Byron, New York, always great.

Thanks so much. Thank you, Brian. You got it. Hey, when we come back, we'll expand on those two topics we discussed. We're also the women's World Cup soccer team.

Exit, earliest ever. One thing about the women in soccer, they've been dominant. Back to back world champions. I think five championships, world championships overall. If not, they lose in the semis, heartbroken in the finals, but never like this.

And yet, I'm wondering how much has to do with the anti-American attitude they continue to display over the last couple of years. And is it karma, the 35-year-old Mega Rapino, in her last game misses a penalty kick and a 0-0 tie results in penalty kicks, that ultimately would have Rapino miss again? I mean, miss. And then, of course, she had many opportunities in the end. Does karma come forward?

Never going to root against an American team in an international tournament. But man, this team was hard to like. What do you think, Brian Kilmicho? Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Killmead.

If she scores, Sweden wins, the US is out. If not, another round. Kartig! Can it go in? Waiting on the signal.

They're waiting. They're going to check. I couldn't tell from here. I thought it was going in, but it happened so quickly. Wow.

Swinglings. Is that unbelievable? Go zero-zero. For the whole regulation. Then in overtime.

And then five fours. There was two misses. And one of them was Megan Rapino, and then Sweden, great save by the keeper, but the ball bounces up off the crossbar and it looked as though it was kicked out, but they have an electronic uh line judge, so you can't even argue it. They show it, they look at the technology, the electronics are in the ground, boom. Goal over.

And I just think it's a big deal. But number one, I'm cheering for them because it's an American team. Number two is You know, I've coached girls' soccer, women's soccer. My daughter plays college soccer. My other one played college soccer.

Always been a fan. Women's soccer. I covered the 99 World Cup victory. We actually, at the sports station I was at, we covered when Michelle Akers won. I think the first ever World Cup, and we were dominant for the longest time.

A lot of people didn't think women should be playing soccer. Believe it or not, you're talking about the 80s and 90s. I mean, Vietnam just started playing. But when this team starts taking a knee, talking bad about the country, Megan Rapino, for example, goes in the Canyon of Heroes. I think after winning the last one, he uses expletives and ridiculous, horrible language with little kids sitting there with a bad example.

Great player. But at 35 years old, coming off the bench, saying I could have helped. And then when she finally gets in, she says it's like a bad joke. That she missed. uh a penalty kick in her last game I believe she will finish out her club season.

Uh but Uh that was her after.

So here is Megan Rapino and Sophie Smith missing kicks, cut 47. Repeatable. Bright cuts it over. It stays three and two. This kick could do it.

Yeah. Missed it up. It's still pre-tow. Yeah, Rapina went way up. I've seen the best players in the world, Ms.

Poundikas. I'll never be critical of it. It's just when you call out of attention to yourself. And you don't produce And you take a knee. During the national anthem, and you look indifferent during the national anthem, and don't really seem ambivalent about your country.

That's when people have trouble rallying around you, but you keep winning, but when you stop winning, man, do they jump quick. Here she is after the game. Cut. 49. I thought we played really well.

I'm so happy for us that we went out like that, playing the way that we did. And I mean, this is like a sick joke for me personally. I'm just like, this is dark comedy. I missed a penalty. I still just feel really grateful and joyful.

And, you know, I know it's the end, and that's sad, but to know that this is really the only time I've been in one of these this early, you know, says so much about how much success I've been able to have and just how much I've. loved playing for this team and playing for this country and um yeah, it's been an honor.

Okay, slip that one in. If she wants to continue to get endorsements, my sense is. I think she should find a way to segue to Red, White and Blue, as long as it's sincere. If you're unhappy with the country, she's been around the world, played more places than we'll ever visit on vacation. She played them, got to know the culture.

If you can find a better country, please go. But if not And you don't have anything positive to say, please don't say it. And don't look to cash in with corporate America. Don, listening on WHIO. Hey, Don.

Yeah. O over there in Ukraine when we got the video of Biden telling the boss the guy Thank you. President. I have the power. Call the president.

And he called the president. And evidently he he said yes.

So right there, why aren't we going to interview Obama. He's got to have to make a comment somehow, doesn't he?

Well, you know, what's kind of interesting is I would love to get his comment. Because I'm under the belief that a lot of the stuff that Joe Biden was doing, Obama was just doing other stuff. I mean, do you really think that he was uh zoned in on the prosecutor in Ukraine? Not really. I mean, this guy gave Ukraine when they were invaded, and they lost a portion of their country.

He gave them blankets and MREs. And then he said, Hey, Joe Biden, Joe's like, hey, I'll handle that. I know, I used to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. And he said, yeah, go ahead and take it. I mean, I did not I do not think, and I've not been heard anything to the contrary, that Obama knew he was cashing in like it seems to he seems to have done.

And what you're afraid, Don, is a good point. That's when he told Shoikin Uh the prosecutor, you better fire him. Or you don't get your billion dollars of aid because you've been invaded by Russia and we are supporting you guys, but you're not a member of NATO or EU yet. But we'll support you. You're not getting your billion dollars.

And they fired him.

Meanwhile, does he not even realize that his son and Devin Archer are on the Burisma board, the leading energy company in Ukraine, investments around Europe and in the UK? Does he not realize how bad that'll look? Because some of the text messages among Obama officials. Hated the way it looked. Optics alone.

But I don't think op I don't think necessarily President Obama's got something to hide here. I really don't. What I would very I'm very interested in hearing him answer that question. Did you know that Joe Biden was walking around with American Aid Kind of telling people what to do and changing policy. Or they wouldn't get it?

Was that why you sent them over there? But he's all in to keep Joe Biden as president. I do believe that he is scared to death that. Donald Trump will be president, there'll be nothing left of his legacy at all. And Joe Biden's out there to restore it.

So, because of that, I think that Barack Obama will be quiet. Hey, listen to the Brian Killmee show.

So glad you're here. Beautiful Monday. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead.

Hi, everyone, welcome to the latest moments of the Brian Kill Me Show.

So glad you're here, 1-866-408-7669. We have a lot to discuss this hour. I come to you from 48th and 6th in midtown, Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world, where one of the big stories here is probably a story that's in your city and certainly on your mind. The amount of illegal immigrants who came to our country by means other than the right way are Overwhelming our city streets. New York has always been a desirable location.

Between the Texas buses dropping us off, they're overwhelmed to about two, three million people. There is over 100,000 people who have come through. Evidently, 62,000 minimum are still around and more are coming. It is one of the top stories, and we'll continue to stay on it. And by the way, they're not even, these men and women aren't even supposed to be working.

So, what do you do all day? Sweated out in New York, stay at the Roosevelt Hotel and sleep on cardboard. It's just an untenable situation.

So before we get to Elbridge Colby As well as Jackie D'Angelis. Let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three.

Well, it underscores the relationship that China and Russia certainly have established, and something we have to take very seriously. I mean, we haven't faced two powerful nations like this that have joined together since World War II. General Jack Keene, you know, this is what we're going to talk to Elbridge Colby about: taking the fight to Russia. Bridges are blowing up in Crimea, tankers are exploding in the Black Sea. Finally, Ukraine's on the offensive.

They paid the price with 70 drone attacks last night. But on the home front, right off the coast of Alaska, China and Russia naval maneuvers yesterday and was spotted and observed by our three to four destroyers. We'll talk about what that means. Number two. Archer himself said that Hunter Biden was really trying to pitch the illusion of access.

Again, there's all of these threads of conspiracy that the Republicans have been unable to tie together in their political investigation designed to embarrass the president. Yeah, that's getting embarrassing, too. The Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, Dick Archensloss, says there's really no links and there's just a bunch of loose threads. Really? Under Biden?

Devin Archer and the President of the United States, same meetings twenty times over ten years with officials from other countries. I'm sure there's no tie at all. Number This is creative prosecution. The creativity shows that this is just ends justify the means. This is just a group that has decided even if we don't have the evidence that we were hoping for, we're going to come up with something.

Yeah, there you go. That was Jim Trustee. Trump on trial. The offense, defense takes shape. Fourth indictment looms.

We'll discuss it all as a big deadline happens today at about 5 o'clock Eastern Time. First things first. One of the big shocking news stories that doesn't get enough attention is 11 Russian and Chinese ships off the coast of Alaska, the largest ever joint Military exercise off our coast, still in international waters, was supposed to be sending a message to us, perhaps. Let's find out what Elbridge Colby Smith thinks he's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense or was for strategic and force development from 2017 to 2018. Elbridge, welcome back.

What are your thoughts on the significance of Russia and China off our coast?

Well, thanks, Brian. Great to be with you. I mean, I do think it's significant. I don't think we've seen something like this in a long time. And 11 ships is not a small number.

But what I think we're really seeing here is that China and Russia are deeply aligned, and they are moving forward in areas that are not just like cooperating on climate change or whatever, trading food or something like that. They are doing things. This involves planning. This is getting right close to the American territorial waters. That's not by accident.

It's a significant number of high technology ships. And I think we should see, expect more of this. Xi Jinping, I think, is going to go to this BRICS summit. Um you know, they are they are sticking together and I don't think that's going to change, unfortunately. Tell everyone who's in BRIC that's South Africa, that's Brazil, that is Russia now and uh China.

They're trying to form their their own economic NATO. Yeah, and I think basically what the Chinese and the Russians are really bound together is opposition to the kind of US oriented world order, if you will. And they're trying to use whatever mechanisms they can to promote alternatives. And BRICS is one of them. India is a good and growing increasingly close friend of ours.

They're a member.

So it's a guy there's a lot of like hedging, a lot of back and forth. But I think what the Chinese and the Russians are trying to do there is promote venues and optics and so forth that say, hey, the Americans aren't the only ones to set the agenda, we can too. And they've got a lot of money, especially the Chinese. And the Russians are resisting the sanctions thanks to the help of the Chinese.

So unfortunately, they have a lot of strength on their side. Here's what General Jack Keene said yesterday, because this is what's on our side, cut thirty. I give the administration some credit here for what they have done in bringing together other nations, Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines. And as a result of that, China certainly sees that and certainly resents the fact that there is a coalition that's growing against their aggression in the Indo-Pacific region.

So, I mean, Russia is in the middle of being humiliated in a long war that was supposed to last two minutes. It's coming up on two years.

So, and we know that they're putting tremendous pain into Ukraine, but they're also being taking tremendous heat. And Vladimir Putin's reign is in jeopardy, or at least it's been threatened.

So, having said that, a diminished power in Russia combined with China, this might be an opportunity for us to show strength, but yet it seems like our military just gives a word of Hesitancy and contraction, contraction in the overall armament. And hesitancy is we're badgered in Syria, badgered over the skies of Taiwan, and then badgered in in and out of the Ukraine region because we watch one of our drones being knocked out of the sky by Russia. Yeah, I mean, candidly, I have a bit of a less optimistic read of the landscape. I think we're actually in pretty bad shape, Brian. I have a more negative assessment.

I mean, unfortunately, I think from what we're seeing, the war in Ukraine is likely to go on. I mean, it's an enormous human tragedy. It's a crime on the part of the Russians. But they do seem to have adapted. And most of the news reporting, incredible news reporting, indicates the Ukrainians are having a lot of difficulty and for understandable reasons.

There's not going to be a kind of magical breakthrough. It's possible. I think we can hope for it. But I think it's probably not what we need to bet on. And the Russian government looks pretty secure, unfortunately.

You know, they've been able to adapt their economy. I don't know what happened with Pergoshian. The whole thing is weird and smells wrong, but I don't pretend to know what's going on.

So I think unfortunately, and then the Chinese, they're running into problems economically, but there are economic problems among our allies too. We're not doing perfectly at home. And there are good things happening in the Indo-Pacific that I agree with General Keene that we should give credit to the administration on. It's really a matter of degree, and we're not doing enough. And so, you know, to quote Topcan, there aren't any points for second place here.

And that's the problem: there are things that are happening in the Indo-Pacific, but compared to China's truly awing, unprecedented military buildup, it's not enough. And now we're stuck. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck. The administration stuck us leading the effort in Europe, and we've given away a lot of weapons, a ton of money that could have gone to strengthen our position.

So I'm actually, I actually think we're in, you know, I'm hesitant to use this kind of term because I think it's been flogged to death a bit, but I do think it's true. I think we're in the most dangerous time for Americans in generations, probably since the 1960s, maybe the 1980s, but a long time. And the trend lines look pretty bad to me, actually.

So if you look at our industrial base, our inability to quickly replenish our stocks and build on what we have, it's troublesome. Mm-hmm. And I was surprised by this guy, Dean Chang, this morning. He's a senior advisor at the United States Institute of Peace. He says it takes six years for us to build any ship.

Six years.

So if we're down about a hundred ships, whether they're destroyers or aircraft carriers, we have not shown the ability to quickly do stuff. But in the past, man, have we ever, dating back to World War Two?

So we could do it. We have to commit to doing that. But don't you also see the benefit for America as Russia is worn down? As Russia's forces have been exposed, as their tactics have proved inadequate, and they're rolling out World War II-era tanks.

Well, this is an important point, Brian, because it's one that comes up a lot. Let me first say I think Dean is right. He's a very knowledgeable guy. I mean, the industrial the constraints on our industrial production are very serious, especially in shipbuilding. I mean, just to give an example, this ain't 1941 anymore.

Now China has thirteen naval shipyards. We have four. One of theirs is larger than all four of ours combined. My view is we should have a national mobilization of our defense industry. Break it open so it's more equitable and more fair.

We can't keep pouring money into the current system. That should make more people happy, but we'll have more competition. We had 30 defense primes in the 1980s.

Now we have like five. This is not a good situation.

So we can't. That was intentional, right? Under Clinton? Under Clinton and the peace dividend and all these things. I mean, there's things like that happened in the 90s that we could go back and look at.

But we should have realized a long time ago that we needed to change. I mean, even when I was in the Pentagon in the Trump administration, we tried to get back on a great power competition, shows how influential I was. But I mean, it said, hey, we were supposed to be doing a lot of this stuff five years ago and it didn't happen. I think on the case of the Russian thing, this is really important, particularly among kind of conservatives and hawks. There is truth to that, that the Russians have been degraded.

But I think it's really important for us to realize that that's a kind of a conditional or relative thing because the Russian, a couple things. The Russians, most importantly, the Russians appear to be mobilizing their economy for the long haul and they're more hostile. That's not our fault. That's Vladimir Putin's fault. But the reality is they're putting more effort and money into their military.

Industry.

So it's not like a permanent thing. And over time, if we end up in a situation where they're armed to the teeth, even if they're driving worse cars and they have bad refrigerators, that's not good for us. And I fear that's something of what's happening. The other thing is the Russian military, yes, it's screwed up a lot. Yes, the Ukrainians are incredibly impressive.

Yes, Western technology and capabilities have been proved in a lot of ways. But the Russians appear to be adapting. And we see that now the Ukrainians are saying that. Helicopter usage, mining, anti-tank guided missiles, booby trapping trenches. A lot of this is very old-fashioned.

But I don't think we can be so arrogant. And as the war goes on, I fear that the Russians, basically, we're seeing a kind of reversion to the mean. And in the meantime, we're really engaged there, and the Chinese have no problem that they're not involved in anything. Chinese are just building ships. They can build ships a lot faster than six years because they have a huge industrial and shipbuilding capacity.

So, my view is like, who are we to think we're in 1941? We ain't in 1941. If you want to use historical analogy, we're probably more like the Japanese were in 1941. Obviously, we're a much larger economy. But they're the ones with the enormous industrial capacity, not us.

Yeah, it's interesting too. They've lost how many tens of thousands of people fighting. They're having trouble recruiting anyone. They have had a huge brain drain as well because people say, I'm out of here.

So we'll see what they're able to do if they're able to learn from it. I'm not convinced that their system, the Russian system, enables them to build, you know, something that sadly Hitler was able to do. They've basically been masters of the grift. And there are reports that one of the biggest, one of the people the most surprised by their lack of armaments and performance has been Putin.

So a lot of people are getting the money going to defense and they're pocketing it out of pure corruption.

Well, I mean, it's the tragedy of Russia going back hundreds of years. I mean, we're all lucky not to live there, but they kind of end up doing things often by brute force. I don't want to exaggerate. They're not turning into the Red Army of 1945. They still have a lot of deficiencies.

We haven't seen them be able to go on the offense very effectively, thankfully. But I think, I guess, Brian, stepping back, I mean, my view is: you know, you never know how your forces are going to perform. You never know how your team is going to perform in a game, but it's always best to give your enemy the benefit of the doubt. And what I've worried a bit over the last year and a half is we're tending to discount not only the Russians, but the Chinese. And I think after Vietnam, after Korea, when our people fought the Chinese directly, we had a healthy respect for the enemy.

And that led to the military of the 1980s in the Gulf War, which ticked tail. I mean, we were surprised on the upside by how bad the Iraqis were. But I am worried now that we're assuming that these guys are the Keystone cops. And I don't think that's, I don't think that's a prudent assumption. I would just love to see somebody run on what you just said.

We've got to expand. The military-industrial complex, use a different term because that's got negative connotations to it, but it's profit.

So if I will pay you to make those shifts, I'm not asking for a gift. You have to hire people to make those shifts, you know, then make those ships. And it grows the economy as well while bolstering our defense. I agree with you. I mean, I'm not a politician, so far be it from me to presume, but like it seems like a winning because we need it from a national security point of view.

So there. But also, if we're going to have a really robust defense industry, it's got to be part of a bigger industry.

So everybody wants to bring good hard hat jobs back home. Amen. You can do that. You'll train a lot more welders.

So you'll be able to build, I don't know, whatever, trucks, microchips, et cetera. And then there's going to be a lot of good white-collar jobs around there too. We'll be able to build pharmaceuticals, et cetera.

So it just seems like a winning option. And it's going to appeal to a lot of Republicans, but I think it would appeal a lot of Democrats too, who say, hey, we want to have good jobs back here and we want to be more secure. It seems like a winning formula to me. I agree. I watch.

The other thing, Umbert, just before you go. I mean, I'm under the belief give the Ukrainians what they need to win. And instead we're giving enough not to lose. Are you under the belief that if we gave a legitimate chance at giving them F-16s, instead of saying we'll get a syllabus together and we'll pick out some pilots and get you started in February, excuse me, in September, if you actually give them attackums, even though we only have 4,000, you give them some, will begin to make the progress to take some of their country back? Because right now, the Ukrainians will never quit in the current situation, nor really should they.

It'll reward expansionism. Yes, well, my view is a little different. I mean, in the sense that I think the number one priority for us is preparing for a China war, and we're not as prepared as we should be. And that's got to be number one. Don't you see that Russia uh weaken Russia does hurt China?

No, I'm not I don't subscribe to that argument so much because I think, look, it there is a benefit there, but I think the tr the direct trade off is worse than the benefit, especially given what I've said about Russia's ability to mobilize. And they are they're doing kind of Indirect secret mobilization, they've raised the draft age to 30 from 27.

So I don't, I don't think, I mean, I'm sympathetic for things like the F-16s because I don't think the F-16s have any plausible usage in the Pacific because the Chinese will blow up their airfields and shoot them down.

So, okay, but I don't think, Brian, that they're going to be war-winning. I think what we've seen here is very sadly, I mean, this battlefield in some ways, I think, from what I can tell looking from afar, would be recognizable to soldiers fighting in the trenches in early 1918. I mean, yes, there's drones and so forth, and there's much more ubiquitous surveillance, but this is a slog, and there's no easy out.

So I think we should support the Ukrainians, but we have a bigger problem, much bigger problem, which is China.

So my solution is give them what we can that really doesn't conflict with China requirements, which is a lot, but and then get the really kick the Europeans in the pants and they will respond. I mean, I had an article in German, actually, I don't speak it, I think it translated for me. In the German press, I try to make this argument to the Europeans all the time, but I think the administration's undercutting the ability because everybody in Europe's like, hey, the Americans are out there and they're going to take care of all our problems. And it's like, well, wait a minute. This is supposed to be collective benefit.

You guys got to pull your weight too. Elbridge Colby, thanks so much. Always great. Appreciate it. Brian, always pleasure.

You got it, 1-866-408-7669. Brian Kill Meet Cho. Back with you calls in a moment. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

And so for years, we have worked to expand investment in community banks. Because you see, community banks specialize in providing loans and financial assistance. to small business owners. In particular, those in overlooked and underserved communities, including rural communities. And as the name suggests, Community banks are in the community.

Fantastic. Vice President Kamala Harris. You guessed it. They're revamping again. You got to see the New York Times story.

Kamala Harris, finally the attack dog, leading the administration out on the campaign trail. And they got these shots of somebody down shooting up at her in a commanding position, looking stern, waiting to go on stage. This is the fifth time that I can remember in two years, three, two and a half, that they are saying Kamala Harris is coming into her own.

Now she has a certain role. How effective she has been out on the stump, she's not effective. She's not a communicator. She's lost all her confidence for everything that you thought she was. She actually revealed who she was in 2019 when she was not able to get a campaign up into the first event, the Iowa caucus.

She fell apart before that because she's not good on her feet. She doesn't study, doesn't know the issues, and she will never be an asset to this duo. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead. All of this.

is part of our blueprint together. for what America can be. This is Bidenomics. Today we got additional evidence of Bidenomics is working. The American economy continued to show resilience.

Now, with Bidenomics in action and some of our investments playing out, 35,000 investments in 4,500 communities across this country, we are starting to see some results. How is Bidenomics not an era of high inflation and rising unemployment rate?

Well, take a look at where we started and where we are now. And I'm here to say. We have more work to do. No kidding. Jackie DeAngelis with us now, co-host of the Big Money Show.

You can watch her weekdays at 1 o'clock, and she's filling in for Maria this week all week? No, just today. Just today.

Okay. Jackie, great to see you. Great to see you.

So, I mean, just hearing what's going on right now with Bidenomics, the question is: should Joe Biden, he goes out, I think he goes out west starting tomorrow or tonight, he goes, he's going to be touting Bidenomics. Should he? He should well, For him and his reelection, he has to try to tout something.

So, what he's doing is taking bidenomics and he's spinning it. To me, he's gaslighting the American people, but he's got nothing else to run on.

So, basically, what they're saying is he's been such a great president. We, you know, inflation went up, yes, but that was a pandemic issue, and now it's come back down. He brought it down. Look at how much legislation he's passed. The flip side of that is Americans suffered from 9.1% inflation, and they're still suffering at the levels we are now.

You might actually see that we haven't necessarily bottomed or continue that downward trajectory. We may kind of spike up. Oil prices are up right now. There's a potential. To see other commodity prices rise.

Food prices are still up because some of this stuff is very sticky.

So that's why these numbers are so important. You know, regarding his legislation, he passed all these spending bills. The spending bills were what led to the high inflation. People aren't going to forget that. They're not going to forget how they felt last year when gas prices were...

Rescue Act or whatever that was. Yeah. We didn't need it. We didn't need to be rescued. We were fine.

You should have just let us fly on our own. But he repurposed for green energy, and that's what he's going to be talking about. He's going to be trumpeting the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act out in New Mexico and then out further west. He wants to remind people what he's done for the climate. Do you believe that there are people on the left who feel as though he has not done enough for the climate?

What do you say to that? It's wild. I mean, to me, the only person who's benefiting from our green agenda, not person, pardon me, country, is China because they're manufacturing the solar panels. They're doing the wind turbines. They're doing all of this stuff.

They're also not contributing to bringing the emissions down.

So we all share the airspace. We can do all these crazy things here, ban the gas stoves, do whatever you want to do, and make everyone go electric, even though we don't necessarily have solar panels and ice cream trucks. Yeah, exactly.

So we'll make all those changes. The American consumer will pay for that through taxes and higher costs of things, while China is the one making. bank off of it, basically.

So the US imports from China are down twenty four percent through May, according to the US Census Bureau. Is that an intentional decrease, do you think? Uh Not sure if it is or it isn't. I would say the administration will argue it is. See, look what we've done.

I would argue we are seeing signs of the consumer economy slowing a little bit. That's why I do still think there's some sort of recession on the horizon. It's just all taking a little longer to play out. But these interest rate hikes that we've seen, people putting so much money on credit cards, paying high interest rates there, more to buy a home, more to finance your car, all of this eventually takes a toll and people run out of credit. Then they have to start pulling back on those goods.

So I think what most consumers are doing now is just sticking to the essentials and the basics. Listen, you need certain things to get by and you'll spend your paycheck to get them, but cutting back on some of those discretionary. And they're spending more on services and experiences versus tangible goods. Those tangible goods are the things that come from China. How do you explain why so many people feel Negative about the economy, only between 30 and 40 percent are positive about it, yet the numbers seem strong.

Outside the deficit, Which got us d uh uh demoted with the the Fitch people. Outside the deficit, you would think the American people would feel better about the economy. Why doesn't that feel good? I think you gotta separate Wall Street. From the economy.

We've talked about this before. Anytime President Trump would point to a soaring stock market and say things are great, everyone would say, No, no, no, no, stock market's not the economy.

Well, the same is true here. You're seeing this stock market move because of AI, technology. You know, we may be in the first or second inning of that. We've got a long way to go. It reminds me a lot of, you know, Bill Clinton kind of got lucky and he got that dot-com boom, not necessarily because of things that he was doing.

And Bush got the bust.

Well, exactly. And so, you know, sometimes it's just about timing. When you look at the underlying economy, I still don't think we're in a great place. The Fed's got to get from 4% to 2% unless they change the target. And those are, it's like somebody said to me, it's the last mile of marathon.

It's the hardest. Right. No doubt about it. And oftentimes it's uphill. But when you look at where our economy numbers are, the numbers are.

Are so the unemployment numbers, even though we only had 187,000 jobs, the unemployment number has still dropped. Yeah. So it's under 3.5%.

So pretty impressive. When you saw 187,000, though, you saw a warning. You saw a warning. What did you say? I think the labor market is cracking.

And Jerome Powell, when he first started hiking rates, broadcasted that he had to hike rates to combat the inflation that, you know, he didn't say this, but that the president created with all this spending. And he also said part of that is that Americans are going to have to lose their jobs. 2 million people.

Now, those people haven't lost their jobs yet because the economy has still been supported by people not paying back student loans and some of the stimulus stuff that we've seen that's spread throughout. Quantitative easing has stopped, though, right? Right. And so slowly some of that is going to, I think, dry up. And the last two labor reports show me very small.

It's like if we had a porcelain statue and we took a hammer and we took a chip at it, it's like the first couple of. Wax, but eventually I do think it will shatter. I mean, Jerome Powell's not a stupid guy. He didn't necessarily want to go after the inflation in this aggressive way, hoping it would go away. But then he realized it was out of control and he had to do something.

I think at the end of the day, if he tells you 2 million people are going to lose their jobs, they are. This is another one of those scenarios that's just taking longer to play out. Right. So when you look at right now, the labor market, and then you see, okay, the unemployment's down. We want to make sure inflation's under control.

So we're going to raise interest rates.

So the interest rates go up, which affects the housing market. How would you characterize the housing market right now? Also, a weird situation I feel like we've never necessarily seen before. I know historically interest rates aren't the highest that we've seen them. For example, like how high they were in the 80s.

But at 7% for a mortgage, basically what people are saying, unless you're downsizing, they're saying, I'm not going to sell my house. I probably have a 3% mortgage or 4% to go buy something with prices still elevated and pay 6% or 7%. I mean, that doesn't make sense.

So people. People are staying put. Inventory is still low, and that's why prices are holding up.

So there's not a lot of movement in the housing market at this point. What about the credit cards with the flexible, with the adjustable rate? They're feeling it, correct? They're feeling it. We have a trillion dollars of credit card debt right now in this country.

People are definitely putting stuff on plastic again. And remember what some of those rates are. They'll tease you and say 0% for six months or for a year. And then all of a sudden, one day, the light switch flips and you're paying 25% interest on your everyday purchases. Credit cards are not sustainable for people.

I don't know how they do it. I don't know if eventually people who are in debt declare bankruptcy to get out of it, but it's just a mess. Right. What is the fetch fallout? Uh the Fitch downgrade, you mean?

I mean, I think it makes us look bad on a global stage. I think it sort of Hold some accountability to this administration. President's going around saying Bidenomics is working, and Fitch is saying it isn't. Do I think this is like when the SP downgraded? No, because it was very different reasoning.

But it says. Our lawmakers, our leaders, we're a mess. We can't agree on things. We keep kicking the can down the road. We have increased our deficit, and our spending is out of control.

So, to a certain degree, we got to get it together. The administration's saying, oh, it's all President Trump's fault. I mean, this is all spill out.

Well, if it was President Trump's fault, Fitch would have done it then. They're doing it now, two and a half years into an administration. And they briefed the administration before doing it, didn't they? They did, and they wanted to ask questions and they heard what they had to say, and then they went and wrote their report anyway. Jackie, is it possible to let the American people know that $31 trillion is costing everybody?

That most of the revenue that we're driving goes to paying off debt, and we have to collectively do things about our entitlements. In your lifetime, have you ever seen that done effectively? We went and licensed it out on Simpson Bowles and said, Hey, this is how you get your fiscal house in order. Barack Obama says, Yeah, that'll never fly. Never even brought it up for a vote.

So I don't know who would serve on a panel like that, but a politician. Who says, I'm going to go ahead and examine all the entitlements is not really going to be popular. I get it. And look, sometimes that's not going to be popular isn't going to necessarily be the way to go, but you have to be fiscally responsible. For all the left-leaning people who say, I care about, don't you want to leave your child a cleaner planet?

Don't you worry about climate change? Don't you worry about the economy and the national debt in a similar fashion when it comes to our children and their futures? We're mortgaging it. But they don't want to look at, you know, that aspect of it. Right.

We're leaving a terrible economic situation in 20 years down the road. Who's going to be on your show today? On our show today, we got me, Brian, and Taylor. And I actually can't remember who we booked.

So bear with me. It's been a long morning. But we're talking about all of these issues and what we should be watching this week.

So I think that's these inflation numbers. You get CPI and PPI, producer prices. That'll be what the Fed is watching to see if Jerome Powell is, if he's going to hike rates again.

Okay. Whether he's going to hike rates again, that's going to impact the stock market and their fallout. Right now, they're kind of thinking. He might just be pausing and seeing where we go from here. I think, Brian, that we still got a rocky, turbulent road ahead.

I don't think we're out of the woods.

So, for people who just think that he stuck it, he got the soft landing, we're all good. I don't think so.

Well, he thinks so. He thinks so. Right. I thought so. I thought he thinks so.

Jackie DeAngelis, thanks so much. Watch the big money show today at 1 o'clock on FBN and hang in there. I know you've been up since 3 in the morning. I'm crying to the man who never sleeps. It's amazing.

I just won't live a long time. You see this once in a while. All right. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. I'll come back with your calls in just a moment.

And you're going to find out who's in charge of the 2024 reelection campaign. Don't move. Brian, kill me, Chill. Giving you everything you need to know. You're with Brian Kilmead.

The more you listen, the more you'll know it's Brian Killmead. Why do you think a thrice-indicted former president is neck and neck with the Congress?

Well, it's a great question. I wish that Lincoln were around to pose it to him, because it's his political party that they've dragged into the mud here. I mean, that was a pro-freedom, anti-slavery, anti-know-nothing, pro-immigration party, and now it's become a cult of authoritarian personality. That Jamie Raskin totally dodging this, bringing up Lincoln. You mean, by the way, Lincoln and the Republican Party, you know what the Democratic Party was doing.

They were pushing to keep slavery. The Democratic Party, separate but equal, Democratic Party Ku Klux Klan, but I digress. That is, it's going to be very hard for the Democrats to continue to say there's nothing with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the fact that he lied about any relationship or any knowledge of his business.

Now, all of a sudden, soon they'll throw Hunter under the bus and they think it's going to stop there. It's not. I think James Comer has done a brilliant job of making this thing comprehensive so it's not just about a guy I loved hookers and had crack. Hank, listen to WNIS in Virginia Beach. Hey, Hank.

Hey buddy, how you doing? Good, what's on your mind? Tom, just talking about like the Defense Production Act that we used in World War two, once we got Rosie the Riveter making planes and we just went crazy, right? Made the general purpose cheap. And we started flooding the market over there and uh we kind of saturated Europe with all these weapons and logistics and everything.

I just think that our country should do the same thing right now with the threat from China. and Russia. And stop with this climate nonsense. And Hank, I know you're in one of the most mil uh pro military areas in the country with a lot of people not only working in the military but having retired and decided to stay there in Virginia Beach. But I think you're right.

And here's the other thing. It's not a political risk. Because we're not, you don't want to be warmers, no one's saying that. But the best way to avoid a war is to be ready for one. And then, if you go on a bipartisan level, if you went to the average American, 95% would list China as an enemy.

We all agree on this.

So, if you are a candidate saying this is how I plan on doing it, but you don't just write checks. What you do is you take taxpayer dollars, you put them into industries that build weapons that make us a formidable foe. You sell those weapons to our allies, you make profit everywhere at the same time, building up our country and sending a message to our enemies: these guys can fight. These guys are resourceful. We're innovative.

And look out. I mean, we see the way. Russia fights. I mean, they think they're in World War I. We see a lot of that weaponry falling on its face, and we see how effective our stuff is.

We see how effective we were until politicians ruined the Iraq and Afghanistan exit, how we adjusted to that war on the fly. I would love to see it. I would love to see our shipyards go up from 5 to 15 within the next three years, spread all the contracts out to different states. Who wouldn't do Republicans and Democrat governors? Who wouldn't want to do that, Hank?

Let's go out to Alex listening in Brooklyn. Hey, Alex. Hey, good morning, Brian. Thanks for taking the call. And, you know, there's the concept that money is freedom.

And so Democratic politicians look at China as a freedom-loving country because many of them got a lot of money from China. But I wanted to comment about this Trump indictment because I heard some Democrats in the media say that Trump is running so that he should be able to pardon himself when he becomes president. And I think that's so idiotic to say because in the general election, Trump stands the most riskiest chance of not winning.

So if he wanted to get pardoned, he would let Ron DeSantis run or Rivek Ramaswamy run. And they said they would pardon him so he wouldn't have to run to get pardoned. But I think these indictments only came out after he announced that he was running because the whole thing is political because he's running. It's not like he's running to pardon himself. They're indicting him because he's running and they're trying to get him out of the way in the general election by stirring up more hatred.

So the polls are going up now in the primary for him. But in the general election, I think it's going to hurt him more. And they're doing, I think they're going to come out with like another 10 indictments because now they just. Made up one with freedom of speech is not allowed in the country, and they're trying to dump as many indictments in him because if you only want like one charge, one indictment, then what people say is, oh, they look into it, hey, there's a bunch of crap. But if you have like 10 of them, obviously he's a criminal.

I don't think there's 10.

Well, there's going to be one more in Georgia. He's got 78 charges right now. He's going to have to fight them one by one.

Some of these are self-inflicted. Why take the documents? Having said that, is he guilty? Should we put him in jail because of that? January 6th, why make the speech?

But do I think he set up something to take the Capitol? No.

So we're looking at all these things, one of which happened while he was in office. He's going to be formidable. I don't see anybody else in this field getting enough of the spotlight in order to surge past him right now. But keep in mind who he's up against, Joe Biden. Peter Baker of The New York Times said this about Biden's numbers and the fact that he's still tied with Trump with, as you mentioned, as you mentioned, Alex, the president the former president has three indictments, Cup forty three.

Look at Biden's numbers now, right?

Okay, in a lot of ways, things are going well for him now. Inflation is down, unemployment is really low, growth is up, crime, immigration, all these indicators are off their peaks, and yet his approval rating is the one thing that's not changing. It is stubbornly where it has been now for two years. And you have about 50% of Democrats don't want him to run again.

So that's why Trump's got a shot. I think it was a planted story. That President Obama In June, he went to visit President Biden, and at that time he said, I want to warn Joe that Trump is much stronger than you think, and his face is much more powerful and passionate than anything we've seen before. I feel as though that's almost as if you go into Lou Holtz right before they play Notre Dame plays USC, and he talks about how USC can't be beaten, that the best defense I've ever seen, the best quarterback that ever was, you kind of overstate your opposition to get them to relax. Uh but in a way I think they're worried about Joe's numbers.

A lot. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian? Kill mead. Everyone, welcome to the latest moments of the Brian Kilmey Show.

So glad you're here. This hour we're going to be joined by Kennedy. Enough said, but we're going to be taking a lot of your phone calls. He even lined up on the break, and I appreciate it. You can also write me if you're at work or if you're on vacation, you're listening, and you don't want to let anyone know you're listening with your AirPods on, BrianKilmey.com.

It'll just tell you comments, click on there, and I'll get to them this hour. We have a lot to discuss, and the President of the United States we know is going to start. He came off vacation. He just landed at the White House. He had 10 days off.

I know. How did the country run without him? And now we see he's going to go out west and trumpet the success of the Inflation Reduction Act and tell everyone how we're transitioning successfully to green energy, which we are not. Oil prices are going up. Oil profits are going up because you're not able to drill as much as you can.

And you know what also is hurting? Because it's been talked down so proficiently. People are not looking to work in oil and gas because people have been vilified, do it. They act like they're ruining the planet when it really is sustaining the planet and it's got so many people out of poverty. But let's get to the big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three.

Well it underscores a relationship that China and Russia certainly have established and something we have to take very seriously. I mean we haven't faced two powerful nations like this that have joined together since World War II. That is General Jaquin taking the fight to Russia. That's what Ukraine's doing. Bridges are blowing up.

Tankers are on fire in the Black Sea. And we know that Russia's responded with 70 drone strikes. I'm not sure how many hit. But we'll also find out the details with China and Russia joint exercises off the coast of Alaska. Since when?

Number two. Archer himself said that Hunter Biden was really trying to pitch the illusion of access. Again, there's all of these threads of conspiracy that the Republicans have been unable to tie together in their political investigation designed to embarrass the president. Trump, excuse me, worse to come for Hunter Biden. More importantly, Joe, as we find out the banks that these show companies were set up in, might just link back to.

The family, I know. Tony Bobolinski has been saying that for the longest time. We'll see where this goes. Also, the Biden story is rotten to the core. We'll discuss why.

Number This is creative prosecution. The creativity shows that this is just ends justify the means. This is just a group that has decided, even if we don't have the evidence that we were hoping for, we're going to come up with something. Yep, Jim Trustee, Trump on trial, the offense and defense taking shape as a fourth indictment seemingly queued up what it means for the race, the elections, and more. One thing is pretty clear: they want the trial, they want the venue moved out of D.C., where President Trump got 5% of the vote.

They want the judge out who worked at the same firm as. As a Hunter Biden. Who has been a donor to Barack Obama and has been known as the Punisher for how severe she's been on the January 6th, so-called. Um protesters. that have gotten into the Capitol building.

So now you're going to put Donald Trump there after you reversed a series of his decisions when he was president? What I did not know, because I did not go to law school, is that a judge ultimately will decide if they're going to recuse.

So even though you might see it as Conflict of interest. She has to. I don't think she is.

So they're going to look for both those things today at 5 o'clock. The defense team, Donald Trump's team, has to make their argument why there shouldn't be.

Some type of suppression of evidence until the trial starts or through the trial when it comes to sensitive evidence because they feel as though Donald Trump can't be trusted with all of it. Which I think is unbelievable.

So, Donald Trump puts us something on truth socially. He says, a fair trial in D.C. courtroom. No way. I cannot get a fair trial, or even close to a fair trial, in Washington, D.C.

There are many reasons for this, but just one is that I'm calling for a federal takeover of this filthy and crime-ridden embarrassment to our nation, where murders have just shattered the old-time record. Other violent crimes have never been worse.

So, obviously, he's putting down Washington, D.C., and there's going to be a jury there. He went on to say there's no way I can get a fair trial with this judge assigned to the ridiculous freedom of speech fair elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she. We will immediately ask him for a recusal. I have news for you.

We all know it's not going to happen. I believe it's not going to happen anyway. But the big debate over the weekend: what about the validity of the case? Mike Pence knows his last stand will be trumpeting the integrity he showed on January 6th, and he did. But I think he's going a little bit too far making himself an adversary of the president.

Keep in mind, you are a Republican. And even though this president's not playing the perfect game for you for four years, you stood by him.

Now, the president's now calling him Little Mike, which is a problem. Little Mike Pence, I don't know why the president feels compelled to get personal with everybody. Here's who Mike Pence said: cut three. From sometime in the middle of December. The president began to be told that I had some authority to reject or return.

Votes back to the states. I had no such authority. I stand by the facts as they occurred. I mean, it ebbed and flowed between different legal theories. But at the end of the day, I know we did our duty.

I know we kept our oath. But I truly do believe that no one who ever puts himself over the Constitution should ever be president of the United States. That last line is fine. That's why you're running. I get it, Mike Pence.

And you did show unbelievable integrity. I'll always believe that. But there's no reason to gin up any of this. The president knew that the election was lost stuff or that it was criminal. That's where I think Ron DeSantis has learned.

That's not going to pay off. If you believe that, you believe it. But I believe that Chris Christie could reform his message and say, you know how angry I am at the former president. You know how I've gone after him. But I think this is an overcharge.

And I think this is a dangerous precedent if you're going to start saying, well, that future president doesn't believe what they're saying and we'll prove it. That future president who listened to lawyers, we don't like their lawyers, so how dare he listen? He should have gone with different lawyers. Why didn't he listen? Therefore, you're guilty.

So how long will the President's lawyers need to put this trial on? A long time. I mean, this is the third major case at him. Here's what John Laurel said. about the time he would need to get something done.

Cuddy. Do you have a ballpark figure of when you'd be ready for trial? I Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I've not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years. Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?

Absolutely. We would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury that reflects the characteristics of the American people.

So two to three years. And we talked to Jonathan Turley earlier this hour on this Monday show, and he said, Yeah, that's really four to five. And then when you look at the Mar-a-Lago case, for anyone to look at some of that classified material, you got to get classific you have to do the deep background check and see if someone can get that top-level clearance in order to look at the evidence that could be used against their client. And to be able to do that, you might say, Yeah, I'm the lawyer, but I can't sit there poring over thousands of pages. I need my paralegal.

I need my intern. I need my Partner. Doing this.

So, therefore, they got to get security cleared.

So, if you think Mar-a-Lago is going to take a while, you want to push this first. And they said, just on this case, without the other two. It would take two to three years on average, and that was not disputed. Among people who do this for a living.

So Jim Trustee is one of the finest lawyers in the country. Certainly, he is a great communicator with great prosecution experience and legal experience. He walked away from the Trump team. Uh after the Mar-a-Lagro documents case got uh put on the board. Here's what he said yesterday about what they've been doing in order to take this president down, including flipping his attorney to go against his client.

Cut nine. The problem is, this is creative prosecution. That's the last thing you want. What you want in a situation where the stakes are this high, when you're literally affecting elections and when you're literally going after a former president, what you'd want from a Department of Justice is scrupulous transparency, where they are literally willing to have anybody look over their shoulder that asks, including special masters or judges, where they are forthcoming with discovery, where they basically don't do anything that's obviously creative, because the creativity shows that this is just ends justify the means. This is just a group that has decided, even if we don't have the evidence that we were hoping for, we're going to come up with something.

And that's what's happening. I mean, they have gone to great resources, threatening people, threatening witnesses, and telling them they're going to be implicated and how to end it quick. And this is what you do, cooperate. And the bigger question is: where's Mark Meadows? Mark Meadows, why did he go in originally to speak to the January 6th Committee and then all of a sudden stop midterm, release everybody's text messages?

Why did he, as somebody who was by Trump's side every step of the way, where is he now? And people have speculated that he knew he was in trouble, so he cut a deal to turn on the president. Maybe it's totally unfair. I hope it is. But that would be bad because a lot of it is advice you gave the President.

President takes it, and now you're using it against him. Because he was listening to him at the end. I did the only interview with President Trump after he lost the election. I did it at West Point. And Mark Meadows was right there, every step of the way, literally in stride with the President and with his anger.

And he said, I don't like the way you guys are covering this election.

Okay, meaning Fox, not just me.

So Jim Trustee would be great on this side, but he sees Jack Smith doing everything possible for him to get the conviction that he thinks that's his mission. When, in theory, you know what his mission is? To find out if somebody's guilty or not. Not to go get a conviction.

So obviously he feels that way. More from Trusty Cut Tan. The commonality in these indictments is that DOJ has blown open important privileges that are held by presidents and others. And so in the Mar-a-Lago case, attorney client privilege, which is almost absolutely inviolable, was blown open by a friendly judge to allow for an indictment to have all these highlight moments of what Evan Corcoran said or what the exchange was between Evan Corcoran and the President about complying with the subpoena. The common thing we see in this more recent indictment is there's no such thing as executive privilege.

Yeah, and Jim Trust says there's big problems with the Mar-a-Lago case.

So I know it depends on what channel you want watching and what lawyer you're hearing from, but he's always said that. And, you know. Jim Trustee is not a Trump guy necessarily. I mean, he was serving in the Bush White House. Usually, people in the Bush White House want no part of the Trump White House.

He was asked to help out. He doesn't need the money. And he wasn't helped out. And at that time, he really thought the president was being ill-served and targeted. Mm-hmm.

But he also didn't like the people around him, I understand, reportedly. And didn't think the president was being well served by his legal team. But this guy, I'll tell you, I'm impressed with John Lauro. He took questions on every major network. They wouldn't let him finish, and he demanded to finish up his point.

And I think he made real solid points. Joe, you're listening in Texas. Hey, Joe. Hey, how you doing, Brian? Love your show.

Thank you. So the whole the whole Biden thing, Biden's been in office he's been in the White House, you know He's been in Washington for a while. Yeah, for a long time. All the Hunter Biden stuff happened when he was vice president. That was six and a half years ago.

So, my question is: why hasn't the DOJ been on this from day one? Why is it up to Congress now to do these investigations when they should have been doing a long time? Over the last year and a half, we've been hearing more about how the justice system has been rigged against Republicans, has been weaponized by the Democrats or whatever. How did we get to that point? DOJ is not supposed to be partisan, but how did we get to this point?

And how did we get to that? My point is this: it's going to be partisan as long as that president, whoever it is, Joe Biden or Donald Trump. You know, when you pick your own attorney general. You're supposed to say, you know, just show me justice, but Eric Holder. Ed Meese was looking out for Reagan.

Eric Holder was looking out for Obama. Jeff Sessions just recused himself on Trump. He'll never forgive him. William Borrow was watching the President's back, but they separated on january sixth. I know it should be nonpartisan, but unless you do something like they do at the FBI, when you nominate somebody, they keep the job it's understood for six years.

Unless you do something like that, they'll never be nonpartisan. But if they find themselves compromised over a conflict of interest, they're supposed to have a special prosecutor. And so far, that's what Bill Barr pointed out yesterday on the Hunter Biden situation, which, of course, was discovered when he was Attorney General. Cut 17. Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self-dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden?

And if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

Okay, well, one thing I stress is those are two different questions, right? And things can be shameful without being illegal. And yes, I think it's grotesque, the cashing in on the office like that, apparently. I think it's legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there.

And that's one of the things I'm concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left. And what he said is. They said to me, if you were there, why didn't you put a special prosecutor there? He said, because I'm in no conflict of interest. I could do the investigation.

But Obviously, Merrick Garland's in a conflict of interest because it's the president's son. And he should be giving a special, he gives a special prosecutor, Carp Launch. To go after him, but he didn't go give a nonpartisan guy. They gave a hatchet man the job. who has got a history of overcharging, so he's there to cut things up.

Great chaos. To a degree he did. The only problem is President Trump thrives under chaos. That's the problem for The Biden team He's not used to l orderly. Anything He likes the chaos.

To me, it would stress me out. As Ryan's Priebus said yesterday, he goes, I'd be rolled up in a ball if I had these people coming after me like they're coming after him, but not Trump. Hey, I don't want to take too much time. 1-866-408-7669. Your comments in writing and your comments on the phones in just a moment.

You'll listen to the Brian Kill Meet Show. Politics, current events, and news that affects you. Brian's got a lot more to say. Stay with Brian Kilmead. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it.

You're with Brian Kilmead. The next shoe that may drop is there's another individual involved with Hunter Biden named Eric Schwarren. If Devin Archer was the sort of business guy, the deal guy, in how you structure this, Eric Schwarren was the money guy. He's the guy that moved money around. And based on the Hunter Biden laptop, Schwarren had access not only to Hunter Biden's accounts, but also Joe Biden's accounts.

So when he testifies before the committee, it's going to be interesting to see what he says and what pressure he might be under from this administration. And that was Peter Schweitzer who led the charge and told everybody about the possible conflict of interest with the Bidens, which really struck me in the beginning, it seems like centuries ago. But now almost everything that he said, the names in which he brought up are being brought front and center, all backed up by this laptop. Jerry, you'll listen in Chicago. Hey, Jerry.

Hey Brian, thanks for taking my call. I really enjoy your show. Thank you. As I was saying to your screener, All of these investigations from these committees and all of this evidence that's coming out, that's all well and good. But let's be honest.

The Republicans don't control the Senate.

So, nothing is going to be done. Nobody's going to lose their job. Nobody's going to go to jail. Nobody's going to have to do a perp walk.

Now, my question to you is. if and when the Republicans gain back control of the Senate and keep the House. Do you actually think that they're going to have the male fortitude to go tit for tat and do what the Democrats did to us? Go after all of those Democrats that did the impeachment stuff, like Adam Schiff and Nadler. I beat him.

Well, number one, Adam Schiff. Nadler's just stuck in New York City. I mean, he just, he basically, these people just keep voting for him. He's a bad excuse for a human being. And then Schiff wants to be the next senator from California.

And the worst thing that could happen to Schiff is for them, Diane Feinstein, who's already cannot do the job. Resigns, and then Gavin Newsom promised to pick a black woman. If he does that, then Schiff will be out of luck. That's why she's trying to hold on. But I think Republicans just got to bring this up.

They know. They know that Hunter Biden's corrupt. Everyone's agreeing on that.

Now they're going to find out that Joe Biden's implicated, too. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. And more importantly, as the Players Association statement pointed out, it's their labor. Money for NBA teams, the Orlando Magics money that they donated to Ron DeSantis, doesn't come from a magic tree elf.

It came from the work of those players on the court. And the fact that their work has been turned into a contribution for someone running for president who has come out with statements that they think directly oppose who they are as people that is very difficult to stomach. Rachel Nichols used to be at ESPN and CNN, now a CNN sports, I guess CNN sports anchor again. I'm not sure if that is in fact true. Got insolved in some controversy, but as you know, she is way to the left.

And then she's upset that the Orlando Magic ownership has given money to Ron DeSantis. Uh Kennedy's with me now. How do I know? Because I talked to her in the break. And I've recognized it from television.

You can follow her at Kennedy Nation. Rachel Nichols outraged, outraged, that the Orlando Magic would give money. Because they have players that don't support Ron DeSantis to Ron DeSantis.

So, did the organization give the money or did the owners give the money? The owners gave the money.

Well, you can't prove that the owners' money only comes from the Orlando Magic. I believe they invited, they came up with AML. Yeah, that's a big moneymaker historically. Long track record of creating wealth.

So, they've created wealth, they bought a team with it, and they probably make political donations. A lot of people make donations to candidates whom they think can help them out.

Well, I'll give you an example. Steve Ross, who owns the Dolphins in a bunch of movie studios. Remember he hosted Donald Trump, everyone had a meltdown. Over the weekend he was one of the uh the hosts of a Glenn Youngkin thing out in the Hamptons this weekend. I mean, just because you own a team, does that mean that you can't get involved politically?

No, that means that we have to have those rules for everyone. And at some point that starts to uh inhibit free speech.

So if if you want to Tinker with Campaign finance. That's one thing. But I politically disagree with this person. Therefore, no one can donate to them is not a sound argument. By the way, Amway, Great Soap, the original multi-level marketing.

Really is. Where you would get soap. And then invite your friends over to try your soap. And then invite them to sell the soap. And then you get a piece of the soap they sell.

Right. But you have to make a good product where people go, man, I really like this soap. Like the soap. Yeah. Uh and then it it was good.

I remember we we would only have Amway. See, my mom Mocked Amway. 'Cause she she felt like it was a scam. But you have to realize, like, people from Eastern Europe Very suspicious of people selling things. And tho those people from Eastern Europe, you meaning your mom?

Yeah, yeah. Right. Why? What happened? Is the whole communist thing?

It's a whole communist thing, yeah. They didn't have any pyramid schemes in communism. I think communism is a pyramid scheme. The whole thing is that you just got to get more commies and then it supports the people at the very top of the pyramid. Right.

But the people on the lower levels, they got nothing. I'm going to give you an example. Not many people know this, but the first pyramid scheme, Olga Corbin. And she signed up, Nadi Kamanish. And then Nadia Kamenich would send it and that's where it stopped.

Yes. The only two famous Eastern Europeans I know. They were both gyms. I remember my mom waking me up when Nadia was on bars and I was I must have been three or four years old. Even in retrospect, was she really good?

She was amazing. And my mom was very proud of her. As a Romanian, she was very, very proud. Glad she married Bart Connor?

Well, you know. Bit vanilla for her, but She was fine with that.

Okay. Uh what was I saying? Uh where was I? Oh, political donations and sponsors. Are you surprised that Glenn Young doesn't just come out and say, I'm in or out?

I mean, what do you think? I was waiting for the debate to begin with. I didn't like that whole thing with Ron DeSantis, and I get it like I gotta do the governor's business. Florida's the most important to me, but it's always a bad strategy. You know, the people who get in first have such an advantage.

If for no other reason than the perception that they are somewhat presidential, might bewee them to the VP slot. Um but in Glenn Youngkin's case, the more decisive he is, the more attractive that is to people who are just hearing of him for the first time. Because if you really don't follow politics, especially if you don't live in Virginia or along the Acela corridor, You may not know much about him at all, other than he might be the sweater vest guy. Right. Probably brilliant.

Uh, you know, he's running the Carlisle group. He was a a basketball player in college. And he says I wasn't very good in college, but he everybody wanted him in uh coming out of college because he is tall. He reminds me a little bit more of Mitt Romney. than he does of John McCain.

Or of Donald Trump, you know, a straight talker. He tends to I think come off a little bit bland. Bland and sincere, and then I don't know them long enough to know if it's real sincerity. I mean, how can you get to the top of the cloud group and be that nice? Is it possible?

Well, he could be really smart. He is. But I don't know that this is the season that people want smart people in politics. Thank you. It might not be a good time to be smart.

Or nice. Right. This is why I'm thriving. I mean the last time you don't Right. Baby eating killer.

Not smart. Right. I do not want my intellect holding me back anymore.

So, and finally, you single-handedly got rid of the Fox human resources IQ test, which we used to have. We threw it out. Done. Absolutely. Um, where was I?

Why do you always say that when I'm on? Where was I? Because we tend to go off a little bit.

So we're looking at this race right now, and I I laugh because I'm watching all these pundits on Sunday say, if you want to beat Donald Trump, you got to go after Donald Trump. Good luck with that. The whole thing is not going after Donald Trump. It's not a matter of toughness. You have to find a way.

To beat Donald Trump without losing the people that support Donald Trump. Because when you go after him, you offend those people. They feel like the world has gone after him. And when they go after Trump, they go after his supporters.

So if you are trying to, it's, I think, the toughest high wire act we have seen in the modern political age. It truly is. Because in any other time, you could dismiss someone and they would just hop on your bandwagon if you had a better plan and offered a better future for voters. But now, because his persecution. Is the most attractive quality right now.

So if you persecute him. You are making yourself unattractive to his voters. And that's who I thought Will Hurd and Chris Christie, who I'm very friendly with, they have great respect for. I'm like, I get it. You're mad at him.

You don't like him. You don't think he's going to be a good president. But neither of them are getting any traction at all whatsoever. I don't know. I think Chris Christie in New Hampshire in the last poll moved up to third.

Still have 14%, it's got a way to go. But this is where you go, yeah, you know, I'm against him, but what's happening right now, I can't support. And then tell me, especially Chris Christie's great legal mind, he's got a great legal mind. Yeah, I'm you know I'm I'm running to stop Donald Trump. You got it.

But that doesn't mean I support X, Y, and Z. Mar Lago documents case. All right, fine. I don't think you ever should have taken the documents, but X, Y, and Z. And then when you see what's happening with uh with Jack Smith overall, you might have uh an opinion of what Jack Smith's doing.

And you might say to yourself, Is this guy going back to the magic that got us a hung jury with John Edwards? The ridiculous embarrassment that got you an overturn, 8-0 with the Supreme Court to Governor McDonnell? Senator Menendez got off, too. Still a senator. Right.

Jack Smith went after them.

So I'm just saying: could that be Kennedy? Do what you do. I'm better than Donald Trump, but I'm going to tell you right now. There's definitely a way of doing it. I don't think DeSantis is doing it right.

For me, I had really high hopes for Ron DeSantis in terms of. a strategist. And I I thought he would be one of those people who would not only capitalize on his success, but catapult himself offering a positive vision of what he's already done and his own unique blueprint, while at the same time Defending himself, but not engaging too much with Trump so as not to come off like a weak attacker who's punching up. Right. Done that well enough.

And he's fading. And I don't know if he can get his mojo back. Interesting. That's what Junckin's got to worry about. If it so happens that DeSantis gets trounced and gets no traction and Donald Trump is a very good person.

I think Vivek has a bigger lane than Juncken. Vivek, who's been in for a while and just winning people over the pure teacher. Left and right. Yep. By going over everybody.

Knocking on doors, every outlet, every event. Has an answer for everything. Here's um. Almost like the thing you punish your kids for. Right, I don't like when they have an answer for everything, right?

We don't like that. I feel as though you've said that before. Have you said, do you just have an answer for everything, don't you? Yeah, miss. Right.

Here's Governor Ron DeSantis making what I think is a very, very, I think is a mistake, a little bit too aggressive, Cut 45. On bureaucracy, we're going to have all these deep state people. We're going to start slitting throats on day one and be ready to go. You're going to see a huge, huge outcry because Washington wants to protect its own, but at the end of the day, this is a city that's failed this country. Slit throats.

He sounds like a serial killer. Right, which we have. He doesn't sound like a, like. A testosterone corporate raider who's using hyperbole. He he he sounds like a serial killer.

So he's got to be really careful with that because he can't carry that off. I am still, I'm not giving up on DeSantis. I still think he's the most talented person in the race. I don't think he's a sanity. I do think he's very talented.

I think he has an incredible track record. I think he has lost sight of the core of his success. I think he's getting very distracted by the woke stuff, and it's giving his enemies more ammunition than necessary.

Now, you've gone woke. Do you think that's smart in retrospect? Yeah, I mean I am Bud Light. You are Bud Light. Make a big mistake.

So. You indict Trump three times. He's leading in the polls by more each and every time. And overall, the latest Sienna poll leans to the left. Everyone agrees the New York Times poll has it a dead heat.

Peter Baker of the New York Times on this, CUD 43. Look at Biden's numbers now, right?

Okay, in a lot of ways things are going well for him now. Inflation is down, unemployment is really low, growth is up, crime, immigration, all these indicators are off their peaks, and yet his approval rating is the one thing that's not changing. It is stubbornly where it has been now for two years. For the New York Times is to admit. is rare.

I think they just listen, I I by the way, I like Peter Baker, but not many people think he's a right-wing firebrand.

So for him to say that, no one can figure it out. No one could figure out how he could be in a dead heat with a guy indicted three times. You can. People don't feel like their personal economy is working or improving. And when they hear those numbers, to them, it is a lie and it is not an acknowledgment of reality.

Stop telling people that crime is down when, in places like Los Angeles, you cannot go shopping in Beverly Hills without taking a very circuitous route home for fear of being followed and robbed at your doorstep. You cannot go through cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago without being bombarded by homelessness. They're stealing tax money from their constituents, throwing it at homelessness, and it's not making a dent. It is only making it worse. And I see a handful of Democrats speaking up, telling Joe Biden to get get the border done.

Because they're feeling the pressure, because no matter what he says about the border numbers, by the way, in July they were up in Arizona, that's not what people think. Anyone who looks in New York City or any major city sees what's going on. I walk past two of those hotels every day where they are trying to house migrants, and it's not working. This system is not working. This is a bad and failed system.

Stop trying to sell it. It's a junker. It's not a brand new Tesla, so Stop trying to s sell us a shellac turd. Still a turd. Good point.

Right. The other thing would be when you bring up Tesla, that's interesting. Because Tesla Linked to China, Elon Musk linked to a fight with Zuckerberg. But then says he's going to have surgery on his neck and back. That's right.

So do you think that you could have surgery on your neck and back and still fight Mark Zuckerberg? If you want us to believe in AI and robots, Yeah, have the surgery, have the robot surgery, have robot parts put in you so you're stronger than ever and you heal quick. That will. Put Americans' faith back in AI and robotics where it belongs. Artificial intelligence.

We don't want virtual. Robot parts. We want actual robot parts. Exactly right. We want real robots.

We want robot parts we can see and feel, Brian. Uh Kennedy's here. Thank you. The Women's World Cup. It did not go the American way.

I almost wore my World Cup jersey today, but it was too hot. And then I lift. Yeah. You're not much of an activist. I mean, what about a hunger strike?

People who like sleep on telephone poles in order to make it hunger strikes are great until you crave food. Right. Until the nighttime, when dinner, when there's dinner. Yeah, you're like, the chicken does smell pretty good. Right.

And then I have that Friday's gift certificate. What am I going to do with it? Loaded potato skin.

So Alexei Lowellis put out a very provocative tweet, which shows you how great Fox Sports is. They let you say what you want to say. Very interesting. You'll find it fascinating. You listen to Brian Killmee show.

Kennedy's here. Oh. Want even more Brian? Download the podcast at BrianKillmeadShow.com every episode. Exclusive interviews on demand.

More of Killmead coming up. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. If she scores, Sweden wins, the US is out. If not, another round.

Cartig! Off there, can it go in? Waiting on the signal. They're waiting. They're going to check.

Couldn't stop him here. I thought it was going in, but it happened so quickly. So, for people at home that couldn't figure it out, 0-0 in regulation, 0-0 in overtime, it's a knockout round.

So, they go five penalty kicks each, 5-4, Sweden wins. And the last save was actually a save. The goalie deflected it up, it came down, and it looked like it was kicked out. Electronically, you can't argue it. It was over the line.

It's a goal, and they have no idea. And next thing you know, the referee waits probably 45 seconds and says, goal over. Their earliest exit in the history of World Cup play for the women's team who are going for their third. Third title. But Kennedy, as you know.

You know, you're not going to win them all. There's going to be upsets, but they never played well. No, this team. But there's something else to it, too, isn't it? Yeah, this team never.

coalesced. And it was, they were so distracted for so much of it. It was not about the sport itself. It was not about. The team.

It was yeah, these two. Take it a knee. Yeah. So listen to what Alexi Lalis writes. Don't kill the messenger.

The US World Cup team is a polarizing pola politi is polarizing. Politics, causes, stances and behavior have made this team unlikable to a portion of America. This team has built its brand and has derived it from power from being the best, winning. If that goes away, they risk becoming irrelevant. Wow, the number one color commentator and soccer great player in his own right.

Am I saying that? And he's your friend. Yes. I don't blame you. For having him as a friend and him having you.

He's Carly Lloyd said something similar, too. Yeah, but Carly Lloyd, after their first game, their second game The the celebration She was like, this was a draw. How could you be celebrating when you didn't win? And you know, i it's one thing to be humble. and gracious to fans, but to be exuberant.

And when you're standing there, you're just hubris. When you're not playing well, it's Is unacceptable. And, you know, Carly Lloyd has a leg to stand on here, having won multiple World Cups with the U.S. Women's National. Megan Rapino, the first one to take a knee for the U.S.

national team in a national team game. And she's done. Good. And she missed a penalty kick. Yeah.

Did Subway hire her still? Do you think she's no? I think that she's a total distraction. I think that she has huffed her own essence, and it has not done her or the team any favor.

So, bye. You probably have 20 seconds. Is there anything you'd like to plug? I would like to plug my podcast, Kennedy Saves the World Fox News Podcast, to Apple, Spotify. Go get it.

And now we still have 10 seconds for me to say thank you very much, Kennedy. Thank you, Brian. Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus, on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your Prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Mm-hmm.