More chaos? List of republicans looking to oust Speaker Johnson grows...

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the latest moments of the Brian Kill Meet Show. Lexi Rigdon's going to be with us shortly, bringing us some legal analysis as we have a pause in the trial of Donald Trump.

We know Wednesdays are off, Mondays and Tuesdays, and Thursdays and Fridays are not. We'll tell you what happens yesterday, what it means for today. Eli Lake at the bottom of the hour: What Will Israel do? He's a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributor, editor, at Commentary Magazine, very hooked into international affairs. Also, we're going to talk to him about what's happened with the Speaker of the House.

Let me just remind you: if you have to leave your local affiliate, go to Fox Nation's Fox News app. You click on the headsets and just listen, or you go to the bottom on watch and swipe until you get Fox News radio because you could always see the show and you could always order the podcast.

So, let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. Most of us see a very heavy slant in NPR, but the issue. Is really, should we have a state-funded media at all? And I think that's a debate that we haven't had really substantively in a very long time.

Yes, the whistleblower, the NPR, a Democrat, blows the whistle and gets suspended. The new CO exposed as a left-wing activist, and yet she gets the job at a public broadcasting company. This really has to stop. And maybe this will be the beginning. And maybe now that she's been exposed, she will be fired.

Number two. He looks at the economy from Mar-a-Lago. Where he and his rich friends embraced the failed trickle-down policies that have failed working families for more than 40 years. Grand values. or Mur-a-Lago values.

Oh, please. Is he trying to tell us Bidenomics is good? 2024, Scranton Joe goes home and back to Bidenomics. We debate Joe's words with his actions and results. We are living with and a mix in reality.

Can we do that? All things 2024 coming your way. Number one. There was one potential juror who had posted on his Facebook page that he was grateful that the court had quote unquote ruled against Trump's unlawful travel ban in 2017. But I was even surprised that the judge was willing to let that first part go where he was celebrating a Trump loss.

Here we go. That was Carrie Kupecker Bond. The Trump trial case won day three, jury selection on a fast pace. We're talking about seven chosen, five to go, plus six alternates. We're going to look at the profiles of the five that got through and the contempt charges versus Trump and take the pulse of the people, as well as what Donald Trump did afterwards.

Fascinating. He was invited by the Bodega Association to come down and visit Jorge Alba's bodega, where he was fighting for his life and shot a recivitist criminal, a convicted criminal, out for some reason, tries to kill him, killed him first, and guy went to Rikers Island until it was exposed what he was up to.

So here Donald Trump is in Harlem getting huge applause and they're chanting four more years. Nuts after spending the whole day in court.

So what was happening in court yesterday?

Well, Donald Trump could be looking at contempt charges, cost him maybe a few thousand dollars. I'm not sure. Maybe they're going to threaten him with prison. Why? Because he brings up that the judge should not be on.

On this case, he brings up that the whole thing is a sham. And now they say some truth social posts show he's violating his gag order. Why does Michael Cohen not have a gag order? Why does all these would be Stormy Daniels not have a gag order? If you don't want Trump to talk, you better not have other people talking freely on other channels because they're not being fact-checked.

And that could mess with the case because as the jurors get picked, they go home. Just real quick before we get to Lexi, juror number one, a male from West Harlem, originally from Ireland, gets news from the New York Times, Daily Mail, Fox, and MSNBC, they say. Juror 2, female from a native of New York. Oncology nurse at Memorial Soul Kettering gets her news from New York Times, Google, and Facebook. The other young middle-aged Asian male from Chelsea, attorney for five years.

You got two other attorneys, young black woman, Harlem Native, teaches ELA in school for eight years, and a young woman who's a software engineer. I think it's a pretty quick pace. Alexey Rigdon joins us now, attorney and legal analyst. Lexi, what do you think about the pace? Two days, seven jurors?

Yes, I think it's really surprising. Good to be with you, by the way, Brian. I think it's really surprising, and I think it's not something that anybody expected, that it would be so quick when the stakes are so high for everyone involved in this case, including the DA's office, who doesn't want egg on their face if somehow they lose, and obviously, for Donald Trump, too.

So this is what if I'm Trump, I'm nervous about juror number six, works at the Walt Disney Company, famously woke. Not everybody, but you gotta wonder, juror number four gets the news from the Daily News and the New York Times.

Okay, born in Puerto Rico. Um that makes me nervous if I'm Trump.

Well, it's funny because, you know, as kids were told, don't judge a book by its cover, but that's exactly what you have to do in jury selection because that's really all you have to go by. You kind of group people into certain categories: if this person reads this type of newspaper, they might lean a certain way. And that's probably actually fairly, that's probably fairly astute and accurate. There are obviously outliers, you know, where conservatives will still read the New York Times, but that's unfortunately what they have to do here to try to just. Figure out.

And I think some people are saying, well, why have they used all of their peremptory challenges so quickly?

Well, they don't know what's coming down the pike.

So they just need to get, they need to get rid of the people that they want to get rid of now because they don't know who's next on the chopping block.

So one thing that they did, they represented the president because they don't like the noise he made or some type of gesture he made when some juror had a comment. Don't you think that's a little bit aggressive on Judge Merchant's cases? I'm not going to have you intimidate these would-be jurors. I absolutely do because being around criminal defendants often as I am in court, they make noises, they roll their eyes, but attorneys do that too. I mean, it's.

I think the formality at first, when you come in and you stand up, may it please the court, I'm here representing so-and-so, and then you're there. Day after day, hour after hour, get used to all the players. You lose yourself a little bit sometimes. And I think that that was, it sounds like from what's being described, obviously there are no cameras in there, so we don't really know, but it sounds like if he grumbled something and the judge jumped on top of him for it, it seems a little bit overboard. I don't see how grumbling something would necessarily intimidate a juror who was asking questions.

Couple of things.

So the word is: since the former president won his battle not to show the access Hollywood tape, so that's good. And they say for him, and they also say that Michael Cohen's conviction on campaign finance abuse should also not play a role in this. And that's good for the defense. Right, right. And Michael Cohen is such a huge problem for the prosecution.

And when you try cases, you take your witnesses as they come. And so you have somebody who is a very imperfect witness who's going to be there's going to be fertile ground on cross about his truthfulness and everything in his past. And that's unfortunately for the prosecution. All they have to work with right now. But I'm glad that the judge denied the actual playing of the video because.

The fact of that video, I mean, I guess I could see how they're trying to, we use the word bootstrap in this case all the time, but I see how they're kind of trying to bootstrap it into their theory of why he ended up paying the hush money. But I think it's kind of on the line of what's relevant. I mean, that tape had nothing to do with this hush money payment, and it could have had just as much to do with a husband who was saying, Oh my god, I don't want any more problems at home. This already came out in the media. I don't need something else coming out in the media.

You know, I'm not even sure it's all that necessary for the prosecution to go into it, but they will.

So, the thing the President's not going to do, it doesn't look like going to get to go to a graduation. That's a personal thing. Wonder why the judge is so dug in on that. And, number two, Number three is, do you think when the President finds out, is he going to be held in contempt for some of his truth social postings? Do they, Lexi Rigden, seem to violate the The gag order?

I mean, they might. I think that the real question is: what would the judge actually do about it? This judge. It's no secret that the judge doesn't really like him. He's tried Trump team tried to get him removed.

He didn't get removed. Apparently he's even gone after the judge's family. I mean, the last thing you want to do as a defendant is obsess a judge.

So I understand why Trump is doing that. He has loftier goals of letting everybody know how corrupt this system is as opposed to getting a fair shake because he knows he's not going to get a fair shake. But I think that the judge The judge may well indeed hold him in contempt for violating the gag order, which is fairly broad, but $3,000 to Trump is nothing. I don't see the judge. Throwing him in jail.

I just think that that would be a bad look for the trial, a bad look for the judge. Logistically, it would be a nightmare with somebody who's protected by the Secret Service. I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze on that.

So, when the President comes out and just does his own thing in the press conferences after, in many ways, it's good for his candidacy, especially when it goes to the Bodega associations and meets with the people and you hear the chants. But was this the wisest statement, cut to? I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense, some accountant I didn't know, marked it down as a legal expense. That's exactly what it was. And you've been indicted over that?

Yeah.

Well, I actually I actually heard some criticism of that statement where people said, uh-oh, he flipped up and they're going to make that an issue in the trial. They've done that before, you know, in other instances. I think that he I think there's a delicate balance between he wants to get his message out to everybody and he sees a higher goal than that. But sometimes he might speak out a turn and it might be used against him. But I think he's going to continue to do it regardless.

I guess so.

So, if you're President Trump, you have to sit there all day once this whole thing starts. I heard an earlier report that this could be wrapped up by Memorial Day. Is that plausible? I think it's plausible based on how quickly the jury selection is going. But what's remarkable to me is that in New Jersey, where I practice, the people that are out on their own recognizance and they're just out, they don't they don't The indictments From indictment to trial, which has basically been a year, that never happens here for people who are out on bail or out on their own recognizance or not in custody because other cases have priority.

Other cases where the people are sitting in jail, those have priority. And the speedy trial is for the defendant. It's not for the benefit of the prosecution.

So, this has obviously jumped the line. And I think that Alvin Bragg and his team are going to do everything that it can to get this done by Memorial Day or at least get it done as soon as possible. Because I really do think that. Regardless of some of the things that Trump did at the tail end of his presidency, which were certainly reasonable minds could differ whether it was a good idea or he acted reasonably. This seems to be something that Mm-hmm.

Even across the political spectrum, people say, come on. You know, this is i this I think is just an attempt to have him labeled as a convicted felon if he is indeed convicted. And then the Democrats can parade that. Concept around during the election and see if it has any effect. Real quick, if what should you be doing right now?

If you if Alexi Rigdon, they said, I want you to lead the defense from what we know about the case, even though they have not told us what the second charge is, what would you be focusing on? The second charge meaning what the actual felony is? Yes.

Well, I think what they're probably doing is they are probably trying to shore up every last piece of cross examination on Michael Cohen. They they're kind of in some ways fighting with their hands tied behind their back because they're not actually sure because it wasn't given to them particularly what What is the actual federal violation? Is it potentially a violation of tax fraud? Is it a campaign violation? They are definitely at a disadvantage.

And it remains to be seen whether Trump is even going to put up any witnesses. I mean, I don't imagine that he's going to testify.

So I think if I'm the defense attorney right now, I'm just trying to shore up every possible weakness. in the case, especially where it comes to Michael Cohen, who will be the star witness.

So the other thing that's going on, the Supreme Court is looking at obstruction as it relates to january sixth. Did you stop her official government proceeding? And they said, yep, no doubt about it. But it also, when Bowman, Congressman Bowman, pulled the firearm, that stopped the proceeding. Other proceedings, because people break in all the time with their hands painted pink or red, that stopped a proceeding.

So here's Cash Patel on how the Supreme Court, judging by its questions and the arguments, the audio is available in real time. Where do you think it's heading? Cut 15. Not just the president, but 300 individuals who have been charged with this crime. Look, this statute was for the Enron case when Arthur Anderson destroyed financial evidence when DOJ was investigating them.

That was the obstruction. The Department of Justice then charged those individuals with obstructing a federal investigation. And what the Supreme Court and Justice Alito are saying are, what official proceeding are you obstructing? And the next question after that was even more pressing. What if there's a riot?

What if there's a protest on Golden Gate Bridge? What if there's a protest outside of D.C. and justices can't get to Congress or people can't get to work? Is this DOJ going to prosecute all of those protesters on these bridges and tunnels around the country for obstructing an official proceeding? They are on thin ice because they know it's hypocritical as a two-thirds.

Judging by what Gorsuch and Alito were leading to, this could be significant. Could you explain to the listeners what would be significant if they decided that obstruction can't be charged to those hundreds that are in jail and to Donald Trump and Jack Smith's case? Yes.

So if the Supreme Court determines that the obstruction can't be charged to those 300 some-odd defendants, then Donald Trump is also charged with that. And the allegation that the appeal is making is that this had to do with documents, as your sound bite just played, and then it had to do with the Enron case. And a riot is not the same as. Disrupting an official proceeding in terms of documents and things like that. And so, if the Supreme Court agrees with the appellants on that issue, then Donald Trump could use that and ask the court to dismiss that count of his indictment in the Jack Smith January 6th case as well.

So, it definitely is consequential.

Now, it's a little bit different because what they're saying that Donald Trump did was actually a scheme in terms of obstructing an official proceeding with documents, namely the false late of electors. But still, it is still a potential. point where if the appellants are successful on that Trump can use that, make his own motion to dismiss the indictment based on that, and then potentially have to wait for even more rulings.

So even if substantively Trump doesn't win on that in the future, if the appeal is successful, he still wins in effect by delaying because now we have more legal issues piled on top of. Pit that case. More pressure on Donald Trump to delay and then win for him. Lexi Rigdon, thanks so much. Thanks, Brian.

Keeping you busy. 1866-408-7669. Bottom of the hour. I'll bring you to the Middle East. But next is all about you.

Don't move. Brian Killmead Show. It's Brian Killmead. Precise, personal, powerful. Is America's weather team in the palm of your hands?

Get Fox Weather updates throughout your busy day, every day. Subscribe and listen now at FoxnewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. It's very difficult for anyone really in this country to not come to this with prior opinions.

I mean we all have prior opinions about the defendant unless you've been like living in a cardboard box since 2014. But personally, the right to a fair trial. In this country, it is more important to me than anything this particular defendant has done or any feelings about him that I personally have. But you got eliminated. See, it actually seems fair.

It seems even keel. I just hope people don't have an agenda. I know there's a formula to picking a jury. It did concern me when I saw nothing picked on Monday. Excuse me.

Yeah, on Monday. And on Tuesday, seven. Seven.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Toobin talked about a possible defense for the former president of all people. Listen to him on CNN, Cut4. Trump has potentially the argument, look, I run a multi-billion dollar company. I don't know how the accountants, how the bookkeepers record things. That's going to be a big issue in the case.

How is the government going to prove that Trump knew and initiated or at least supported the idea that these payoffs were recorded as legal fees? He said, mark them down.

Now, as Jessica said, he sort of caught himself. But, you know, that video could be played before the jury, no question.

So, yeah, we'll see. I mean, it is totally true that if you don't bring up Michael Cohen on campaign finance violation, which as you heard speculation yesterday, that they don't even think he did it, that he thought he could plead down, be a witness against Trump if he did that, because he's a lawyer too and not a great one, but you could do that rather than go to jail for tax evasion on paying, I think, $4 million worth of not paying his taxes.

So much of what Michael Cohen got in trouble for had nothing to do with Trump. He's just bitter because if he wasn't linked to Trump, his office wouldn't have been raided. And that is true. A radio show like no other. It's Brian Killmead.

to Iran in this moment. Don't. I have one word. Don't. to any actor.

State or non-state. trying to take advantage of this crisis to attack Israel. Don't. We have just one word. Don't.

It's the worst is The Secretary of Defense, a four-star general, taking his lead from The President of the United States with a ridiculous word like don't, which was ignored over and over again. Latest time was this past weekend. Eli Lake, you do, you have agreed to be on the show, contributing editor of commentary, columnist from the New York Sun. Welcome back. And of course, your podcast is Re-education, The Re-education Power.

Both are the Free Press. I am now full-time at the Free Press. Oh, great.

So Eli, don't didn't work. And now the President has made it clear. That he does not want Netanyahu to do anything, take the win Saturday. I don't think he's going to take the looks at Saturday as a win that he can take. I would tend to agree with you based on the signals that we're getting from Israel.

Although I know that there is a debate right now in that four-person security cabinet because. you know, I think the Israelis were as pleasantly surprised as The Americans, and for that matter, the Jordanians, the Saudis, and NATO allies that. They were a dud. They launched a barrage and they were intersected.

Some of them were intercepted before they even came into Israeli airspace. And you know, it's very sad that this Bedouin girl was you know, gravely injured. But given the fact that like, you know, the Iranians have been saying now for nearly three weeks that there was going to be a response and retaliation. Um you know, this is an embar it should be seen as an embarrassment for Iran. and not, as some analysts have said, a deliberate mild attack or something like that.

These were very I mean, the cruise missiles that were fired could have done enormous damage. Had they not been intercepted? And also, I would say that it's not the interception is good, but it's so costly.

So the economics of this kind of warfare is that the missile defense you know, the Israelis are spending, you know, and allies are Are going to end up spending in the billions, and the Cabranians are going to spend far less.

So You know, if this is a new normal, then this is a t another tactic from Iran that will make it, you know, that will that will at least have a kind of economic impact. Even if the missile defense systems continue to work as well as they did.

So we'll see how they're going to do it. They're probably going to target the nuclear facility. They'll probably target a drone facility. Or maybe some of their oil infrastructure, something to make them pay the price. We offered more sanctions on them, but we're still going to let them sell oil to China.

We still unfroze $10 billion in South Korea, some type of hostage, weird hostage swap. And we're also going to allow them to charge Iraq for electricity.

So they're going to have revenue, and that's mainly the problem. When they have revenue, they don't give it to the people. What should the next move be if you're Israel?

Well, I mean I I think that Israel has had success in the past in cyber and sabotage when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. I think that that would be important in and of itself because the Iranians continue to make progress on their nuclear weapons program.

So anything to slow that down would be great. And then, you know, I mean, it sort of depends. I think at this point, Some people are overthinking it. Iran and Israel have been in a pretty vicious shadow war. The Iranians are funding the their proxies that are encircling Israel, whether it's the Hussis or Hezbollah or Hamas, and they train them and they Gives them various kinds of guidance and so forth.

And then the Israelis have had, for at least 15, nearly 20 years now, are going after Iranian generals, Iranian nuclear scientists. It's well known that the Israelis were doing this. When Israel took out the commander of Iran's Quds force, in a consulate, not really a consulate, in Q. Syria, that was actually like basically kind of military hub. You know, when that happened, that was kind of par for the course.

So I understand that like when you're in an open warfare and Iran is directly firing on Israel, there is a level of escalation. I just don't think we should draw too much into it. I think the Israelis have to do everything they can. to thwart and sabotage Iran's nuclear program. And I think it would be important to send a message that there are going to be certain kind of very obvious regime targets like the IRTC headquarters, that's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters in Iran.

That you know, that should be rubble as far as I seem like at this point. We're already at war. What more are they going to do? The Iranians in the past, you know, 30, 40 years have targeted Jewish community centers and Israeli embassies and have been behind all kinds of horrific counterterrorism. And are we supposed to pretend that that's not an act of war from a state?

No, of course it is.

So at this point, if the you know, if Iran is going to play outside of the rules of international law, Um it's totally hypocritical to say that Israel has to play Buy Marquis of Kutli. Could they have Russian anti-aircraft weapons now because Russia has gotten so much from Iran and Russia's gotten so much from North Korea, the give back would be giving them some anti-aircraft and maybe some aid with their nuclear program? Could that be part of the warning, the rhetoric that Iran is spewing out? I mean, listen, the ru the the Russians do have an impressive anti-aircraft system in the S-400, but They have been providing Iran, as far as I know, with that kind of technology now for more than ten years. And as far as the Iranian nuclear program goes, I mean, Russia has an interest in having Iran not go nuclear from lot of reasons, even though they're aligned right now in Russia's rapacious and aggressive war against Ukraine.

Eli Lake, our guest. Eli, do you we watch through four funding bills queued up, but they're not written up yet and to be passed by Friday in the perfect world through the House, one of which would be a Ukraine aid bill. Do you believe we should be giving Ukraine sixty five billion? Absolutely. I think that in many ways, like I i it's frustrating to me to see that the right in this country, that the elements of the Republican Party in this country are against the aid to Ukraine because this is a way of bloodying Our enemy.

The Russians are our enemy. The Russian army is our enemy. It is a Russian army, it's an institution of terror. In and of itself.

So, to make it so that the Ukrainians can have a chance and maybe actually defend their territory, and the problem is that Biden. Is allowed to get away with a policy where he keeps restraining Ukraine and trying to do what they can to impose more costs. on Russia's just unbeliev like it's it's uh unthinkably Brutal and horrific and lawless kind of campaign against Ukrainian civilians. And we keep the messages from Biden and his administration are, oh, well, we'll send you these, but they shouldn't be terrible. They're this many kilometers into like Russia.

Give me a break. Win the war. This is a war that the Russians started under no legitimate reason. Help the Ukrainians win, and I'd like to say that to the Republicans. It's a very easy talking point for the left to say, oh, and liberals say, oh, well, like the Republicans are selling out.

They don't care about Ukraine.

Well, you know, I'm against the Republicans who are against this aid as well. But like, some of this is on Biden. Like, you know, stop. deterring ourselves here. the Ukraine the Russians made a terrible mistake.

This war is not going well for them. They have lost a lot of generals. They have spent a lot of money. They are going to be having their military is really weakened. Let's finish it off.

Already. Right.

Well, it would be they got to get money to fight and they got to hold on to people. They evidently have replenished their army because they're using Chinese.

Now, China is providing armaments and backing them up. We told them not to. They're doing it. We know the drones are coming from Iran. North Korea is providing the artillery.

And the West has lost interest in funding them, or the U.S. does. This is on a lot of Republicans, in my view. And if you watch that video, you're right. Republicans need to be called out.

And I gotta say, I re I think Mike Johnson is trying to do the right thing here. And I think it's just time that he has to realize that there are going to be people in his caucus like Marjorie Taylor Greene that he's going to just have a fight with, and he should relish that. Because if you look at the broader picture of American politics, Marjorie Taylor Greene is in like a fringe. She should she you know, people like her do not get, you know, in an in a functioning democracy, the opportunity to sort of set the policy for the opposition political party. And that is the a real problem right now.

And I my hope is that that Johnson will just kind of continue with the fight. This is a good sign that these are going to be on the floor, let people vote. It's fine if Marjorie Tonnell Green wants to vote against it, but the idea that like she's going to hold up any consideration in the House for something this important is absurd, and she needs to be put in her place. She, to me, is everything that you don't want to be as a lawmaker. The same thing I look at is the squad.

They're grandstanders who don't have our best interest in mind. The country's best interest. NTG is AOC. You're absolutely right. Right.

And the President of the United States, the former President of the United States said, listen. Back Mike Johnson. He's doing the best he can. But sure, up comes Tom Massey. I'm going to look to recall you, so why don't you just quit?

Really? Because you don't agree with something the guy should just quit. Like Tom Massey is the voice of the people. He's got some positive qualities, but he is also a libertarian who has his own isolated view, smart guy, isolated view of the country. That is not my view, and it's not the view of the consensus of Congress.

And guess what? I'm a libertarian on a lot of issues. There are some things where I think Thomas Massey, I agree with him. It's fine. But you do not get to set the agenda.

You are outvoted by a lot.

So oust the speaker. If he does something you don't like, I'm going to look to remove you. Have they ever played on a team sport in their lives? Do you understand you don't get everything you want? Terrific.

Exactly. It's a team sport, people. Come on. I love that line, though. You mentioned it.

This is my favorite line from Michael Jordan. He says that someone, one of his early coaches said, there's no I in team. He says, yeah, but there is an I and win. Give me the ball. Anyway.

That is true. We'll see. Mike Johnson's still learning how to lead. Even though as bright as he is, I think leadership is a whole different set of qualities. And now it's time.

I saw Josh Moskowitz and others said, we're not going to let him get fired. But if you let Democrats save you, they're going to want something in return. But that's the bed that the Republicans have made. Eli Lake, it's going to be as usual. I would just say this.

I think this is a crucible for. Mike, for the speaker. And I am really hoping, and it looks like we have signs now that he's going to pass that test. And I think we will look back at this historically and we will say that this guy was a real patriot for this moment right now. He's taking on the Yahoos and the fringe of his caucus.

That's very important. True. I just wish he had drawn up the legislation. The fact that nothing's drawn up, even to debate, makes me think it's not going to get done on Friday, and the Ukrainians don't have a day to wait. But listen, a lot of people, most people don't agree with me and you on Ukraine.

And I'm fine with that because I know I'm right. And this is, if you want to see that video of that Georgia politician getting punched in the face, look at what happened. This is another Russian stooge. They are gradually taking all of Russia, putting their people there, all of Georgia, putting their people in place, like after they took those two provinces.

Now they're paying off other politicians to run for office, and this guy was jamming Russian legislation down their throats. And this politician got up and don't defend it, but punched him in the face. They see their country slipping away. Russia's not going to invade all of them. Sunny's just going to infiltrate.

Like Belarus saved the president there after he lost an election, and then that guy owes him.

Now he's storing Russian nuclear weapons. That's what's going to happen. Fire. 10, 15 years, they're going to go. What were you guys thinking in 2023 and 24?

Why did you let them go? Yeah, and by the way, this is also a lesson for Democrats. Because remember, How did Biden try to deter Russia by not deterring Russia? He tried to have summits with him. He lifted the sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

He thought engagement, being nice to Russia, would cause. calm Putin's nerves. No, it was an invitation. It was unlocking the gate and saying, come on in, boys.

So I agree with you. It's time to get tough. And we have to understand the Ukrainians are our best allies. They are fighting a war for civilization. They're fighting a war for the West.

And the least we can do is provide them with the best kind of equipment and ammo and weaponry to get that job done. Absolutely. Eli Lake, finally, just real quick on NPR. They suspend an editor, Demer he says, I never vote for Trump, but I don't like what's going on here. And they suspend him for five days and hire a CEO who is a left-wing activist, judging by her Twitter feed.

Your thoughts? Yeah, um, National Politburo Radio. Come on. They are such a joke. They have no idea.

They're in such a bubble. They don't know how ridiculous they look. To the vast majority of the country. I am so proud that the Free Press ran that piece by Uri Beliner, who is the producer that you're talking about. We need more of this to expose how rotten these institutions are.

I remember when Newt Gingrich proposed defunding NPR at the time, I thought it was a little off.

Now I am one hundred percent in favor of it. This is not an organization that represents the best interests of the country. They're not committed to having a balanced view where lots of American positions are it's like they want to indoctrinate us. And it's We're through with that, no more, and this CEO is just a self-parody. I mean, it's a joke when you look at her Twitter feed.

Matt Taibbi had a great piece on it. I thought it was great. All right. Eli, congratulations on the free press. I'll make sure to introduce you that way next time.

Eli Lake, thank you. Thank you. And check out his podcast, Re-Education Podcast. Brian Kill meets y'all. I got a few minutes on the other end.

So much to discuss. We're just jammed.

So, so glad you're here. 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.

Under my plan, nobody earning less than $400,000 will pay an additional penny. I hope you're all able to make $400,000. I never did. Which is a flat-out lie. He made over $400,000 last year.

How many lies does this guy get away with? Did MSNBC quickly pull the plug and apologize to their viewers for the misinformation they just got from Scranton Joe in Scranton, Pennsylvania? The other thing that Joe Biden brings up is trickle-down economics, which I do think works when effective and when it was able to execute. That's what Ronald Reagan brought up in George H.W. Bush.

I have news for you. You know, words never come out of Donald Trump's mouth. TrickleNomics. Bottom up and middle out has never worked in any economics class. That's what Joe Biden says he's doing.

That's what he says he's explaining yesterday. In Pennsylvania. Good move. Go to Scranton. Good move.

Go to Allegheny County. I get it. But I don't know what your message is. Who told you to talk about the economy? Who told you to talk about the economy in a week in which inflation has gone up and interest rates promised not to go down for the foreseeable future?

So now you're out there talking about Bidenomics and Donald Trump's hanging out with his rich people. You know where Donald Trump was yesterday? With the bodega owners in New York City, in Harlem. You know who comes to his rallies? According to Katie Coric, Neanderthals, but if you look, a lot of people And a lot of working class people who don't look at him as a Mar-a-Lago billionaire.

He may have been born, got a million dollars to start. But since that time, he's taken big risks, had big losses, big wins, and now he's being targeted clearly. That's what has working class people going after him. They're not angry at the world. They're not bitter.

They're often the most patriotic people that you will meet. And we'll see what's going to happen with this trial. When people ask me, is Trump going to win? Is Trump going to win? The thing that I just can never predict is the results of these trials and the reaction to them.

So that's why I can't. I can't tell you. But when Donald Trump shows up with bodega owners, that's a big risk. But listen to how he was received. Cut 22.

The police in New York They have to be able to do their job. They have to protect these people. Because I just met this young man. He said, Well, we're robbed all the time. Look, beautiful place.

He's robbed all the time. It's Alvin Bragg's fault. Alvin Bragg does nothing, he goes after guys like Trump. Who did nothing wrong? Violent criminals, murderers.

They know there are hundreds of murderers all over the city. They know who they are, they don't pick them up. They go after Trump.

So there's a lot of unscripted elements to this. You don't know who's going to show up. These activists could go there, anti-Semitism running wild. But instead, they started chanting USA, USA. When you look at the crowd, it was as diverse as the country is.

And up in Harlem, New York.

Alright, Atlanta, Georgia, same thing. Figure that out. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead.

All right, let's get started, everybody, from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan. We got a big show coming your way. I got Congressman Kevin Hearn, everybody at KRMG. We'd love to hear from him, the Congressman from Oklahoma, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, members of Ways and Means Committee. We're trying to find out if this aid package is going to get sent over to Israel, over to Ukraine, over to Taiwan.

This TikTok bill is all jammed in there. I thought that was a done deal through the house. Explain that to me. And then we're going to have John Smaltz, Hall of Fame pitcher, fantastic Major League Baseball analyst and a fantastic golfer. He's at the Celebrity Classic with Brett Baer.

He's. He is a player that many people think could play on the tour. That's how talented he is. Actually, I think. Uh Greg Maddox is also, as well as Tom Glavin.

So three pitchers from that legendary era for the Braves are all golfing in the celebrity club. Yeah, I want to see I'd love to know of the rivalry between them when they're on the golf course. Yeah, I'd like to know how they stayed healthy. I mean, we can't see anything. Yeah.

And those guys would seem to be never hurt. And then, of course, he became a stopper later.

So we're going to take some calls along the way, but there's just so much going on.

So let's get to the big three.

Now, with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. Most of us see a very heavy slant at NPR, but the issue is really: should we have a state-funded media at all? And I think that's a debate that we haven't had really substantively in a very long time. That is Jonathan Turley, one of the best in the business.

NPR whistleblower suspended. A new CEO is exposed, exposed to being a left-wing activist. What are they thinking with public radio? They had a special role in this country, and they've thoroughly dropped the ball. We'll discuss it.

Number two. He looked at the economy from Mar a Lago, where he and his rich friends embraced the failed trickle down policies that have failed working families for more than forty years. Scrand values. Primarily Lago values. Nice try as he slurs his way through another speech.

2024. Scranton Joe goes home and back to Bidenomics. We debate Joe's words with his actions as he attempts to brand Donald Trump as a rich guy detached from blue-collar America. Don't you know we made up our minds already, Joe? Nice try on a Tuesday afternoon.

Number one. There was one potential juror who had posted on his Facebook page that he was grateful that the court had quote unquote ruled against Trump's unlawful travel ban in 2017. But I was even surprised that the judge was willing to let that first part go where he was celebrating a Trump loss. Kerry Kupek Urban, Trump trial. Case one, day three.

Jury selection on a very fast pace. Seven chosen, five to go, plus six alternatives, alternates. We're going to look at the profiles of the five that we know, the contempt charges that Trump is facing, and take the posts of the people. And that's what we'll do. First off, I was surprised.

I mean, after day one, And no jurors were selected.

So many were weeded out. 94 called in, a new batch enter.

So here's what I know. I'll just kind of run through the juror number, juror, the seven jurors.

So Number one. I guess I don't know if they're going to stick with these numbers. A male, West Harlem. Originally from Ireland, gets news from the New York Times, Daily Mail, Fox News, MSNBC. Jura, too.

Female from UES, a native of native New Yorker. What does UES mean? Upper Eastside, sorry. Uh oncology nurse, Emma Slo uh Sloan Kettering. Uh gets her news from the New York Times, Google and Facebook.

Mm, that worries me. Uh juror number three, young to middle aged Asian man from Chelsea, attorney for five years, practices corporate law. I did not know that you could be an attorney and serve on a jury. That's how I did not know that. He gets news from the New York Times and Google.

I'm worried about that guy. If I'm Trump. Juror number four, older, middle-aged man from the Lower East Side, born in Puerto Rico, works in IT, a consultant for 10 years, self-employed, gets news from the New York Daily News, which is just a rag, just an anti-Trump pamphlet, New York Times. Always, I understand why people read the Times because you need to get a good global perspective, but you understand even their news stories are slanted and listens to podcasts. It's a little general.

So I'm not thrilled with that. Jury number five, younger black woman, Harlem native, teaches English as a ELA. What does the LA mean? England? Do we know?

ELA. Uh ELA in school for eight years. You said EL ESL, English is second language, gets news from Google and TikTok, fantastic, talk radio and the Breakfast Club. I like Charlemagne the God, but that's not a bastion of conservatism, according to reports. Number six, young woman from Chelsea, New Yorker, software engineer from Walt Disney Company.

Oh, let me see. Didn't the employees turn on their CEO because he wasn't woke enough? And haven't they been at war with Governor DeSantis? I know it's a general statement. But If you're Trump, how good do you feel about these top seven?

And the last one, white man who lives in Upper East Side. Attorney civil litigator gets news from the Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Washington Post, so he knows exactly how to answer that question.

So so far, a poll was done about the seriousness of this case and what you think about it. Former President Trump's behavior and hush money allegations. Was it illegal? 35%. Was it unethical?

31%. Nothing wrong, 14%. Don't know, 19%. One in three Americans think Trump acted illegally with the hush money. Many people don't know the law.

And non-disclosure agreements. For example, Let's say I run for office. Big big off or small off, doesn't matter. But let's add a business party, it ended bad. Or a relationship ended bad.

And people are coming out, and they're going to just trash her. They're going to say, This guy's a terrible businessman. He ran the restaurant into the ground. True or false, doesn't matter.

So you go in and you say, listen, I want to run for office, whatever it is. You want to get into a condo and people want to do a background check. What's it going to take to shut you up? Nothing I said is illegal right now. And then, if I pay you the money, I'll sign a non-disclosure agreement.

You violate the agreement, you violate the law. Nothing about it.

So The average person out there goes, Yeah, you did something illegal.

Well, when you hear about Pornstar and then payments, how many people say nothing wrong with that? But if you look at the law, you look at that and say you can make any allegations you want to stop any public figure that you might want to stop. In this case, most people in New York City Income out. I'm not even talking about the val uh how valid the stories are.

So Trump is really Ticked off. They say he's fallen asleep in court, but I get it. I mean, you just sit there in the heat with nothing to read and it's so dreary and it's hot. And it's redundant and it's tedious. And you hear these people and they're making their statements and their stories, you're saying, oh my goodness, look what I be doing.

And you're not off, especially a guy that gets four hours' sleep. I can relate to that.

So people say, well, he's old. It's not that he's old. When you work nonstop twenty hours a day, And then you sit down. and sit for seven hours. I don't care how old you are, you're going to not off.

And I even heard Maggie Haberman say, I cover a lot of court cases. I watch his judges not off. I watch defendants knot off all the time. This is not unusual. And then you watch Joe Biden give a speech, and he looks like he's nodding off while he's talking.

So What is the latest? And where are we at? Wednesday is off. Thursday and Friday, they're back on.

So, one of the things that motivated people to make some selections was they're not going to give you Wednesday off if they don't start picking up the pace. They want to get this done quick. To me, I like to get it right, but we'll see. Here's Carrie Kupek-Urban from what she's seen so far. Cut seven.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

So far, four men, three women have been picked. We have two lawyers. We have an oncology nurse from Sloan Kettering, an ELA teacher, an IT consultant, a software engineer who likes to dance. There was also interesting, Sean, some of the people who were dismissed. There was one potential juror who had posted on his Facebook page that he was grateful that the court had quote-unquote ruled against Trump's unlawful travel ban in 2017, which I would say, having been at the Justice Department after that, Noel Francisco went on to win at the Supreme Court.

So he was actually wrong initially on that. And the judge, interestingly, about that post, said that was okay. It was the part where the juror said, get him out, lock him up, that was the problem. But I was even surprised. the judge was willing to let that first part go where he was celebrating a Trump loss.

So, a little bit more.

Okay, I think she breaks it down brilliantly, you know, because I like people that do this every day. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I can pick a jury, but I can observe a jury and feel like I put myself as a defendant how I would feel about the selection. Here's more from Carrie.

So I'm also interested to see how these two lawyers look at this case. I mean, they're going to understand, or I would hope that they would understand, how crazy it is what Bragg is doing here, converting these misdemeanors into felonies after the statute of limitations has already run on the misdemeanors, and the felony being this underlying crime that's still unclear to most people. You can't just say you violated X law. You can't just say you violated state and federal election law without explaining why. And Alvin Bragg really hasn't done that.

We're talking about hush money payments. How in the world do we get from that to violating state and federal election law?

So, the fact that we still don't know why we're picking a jury for me is insane.

So, when we come back, I'm going to talk to Congressman Kevin Hearn about the replacement of a speaker. Does he support Tom Massey in doing that? And Marjorie Taylor Greene. We'll talk a little about baseball and more with John Smaltz, who's also very well read on the political culture. I'm not sure we'll get into that, too.

What is it like being so great at three things: baseball, golf, and broadcasting? Back in a moment. 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. I don't think he's definitely not going to be Speaker next Congress if we're lucky enough to have the majority. And I think that is widely held belief throughout the conference. A motion will get called, and then he's going to lose more votes than Kevin McCarthy.

And I have told him this in private, like weeks ago.

So, Tom Massey, of course, he's the voice of the people. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, that's my guiding light. They are going to come out and they're going to oust the speaker. That is really in the best interest of Republicans. It's not even in the best interest of the Democrats.

It's not in the best interest of the country. If you disagree with legislation, you don't fire the guy on your own team, I don't think. Congressman Kevin Hearn joins us now of Oklahoma. He's chairman of the Republican Study Group. Also, he's a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Congressman, welcome back. It's great to be with you, Brian. Thanks for having me. I was just stunned that Congressman Massey is going to disagree on aid. That's fine.

And the standalone bills, okay. But he's going to oust the speaker and told him to quit just to save himself some trouble? Do you think that's in the best interest of your party and your country?

Well, Brian, right now we have, as you all know, and you're report every single day. A lot of things going on around the world, the chaos in the Middle East, what's going on with Iran and Israel. It's really important to all of the southern border issues. what we're dealing with with China, Ukraine. Right now, we need to be focused on that.

It's really concerning that we would go through another speaker battle at this point in time.

So you're not for that. You won't back Tom Massey? I will not. I think right now we have to keep our leader in place. There's a time in place for changing that.

We can do that in November right now. We need to stay focused on the main thing, which is protecting this nation and our allies around the world.

So we're looking at, he's going to propose four standalone bills, right? And one's going to be Ukraine, one's going to be Israel, one's going to be Taiwan, and one's going to be some mix of Indochina and TikTok. You want to just focus on Israel, right? I do. I put forth an Israel bill.

I knew this was coming down the pike back in January. We proposed a standalone Israel bill to send it to the Senate. It was done on suspension. I couldn't get enough Democrats to support it. Wanted to get a rule vote on an Israel vote.

I know this is all technical stuff for the listeners, but it was really important because then you only need a simple majority. I believed and we believed it would pass. That would send it to the Senate, force Chuck Schumer at that time to either up or down vote on the support of Israel. And we didn't get that. And now what happens is we got a bill coming back that's $95 billion.

It's real convoluted. American people want the border secure before we fund Ukraine or simultaneously funding Ukraine. And we can't get any Democrats to think that the southern border is important at all when we have nine to ten thousand Americans dying every single month.

So how do you see this coming out today? You know it's supposed this is a huge week for everything you just mentioned.

So I know that they're working on these four separate bills, but nothing's out there for the Rules Committee to study.

So can you bring me into the mechanics of it?

Well, certainly, I can talk to what's been discussed the last three or four conferences. The speaker had a late night meeting with kind of different groups, different factions within the conference to try to find a way forward. We've not seen any information on the outcome of that yet. But yet to your point, the speaker listened to the group and put forward four separate bills. The rule will determine whether those are actually put back together and sent to the Senate.

There's real concern about doing it that way by a lot of folks, not just Freedom Caucus, but a lot of people. The bigger concern in all this, and again, this is from not just Freedom Caucus, not just folks that are supporters of Thomas Massey, but they're from more moderates, they're from people in border states, that there's zero border put in this. I think it's dangerous to say that the only way we're going to do anything to border is to get a new president because that's going to be another eight to nine months. That signals to people around the world in the House that we've just given up on border. And I think that was the wrong message to send.

And I think that's why you saw Thomas Massey say what he said.

So a couple of things.

So what what you know you know money is not going to solve the problem.

So it would definite I mean, they could get overtime for these guys, get more some border agents, but that's really not addressing the problem. It's the discretion that this administration makes Border Patrol have at the border, and the fact is they're not really stopping anyone from coming in. How do you make people do something their policy doesn't have in it? What changes in the border bill before you have a new president?

Well, certainly what we need to be doing now is to set up the new president. That's what's important so that the only thing that the new president has to do is execute the law. We have the ability to put this forward. I think it would also impact what's going on in the election. It would shine the fact that I think it would actually help President Trump if we did something.

What is this? When you say this, what is this?

Well, but first well, if you look at HR two, which I know that's all encompassing securing the border, that's parole, that's asylum courts, that's remain in Mexico, that's all the different components. But the Border Patrol has said if you'll just implement Remain in Mexico, we'll cut down 70% of the illegal crossings. And the President knows this also. The speaker just spoke with him over the weekend. He said, I know it, but I don't have the legal authority.

He says, yes, you do.

So the President could take some executive action today. And by the way, you could take the same ones that he undid from President Trump that lowered the border crossings down to 10 to 15,000 a month.

So we have some opportunities here. And another issue is this automatic paroling of people that have illegally crossed. Those are policies. And yes, Joe Biden could actually put these in place and go get one of his liberal federal judges to rule it unconstitutional. And so I tried to tell you.

But if we pass into law and amend Title VIII, if you will, that controls the southern border, then we can have this opportunity so that when President Trump gets into office, he has the ability to execute the laws.

So a couple of things.

So you're telling me in the House, if you put in writing remain in Mexico, Mexico's got to agree to it, number one. Number two, then you got to have in the Senate, but they're going to be words, and you're going to make them take action.

So the president could agree to it. And you could leave the legislation the way it is, and then you have the president, on his word, implement Remain in Mexico? I mean, is.

Well, right now, what the President is saying is Congress is not acting.

So somebody has to act. And there's no question that we Congress has the jurisdiction over who comes across the southern border. We have to write the laws. And if the law seems to be the problem, then we should be rewriting the laws. And then if he doesn't execute it, that's upon him.

But he, if actually, every president has said this. Even President Reagan said this, President Trump said this. This is why President Trump did all the executive actions because Congress had not acted to fix some of these issues. And we need to get those laws put in place, and then they're in law. And whether the President of the United States is going to follow the law or not, that will be determined upon the American people.

Right.

Congressman, good luck this week. It's going to be an impactful week. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. These guys, they're playing a lot of golf.

So, you know, I got to come in there with a good game. But Smoltz, he's awesome. He could be on the senior tour right now. And obviously, Romo has played well in Lake Tahoe.

So it should be fun. I'll see if I can make the first page of the leaderboard. And that's Brett Bears Hope, college golfer, fantastic. He gets to play in all these things. He absolutely loves the game as just John Smaltz, Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher, fantastic, maybe the top baseball analyst in the game today, and also an incredible golfer.

John Smaltz, getting ready for the third annual Invitation Only Celebrity Classic. John, thanks for a few moments. Oh, my pleasure. Thanks for having me. So, what do you think about Brett's comments?

I mean, you've heard it before, that people look just in awe of your golf game. Yeah.

You know, first of all, I just want to be able to dress like Brett. I was a dress golfer out on the celebrity circuit, but Um no, it it you know it it comes with the It's a blessing and a curse. It's kind of my career in baseball. I was predicted to always. win awards or do this or do that based on You know, I love people having a high opinion of it, but then it puts a lot of pressure on you in the baseball world.

For me, when I pitched with two of the greatest, Glavin and Maddox.

So, you know, in a weird way, it's kind of. followed me in golf. I'm supposed to win this, I'm supposed to do that, but You know, the beauty of golf is it's it's such an incredible sport that will expose you, humble you. Can't master it, and I feel like turning about 57 here in about a month. I'm finally getting my body to a place where maybe I can start living up to that.

But I love golf. You know that. It's a passion of mine, and I just love competing.

So describe this tournament. 18 PGA Tour champions are in it, including invited celebrities like Romo, like two of the guys you pitch with in the same rotation. This guy named Greg Maddox, and I think you say Tommy Glavin is how you pronounce it.

So tell me about how this is, how this. what this looks like.

Well, it's a unique opportunity. We and the Celebrity Circuit get to play in three great tournaments right now in January, this one, and then Tahoe, American Century Championship. But Unlike American Central Championship, where it's just an array of celebrities, we get to play with the world's greatest champions tour guys. And I've had a chance to play in about nine events with them. They're awesome.

They've been doing this their whole life. The charity component is second to none. They do a great job raising money. But it's a break from their regular tour where they have to grind every single weekend. Amongst themselves, they get to now, you know, still grind and play for a lot of money, but it's a looser kind of tournament for them where they get to interact with.

You know, a variety of different celebrities.

So I think it's pretty cool. I think they like it. I hope they do because we love it. And Honestly, I get a I get to see their swings and I try to emulate 'em internally. I just really Obviously, in awe of their game.

They've been doing this for a long time. All right, it's going to be 54 holes. It's going to be for a person $2 million with the celebrities in a $500,000 competition. But for money, you guys are not about the money. It's competing against the best.

At $57,000. What's the difference? Beside I I guess you could pick up the skill and the te and some technique, but what about your body in golf? Because I am not a a golfer. What about your body?

Do you have to give up to age and what don't you have to give up to age? Yeah, the beauty of golf is you can play well beyond into your seventies and some people into their eighties, but the biggest thing is I've been known to abuse my body both in baseball and golf because I love playing 36 or 45 in a day. But the biggest thing is you lose distance and clubhead speed like anything else. And technology is unbelievable. I don't have the training regimen I once did.

So I kind of go out there and just whatever it is that day and I try to play the best I can. But it's a sport that I knew when I was playing baseball. And I'm baseball and every other sport has an expiration date. Golf's expiration date is much later. And I love that part of it.

And my goal, obviously, is to stay as. healthy as I can to play as long as I can because I want to start shooting my age. I think every golfer who is an avid golfer wants to start shooting their age in the sixties and then keep doing it. Understand, but you're not sixty yet, so I don't know if you're going to be shooting at fifty seven. I will not be doing that.

All right. So it's going to be from the 19th to the 21st in La Calina's Country Club and over in Irving, Texas.

So weather's going to be great. It's going to be dry and it's going to be fun for you. But, John, you've gotten three things where you've got the top of your game. As a pitcher, top of your game. As a golfer, as much as you can do after your playing days are done, you're near the top.

And now you, as someone your age, and now you look at it as an analyst, do you approach all three the same way? I do. My motto in life is: I'm not afraid to fail, I'm not afraid to laugh. I'm not afraid to make fun of myself. And I think when I learn the best and the most in every one of those areas, it's through failure.

I think we have this misconception in life that only the great Greatest gifts in athletics or CEOs, they've never really failed. And all of them will tell you the same thing. Through their failures, they gained success and they learned how to become better version of themselves. And that's the way I approach everything. I don't jump in.

With one foot, I jump in with both, and I kind of learn. And like I said, My dad taught me a long time ago. to not think too highly of yourself and give it your best and learn. And that's that kind of model I've had. And I've had a tremendous amount of failures that led to some pretty good successes.

When you were a stopper and when you had g great success, but there were times everybody, Rivera on down, you uh They blow a game. Is that the hardest? Walking off the mound, giving up the winning hit? Out of everything that you do, is that the one where most is on the line, where it's tough to shake off? Because Marion Rivera used to say, by the time he hit the dugout, he forgot about the game.

Yeah, I had to learn that because I had fourteen years of starting and there's no doubt Yeah, I'd rather uh if I had to choose, I'd rather lose a baseball game as a starter than blow a save for a starter. It's almost as if you walk in the clubhouse after the game with a booger on your nose and everyone's looking at you like, Are you kidding me? What did you do? And I I learned how to forget it. The greats learn how to forget it quicker.

I was probably a little bit late to the game on that. But you know what? I always considered it a fluke. And luckily, I don't think I ever blew two in a row, or if I did, I did it once or twice and tried to stay away from. from getting to that point where it start becoming a slump.

And fortunately, I did it for three years, three point five years. And I tell people all the time: you work eight, nine innings as a starter to get in position to. Get a win, and then somebody can come in, and within 20 minutes, sometimes two minutes. Blow that game.

So it's very, very humbling, and I learned a lot. And I didn't like uh below and a save, that's for sure. John Smoltz is with us.

So John, I got to ask you about a couple of things in baseball that stand out. There's two teams who have had perennial success, and it's Dodgers and the Tampa Rays for totally different reasons, with totally different budgets. What is it about the Rays that keeps them in contention and keeps their budget down? And why is it that the Dodgers are not the Yankees of the eighties who buy the best players and never gel? Why do the Dodgers gel and spend?

Well, the biggest thing is they that the spending part allows them to make more decisions. And maybe allows them to make a few more wrong decisions. It's not that they're going to make every right decision. And on the opposite side, the Rays cannot afford to make too many wrong decisions. And so, what they've done is they found a way to kind of rechurn some guys that they identify.

Fit their model, and they have a 162-game model analytically that works.

Now, the downside for the raise is that when the health goes bad and they've had their share of bad health. then they're at a much tougher place than the Dodgers when their health goes bad. At the end of the day, each team Tries to put themselves in the best position they can based on their financial model. And yes, the Rays just do it better than most. Everyone's trying to kind of, it's a copycat league.

They're trying to copy it. The Dodgers, on the other hand, now they're in a position where they've got to win multiple World Series based on their roster, and they know that. And that's the pressure they have going into this season and the next seven with Otani. Big thing about pitchers and staying healthy. And Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver used to talk about the era prior to yours.

And now, guys like you, basically your rotation and Oral Hirschheiser just used to play. I mean, you got hurt, but for the most part, all about endurance. What's the difference now? Why are pitchers having trouble? Oral Hirschheiser was asked that.

Listen, cut 48. I don't think you can pin it on one particular thing, like people want to say the pitch clock, the data and spin rates and velocities. And I think it could be a conglomeration of everything. When you ask people to sprint and their marathoners, that would be tough. There's adjustment here, and there's probably going to be adjustment in training.

As we go through this, it's going to be an adjustment in workloads. There hasn't been an adjustment in roster that would protect people. In the seventies and eighties, there were nine, ten, maybe eleven men pitching staffs, and now we're looking at thirteen. Maybe they need to look at the roster and shorten the pitching staff so that people have to go longer and then to go longer, then they have put less effort into every pitch. Your thoughts about his theory?

Yeah, he's right on a lot of them. If you said pick one, I would say the biggest thing is the reward system. It's a flawed reward system. It's what management wants these pitchers to do, and pitchers are chasing the reward system. I don't blame them at all.

Our reward system back in our day was you Coached. You got paid. You made 36 starts. You got paid. So we trained for the marathon.

To his point of the sprint, it's impossible. I've been saying it for 10 years. And people are coming up with ancillary reasons that don't mean anything. The pitch clock has no significance. Long term to these injuries, and you're asking pitchers to do something their physically body cannot do over time, and that's I call it redline pitching.

and your tachometer in your car, you have a red line. And I would challenge everybody who wants to see a good example, drive your car in the red line every single day to get to work and see how long your engine lasts. The manual will tell you it's going to last longer if you do X. We're running through stop signs. In baseball, with the bodies and the pitchers that they're asking them to go out every day and max spin, max velocity, and give it all that you have, and the next guy can come up.

So I blame the reward system until that changes. And Oral's right, until there's maybe rule changes down the road, but until management looks at it differently, we're going to have this over and over and over again. And I'm going to use your analyst too. The other story that we had that seems to be dying out, thankfully, for the game is Otani and his interpreter that was betting for him, Martin Estrada. They talked about this in Los Angeles, and so far, Otani, as this guy gets arraigned and gets charged, does not seem linked to it.

Cut 52. There is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Otani authorized the over sixteen million dollars of transfers. From his account to the bookmakers. In a text message with one of the bookmakers, which is detailed in the complaint which is available available to you, Mr.

Mitsuhara admitted to the bookmaker to stealing from mister Otani. Do you think it's case closed from the people you talk to? I think so. Here's what I always do. I judge from afar without knowing.

And everything that Otani has done has been class and character up until this point.

So To think that this would be capable of him doing something, I'm sure some people are going to go, Come on, how could that be? But based on the evidence that I've watched him and how he's dealt with life, This seems like a very unfortunate and bad Not only timing, but bad situation that you've learned. He probably has learned a very incredibly bad lesson. of being Really, like I see, a very character-driven guy, one that you want your child to grow up and be.

So, very unfortunate, but I can understand how some people might feel that the stain is going to be partly due to him not having control over that part. You got to understand, this is not only a tough situation to come over to America. and play in the M Major League Baseball. But oh, by the way, you're the best player in the universe and maybe ever. And so a lot's going on and t a lot of noise is taking place every single day.

So you can you can see how something like this, even though it's a huge amount, Could be part of the DNA of trying to navigate life as the greatest baseball player in the majors. Will he pitch this year? He cannot. He's recovering from his second Tommy John surgery. There's a lot of hope in this contract.

I would think if you're a Dodger fan and Dodger organization, that he will resume. to playing both. My contention is, I hope he does, but he's when you when you've had two Tommy John surgeries and you don't make major altercations or alterations to your You can't come back and throw 194 mile-an-hour slider.

So I hope he makes those adjustments. I root for them. I think baseball. Deserves to see a player, a freakish player like this, do what he's always wanted to do. And I hope that he comes back, but he will not pitch this year.

It looks like next year he'll be able to pitch.

So, John, I imagine just to the person you are, you're not going to predict victory, but would you say that it's feasible, it's plausible, it's possible? Are you ready to win this tournament this year? I am. We've talked before. I got two brand new hips.

Walking this golf tournament is going to be a breeze. That has not been the case in the past. Tony Romo, it's his backyard. He's great. He's probably one of the favorites, along with Marty Fish and Mark Boulder.

So My work's cut out for me, but I'm excited. And if exciting is something that leads to a win, then I've got half of it that downpat. It's going to be on the golf channel, third annual invited celebrity classic, John Smaltz, to reach the top of three different professions. Pretty amazing. And the best could be yet to come in two of them.

John, thanks so much. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. You got it. 1-866-408-7669.

Algabil squeezing some calls. Was good enough to talk about trials in politics, right? Back to it in a moment. Want even more, Brian? Download the podcast at BrianKillMeadShow.com.

Every episode, exclusive interviews on demand. More of Kill Mead coming up. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. I understand that.

If I might.

So, what does that mean for the breadth of this statue? Um would a sit-in that disrupts a trial. or access to a federal courthouse qualify. Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm.

Uh um before a vote. qualify. for twenty years in federal prison.

So that was a Supreme Court Justice Gorsak questioning whether you really can file obstruction to anybody charged on January 6th because you stopped a government proceeding.

Okay, that's why you're putting people in jail. All right. But what qualifies for it? At what point when these people show up with the fake blood on their hands and start screaming and things have to stop, or there's people calling a bomb scare, or some crazy New York congressman pulls a fire alarm stopping a spending vote? Remember?

What constitutes it?

Now, I'm not minimizing January 6th, but they did vote on the Electoral College and certify the election anyway.

So what Trump did directly was zero. What he did is give a speech, and people say incited people to come. But if you listen to the words, he's got a strong case. Bottom line, it's a case. But if you throw out the obstruction, half of the January 6th case on Donald Trump is out, and most of the people in prison are out.

And there are thousands in prison for this. There are so many criminals out and about with zero cash bail, as bad as that day was. You can't tell me this is not an inordinate focus on these people who clearly are not Biden supporters. Does that have anything to do with the zest and the zeal in which they're being rounded up?

Now, I'm not somebody who thinks they should be singing the national anthem before a Donald Trump event. That's not me. I'm not one who thinks it was it was no big deal. It was. But if you continue to do what George Stephanopoulos does and all these other hosts do, bring up January 6th every day, people look around and say that's not my problem.

That is a a problem. But that is not the issue I'm voting on, and people can't get over it. And now when you say, okay, these people that attacked the attack cops and attacked the Capitol and defiled things and went into Mancy Posse's office and tore things up, That's different from people that walk through. And you overdid it. You overcharged.

There's innocent people that you're tracking down in Alaska that maybe have been there that day that are wrongly charged and now have to get lawyers and ruin their lives.

So that is boomerang on them, and you saw it on Sunday with Governor Sununu. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest-growing radio talk show. Brian. In Kill Mead.

So glad you're here. Thanks so much for listening. Brian Kilmicho, coming your way this hour, can join by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy about the chaos that's happening on Capitol Hill. Instead of saying, I disagree with the Speaker, I'll vote differently, they're looking to throw him out and fire him. It's unbelievable.

And you know who I'm talking about. And you know that's going to be, it probably is going to happen, but we're an embarrassment. And it's all about these standalone spending issues that they want to issue by the end of the week to let you vote on Taiwan, vote the way you want. No pressure campaign on Ukraine, on Israel, on Indochina. You vote the way you want.

And without any pressure, they say, if you even propose that without border security, we're going to try to remove you. After the last circus that you guys put together? Unthinking circus, having enough trouble raising money.

Now you want to convince what's left of the American people that you don't deserve to be in the majority. And Jonathan Charlie standing by.

So let's get to the big three.

Now with the stories you need to know, it's Brian's big three. Number three. Most of us see a very heavy slant in NPR, but the issue is really should we have a state-funded media at all? And I think that's a debate that we haven't had really substantively in a very long time. We're going to talk about this.

The story just moved. The NPR whistleblower has just resigned. And I'm talking about Yuri Berliner. He said, that's it, I'm done. And his statement is this: I cannot work in a newsroom where I'm disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my free press essay.

Wow, next. Number two. He looks at the economy from Mar-a-Lago. Where he and his rich friends embrace the failed trickle-down policies that have failed working families for more than 40 years. Right.

Stand value. Car-a-lago value. Right, exactly. Let's vilify the people that you're asking to pay all these taxes with. That's bidnomics.

It didn't work last summer, so let's try it this spring. Number one. There was one potential juror who had posted on his Facebook page that he was grateful that the court had quote unquote ruled against Trump's unlawful travel ban in 2017. But I was even surprised that the judge was willing to let that first part go where he was celebrating a Trump loss. That is Kerry Kupek Urban, the Trump trial, case one, day three.

Jury selection facing kind of on a fast pace. Seven chosen, five to go, six alternates. We are going to look at the profiles of the five, the contempt charges that Trump's going to be facing on Tuesday, and take the pulse of the people. But I'd rather take the pulse of Jonathan Churley. First off, Jonathan, welcome back.

Thank you. I know you've commented on the NPR editor, who's not a Trump supporter, but was really upset. If people need to remember, he did an interview with Barry Weiss and did an editorial on the free press where he said, I'm disturbed by the lack of diversity of thought at NPR, that they never owned up to the fact that the Russian investigation was a total hoax, never owned up to the fact that the laptop was real, was told that it doesn't matter, it hurts Trump, was told just to be an activist for liberal causes. And he was so concerned he did what I just said, and then he got suspended five days. Instead of taking the five, he decided 25 years is enough and he resigned.

Your thoughts? Well, it's a pattern that many of us are very familiar with in higher education. Many faculties, particularly law schools, Have purged their ranks of any conservative, libertarian, or even dissenting. views among faculty. Most faculties now have only a few, maybe three or four people who don't identify as democratic or liberal.

And the way that this is done is they make life impossible for you. They just, it's a grinding experience. You are isolated and you are shunned. And that's what happens to this editor. It's ironic and tragic, right?

He comes forth and says, Look, we need to be more tolerant of opposing viewpoints. And so they get rid of him. You know, they suspend him, they make it clear that he's not welcome. There were people going into vapors at NPR. And then you have the CEO.

who is pretty darn far left. And many of us criticized her hiring because when they were looking for CEO, some of us wrote columns and said, look, here's your chance. You could tack to the middle. Pick a just a traditional journalist, someone who wants to just go straight down the middle on news, even if there's a slight left lean as in the past, to return to where NPR was. And instead, they picked this person who was known for having these outrageous social media postings.

And she, of course, attacked the whistleblower and just said, go pound sand. We're not going to change a thing.

So he ended his column by saying he has hope for Catherine Maher, who doesn't have much of experience in this. Maybe she'll approach it with a fresh point of view. Instead, they look back at her past social media posts where she called Trump a racist, another that appeared to minimize rioting during the social justice protests. Maher also took the job at NPR last month and immediately took action against the person that spoke up to make the place better while saying, I never voted for Donald Trump, but to wake up and go to editorial meetings and saying, seeing the plotting and planning against Trump, he was against that. That reminds me a little like Bill Maher.

I am a liberal. I don't like Trump. But what you guys are doing, I can't recognize as democratic causes, let alone journalists who are not supposed to have it, unless you're an editorial person. No, I've talked to people at NPR. I used to work very closely with NPR, and they just say it's a completely different place.

They say you have a lot of these young journalists coming out of J school, And they do things that a lot of veterans never thought they'd see, you know, just basically telling editors, I'm not going to do that story, or I don't like the thrust of that story. It's going to reaffirm stereotypes and just refusing to do it and really ridiculing their editors. It's like the French Revolution. I mean, it just is not a way that you can run a news organization. But the question that I've been raising, and I've been raising this for a long time, is Put aside the bias of NPR, NPR's perspective is virtually the same as MSNBC or CNN.

And it has a right to do that. What it doesn't have a right to is federal subsidy. Those other organizations are not. subsidized. And it has never made sense That we would allow the government to pick one media outlet and fund that outlet.

And it's not good for a democratic system. It's not good to have the government funding media. We talk about a separation of church and state. But there's also a value of a separation of government and media. And yet when that is raised, The hair catches on fire of every liberal because this is their outlet.

They wouldn't feel that way if this subsidy was going to Fox Radio, right? But this is their outlet. And what's amazing is the demographics here is that NPR is virtually entirely white. It has a it's actually less diverse than the audience at Fox News. It also identifies that about 70% Liberal.

And yet they expect the entire country to pay for this news outlet. It's crazy. I mean, I could walk through Fox News. I think we should be funding Ukraine. Probably every other person agrees with me, and then the other person doesn't agree with me.

When we talk about what's happening with Israel aid or talk about different stances, nobody asks people to get in line. I think it makes the shows better, especially the five. But you know what's so interesting is I got hope. When your Berliner says, I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I don't like what's going on. When Bill Maher says, I'm not going to vote for Trump, I don't like what's going on.

When The Rock says, I never should have taken a stance, I want to be a Uniter. And then when. Katie Couric comes out and exposes herself like George Stephanopoulos did on Sunday with Governor Sununu. Sununu, who's anti-Trump, not anti-Trump, excuse me. He was pro-Nikki Haley, but pro-Republican.

He goes, I'm going to support Trump. And he would not stop haranguing him because he said that he should never have given that speech on January 6th. Then Katie Couric says this: cut 36.

Socioeconomic. Disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot what and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these. these anti-establishment Which are Trump voters, I think. Yeah, Trump voters. Thank you.

So we're dumb, we're stupid, we're jealous. If you are a Trump supporter, how do you feel today? No Ph D's out there, right? Just angry, toothless people whose life has taken a bad turn and they're using Trump to y b be their voice. No, I love the Katie Kirk interview because you almost feel like she'd be in an English club in the 1800s harumping in the back.

House of Lords. It was so over the top. And it shows by, I think it really shows the problem here. I did an event at the National Press Club a couple, a few years ago. And it did not go well, because I asked all these people in the audience, does it ever occur to you that, yeah, you hate the Trump voters, but you also have no clue who they are, right?

Every time I read any of your reporting, it's clear you have never spoken to a true Trump supporter. You've never gone in these areas. You constantly treat them as one monolithic stereotype. And that really comes out in Katie Couric. She basically is these knuckle-dragging anti-intellectual hayseeds.

Well, there were tens of millions of them. They were not just in the rural areas or in a demographic band. They were the the UP he has a rising number of Hispanic voters. He has a a lot of others. And I'm not making the case for Trump.

I'm just saying that it it really evidences the fact that not only is the media not Know who the Trump supporters are. They have no interest in finding out. I know. I don't know. It's crazy.

I want to talk about the court case. First off, I think it's fast. I was shocked. No jurors one day. The next day we got seven.

Your thoughts about what we know about their profiles and the speed in which they were named. I was surprised by the speed as well. I have to tell you that I'm a little uncomfortable that there's two attorneys on the panel. I've always taken the view that attorneys should not serve on juries. I think it's a mistake.

And when I when I back in Illinois, there was a rule that you couldn't even sit on a jury if you had more than a year of law school. And I think that's a good idea because no matter what you tell those jurors, They will look to the attorneys as having some special insight. Right.

And the dominance there can be really great. And so they've got two of them here. On the panel. It's hard to make out, obviously. The Defense Council is doing their best to try to find bias.

But look, this is a place where Trump got about twelve percent of the vote. It's pretty rare if you're going to find someone who doesn't have a strong opinion about Trump. And what you're looking for is the Trojan juror, someone who is hiding inside overwhelming bias. And unfortunately, some of those people are also the ones willing to lie on the stand because they are so biased that they just can't get themselves to disqualify from a panel to judge Trump.

So, I mean, one, I mean, they know exactly how to play it, too. This juror number seven, an attorney. White man Which we know how terrible that is, gets news from the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Post, and The Washington Post.

So he knows exactly how to answer it. I mean, if one person got in and said they read the Daily News and The Breakfast Club, and I like Charlemagne the God, but that's not the second coming of the Rush Limbaugh show.

So this is a younger black woman, Harlem native, gets news from Google, TikTok, talk radio, and the breakfast club.

So I'm not, you know, I saw the president was greeted pretty well at Harlem yesterday, but also a woman that worked for Walt Disney. Walt Disney and their woke workers really kicked out a CEO. And now they're at war with the most conservative governor in the country in Florida. I don't know if they feel great about that. Do they use all their vetoes?

Well, that's the problem, is you have 10 strikes.

Now, you can strike people for bias. But that requires the cooperation of the court. And the court has clearly indicated that he does not view opposition to Trump as disqualifying, even if the person comes out and says that they celebrated his defeat or something like that. And once you're past that Rubicon, it's very hard to filter them out. The problem though is that you've got to stick the landing here because we had two Trump related cases involving former associates That involved jurors who lied during Vois Dir, lied about their political involvement in the past.

And many of us felt that those cases should have been overturned. You're entitled to an unbiased jury. In both cases, the DC judges just said, meh.

So No harm, no foul. Jonathan Turley, our guest. Lastly, Jonathan, just judging by the questions, you're the expert. Actually, I got to qualify this too. I did not know lawyers could serve on a jury.

I just assumed they couldn't. That was my mistake. But number two is: I'm listening to Gores and listening to the questions, seeing how they're being characterized. It seems as though they're not comfortable with the January 6th obstruction element of that case, where the hundreds of people are in jail because of it or about to get indicted because of it. And Donald Trump was indicted, and that's part of it.

Where do you think obstruction's going?

Well, it seemed to me that they did if if it went the way of the oral argument the government was going to lose. The government was really on the ropes here. And first of all, the Chief Justice Roberts, who's one of the people that I think they were trying to get, delivered a haymaker right out of the gate and told the Solicitor General, We not only said that you're supposed to be reading these provisions narrowly, We said it last Friday. We just had an opinion last Friday that said that we don't want this broad reading. It was really a great moment.

But then Gorsuch just really laid out the government. And started bringing up examples saying, well, all right, so if someone interrupts the State of the Union or pulls a fire alarm, Is that also now punishable by twenty years? And the Solicitor General sort of floundered and said, well, we probably wouldn't bring those cases. And the justices really jumped on it and said, Well, you're you first of all you say you have a plain meaning interpretation, but now you're saying it's all context and we should trust you. It was a regionally rough going for the government.

What does that mean for the Trump case, Jonathan, if they toss it?

Well, he can still go forward. The special counsel can go forward on two counts, but it does undermine his narrative because these obstruction counts really sort of brought home this idea that he was engaging in his speech and other activities, this conspiracy to obstruct. Without those counts, it just becomes a little less You know, sort of concrete and framed for the special counsel. And of course, Trump hopes that never sees the light of day. Jonathan Churley, always great.

Thanks so much. This was our day off, and it was quite busy from the courts. Early. Thanks, Brian. Thank you so much.

Kev McCarthy, bottom of the arrow. Your call is next. And we do have that breaking news. The NPR editor who was suspended has just resigned. Don't move.

You're with Brian Kilmead. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. Hey, welcome back, everybody. Kevin McCarthy in a matter of moments, but just as Yuri Bova Berliner, he's the editor, business editor with the NPR.

He has just resigned. And he's just resigned saying essentially After this After what we've seen.

Well, after I suffer the new CEO, suspending me for five days and really ridiculing his assessment of NPR. He's decided not the place I want to work after 25 years. That's a loss because this guy would have straightened it out and he wouldn't have made it a pro-Trump place. He says, You want diversity of ethnicities, of sexuality, and all these things, telling journalists to go out. If you like a cause that's going to make the country better, go out and advocate for it, really, and go demonstrate for it.

The Palestinians, pick one side, Hamas, whatever you want. And he says, I'm alarmed by that. And they get rid of him, kind of. They fired him. They suspended him, kind of hoping he'd get fired.

So I could tell you this. A congressman has sent me this from the Speaker's office. After significant member feedback, the Speaker says he's ready to put three of the four bills on the floor that talk about funding Ukraine, funding Taiwan. Ukraine is going to have loans and pay-fors and accountability in it. They're going to have the Repo Act.

They're also going to have a Taiwan funding. It's going to be out there quickly. The Rules Committee will also be posting text on the border security bill that includes the core components of H.R. 2.

So it's all going to be out there.

So stop trying to get rid of the speaker. and deal with it. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. Speaker Johnson is in serious trouble right now, especially with Massey coming out today and saying that he would support a motion to vacate.

Keep in mind that all it would take right now is one more Republican to vote with all of the Democrats to oust Johnson from the speakership. And come Friday, when Mike Gallagher leaves, that's going to be down to just two Republicans needed to vote with Democrats. And the question here is whether Democrats end up cutting a deal and give Johnson credit for bringing Ukraine to the floor and whether they end up saving him and avoiding this. And that was Steph Knight from Axios talking about the Speaker Johnson.

So Speaker Johnson is forging his way through, and he's going to put those standalone bills together. The one thing to bring up, and a congressman has just sent me this, and it went out to members And what he did do is added something to the Rules Committee. We're going to see these bills right now. He was going to add something from the border. He says the rules committee will also be posting text on a border security bill that includes the core components of H.R.

2, which is a House bill that went right through the House on a pure partisan way under a separate rule that will allow for amendments. Text of the first three bills will be posted shortly, while the fourth bill under the same rule will be posted later on today. The border security bill will also be posted later today. The goal of all this, get it passed by Friday. Guys, you've got to do your job.

So get heated, get into it, show me the smarter people in the room, men and women, and work it out. Get in the same room, work it out. A lot of these things, Democrats could agree on. They agree on Israel aid. I think they agree on Ukraine aid.

The Republicans be splintering off that. It's a terrible, by the way, for any people out there against Ukraine aid, you don't want to spend money, you want to talk about the border. It's two separate things: there's a foreign policy budget, a defense budget, and there's the Department of Homeland Security budget. Yeah, you could push one over. But for the most part, you don't have to bring him up in the same conversation.

Khodikorsky is the billionaire that was jailed by Vladimir Putin because he dared to think about running against him. He's now in exile after spending ten years in jail roughly and living in England. And he just ended this story, just this editorial, by saying this. The West and the U.S. think that, well, if Ukraine falls, it's not their loss.

They didn't fight there. He says that's exactly the wrong opinion. This is part of a Russian plan to show that the U.S. is not in charge, and you can stand up to it, and they will give in. This will look like a U.S.

loss. And the way we're going to know, and you might say, well, who cares? I don't know any Ukrainians. That's how I feel. And you'll say, who cares?

Well, who cares? Are you going to care? Belarus is already basically a vassal of Russia. You saw what happened in Georgia, the guy getting punched in the face, he's a Russian surrogate, the lawmaker looking to push Russian rules into Georgia. They've already taken two provinces and haven't left.

And you don't think that all the Baltic states feel the same exact way? While they're trying to get influence with China around the rest of the world, we're letting North Korea run wild. Joining me right now is Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Mr. Speaker, welcome back.

Thank you, Brian. Thanks for having me on.

So I just got this from one of the members. You probably know this already. After significant member feedback and discussion, the House Rules Committee will be posting soon the first of three bills that will fund America's national security interests, allies in Israel, Indo-Pacific and Ukraine, including a loan structure for aid in Ukraine and enhanced strategy and accountability. And they're also going to put in The Rules Committee text for a form of HR2, core components of HR2 under a separate rule that will allow for amendments. It is Tuesday, excuse me, it's Wednesday.

What do you think about what I just told you and the possibility of getting this thing voted on and through rules?

Well, I think it can get through rules. And remember, just for your listeners, all what rules does. Is allow the bill to come to the floor. There's two ways bills come to the floor: under a rule. or on suspension.

If it comes through suspension, there's no reason to have a rule, but it has a higher threshold to pass, which is a two thirds, and you can't have any amendments. When it goes through rules, the threshold is two point eighteen, okay?

So you're thinking you've got a lower threshold, but rules also say what type of amendments. They usually approve. What amendments you could have on the floor.

So it sounds as though. Members are wanting to have changes.

Now, H.R. 2 for your listeners was the bill I passed that secured the border, that is sitting over on the Senate.

Now Miss Diffie's This is good in nature, because the border is a major problem.

Well if you really wanted to secure the border, And we need to deal with the foreign policy. The way we had it set up in October is your greatest strength is your majority. You should, as Speaker, go negotiate that with the President. And let me explain why that's stronger than trying to get some amendment on the floor. When you did the debt ceiling, And I had to negotiate directly with the president.

I didn't bring Schumer in the room or Hakeem because then they become equal to the power of the speaker. And they won't agree to anything. But when we did the debt ceiling, I had greater leverage, so the President had to agree to two trillion in cuts. He had to give up twenty billion of the IRS money. He had to give us welfare reform, which Schumer and Hakeem said they'd never vote for.

They had to give us NEPA reform, which the Democrats said they'd never go. But once the President agrees to it, then they have to vote for it.

Now if you're going this route and you think you're going to get 218 on the floor to vote f for some amendment. It's much harder. The greater strength is don't bring those other leaders in. Use the power of the majority. Go right into the president.

This should have been done months ago, and said, look. Israel should have been funded the day after october seventh, or no pay for it. And and because you you sent a wrong message to Iran by delaying that.

Now with Ukraine, your listeners need to understand the majority of that money is going to build weapons for America that we already provided to Ukraine.

So we don't want to deplete our stockpile.

Okay. But in there, they've also put a new provision, which President Trump, I think he was right, he made it a loan to Ukraine, right? And so you could for the President can forgive it. There's two different kinds of wind. But then you have that option.

Okay. But If you want something on the border, which we desperately need, you have that leverage and you could have got stay in stay in Mexico. You could have got the the the um Wall finished because you'd have more than enough votes.

Now, if you're just waiting for an amendment, it's very difficult. They got to wait 72 hours. You now got politics in play with it. Sitting down in the room and putting the package down is a much stronger position.

So you're not optimistic. You don't think that they have a wink and a nod that they're not going to offer a whole ton of amendments that are there to cripple the bill?

Well, they will offer tons of amendments to cripple the bill. People will play games now. And this is two situations. What? I had eight Republicans play with all the Democrats to give us the chaos of what's happening there now.

That's true. I mean, think about that. Members do things for their own ulterior motives. One raised a lot of money because he was online telling them something else. But we're dealing with a world that looks like the nineteen thirties.

This is not the situation of how you should deal with it. He People on both sides of the aisle understand you want to protect America, right? The border is the number one issue. I was just I spoke at Georgetown and Harvard because I look at it like this. There are conservatives there, and I don't want them to back away, and I want to stand up to people.

And when when I got a question at Harvard, I said, You know how many Republicans are elected to Congress from Massachusetts? Zero. But do you know your governor gave a state of emergency on what issue? the border. Do you know how far you are from the southern border?

But it's the number one issue in Massachusetts.

So this is an issue that's so big, you should be able to win it. And why wouldn't you have leveraged Uh Schumer to pass HR two. HR two is not even getting brought up on the Senate, and it was passed almost a year ago.

Well, okay, so you you don't like the fact that they're bringing up a a bill that's not going to touch the Senate. Because HR two is great as it is, from the public's point of view, you're saying don't bring that up as a standalone because it's not going to go anywhere in the Senate?

Well, you could bring up a stand-alone, but it sounds like it's just going to be political fodder and not get there. I would have taken and gone to the White House and said, I have HR two here, you have your bill that you want for Ukraine.

Now. Let's sit down and see where we find common ground, and let's do both of these, but let's do it in the nature that it secures both. That's the greater strength that you have as the majority speaker.

Now you're deciding, you're telling me on Wednesday they're going to throw this on Saturday.

So how much strategy do you have behind it? And how many members do you have behind it? And you got to get two hundred eighteen when come Friday, Gallagher is gone and you have two hundred seventeen Republicans. I know you're asking me a lot of questions, but you know the answers to them, and our listeners don't. Our listeners don't, and I'm not sure of the answers.

So tell me right now from what I just told you, and I'm just probably telling you this for the first time. What do you think the future of these standalone bills are?

Well, I think it all determines do these standalone bills, and I'm good with standalone bills, that's fabulous. But do all the standalone bills come back together and become one bill when they go to the Senate? I don't you're just reading this to me, so I don't know the answer to that question. That would change the outcome because some people. We'll put stand alone bills up there that don't merge together for political fodder.

I got you to vote for vote for this, but I know this is going nowhere, and they're getting this. I don't want the Democrats Tomorrow I don't want to deliver just for the Democrats and not deliver for America.

So can you explain this to me?

So if I give you if four standalone bills do a miracle, they all pass the House, the Senate looks at them and they're not going to vote them as they are, they're going to lace him up or they're going to weed him out and they're going to go, I'll do everything except Ukraine or I'll do everything except Indochina or everything except border? The rule in the House will stipulate whether the bills come up all individually, but after whichever bills pass, go into one bill to the Senate. That's one option, or the rule will say all these four individual bills, all four will go to the Senate, and then they'll pick which ones they take up. I don't know the answer to that question, having not seen what they said. That that would determine a lot to how you go about doing it.

So I I w I was just talking about this. Right before you came on. you and I see the wisdom in Ukraine aid. It's not one of these things where America's interventionism. I think it's absolutely necessary.

I know you gave one of the best foreign policy comprehensive looks at where we're at right now the day you left.

So the day you left a speaker. But I'm just going to, there's a story today. They got a document from Russia that shows exactly what Russia's up to. And everything they're doing from March of 2023, they're implemented now, including getting China closer to them, by fomenting more unrest with Taiwan, by pulling out the monitors of North Korea and bringing them closer to them, getting their artillery and creating Central and South America havoc in our own backyard to try to prove that America is no longer the leader in the world. And he ends with this.

The long congressional standoff on providing weapons for Ukraine was only making it easier for Russia to challenge Washington's global power. The Americans consider that, insofar as they are not directly participating in the war, then any loss is not theirs. Kordakovsky, who was the billionaire who got jailed because he got too threatening to Putin, now out in exile, said that is an absolute misunderstanding. A defeat for Ukraine means that many will stop fearing challenging the U.S., and the cost for the United States will only increase. Do you agree with his assessment?

If you look at history, and remember, history only repeats itself if you ignore it. If we were sitting in the thirties. That would be exact same thing you'd be reading about Germany, Italy and Japan as they started entering other countries. Think for one moment. When Iran made the decision To send missiles for the first time in history, from Iran directly into Israel.

The world has now changed. They believe they could. But would they have done it if they hadn't created a relationship with Russia and China? And what did China say? China didn't criticize them.

China is now getting an advantage of all this because they are able to buy Russian and Iranian oil at a discount. And it all stems back to the leadership of Biden. Iran was only producing 4,000 barrels a day when he entered. They're now producing 300,000. That's billions of dollars a day.

And China's comments coming out, they didn't criticize October 7th. China's comments coming out, too, after the missiles coming in, is. Israel shouldn't fire back. And now the technology that they have been sharing with the drones and others and the swarming. They're being able to grow and get synergy between the two.

If we think being isolationist keeps us safe, We had we had forgotten what happened on nine-eleven. If we think we take ourselves off the playing field, the world becomes safer, we have forgotten what happened when Neville Chamberlain went in for appeasement with Hitler. What we are doing right now, supplying weapons to Ukraine, not one American is dying. What's happening is Ukraine is defending their own nation from an attack. And if Putin falls, you know what happens?

More freedom and safety. That means Taiwan is safer longer. That means Iran thinks second thoughts. Go back to when President Trump Took out. Um The Iranian jet.

Peter. I was with him that night at Mar-Lago having dinner. I was with him when we went up to the skiff and identified what transpired and came back down. I know what world leaders called. Everybody else was scared.

The world became safer. And you know what? Iran didn't send missiles into Israel that day or anything else, because they knew the strength of America and the world was safer. When they see weakness after Afghanistan, we have pushed our allies closer to China. And we've watched the atrocities of October 7th, but those new axis of evils don't Say anything negative to it because any of them could do anything they want now.

But I just think that Trump needs to read the lead story in the Washington Post today about what Russia's goals are. And I don't think he necessarily agrees with you. I think he's more for the loan. But I don't necessarily, you know, he's up for debate, I guess, but I don't necessarily bleam with you and General Keene and Lindsey Graham on this.

So I think that's the conversation you guys should have. But because I know he respects your opinion.

So we'll find out in these next few days. These perilous times for the Republican Congress. Kevin McCarthy, thanks so much. Thank you, my friend. Man, that was packed.

Back in a moment. Diving deep into today's top stories, it's Brian Kilmead. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. But this time.

Senators will provide as jurors in the least legitimate Least substantive and most politicized impeachment trial ever in the history of the United States. The charges brought against Secretary Mayorkas. failed to meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanours. To validate this gross abuse by the House, would be a grave mistake. and could set a dangerous precedent for the future.

So, I guess Senator Schumer is not going to have the trial, which breaks precedent. They walked over impeachment articles on the Homeland Security Secretary, and I agree with you, it's rare. But if you go ahead and read those articles of impeachment, there's a lot of facts in there that just go to the highest standard. Number one, because you let down the border, because you reversed all these policies, people have died, communities have been destroyed, cops have been killed, border patrol have been killed, fentanyl has run rampant, you have secretly landed these planes from other countries into small airports around the country without ever informing the governors and mayors. This is what he has done on his watch.

Well, never taking responsibility for it, and flat out lying to Congress about it. That's what led to this. And you might be saying he is doing the president's work, yeah, to a degree. But do you think this president's involved in the nitty-gritty of border security laws, rules, and regulations? He doesn't even know what's going on.

The guy had to be forced to go to the border for the first time in 40 years. He's been there twice. He looks so uncomfortable. He does not even understand immigration. This is Maorkis.

And the thing that got me on Mayorkis was when Tom Holman told me he worked for him and he knows exactly what works and what doesn't. And he's choosing to do what he's doing.

So, coming up April 27th, just in a couple of weeks now, I'm going to be in Henderson, Nevada, at the History Liberty and Laughs Tour. I want to see you be on stage and giving you, I think, a great informative show. Patriotic, motivational, inspirational. Go to BrianKillmee.com. VIP tickets remain.

This way, I can talk to you before the whole show starts. Keep it here. Don't move. Put the power of over 100 meteorologists and the worldwide resources of Fox in your hands with the Fox Weather Podcast. Precise, personal, powerful.

Subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Listen to the show at-free on Fox News Podcast Plus, on Apple Podcast, Amazon Music with your Prime Membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Mm.