reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Megyn Kelly and her panel discuss new reporting on intelligence leaks aimed at undermining President Trump, focusing on declassified material that points to James Comey leaking through a Columbia University professor friend and shaping narratives about Russia and Trump. The guests explain that FBI inspector general findings show Comey and two aides discussed leaks to the New York Times, with Richmond, a Columbia law professor placed on the payroll, given access to top secret information to burnish Comey’s image and set future narratives. The reporter involved, Michael Schmidt of the Times, later won Pulitzers for Russia Gate coverage. The panel notes that the FBI traced six code-named leak investigations and, in every case, the Justice Department declined prosecution, they point out a double standard that appears to treat Democrats more leniently, while Donald Trump faced a raid and indictment over classified material at Mar-a-Lago. Solomon walks through an episode where Richmond met Comey, used the special government employee arrangement to bypass the FBI press office, and told investigators he didn’t “leak” with a discount denial. The discussion includes the implication that Comey’s team and the Obama Justice Department may have interfered in investigations into Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and that this would be part of a larger pattern of political interference. The hosts turn to broader media dynamics, noting how outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post have handled Russia Gate coverage, including interviews with reporters and critics, and the way some correspondents are portrayed as sympathetic to official narratives. They reference CrowdStrike’s assessment of the DNC hack and underscore the distinction between intrusion into systems and evidence of exfiltration, arguing that some coverage overstated conclusions. The conversation touches on Tulsi Gabbard’s declassification efforts and the response from Daniel Richmond’s circle, including a note about Ellen Nakashiska’s reporting. In a separate segment, Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cook discuss the politics of California. Steve Hilton, a candidate for governor, describes a top-two primary dynamic that currently pairs him with Katie Porter. Hilton criticizes Gavin Newsom’s redistricting efforts and argues that California’s one-party rule has produced high costs, ineffective homelessness policies, and a climate policy regime that has driven up housing and energy costs. He describes his plan to reverse this trajectory, addressing education, safety, immigration, and the state’s regulatory environment, and argues that federal policy alone cannot fix California. The program then shifts to cultural commentary, including a lengthy discussion of Monica Lewinsky’s reflections on immigration and of John Oliver’s satirical framing, followed by Christine Baranski weighing in on billionaire space travel and publicity. The conversation closes with reflections on the national mood around crime, policing, border control, and the role of the media in reporting controversial topics, along with a brisk nod to the ongoing coverage of Tulsi Gabbard’s disclosures and Steve Hilton’s campaign in California. That’s the show’s update.

Tucker Carlson and Chris Moritz discuss the decline of California, highlighting the state's transformation from a prosperous region to one plagued by crime and dysfunction. Moritz attributes this decline to several factors, including the influence of criminal justice reform movements and specific legislative changes, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Plata, which mandated prison population reductions. This led to laws like AB 109, which transferred nonviolent offenders to county jails, ultimately resulting in increased crime rates and recidivism. Moritz points to the rise of juvenile crime, with gangs recruiting children as young as ten for violent crimes, and discusses the impact of Proposition 47, which reclassified thefts under $950 as misdemeanors and decriminalized drug possession. He argues that these laws, supported by figures like Kamala Harris, have contributed to a culture of impunity for criminals and have eroded public safety. The conversation also touches on the role of the Mexican drug cartels in California's criminal landscape, with Moritz asserting that they exert significant influence over the state's criminal economy. He describes how the cartels have taken control of drug distribution and violence, leading to a situation where local gangs are forced to adapt to survive. Moritz expresses concern over the political landscape, noting that California has become a one-party state characterized by corruption and inefficiency. He criticizes the lack of accountability for politicians who enact harmful policies and suggests that the current system is unsustainable. The discussion concludes with Moritz emphasizing the need for a return to effective governance and the importance of civic responsibility in preserving civilization.

Trump’s Israel visit sets the stage for a landmark moment as he delivers a peace-focused speech anchored to the Abraham Accords, while Adam Carolla and Patrick Bet-David dissect the scene. The panel notes the spectacle of diplomacy as Netanyahu hails Trump as Israel’s greatest American ally and points to the release of twenty hostages, all men, as a turning point in the region. They also touch on the Nobel Peace Prize chatter, noting how Putin’s praise for Trump’s role in peace efforts feeds into a broader critique of the prize’s credibility. Adam frames Trump as a dealmaker who moves with urgency and concrete results, contrasting him with career politicians who favor process over rapid action. Turning to the Gaza deal mechanics, the group describes how Arab mediators— Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey—pressured Hamas leadership, including a representative in Iran, to back the plan. The proposal promises civilian protections and humanitarian channels, tying Hamas governance discussions to Kushner’s influence. Trump is depicted as signaling support to potential funders of future deals, while Netanyahu lauds the international coalition behind returning hostages and reshaping regional security. The conversation emphasizes that this moment represents a break from conventional diplomacy, driven by Trump’s unconventional speed and approach rather than bureaucratic caution. Back home, the panel pivots to California politics and the broader political landscape. Katie Porter is celebrated for her combative style by supporters, while Gavin Newsom’s administration is criticized for perceived inertia on homelessness, coastal rebuilding, and regulatory hurdles. The Malibu fires are described alongside the Coastal Commission’s resistance to expedited rebuilding, including the engineering challenges of rebuilding coastal homes on seabed foundations and the potential demand from international buyers to mold the market. They discuss the trend of Californians relocating to Florida and Texas amid high taxes and regulation, and the question of whether California can be restored. The segment concludes with the China tariff clash, Trump’s 100% tariff threat, and Beijing’s countermeasures, highlighting a global reset in supply chains and tech competition.

The episode argues that weaknesses in California’s election system—such as minimal proof requirements, early ballot processing, and the way voter rolls are maintained—undermine public confidence. It discusses a failed effort to change voting rules, the Senate’s supermajority hurdle, and how procedural decisions can block even widely supported reforms. The discussion then shifts to political candidate controversies and describes a strategy to prioritize regaining Senate power despite personal and ethical concerns. The hosts call for returning to policy debates and avoiding ad hominem attacks. Finally, the summary highlights international health and technology updates, including progress against cervical cancer and certain virus transmissions.

Steve Hilton discusses California’s political system and argues that the state is shaped less by elected leadership than by powerful organized interests and government-driven processes. He describes becoming involved in California policy after a career in business and government in the UK, then focusing on housing as a primary driver of people leaving the state. He links high housing costs to development barriers, including impact fees and the effects of a long-standing environmental review framework that he says enables frequent lawsuits. Hilton recounts work to qualify a ballot initiative targeting these costs and describes meeting legislators who acknowledge the proposal’s value privately but indicate public support would be blocked due to organized labor’s influence. Hilton argues that government and non-government labor groups contribute to budget growth and distortion of outcomes, pointing to education spending and performance. He also emphasizes how pension obligations, court-driven costs, and extensive regulatory requirements strain public finances and make basic services harder to provide without additional payments from families. He connects these pressures to broader business conditions, saying that litigation and compliance burdens raise the cost of operating in California. As part of his campaign approach, he describes estimating large totals for fraud, waste, and abuse using public reports, and he cites examples where program spending allegedly diverged from intended results. He outlines energy and climate-related policies as another major cost driver, including gas taxes, permitting delays, and restrictions that he says reduce local production while increasing reliance on imported fuels. Hilton claims that regulatory design and bureaucratic layers inflate infrastructure costs, describing construction and permitting as multi-year, multi-million-dollar processes even for small projects. He also criticizes transportation plans such as the high-speed rail program, arguing that timelines and plans have repeatedly expanded while progress remains limited. Toward the end, Hilton discusses his strategy for winning a state he views as dominated by one party, including persuading working people by focusing on affordability and reducing taxes for those below a specified income threshold. He compares California’s governance dynamics to UK experiences from earlier in his career, describes the importance of using the governor’s executive control over agencies and regulation, and highlights his preparation for implementing reforms. He concludes by urging voters to participate in the primary and to support his campaign’s message of restoring balance and improving conditions for families and businesses.