reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The Supreme Court is set to rule on three significant cases involving Donald Trump, including the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove his name from the primary ballot based on claims of insurrection related to January 6, 2021. Richard Epstein and John Yoo discuss the implications of this ruling, with Yoo suggesting that the Supreme Court will likely overturn Colorado's decision, emphasizing the need for a uniform interpretation of the 14th Amendment across states. They argue that the amendment does not explicitly disqualify a president and that allowing states to set their own standards could lead to chaos. The conversation shifts to Trump's legal challenges, including his claim of presidential immunity against prosecution for actions taken while in office. Yoo believes Trump's immunity claim is weak and primarily a delaying tactic, while Epstein raises concerns about the implications of prosecuting a former president. They also discuss the use of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in prosecuting January 6 participants, arguing that it misapplies a statute intended for white-collar crime. The hosts conclude by reflecting on the broader political implications of these cases, suggesting that the ongoing legal battles against Trump may be politically motivated and could lead to a backlash among voters. They express concerns about the state of American democracy and the potential for future political prosecutions.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing the current state of Donald Trump's legal challenges, highlighting four criminal indictments and trials over the next year. She emphasizes two significant cases: one in Colorado aiming to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot based on a 14th Amendment argument related to insurrection, and another civil fraud case in New York led by Attorney General Letitia James, where Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are expected to testify. In Colorado, the plaintiffs argue that Trump's actions on January 6 amount to insurrection, disqualifying him from holding office. The case is presided over by Judge Sarah Wallace, who has a history of political donations to anti-Trump causes, raising concerns about her impartiality. Mike Davis, an attorney, expresses skepticism about the judge's fairness and predicts a ruling against Trump, which could set a precedent for similar cases in other states. Dave Aronberg, another attorney, argues that the 14th Amendment's applicability to Trump is unclear and suggests that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the matter. He believes that the case will not prevent Trump from running for office, as the voters will ultimately decide his fate. The discussion shifts to the New York fraud case, where Judge Engoron has already ruled that Trump committed fraud by inflating asset values for loans. The case is now focused on damages, with potential penalties reaching $250 million. Trump’s defense hinges on the argument that no banks were harmed, as they were repaid in full. The attorneys discuss the implications of the case on Trump's business operations and his financial future. Kelly also addresses the gag orders imposed on Trump in various cases, particularly in the January 6th case, where Judge Chutkan has restricted his ability to speak publicly about the proceedings. The attorneys criticize these gag orders as unconstitutional limitations on free speech. The conversation then transitions to broader cultural issues, including rising anti-Semitism on college campuses following the Israel-Hamas conflict. Kelly and Callahan discuss the alarming rise in anti-Jewish sentiments and the lack of response from university administrations and the Biden administration regarding hate crimes against Jewish students. Finally, they touch on the hypocrisy of celebrities and public figures who remain silent on these issues, contrasting their reactions to past events with the current situation. The discussion highlights the need for a clear moral stance against terrorism and the importance of standing up for victims of hate crimes.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing Super Tuesday and the upcoming 2024 election, emphasizing that President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are likely to be the nominees unless unforeseen circumstances arise. The real news, she notes, lies in ongoing court cases involving Trump, including updates on the Fanny Willis disqualification case and implications from a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado and potentially other states. Kelly introduces guests Mike Davis and Dave Aronberg to discuss the Supreme Court's unanimous decision, which states that states cannot disqualify candidates based on the 14th Amendment unless they have been convicted of insurrection. Davis explains that the ruling reinforces the need for a federal statute to disqualify someone for insurrection, which has not been applied to Trump. Aronberg adds that the ruling limits Congress's ability to act against Trump post-election, further solidifying his position. The conversation shifts to the legal maneuvers surrounding Trump's various trials, with Davis arguing that the Democrats are trying to expedite proceedings to interfere with Trump's campaign. They discuss the implications of potential trials occurring during the election season and how this could affect public perception of the judicial system. The discussion then moves to the Fanny Willis case, where two new witnesses have come forward, challenging the credibility of a previous witness, Terrence Bradley. These witnesses claim to have personal knowledge of the alleged affair between Willis and Nathan Wade, which could undermine the prosecution's case. Aronberg expresses skepticism about the impact of these new testimonies, while Davis argues that the case is fundamentally flawed and should be dismissed. Kelly wraps up the segment by teasing upcoming discussions about the influence of Matt Drudge in media, particularly regarding his role in breaking the Monica Lewinsky story, and how his influence has shifted over the years. The podcast "Finding Matt Drudge" is highlighted as a resource for exploring Drudge's enigmatic presence in journalism.

Megyn Kelly opens the show by reflecting on the recent passing of Barbara Walters, a news legend, and shares her personal insights from Walters' autobiography, *Audition*. Kelly expresses concern over the future, highlighting economic volatility, inflation, and interest rates. She introduces her guest, Dave Rubin, who shares his thoughts on Walters' legacy and her attempt to foster difficult conversations on *The View*. Kelly recounts a humorous yet traumatic experience traveling to Montana with her dog, Strudwick, who caused chaos on the flight due to medication-induced gas. The conversation shifts to the serious topic of the arrest of a suspect in the University of Idaho murders, Brian Kohberger, a 28-year-old doctoral student in criminal justice. Kelly and Rubin discuss the implications of his background and the chilling nature of the crime, emphasizing the suspect’s seemingly normal appearance and behavior. The legal panel, featuring Harmeet Dhillon and Viva Frei, analyzes the evidence against Kohberger, including genetic genealogy and cell phone data, suggesting that the authorities likely have a strong case against him. They discuss the societal implications of such crimes and the psychological profiles of perpetrators, noting that many appear normal on the surface. The conversation transitions to the political landscape, focusing on the January 6th committee's actions against Trump, including a subpoena that was ultimately withdrawn. Dhillon explains the legal arguments made against the subpoena, emphasizing the separation of powers and the impropriety of Congress attempting to compel a former president to testify. They express skepticism about the potential for criminal charges against Trump, arguing that the evidence does not support the accusations. The panel concludes by discussing the broader implications of politicizing the legal system and the importance of maintaining public trust in electoral processes. They highlight the need for reforms to ensure election integrity and the challenges faced by Republicans in the current political climate. Kelly wraps up the show by teasing upcoming segments and encouraging listeners to subscribe for more content.

Megyn Kelly opens the show discussing key updates in the DC case against former President Trump, highlighting Judge Chutkan's readiness to proceed despite a recent Supreme Court ruling on immunity. She criticizes media coverage regarding male Olympic boxers competing in women's events, asserting that the IOC is prioritizing inclusion over women's safety. The conversation shifts to 2024 politics, focusing on Vice President Kamala Harris's impending VP pick, speculated to be Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Kelly notes the controversy surrounding Shapiro's past comments on Israel and the backlash he faces from progressive groups. Additionally, she discusses revelations about Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff's past affair, questioning the implications for Harris's campaign. Mark Halperin joins to analyze Harris's decision-making under pressure, particularly given the current global and economic crises. He expresses concerns about potential undisclosed issues in Harris's background that could affect her candidacy. The discussion touches on the vetting process for both Harris and her running mate, emphasizing the unique circumstances of her nomination. The conversation then transitions to the economy, with Kelly and Halperin discussing rising costs and the impact on American families. They highlight the role of American Financing in helping homeowners manage debt. As the show progresses, Kelly addresses the media's portrayal of the Olympic boxers, emphasizing the biological realities of their gender. She criticizes the IOC for ignoring the implications of allowing male athletes to compete in women's sports, citing safety concerns. The segment concludes with a discussion on the legal challenges facing Trump, particularly the J6 case. Trump's attorney, John Loro, explains the implications of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and the potential for a trial. He expresses skepticism about the speed of proceedings, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the issues at hand. Overall, the show covers significant political developments, media controversies, and legal challenges, reflecting on the broader implications for the upcoming election and societal issues.

Dave Rubin discusses a recent Colorado court ruling that seeks to remove Donald Trump from the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot, citing his actions on January 6, 2021, as insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 decision will be on hold pending an appeal set for January 4. Rubin expresses concern that this ruling undermines democracy, regardless of personal opinions about Trump. He highlights that many across the political spectrum, including figures like RFK Jr. and Ron DeSantis, are defending Trump's right to be on the ballot, emphasizing the importance of allowing voters to decide. Rubin critiques the media's portrayal of the ruling, particularly Rachel Maddow's comments, which he believes mischaracterize the situation. He shares insights from legal experts, including Jonathan Turley, who argue that disqualifying candidates based on court rulings poses a dangerous precedent for democracy. Rubin warns that if states can remove candidates from ballots, it could lead to a slippery slope where voter choice is compromised. He concludes by noting the broader implications of this ruling on American democracy, urging that the courts should not dictate electoral outcomes and that the will of the people must be respected. The discussion reflects a deep concern for the integrity of the electoral process amidst ongoing political tensions.