Well, Megyn Kelly looks to be parting ways with NBC. Her show is now canceled. - Megyn Kelly just landed a new gig. - Why was she given a platform in the first place? - We're doing this program because we believe there's an urgent need for independent voices in the media landscape.

- I know the audience you have. I can reasonably guess it. It's enormous. Podcasts, Rumble, YouTube, Twitter with Elon, that's the problem. A lot of people in cable news, Megyn, are fighting yesterday's war. They're not the problem now, you're the problem. - Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Megyn Kelly.

(audience applause) Good, great to see you. Thank you for coming. Hi, thanks for being here. - All right. - Hi Megyn, how are you? Nice to see you. - Hey Megyn, how are you? - Did you get to hear Peter Thiel, Megyn? - I did, just the tail end, just a bit.

- What do you think of Peter? - He's brilliant. - Yeah? - Yeah, I mean, thank God for him, right? It's like there's a few guys in tech with a lot of money keeping Republican candidates alive and we need every single one of them. (audience laughter) - Okay, thank God we're starting early.

- I think all of them were here today. (audience laughter) - You seem incredibly happy as an independent broadcaster and running your own show. Maybe, number one, am I right that you're just absolutely engaged and excited again about broadcasting because it seemed like the tail end of your working for the machine was particularly challenging?

- Oh yeah. - Tell us. - That's a polite way of saying it. - I'm just trying to be polite, yeah. - No, it's fine. You are? - Well, the last time it kind of blew up on us. - Remember when you called him a prick on TV? - I do, I do.

(laughter) It was good natured. - It was good natured, yes. - Yeah, no, I'm so much happier. And it's really changed my whole view on cancel culture. I really, I'm a believer in cancel culture now. I think it separates individuals from companies where they do not belong, where the values are not aligned.

And I really can't imagine being right now at NBC, or frankly at Fox News, in this environment and having to comport with their rules on how we talk about these very dicey issues that are all over the news today. I could not do it. It was just a matter of time before I was canceled.

- Yeah, talk about producing a show now that is the largest, you're now the largest broadcaster in the news category on YouTube, crushing everybody else. CNN, Fox, their YouTube channels now bow down before you, and you are an independent company with, I understand, six people. - Yeah, six producers.

- Six producers. So that is, how many people at the peak, NBC, Fox, did you have working in your group? - Well, I probably had about 15 producers, but Fox was always lean. CNN, Anderson Cooper Show, which was across from us for a while, minus one hour, had something like 100 staffers.

So think about it. So we did not, in July, we did not beat CNN, but we had 2/3 of CNN's YouTube audience, 2/3. Every single dollar in the multibillion-dollar CNN audience went into, obviously, their live broadcasts, which we crush. We crush their numbers, dollar to dollar, in terms of the podcasts and so on.

But let's just look at YouTube. So all those resources go into their YouTube feed as well, and it's got every show on CNN, every single talent. And our one show, with my six producers, crushed, well, came close to crushing them all, and did crush CBS and NBC, which was a particularly nice piece of news.

(audience laughs and applauds) - When you left, my understanding of these deals, when Tucker left on Lemon, and you leave those broadcast ones, it's kind of like they're paying you to not compete. You can't go work for another network. So was that the case with you, if you can say it, and then you were kind of forced to become an independent broadcaster?

- I wasn't forced. I was only forced to have my show end at NBC. And beyond that, I don't think I'm at liberty to speak of the specifics. - Got it. - But I was free to get another job. I just wasn't sure I would. There was a couple of years there that were dark and depressing, and my industry is incredibly disgusting and toxic and awful.

Perhaps you've watched the news and you know. And I just sat on the couch thinking, why would I go back into that? That was terrible. And it makes you a bad person and unhappy. And all they do is stimulate outrage all the time and then get rich off of it.

And you have to push somebody else's agenda. And I don't wanna do any of that. And it wasn't until first the pandemic hit, and then we started to lose our minds on all the mandates, and then George Floyd, and then we really lost our minds. And seeing those people in the streets trying to make people put down their burgers and say Black Lives Matter is when I got up off my couch and said, now it's on.

Like, I can't stand when people make me do things. I really, I can't stand bullies. And it's in my DNA to stand up against them. And so I had to get back on the air. And I said to my therapist, who is really underpaid, (both laughing) what if nobody watches?

You know, what if nobody listens? It was just a podcast at the time, no visual. And he's from South Africa, and he said, well, I'll listen. I said, okay, great. And Doug will listen, my husband. I'm like, well, I've got two. And that was four years ago, and now it's going great.

- How has your approach changed, if at all, in terms of what you want to produce and what conversations you want to have? Because you no longer have to think, well, what does Roger Ailes think, or this NBC person, or everybody in between. You actually, the buck stops at your desk, at your microphone, you're the decider now.

So what is your framework for deciding what to put on air? Because you do also now suffer from, hey, you're in YouTube. If it bleeds, it leads. If it has rage associated with it, it's gonna get more clicks. So how do you mitigate that? - Well, I love my producers, and a few of them have been with me for over 10 years, 15 years plus, from Fox News, from the earliest show I ever did in 2007 to now.

So they know me very well, and they know what lights my fire. And if I feel that fire in the belly, it's usually not outrage, it's just fire in the belly over the news, then it's a good story for me. And that differs host to host. You know, what drives you nuts?

What do you need to have your say on? And so for me, speaking of therapists, it's like therapy to go out there on the set and say what I know is true, right? Just say what's true about the news. And then we can argue about the meaning and our opinions on what's true, but what's true should not be so up for debate.

But yeah, I have a few through lines that my team always knows will get me excited. And since the beginning, free speech has been one of them. And the thing about the cops, it's not coincidental that that's what got me up, because I've been at Fox, you know, 14 years I was there, and I have a brother who's a police officer, he's a retired lieutenant, and one of the most honorable men you'll ever meet in your life.

And I am just so sick and have been so sick of the lies that have been told about cops. - It's brutal. We have law enforcement in my family as well, and it's really hard to watch this, yeah. - Yes, it's so egregious. This is not to excuse the few bad apples that you see on the news, but they are so not representative of your average police officer.

- Absolutely not. - And it's, these guys make no money. You know, they don't get a lot of glory. - They risk their lives. - They risk their lives every day for us, right? And now on top of all that, they're treated like absolute shit by everyone. The news media, absolutely no qualms about ruining these guys' lives before any due process.

And that's what the media's been doing with everyone in the past five years. No due process. You are, you're accused of anything, you're guilty. And there's really no Jones to figure out whether it's fair. And so, you know, given my legal background, 'cause I practiced law for a decade, that's another piece of it that always gets me fired up, somebody being unfairly railroaded.

- I think the topic you've been most on fire, and I think it's very brave, is the issues around trans issues, trans rights, and maybe young children. You're not a bigot, but you're being framed as that when this discussion comes up. Maybe you could explain just what is your position on biological men in locker rooms, you know, and maybe kids receiving hormones or having their bodies mutilated because they maybe feel like they're the opposite gender.

I don't wanna lead the witness here, but I think we're more in sync on this issue than maybe most. - Yeah, I don't care what they call me. They can call me a bigot, a TERF, a trans misogynist, which is not a thing, I will speak truth. Men cannot become women, period.

(audience applauding) Women can't become men either. And men and boys do not belong in women's spaces, whether it's a bathroom, a locker room, or a sports event. They don't. And good men do not wish to access those places. (audience applauding) And by the way, even if you have some empathy for someone who's genuinely struggling, the problem is the camel's nose, because as soon as you allow one person who may be genuinely struggling with this issue into your 17-year-old girl's locker room, that opportunity will be exploited by openly bad actors.

And when girls start getting hurt in these private spaces, as they already have been, listen to Riley Gaines's testimonial about what happened to her with Leah Thomas, about how he was in there, he was looking at her, she was naked, she had no idea an intact male was entering her locker room, the humiliation she felt.

That counts as injury, but we could go well beyond that because it's crossed over to actual physical. So I am willing to fight to my dying day against that without judging trans people themselves. What you do in the privacy of your own home or your own life is your business, not mine, unless you make it my business.

And then you will hear from me. And if you make it my child's business, times 10. - And in your answer is empathy for somebody who is suffering from gender dysmorphia and who's struggling with that issue, and you don't have a problem with those individuals, as you've said two or three times in that one answer.

Yet you could give that disclaimer, you could say you have empathy or sympathy for them, and the only thing they're gonna hear is something they project into it. - So it got a lot easier for me on the name calling in response to this issue once I realized the vast majority of people who wanna call me a bigot or a TERF are men, they are men posing as women.

So these are men trying to shame me out of standing up for my daughter and myself and my fellow women on our safe spaces. That's the end of it. They can take a seat. Because these men don't know the first thing, they're showing up for mammograms. You ladies know what it's like, the older ones like me, sitting in the mammogram office where you're out there waiting to go in and you're in your little robe and you're worried, you're nervous, you gotta do it when you hit a certain age.

But you know what you're there for, you guys have it on the other end. You're like, I hope I don't have cancer, they say I need to go here, I gotta find it early. You're sitting looking at other women and now we're having men. Men sneak in there, not because they're actually worried 'cause a very, very small percentage can get, but because they wanna feel like women.

Same thing at the OBGYN, get out. Get out of our spaces, I'm sick of this bullshit. Now what I have empathy for is us, women and girls. Somebody else can worry about the feelings of the men who wanna access. (audience applauding) - Can I? Do you think that there are individuals who have been historically repressed and have now felt the freedom to come out and say that they are a different gender?

Or do you think that there's something else socially going on? What's going on and why do you think that this has become such a prominent issue of late in the last couple of years? - Yes, 100% it has exploded as a social contagion. And that's been documented by many people from a very smart woman at Brown to Abigail Shrier in her must-read book "Irreversible Damage" and beyond.

But this is a social contagion. This is not populating in the way that it is just because we're more accepting now. And if that were true, you would see it everywhere. But what you're seeing is more concentrated in more leftist states, cities, regions. And that's because the more of it kids are exposed to, the more they gravitate toward it.

And in that way, it is like anorexia. I just had Kelly J. Keane in a pre-taped show today. She's airing tomorrow. She's an activist on this issue. And she was saying, if you go on YouTube and you Google anorexia or bulimia, they won't show you the videos. But if you Google top surgery, which is the super sweet way of saying a double mastectomy, usually for 15 or 14-year-old girls, you can see all you want all day long.

And what's happening more and more is autistic children or children someplace on the spectrum stumble onto this and in many cases have obsessive thinking to begin with and go down a rabbit hole that takes them hours on end down Reddit or one of these other websites. And it does become an obsessive thought and then obsessive behavior.

And then you have a medical community that has submitted to a firm. The standard is a firm. Not, are your parents going through a divorce? Did you have really bad grades? Was there a sexual assault in your past, which is so often the case for a lot of the young girls in particular.

No, you're not even allowed to go there or you're considered engaging in conversion therapy. It's crossover. That's it. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones. Those two things alone in that order, high, high likelihood you are sterile. You are sterilizing yourself and your parents are allowing it. Just puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones.

That's it. Nevermind chopping off body parts. And then they'll go to school and they'll say, "I'm no longer a girl." And the school will hide it from the people who love that child most, their parents. If the parents aren't on the affirm board, in New York City, where I fled with my children 'cause they were trying to do this to our schools and our classes, that's the policy, private and public.

You do not tell the parents. It's a secret. What kind of country are we getting to be where we allow secrets between grown teachers and minors that the parents aren't allowed to know? That's what we used to call grooming, right? It opens up a very dangerous door. (audience applauding) - And why has this become politicized?

And how has it become politicized? - That I don't understand. I don't understand how, frankly, anyone can vote Democrat right now. I just don't get it. I know that there's a priority of issues, right? And for some people, it's- (audience laughing) Oh, David's here. He just woke up. (audience laughing) For some people, I get it.

- Sachs or Democrat, what? (audience laughing) - It's abortion or it's, you know, I can't think of the issues that would make you vote Democrat, even though I used to vote Democrat. I'm a registered independent. I voted in eight presidential elections. I voted Democrat four times and Republican four.

I'm about as independent as you can get. - Let me, can we, let's shift gears to the election then. So- (audience laughing) - Yeah, you've piqued his interest. - I didn't think that was gonna be funny, but. So Megan, I mean, in addition to being a great broadcaster, you actually are a great political pundit, I would say, and prognosticator.

I remember being on your show at the beginning of the Republican primary when DeSantis was riding high, making the case for DeSantis. Obviously that was totally wrong. And you're like, no, you know, like, it's gonna be Trump. You know, the Republican party is not done with Trump, and you were exactly right.

What's your take on where things are at right now? And do you have a take on who's gonna win? - I mean, of course we all wanna know that, right? That's why we follow these polls religiously, 'cause we wanna peek into what's gonna happen. I mean, I think Trump right now is better positioned to win than he's ever been in any election before.

If you look at where he is, let's take the New York Times-Siena poll that just dropped. That's the gold standard. That's the best poll, if you ask most pollsters. Huge sample, and likely voters, and it's got Trump up one, which is basically a tie, up one. This time, four years ago, Biden was up nine over Trump, and that election was this tight, and it had Biden up nine.

- It said the statistical probability of an electoral college for Trump was 99.7%. - Yeah, if you look at the swing states, he's got a 63%. - Nate Silver's interpretation of that poll. - Yeah. - That came out, yeah. - And Nate, now the left is turning on Nate, inexplicably, really, I mean, other than his data.

But they loved Nate, and they created Nate, but now that Nate's numbers aren't going their way, they're like, "Who's Nate connected to? "Who's he working for?" Nate, like most prognosticators, wants to be right. But look, I'll say this, and by the way, in '16, it showed Hillary up two at this point.

So, and Trump won that election. The general wisdom is that the Democrat has to be up some four points or better in the national polling, given the fact that they usually win the popular vote, just given how blue the urban centers are, in order to win, in order to cross over in those swing states, and right now, she's not.

I mean, that New York Times poll shows her down more. - You were in the middle of the 2016 election. I find this comparison very interesting, so I'm curious your take. Contrast and compare Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton, what day is it today, September 9th of that election, and Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, September 9th, now.

- Trump had some advantages back then that he doesn't have now, including his genuine outsider status. It was very attractive to a lot of voters who had never voted before, speaking of getting up off your couch. That really worked for him. And Trump was incredibly vibrant, feisty, fiery, fun, you know, provocative, obviously controversial, and new.

You know, we all knew Trump, but we knew him as this crazy New York businessman with a lot of color, and suddenly he morphed onto the political field like unlike anything we'd ever seen. I mean, there was a reference to penis size in a presidential debate, yeah. I was there.

So that happened. This time around, people are a little bit more used to Trump's bits, right, his routine. He's obviously a little older, but still vibrant. I mean, could any of you have stood on that presidential stage and given a nearly two-hour address a week after someone shot you in the ear?

Like, I was falling asleep, and I was seated and fine, you know, I'm like, I didn't need. So he's got a lot of energy, but he's not an outsider exactly anymore. He is still one. He's not taking like all the money of these fat cats and ready to kiss their bottoms necessarily, but he's lost that.

What he's gained is a record. You know, now Trump can go on this debate stage tomorrow night with some real ammo, you know, were you better off four years than you are today, and really point to his policies. One of the great tragedies of the Trump era has been his policies have been incredibly good for America.

It's just his rhetoric is so interesting. - Toxic? - Depends on who you ask, right? Depends on who you ask. That he-- - Activating. - That the majority of Americans dislike him. - And then what about Hillary versus Kamala? - Oh God. Well, Hillary was smart. (audience laughing) - They didn't hide Hillary.

Hillary did interviews, right? I had this conversation just this morning. You can say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but she is incredibly competent. - Yeah. - Incredibly competent. - She's competent, and she could have done the job. How she did it and with what level of honesty and corruption would be a different story.

But I really think the problem for Kamala Harris is she's not smart. She's not a deep thinker. She's very surface level. Yes, she's giggling just like that. The whole time. (audience laughing) - Spicy. - Megan, tell us how you feel. Really, be honest. - And it's a cover. It's an obvious cover, right?

It's like she gets to the point where she doesn't know what she's saying. Even she doesn't know what she's saying, and it's like, ah! And so you feel uncomfortable watching her, and then she gave her first interview to CNN, and suddenly, if that's drunk Kamala, suddenly we're dealing with hungover Kamala.

- My values haven't changed. Clearly somebody had told her, you cackle, we're out of here. - Yeah. (audience laughing) What did you think about her bringing her emotional support white guy? - Exactly. Her emotional support governor? He was her big white blankie. Like I used to have as a toddler.

- I mean, it made no sense. It seemed like a terrible strategic decision. Like who's making the decision to do that? - I agree. I objected to the whole thing. I think he was there for two purposes. One was, yes, in case she got in real trouble, he could step in.

And the other was to suck up some of the air time so she had a couple of fewer questions to answer. - What did you think of the job just broadcasted or broadcaster Dana Bash did? 'Cause she did ask some tough questions. She did probe a little bit. - No, no.

- Not enough? - She did terribly. - Okay. (audience laughing) I mean, I don't think it was particularly hard, but-- - But that was not a good job. - Okay, explain why. What would you have done differently? - So many things. Go back and listen to my podcast the day after, 'cause I just took it apart forensically bit by bit.

- I mean, give us the top three here. - Where were the follow-up questions? Where were the hard-hitting follow-ups when she said her nonsense? Like, specifically how? What exactly caused you to change your mind? Walk me through the process. And hit her with all of them, not just a couple.

And Tim Walz, grammar? The grammar excuse? That's why he said he carried a weapon into war? It was his grammar? What kind of BS was that? - And no follow-up, yeah. - Yes, and honestly, all it would have taken was, do you really want our audience to believe you said you took weapons into war as a soldier?

Okay, because every actual service personnel knows you don't exaggerate something like that. That's hallowed ground. You don't say you went into war when you didn't. And he's already on the hot seat for having said, you know, he was a command sergeant major and he didn't retire as such and so on.

Anyway, all it would have taken was, do you really want this audience to believe that was a grammatical error? Is that your story? No, none of that was done. And it was just irritating because there's so much for Kamala Harris to be cross-examined on. She just, she went to sleep, she was meek.

- And the follow-up question is just, such an easy thing to do. You don't even have to say it as aggressively as you did. You just say, okay, so to be clear, let me repeat back to you. Grammar is the reason you said this. - But let me tell you something.

Let me tell you something. Some aggression was warranted. This is the problem. Her timidity is part of the problem because I challenge anybody, go back and look. I did an interview with Trump in September. We've been through a lot, he and I. (audience laughing) - Well, yeah. That's an interesting relationship.

- It's a very interesting relationship. And I saw him at a Turning Point event the previous August and I said, I'd love to sit down with you. He said, great, I'll do it. So we sat down in September of last year. It was a great interview. It was challenging.

He was not in love with it. Good. - Which part? - Where I hammered him on the legal stuff. It had a crescendo and a decrescendo like every good interview should. You know, we started off with some stuff that he would like. Joe Biden's old, how about that? And then you built.

- You warmed him up to classic strategy, right. - So on the legal, on the law fair. So Judge Mershon just moved the sentencing date from, I guess it was supposed to be a few days ago, to November 18th. That occurs to me that's two weeks after the election.

So if Mershon wants to send Trump to prison but is afraid to do it now because it'd be a huge backlash for the election, seems to me that's kind of what you do. You'd set the date two weeks after. I mean, what's your take on that? Do you think-- - If he gets elected-- - If Trump loses the election, do you think he's going to Rikers?

- No, I don't. - You don't think so? - I think there's a possibility Mershon will sentence him because this whole case, which was about him writing down something in a book no one ever saw. It was in a book that stayed on the shelf at Trump Tower. Didn't have the right thing.

It didn't say hush money to Stormy Daniels. It said legal services. No one ever saw that. Just someone came knocking 'cause they wanted to mess with Trump, found it and said this isn't recorded accurately. It's a fraud and he got prosecuted. And I think Judge Mershon has allowed Alvin Bragg to turn it into you tried to steal the election because now guys, I'm sorry to tell you, but if you ever want to run for office, you have an ethical obligation to let any woman accusing you of any bad stuff come forward and say it to everyone.

And if she says I won't hurt you publicly, whether it's true or not, if you just give me $130,000, you may not pay her or you're gonna go to jail. So you must let yourself be blackmailed. Let someone say this stuff about you, true or not, or you're going to prison.

That's how that case was tried. That is now the position that every politician is in, theoretically. - I mean, the case made sense as a misdemeanor, but not as a felony. I think you would agree. - No, it made no sense. As a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations has expired.

- Sure, but I mean, it clearly was escalated to a point, but I wonder how you think, as with family members, you know, in the, you know, that are cops, how you look at the other cases, and if you think there's any validity to them. 'Cause there are five cases we're talking about.

He's guilty of the first three so far out of three. Some of them feel trumped up. But what about the last two? You know, the documents and the January 6th one, do you think there's any validity to them? - No, no validity. - Zero. - The only thing that Trump was potentially in trouble on, and the thing I hit him on when we interviewed, was not turning over the documents once he had a subpoena.

- Which would have been so easy to do. - Yes, but-- - Which was dumb, but he's Trump. - He should have turned them over. - He always does self-destructive stuff. - But that one's gone away now, too, because of Jack Smith not being properly appointed down there, but in answer to your question on Judge Michon, I think he almost is in a position where he might have to sentence him to jail, given how big they've tried to make it.

You stole an election. You stole, but it would be at a suspended sentence. It would be immediately appealed. And I think Trump, on appeal, will win. There are so many holes in that case, so I don't think Trump will ever do one single day in jail. - So, Megan, if we look at the five cases, you know, six months from now or a year from now, let's assume all five of them go to trial.

He's guilty of three so far. - Wait, what do you mean he's guilty of three so far? What are you talking about? - Well, he's been convicted of three, sorry. - What do you mean? No, he hasn't. - I love his-- - The, no, E. Jean Carroll was guilty.

- That was not a conviction. That was a civil case. - Well, yeah, so that's what I'm talking about. So that one-- - Okay, but there's a big difference. (audience laughing) - It's still he was convicted, he was guilty of that. You got a sentiment. In the, yeah, in the Trump organization, they're guilty there.

- Again, with civil, liable, liable. - Yes, of course, but these are the cases we're talking about, and in the third one-- - You don't see the lawyer, right? - Yeah, of course, and in the third one, I'm just talking about the five cases. Yes, some are civil, obviously, and some are not, some are criminal.

But if we look at all five cases-- - You said three convictions. Now you're walking it back. - I'm not walking it back. - Get it straight. - There's three in which he was-- - You should walk it back. - Okay, guys, take it easy. - I'm so glad Megan is here to dispel this.

- Of the five, three of them, he's either guilty or-- - He got a bad result. - Yeah, got a bad result. There are two more. If he is found guilty of those two more, Megan, and five of five, he had a bad result, way to frame it. (audience laughing) Will you chalk all five up, in your mind, to five different jurisdictions, five different prosecutors, five different juries and/or judges, all conspiring to get him?

- 100%, yes. - Okay, great. That's all I wanted to hear your answer to. Five of five, five different jurisdictions, you think it's all lawfare. - Yeah, I mean, E. Jean Carroll, they changed the law so that she could bring a civil lawsuit against him, and she did. New York went 87% for Joe Biden.

That fix was in right from the start. The fraud trial that Letitia James brought against him has never been brought. There's no victims. The banks who were involved said, "We didn't lose a penny. "What are we doing here? "We weren't damaged." Nobody was complaining except Tish James, who ran for office saying, "I will get him." Then you have Alvin Bragg, who's a George Soros-funded prosecutor who doesn't like to prosecute any crime in New York City where I lived for 17 years, except if your name is Donald Trump.

Let's go down to Georgia, where Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade couldn't keep their libidos in check long enough to actually bring this case against Donald Trump. It's a repeat of what was happening in January 6th, up in the case with Judge Chutkin, who loathes Trump and has sentenced almost every J6 defendant to way more jail time than their counterparts would get.

Those are falling apart because of presidential immunity, which was handed down by the Supreme Court, who said, "You cannot bring a criminal case "against a sitting president for any official act." Those cases have been gutted, also a Supreme Court ruling saying the same on January 6th defendants in general.

And that leaves us with Florida and the documents. And Trump has torn that apart because Jack Smith wasn't properly appointed and isn't the right counsel, but there are other issues they haven't even gotten to presidential immunity there, and so that one's going nowhere as well. And by the way, they're gonna peel it up to the 11th Circuit.

She just threw it out. The 11th Circuit is conservative, and thank God so is the current Supreme Court. They're not gonna tolerate that nonsense. - Let me ask you about-- (audience applauding) - I think-- - Let me just ask you-- - I think Jay Cowell just lost his right to ever bring up lawfare again.

(audience laughing) - No, we're here to-- - We're done with your bullshit, it's over. - I didn't give-- (audience laughing) We're not here to hear my opinion. I didn't give my opinion. I wanted my-- - Let's talk about the Democratic Party and the Republican Party 2028, post all of this, okay?

I suspect because of your influence, so tell me if this is not even true, but up-and-coming folks are probably trying to meet you all the time because they wanna build a relationship, build a rapport so that when it's time for them to get interviewed or whatever, there's a, so you must see a lot of people.

Just give us a state of politicians post this current batch. What is the same, what's different? - I don't feel very optimistic. - Okay, is it getting worse? - Yeah, it's getting worse because of Instagram and AOC, that kind of person. (audience laughing) Yes, her specifically, but not just her.

- Say more. (audience laughing) - These are congressional Kardashians. (audience laughing) Can I tell you something? My experience in the news business, dealing with politicians leads me to believe that the people in this room and on this stage over your two-day conference are the people we need to be looking to for our future leaders and ideas and to save the country.

(audience applauding) It's not Washington, D.C. All the incentives to be a good person are gone. It's not that there aren't any good ones. There definitely are, and there's some true patriots who are still trying to serve and even-- - Who are two people, just on either side that you would just tell us to look out for, or even they are already doing the job where you say these two people are like good people?

(laughing) - You should play the little "Jeopardy" music right now. (audience laughing) No one's coming to mind off the top of my head, but I know that there are some. Look, I like Rand Paul. (audience applauding) I think Rand Paul's a good and honest man. - Don't run a giant deficit.

It's not a bad boy. - I mean, all of them lie, so I'm not trying to excuse all of that. They all do. But if you watch people long enough, you find the ones that stand up for the right issues and seem to have some integrity, that's one that comes to mind.

There used to be a day where they would reach across the aisle, and they actually weren't just there for clicks or to make themselves famous. And those days are few and far between now. I just think with, look, I supported the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United, and I think big money in politics was always gonna happen, but it's corrupted the system in a way that, you know, most politicians only have to answer to their one group of big donors or their one small constituency and their one very red or very blue town.

And there's no more incentive to compromise. There's only incentive to get reelected, which is one of the frustrations we have. And we watch Washington, nothing gets done, or a size of relief in this Congress where we watch Washington and nothing gets done, right? Right now, I'm all about going back to the original founding version of this country where government was as small as possible, the presidency was as small as possible, and these people do as little as humanly possible while they're in office.

- I feel, Megan, I feel like someone should do like a modern-day recap of the Federalist Papers, like an understanding of the basis of the foundation of the republic, like what were the founding philosophies, and then understanding how far astray we've gone. But let me ask you a question.

What constitutional amendments would you pass to fix the incentive problems? If you could have your druthers pass any constitutional amendment or two, what would they be to address the incentive issue that's causing a lot of the integrity and misalignment? - I don't think it starts like that. I think it is, just like Kamala Harris's choice as Biden's replacement, it's bottom-up, it's bottom-up.

That's the lie, remember they told us, Chuck Schumer, it's bottom-up, the people chose her. Literally nobody's voted for her to be the nominee. I think this one does have to be bottom-up. Like if we're gonna change the way we elect politicians and the way we govern ourselves, it's so much more complex than just what laws are written down.

And tech has a lot to do with it. How divided we are, how disconnected we are, how lonely we are. I mean, right now the latest strain of the argument is interesting, which is all the processed foods are making us weird and unhealthy and dying and dividing people further because it's driving our hormones nuts and our behavior is getting weirder.

- And obese. - Yeah, and obesity. So I mean, there's just a lot we need to reconsider about the way we're living. And I do think one of the main things is we need to see each other again. We need to like look at each other in the eye across the table.

We need to ban our kids from playing on the devices when they get together for playdates. We must insist that they play outside without any devices and actually connect with nature. We must make sure that they do the same. We must get out of the coastal cities and go to fly over country and go to a rodeo in Montana.

Something like that. (audience applauding) We have to start loving our country again. That's a huge piece of it. And that again is community. Speaking of rodeo in Montana, we go out there. We have a little ski cabin there, which we love. And we went in the summer, brought our kids to a rodeo.

They started playing the national anthem. And my little guy at the time was like five. And he was a little slow to get up, right? Like he knows to get up, but he was like five. And there's this old cowboy sitting right behind us with the big hat and the jeans and the belt.

And he goes, "Boy, you better get on your feet." And my son was like, "Oh shit, yes sir." That was me. But I was like right on. - That's great. - Right on, that's what we need, right? Like more of that and more of looking out for one another, not with forced taxes and through the eyeballs and all that nonsense.

But like your neighbor's sick, go make him a casserole. Your older neighbor is housebound, go mow her lawn. That is the stuff that used to make us us. And as we just retreat into our devices and our television screens and all of it, we lose that and we lose us.

- All right, well said. Ladies and gentlemen, Megyn Kelly. (audience applauding) - Thank you. - Whoa, standing out. That was awesome. - Really awesome. (upbeat music) (audience applauding) (upbeat music) you