Trump's Successful Iran Mission, and the MAGA Case For and Against Strikes, with Emily Jashinsky and Victor Davis Hanson | Ep. 1093
01:39:12 Share

Trump country is booming. We're building, hiring, and winning in America. Because energy tax credits create jobs and put America first. Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country. More production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers.

And America's comeback depends on American energy. President Trump, keep what works. Don't repeal energy tax credits. Learn more at BuiltForAmerica.us. Paid for by Built for America. When a university is built on merit, problem solving, and real world results, America leads. When it pioneers breakthroughs in national defense and supports American innovation, America wins.

And when that same university ensures world-class education is within reach for all families, America prospers. This is MIT, a partner in building a stronger America. Learn more at understanding.mit.edu. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east.

Welcome to the Megyn Kelly show. I'm back from vacation and ready to dive back into one of the most consequential news cycles in recent memory. My God, what has happened? I left for eight, nine days and all hell broke loose.

It's been an insane time here in our country. I just like the news could not be bigger. I'll just take one quick moment to say thanks to all of you for the lovely messages while we were gone. We had a great vacation with my family in Greece where we went through the Saronic Islands, which are just so beautiful. I just can't say enough about that.

that area of the world. And the Greek people were absolutely lovely. So highly recommend. And thank you for your patience while I've been gone. I have a lot of feelings about what's happened and it's probably going to take us, you know, the next five days together to get through it.

the current news, as well as a couple of the big stories that hit while we were gone. But I just want to start with my overall thoughts. VDH is going to be here within a second, and I'm going to get into some headlines about this Iran deal. Actually, I'll just bring those to you now, and then I'll tell you my own thoughts. First of all, as you by now know, on Saturday, President Trump took decisive action. He bombed three of Iran's nuclear sites in a stunning display of American might and military power.

The president says he now wants peace. Vice President J.D. Vance said the U.S. is not at war with the Iranian people, but with Iran's nuclear program. But there's more breaking news today with the reports of Israel now dropping bombs on Iran's capital city, Tehran, on targeted sites within it, as well as on access routes to the Fordo nuclear enrichment site.

wonder why, right? Like who's trying to get in there and what are they trying to do? That's of course where one of the sites in which the U.S. dropped bunker busting bombs from B2s as part of Operation Midnight Hammer, great name, over the weekend.

With all of this going on, Iran's supreme leader is reportedly hiding out in a bunker and has suspended all electronic communications with his commanders. This is so interesting. This is exactly what made it so difficult to find Osama bin Laden when he was hiding out in the Abbottabad compound. He wouldn't communicate with most people because he knew that it would likely be traced and he'd be found. And ultimately, the CIA found him because there was one person who would come in on foot and

And once the CIA identified that guy as someone who was close to bin Laden, they started following him and that's how they found him. So this guy's clearly taken a lesson from history, though President Trump has already said we know where he is. So query what the truth is. But in any event, he's determined to try to conceal his location amid assassination concerns. Forget the fact that, you know, Trump is saying

We're not going to kill him right now, but he's got Bibi Netanyahu to worry about. And I've heard no such assurances from the Israelis. According to the New York Times, the Supreme Leader is giving orders only through a single trusted aide. President Trump's administration appears 100% aligned on the actions so far, but the president has faced criticism for the move from Democrats, the media, and even some within the MAGA movement

for this attack on the Iranian facilities. Okay, so in just a bit, Emily Jashinsky is gonna be here. She's the host of the new MK Media Show, After Party with Emily Jashinsky. More on that in just a bit. And we'll get to Victor in one minute, but I just wanna give you my overall thoughts on it before we bring in a true expert so I don't cloud his expert analysis with my own armchair. As for the division between

the MAGA more isolationist wing and the more neocon wing that still is very much present and not dominant, but president and large within the Republican party. I'll say this clearly the, I don't know. You don't have to be a neocon to be in support of what president Trump just did. Iran is an enemy of the United States. Iran has been the number one sponsor, state sponsor of terror against the United States for the past 46 years. Iran is,

is not just theoretically chanting death to America as some absolute fools have been suggesting over the past few days. They have actually been causing death to Americans for decades now, decades. Our Marines, our Air Force, members of our military all over the world, including most recently in Iraq and beyond there. So, and not to mention what the Houthis have been doing. I mean, Iran has several

arms to it that are sponsored by it and assisted by it from Hamas to Hezbollah to the Houthis and beyond who have been doing its bidding. It is ridiculous to suggest that Israel started this war with Iran. Israel was attacked by Iranian proxy Hamas. That's how this whole thing got started. And if you ask me the reason we did what we did this weekend, it's because it all starts with 10-7 in that

The Iranian proxies have been greatly weakened by Israel over the past two years, greatly weakened. I mean, Hezbollah's in tatters. Hamas is too. The Houthis just got bombed by President Trump for weeks, six weeks, by the way. No one was saying he didn't have authorization to do it, just like they didn't say Obama didn't have authorization on the thousands of strikes he did that didn't have specific congressional authorization beyond the authorization of use of military force that was passed after 9-11. Right. Both presidents, many presidents have used it.

Um, so, you know, from Bush to Obama to Trump and now Trump again. So Iran has been killing Americans for a long time. And the reason I think

we had an American president who was willing to listen to the Netanyahu claims of right now it's imminent. The nukes are imminent is because Iran was so weakened. It made sense now in a way it didn't before. It was in a way less provocative to bomb Iranian nuclear sites right now than it ever has been before. And it poses danger, sure, to our US troops, especially on foreign military sites, but less now than it has in decades.

And so while I look at the isolationist right, for lack of a better term, and I think, okay, I see they've lost this one for sure. There's no question. My friend Tucker and others did in Bannon did not want this to happen. Um,

They said they lost this one. They had every right to be concerned and they have an ongoing right to be concerned. Their objections are based on some very real and unfortunate recent history. What happened in Iraq, chief among them, the absurd failed nation building we tried under President George W. Bush, which was continued under Barack Obama. It was a nightmare. And even our troops

have had it, you know, like look at the interviews we did here on this program with Sean Ryan. Look how Rob O'Neill has turned on it. Look how Pete Hegseth has turned on some of these missions, not the sacrifice, of course, made by our troops, but but just the folly of thinking we could swoop into the Middle East and create some Democratic Republican Republican in any way resembled our own or had shared values with us. So we're a little jaded.

when it comes to Middle East meddling, understandably. And the other piece of it that is real is Bibi Netanyahu is suffering right now when it comes to some large factions of the American people with looking like the boy who cried wolf.

All right. Now, I'm sorry, but I've been in the news business for 20 years now. And every single one of them, I've heard him say that Iran is months at most a couple of years away from getting a nuclear bomb. Every single one of them. And we pulled a little montage of it over the years. But I mean, we could have gone back to the 1990s with Bibi doing this. Here's just a sampling.

The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran. Only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states. But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close. They're very close. They're six months away from being about 90% of having the enriched uranium for an atom bomb. By next spring, at most, by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment rates

and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. You don't want this Iran to have neither nuclear weapons or the capability to make nuclear weapons to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb in short order. In a few weeks or a few months, they could do that unless that's changed. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal

And this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. OK, so he said it a lot. And I think a large portion of the American populace is reacting to that in not believing him and not believing him.

when he says it now and our president acts in response. And clearly our president is responding to the Israeli intelligence. There was a New York times report out just this weekend talking about how, um, the Israeli intelligence showed it was, it was dated. Um, actually this is, wait a minute. This is dated last Wednesday. Uh, Israeli intelligence was showing, uh,

that Iran was making cruder and faster efforts to get a nuclear weapon. And the weaker the Iranians got, the closer they were moving to the bomb. In other words, it sounds like it was an act of desperation, like we're going down. We need it now. In terms of the enrichment of uranium, Iran was days away from where it needed to be. But there were other components. It's still required to complete the weapon. It points out in the same

Report, however, that contrary to Israeli claims, senior administration officials within the Trump administration were unaware of any new intel showing the Iranians were rushing to build a nuclear bomb. It seems clear to me that Trump was listening to BB's intel and not to our own. And there are flaws with our own because we've had a.

director of national intelligence, not Tulsi, but we've had an office of DNI that since Obama was there to do one thing and honestly, the end of George W. Bush to to just say Iran doesn't mean it. Iran's not actually going to do a bomb. Don't worry, because there's zero appetite, especially even at the end of Bush to bomb Iran or to get involved in a new Middle East war. And so they use the DNA DNI office for years to be the excuse for not doing anything about it. Oh, there's nothing. Don't worry. They don't really mean it. They're not going to do it.

Don't worry. And the Israeli intelligence, and I don't know whether it's real or not, to be honest with you, but it's certainly been consistent saying they're inches away. And what we saw most recently was the IAEA, which is the International Monitoring Organization when it comes to nuclear behavior, which was going in, though it was given more and more limited access at the Iranian nuclear sites, saying they have 60 percent enriched uranium, which absolutely no domestic energy program needs. You need about 10 percent.

to do domestic energy or under. You don't need 60. They're moving towards a bomb, absolutely 100%. And we're enriching enough energy to have, according to the reports, nine or 10 of them already. We were pretending we didn't see it. That's my take on it. And not just mine, but many smart experts who've been watching the region. Because nobody had the appetite for a war with Iran. And President Trump doesn't have the appetite for a war with Iran. There's nothing inconsistent, not one word.

in the way Trump ran for office and the way he's handled this crisis. He was never an isolationist. I'm sorry, he wasn't. Part of MAGA is far more than Trump is. We discussed this when I interviewed Marco Rubio talking about the factions of the party. Trump's got a foot in both camps. And Trump has not been shy about using American power where it made strategic sense. And he thought

that it would well serve the United States. There was a there was a tweet that Noah Pollack put out just this weekend, which is excellent. It reads as follows. This endless war shrieking is ridiculous. Trump bombed the Houthis for six weeks, then ended it. He fought ISIS for around two years, defeated them, then ended it. Trump killed Soleimani and did not engage further. He degraded Al-Shabaab in Somalia for three years and then ended it.

Trump's record of not dragging us into another endless war is impeccable. There is something in between targeted military strikes and endless war. And Trump and yes, Netanyahu saw the opportunity for it in bombing the nuclear sites of a now weakened Iran, whose proxies are in no position to fight back the way they would have been even five years ago. So I don't think

They have the capacity to respond in the way some are fearing. And I don't think they are they are inclined to go that route. I know they're martyrs. I know they love the jihad. They hate the infidel. They mean death to America. But I think they understand that escalating this will risk everything they care about. And for sure, from from, you know, the Ayatollahs.

ability to go on, though he's already 86, to the Islamic regime in general. So that's my own back of the envelope take. Now let's bring in somebody who is an expert in warfare and has been studying this whole thing very closely. Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and author of The End of Everything. He joins me now.

We are days away from what has been dubbed by some the Rio reset. What some worry could be a threat to the US dollar's global dominance in over 80 years. On July 6th, BRICS nations, that's Russia, China, India, and Iran, and some more, are expected to unveil their plans to circumvent the US dollar, thus cratering its value. Some report that they've already been laying the groundwork as their central banks have been methodically divesting from the US dollar and US bonds in favor of gold.

How can you protect your IRA or 401k from the fallout from this landmark shift? One option is to diversify with gold from Birch Gold Group. Historically, gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty, which is right now. Get a free info kit on tax-sheltered gold IRAs by texting the word MK, letters, to 989898. July 6th could mark a monumental shift happening among nations that control one-third of the world's GDP.

Arm yourself with information to diversify your retirement savings. Text MK to 989898 and claim your free info kit from Birch Gold. Victor, so great to see you. Thank you for doing this. Your thoughts on it all. I agree with all of what you said. One thing about the clips with Netanyahu, they were interspliced with actual action. For example, they had the Stupnix virus that destroyed 6,000 people.

enrichment devices. And in addition to that, they had as long ago as 15 years ago began assassinating the first generation of nuclear physicists.

And then everything slowed down, as we remember, under Trump. He cost them $100 billion in oil revenues by having the embargo and the sanctions. So each time Bibi said that, he was trying to alarm us. That's true, but Israel was taking action, sometimes in concert stealthily with us. I think you're really right about the degraded sense of Iran. If we had said...

the day after October 7th, with less than two years, the formidable shock troops of the Middle East terrorist corps, Hezbollah, are going to be neutered and humiliated. No one would have believed us if we had said the strongest outpost for Iran as far as a nation state is Syria, and it's the depot for terrorist munitions, and it's going to be gone. The Assad dynasty is going to be gone. We wouldn't believe you. If somebody had said,

Russia is going to be out of the Middle East finally after John Kerry and Obama invited them in they're gonna have no footprint anywhere in the Middle East and They're gonna be bogged down in their own war No one would have believed this if we'd said as you mentioned the Houthis which terrorist was designated terrorist organization by Trump in the first term then that rubric was relieved if they're going to be Sort of inert now and Hamas is going to be a subterranean remnant. No one believed this but the main thing is that

No one would have believed this if you said in 20 months, Israeli and American pilots are going to be flying at will all through Iranian airspace. There's going to be no ability to knock anybody down. They have no air defenses and they basically lost all momentum, if not the program itself and nuclear acquisition. So it's kind of a surreal. I think a lot of us think when we say forever wars or be careful, we're talking about an Iran war.

in two senses, one pre-October 7th, but even that pre-October 7th had this formidable reputation. But one thing we knew about the Iranians, they weren't popular anywhere in the world. Even the Chinese and Russia, who have a long history of anti-Islamicism, whether it's the destruction of Grozny or in the case of the Chinese, the Uyghurs,

They don't like, they didn't want them really to have a bomb. They were useful, a useful asset, but they didn't incur any goodwill. Nobody liked them. And they were really the reason why the Americans, after the threat of bin Laden faded, why we were even there in the Middle East anymore. It was for all the turmoil. But they had this formidable reputation. You don't dare do, even Ronald Reagan was afraid to really retaliate directly at Iran, who sponsored the Marine barracks murder and the destruction of our country.

embassy in Beirut and they had this reputation but it wasn't based on reality and it was kind of shattered this last two weeks and I think that we're still stuck with the idea that they can do all of these formidable things but they actually are in a state of panic right now and that's and if I agree with everything Rubio said and Vance we don't want to get into nation building etc etc Trump has kind of tweaked that a little bit

But I think the biggest danger just to finish for the Iranians is the military because they have taken out the top 20 or 25 generals with the closest ties to theocracy. And everybody else, the subordinate generals, know they're going to be on the list and their time is coming up. They know that the people of Iran are not only angry but humiliated that over the last half century almost they've spent probably a trillion dollars on

on nuclear acquisition, subterranean enrichment, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria,

the Houthis, and it's all up in smoke. And they're impotent. They're being humiliated every day. So if there's going to be a regime change, I'm sure it's going to be the people. I think it's going to be somebody in the military who's going to say to the people, we didn't do this. They did. The theocracy did. And I even think that's probably a small chance. But nevertheless, there's a lot of turmoil and a lot of impotence on the part of Iran right now. And it's a very different situation. And we shouldn't be stuck in

pre-October 7th Iran fears about what they're going to do. I mean, they're going to try to do something, but it's not going to work. I think that's right. That's exactly right. You can't look at today's Iran and equate it with the Iran of five years ago, even. And when you're equating the possible retaliatory danger, which is what the commander in chief has to factor in, he doesn't want to see American troops get killed or American civilians. And

And, you know, just the danger has gone down. It's not eliminated and it never will be. And what you're getting now, Victor, what we're at risk of seeing now is these, you know, people who didn't want to see it. Some of the more extreme ones when when and if Iran does anything to retaliate and we suffer any American losses. I told you, you see, it wasn't worth it. And I just like you can't run a country that way.

No, I mean the last day that Barack Obama was in office on January 19th of 2017, his Parthian shot to us was he unilaterally without congressional authority or consultation sent B2s, the very same bombers that Trump sent. He sent them all the way to Libya to bomb Libya. And he had been bombing Libya since 2011. And it didn't result in anything but chaos and destruction and killing.

And I had gone to that country in 2007. And whatever we said about this monstrous Gaddafi, his children were starting to take over and he was anti-Islamic at that point. He wasn't good, he wasn't bad, but it was better than the alternative we have now. No one said a word on the Democrat. Tim Kaine was the head of the Democratic Party, the DNC, I think in 2015. And he didn't say, he had never said a word about any of this. And

You know, you make a good point about the MAGA. They agree. They have good points, but the base that is skeptical. But they agree with 85 percent of the Trump agenda. And they're going they can't go anywhere because the alternative is democratic insanity. So they're going to they're going to offer criticism. And, you know, Tucker, our friend Tucker, he said in that tumultuous debate with Ted Cruz, he was surprised when Ted Cruz suggested that.

that Tucker might not know that they tried to kill Trump. Well, that

alleged Afghan assassin was indicted. He was indicted by the Biden DOJ in November of 2004. And it's pretty clear the evidence that's mounted that they did try to kill him. And Tucker responded to that by saying, if that were true, I would support nuking Iran. That was what he said. So, I mean, he has criticisms, but he's a Jacksonian in a way, too.

And so that's what Trump was, and you're absolutely right. He never ran on anything other than in a cost-benefit analysis, I'm going to find a way to maintain, preserve, and enhance deterrence for the U.S. So we don't have to get in forever wars. And sometimes that means Soleimani, that means Baghdadi, that means ISIS, that means taking out the Wagner Group. But these are self-limiting situations that on a cost-benefit analysis,

was help our strategic stability and safety. That's all he was. He never said anything else. He was not an isolationist and he wasn't an interventionist. And I think people forget that about him. The critical left, some on the right, now trying to challenge this like President Trump,

didn't have the constitutional authorization ability to do that. It's so absurd that not only did he have the right under Article two of the Constitution to drop these bombs, you have a very strong case. He had the duty to do it.

to protect the homeland. There's actually a very strong argument there. And he 100% had the ability under the authorization for the use of military force, the AUMF that was passed after 9-11 with Congress's approval. That is a congressionally approved document that both sides of the aisle rushed to approve post 9-11, even though they didn't technically, we didn't, Bush didn't even need it then. He could do what he needed to do. We'd been attacked.

So that's still in place. And it allows the commander in chief to respond to any threats, including anticipated threats. And there's no requirement that it be imminent, none whatsoever. So it'd be great to update that for the more modern day warfare we're facing and like how it's all

weird, you know, insurrectionists who aren't exactly, you know, necessarily state sponsored in all cases. Andy McCarthy makes a great point on this in his own podcast, which everyone should listen to it from this past Friday. But there's no question that this was authorized and was not extra legal in any way, Victor.

No, and there was de facto precedent. Obama used predator drone assassinations constantly. And even he even joked about it. The White House correspondents, he said, if anybody wants to date my daughters, be careful. It's called predator. It was kind of a sick joke. And then, of course, we had John Brennan who lied under oath. And then when he was asked, are you killing collaterally? And well, no, we haven't killed. And then he had to retract that and apologize for perjuring himself.

And then we get into Joe Biden. I mean, there were 300 attacks essentially all over the Middle East that he didn't respond to. But finally, he did a little bit, four or five times. But he did. No one on the left said, you can't hit back or you can't preempt unless you have congressional authority. So the same thing with the Houthis, both Biden and Trump. But Biden anemically responded or preempted and attacked the Houthis. So it's kind of, I mean...

There used to be a Democrat. There used to be people within the Democratic Party that were to the right of Donald Trump, believe it or not. You can see those old clips of Hillary Clinton asked when she was contemplating a run for the presidency, what would you do about Iran and the nuclear? She said, it sounds horrible, but I would obliterate it if they were getting a bomb. And I'm not condoning what she said, but that was that was a strong wing of the Democratic Party. And that was and that is completely vanished now. And it's

Partly because there's kind of a nihilism, not a kind of. There is a nihilism now in the Democratic Party. Whatever Donald Trump says or does, it has to be evil and stopped at all costs. And the result of that extremism is they become characters of themselves. They really have. Andy pointing out.

in his own podcast, the following, that there was an 1863 US Supreme Court ruling, note the timing, that if the United States is under threat from an external force, the president has the duty, the duty to act and to use whatever force is necessary to protect the homeland. That's a constitutional interpretation long before the AUMF. Then came the AUMF, which made very clear that any organization

that aided the attacks or those who perpetrated them and any move necessary to prevent future attacks on the United States is authorized by this congressionally approved document. Congress has the power to declare war. We're not doing that. In fact, we're doing exactly the opposite. The New York Times came out with a headline the night of the bombings that read it

It was America enters war with Iran. Well, that's not that's not quite right. New York Times and J.D. Vance clarified it, Victor, by saying we're not at war with Iran. We did not go to Congress. We didn't not need to do that because we're not declaring war on Iran. We're doing targeted strikes. And you just made reference to it, Victor. But here's just a little montage of Barack Obama.

doing exactly the same. I don't remember AOC or the likes of AOC demanding that he be impeached, as we're seeing now. But here's just a montage of him and his military strikes and him talking about them. Last night on my orders, America's armed forces began strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. Today, at my direction.

The United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Today, I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. What? Libya? This is what you're pointing out? Like Libya? What? To protect Libyan civilians? What? Spare me.

The viability of any operation you can judge by the poverty or the persuadedness of the critics. And so as you start to look at all these different critics, the Arab world, everybody said the Arab world would go up in flames.

But what's happening in the Arab world was on spec that they're privately communicating to the Iranians who are right across the Gulf. We didn't have anything to do with this. We're innocent. Then they have public announcements that they deplore the escalation. They would like calm. And then they're privately, frantically saying to us and the Israelis, if you're going to do this, please end it. Don't leave a wounded Iran on our doorstep. So we support you.

only if you destroy their complete nuclear program and defang them. Then you look at China and Russia. China, they get 80% of their pre-embargoed oil. They buy 80% of Iran's oil. They get 50% from the Gulf. The last thing in the world they want is any more upheaval. So they're not saying anything other than everybody calm down. Russia,

There's tie down in Ukraine and they're just the opposite. They don't really mind that there's turmoil because every time there is, the price of Russian oil goes up and they profit. And so Medved has said all these crazy things that maybe somebody will give a new... That's his...

He's just kind of just to tell the audience, Medvedev, who used to be president during like the two years Putin couldn't be, has come out to say, well, you know, we'll just give him a nuke now. We'll give him a nuke now. Go ahead. And he's not going to do that because he knows that Australia and South Korea and Taiwan and Japan could have nukes in one week if they wanted. And they would all work much better than the Iranians.

And we're the only people who really tell them you're under the nuclear shield. If we had said tomorrow, we can't protect you countries, we suggest you go nuclear in the way that North Korea went nuclear with its patent China, they would go ballistic. So they're not gonna, there's no real threat there. And everybody said they're gonna have World War III, it's not gonna happen. And then you've mentioned the American left. They don't have a persuasive argument. They're contradictory, they're hypocritical.

The MAGA people, I think we've all said that they have some legitimate concerns, but they're not going to turn on Donald Trump. They understand that

What he did and what he represents and what he will do is in line with 85% of the things they say. And so they're going to voice their complaints and then they're going to get back in the fold. And so Victor, the reality is like you is as burned as many people feel in this country from Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is Donald Trump has a country to run and to keep safe and you cannot wave off ongoing and future dangers of

out of fear of the so-called forever war or because we made bad decisions in the past. You have to factor those in and allow them to shape what I want, what I don't want out of this. But you can't just cower in fear and Neville Chamberlain your way through foreign policy for the next 30 years because of those two offshoots.

awful outcomes. No, and they're not at all synonymous or even close to what he's doing. And the Democrats, I mean, if we had this conversation three weeks ago, they were using the opposite argument. They were calling him a taco. Trump always chickens out. He gives deadlines, he gives threats about use of force and terrorists, and then he always chickens out. That whole smear is completely vaporized now that nobody's even talking about.

So it's whatever they throw, whatever they think might stick. But the only real essential question is, is the world at large and the United States in particular safer now or before Trump did this? And I think it's clear that the Iranians may try to redo it, but they don't have any –

physicists, they don't have command and control, they don't have the infrastructure to do it for years. And more importantly, people say, well, they can do it, they can rebuild. Well, if you have a normal president, he can do the same thing much more easily than they can rebuild again. And he can do it again. He can just say to them, in five years, if you do this, we're going to have even bigger bunker busters. And we'll do it again, because we do not want you to destroy the Middle East in the way that you've done. And so...

We have a lot more options and we and we have a lot more assets and capability if we have the right president there and no one and the one weird thing about it is Megan finally is that each one of those clips that you show to Barack Obama was kind of a machismo. I'm the tough guy under my order. I did this and I did and they all accused Trump of that, but he was the only president that

I'm not just trying to defend him, but when he talked about Ukraine or Iran, he was the only one in my lifetime who said, the first thing he said, this is a complete waste of human life. This killing is terrible. We're killing all these young people. And when they said, why didn't you hit after Soleimani? He said, I didn't want to kill a bunch of people. And then they said, why didn't you hit them after Saudi Arabia? I didn't want to kill them. And then when he said, we're not at war with it. We don't want to kill Iranians. We don't want to hit civilian targets. I had...

It was very ironic that the so-called warmonger, maybe it's because a builder and he thinks that as a builder, it makes no sense to blow things up. You should build. But maybe he's actually a humanitarian beneath all of that crude verbiage and idiocy.

in ragadacho in a way that so-called suave humanitarians community organizer Obama wasn't. He was actually kind of boasting that he had, and that's why he joked about killing people with predators. And he thought it was kind of

I don't know. He was very insensitive to the effects of what he did. And Trump actually is much more worried about killing people for no reason. And you saw the same insensitivity with Biden. And, Victor, Trump met. He met with Steve Bannon. He met with Charlie Kirk. He did. He called Tucker up. He met with his part of his base. Yeah, he and Tucker talked. Like, Trump did hear out the other side. He just decided against them. No, he didn't. And you saw the same thing in Afghanistan with Biden. We had the Marines killed. Nobody really—I mean, Biden looked at his watch—

And people and it was all and then we killed an innocent, you know, this would I think Milley said this was a righteous hit. And we killed a family of Afghans and he was calling it righteous strike until he had to withdraw that. So this idea that Trump they're calling him a war criminal. He's the first president that actually died.

He measures very—he would have never attacked, whether you support him or oppose him, he would have never attacked Iran on the day that Israel did. He waited until their assets were attrited. And the weird thing about it is everybody said we're the puppet of baby Netanyahu. The Israelis were the ones that destroyed Hamas. They destroyed the capabilities of

of Hezbollah. They created the conditions under which the Assad dynasty evaporated. They hit the ports. They hit the airfields of the Houthis. They destroyed the Iranian defenses. They depleted a lot of their missiles. And

After that, we went in. And the result of that is because that had happened, the ability of all of these terrorist tentacles to hit us is much less than it would be otherwise. Yes. Trump's detractors want us to believe he just wanted in on the action. He saw B.B. with all these military accomplishments and he wanted to glom us.

That's not it at all. Trump is he cares about American personnel. He cares about Americans. He doesn't want for both humanitarian and political reasons, a bunch of Americans getting killed on foreign bases or domestically. It was the BB created a runway that was far more clear for for U.S. action than I think even Trump expected. That plus the weakening of all their proxies. I think Trump had it.

I think Trump had a discussion with him. I think he said, you know what? This is your existential enemy right on your doorstep. We're going to help you, but we don't like to help. We've been burned by allies that don't help themselves. So show me what you're going to do. And he did. And then he said at some point, and it was kind of smart to say we're going to have a one to 14 day window because

It reified the idea that he could carry out a threat because they were saying at that time, he's just talking, he won't do it. And he knew that each day he waited, the window of surprise was closing. It gave him time to assemble the assets. It showed that he wanted to negotiate.

It was it was he gave a window for if it was possible for Israel, Israel to take out. And he waited and waited. Still an off ramp. Still an off ramp. If the Ayatollah would take it and and he wouldn't take it. And Trump said publicly, I get the feeling that they are jerking us around, which clearly they were. I've got to ask you quickly, Victor, because I know we're up against the clock. Yeah.

Just a minute, because I know that you study this stuff for a living, the magnificence of the American military. And I get it. I understand people are like, we just we had fancy tools and we wanted to use them. It was so much more complex than that. But it was amazing.

from my standpoint, beautifully executed by the Pentagon. I tip my hat to Pete Hegseth, who has come under withering fire for the first four months of the administration. But not a word leaked out of this. The Pentagon went into lockdown. It didn't leak. Our boys, yes, the New York Times and Jennifer Griffin of Fox got upset that Pete used the term our boys, because apparently there was one female pilot. I guarantee you she's a tough badass who doesn't give two shits whether they're referred to as boys.

went over there and got business taken care of. Here is just a bit from Pete Hegseth, an oppressor yesterday morning at eight, talking about how it was done, South Five.

Iran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites. And we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities. And our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now. We believe that'll have a clear psychological impact on how they view the future. And we certainly hope they take the path of negotiated peace.

Your thoughts on that piece of it, Victor? Well, I mean, if you were a stranger from a strange land and somebody told you that they're going to take off from a base in Missouri and then they're going to refuel several times and fly 7,000 miles for 16 hours, and then they're going to drop these huge 30,000-pound bombs through a hole the size of, or a target the size of a kitchen table, and as they get into Iranian airspace, they're going to meet fighter escort and

And they're only going to be there 25 minutes, and then they're going to go all the way back

And they and after and the defense secretary who has been accused of having AIDS that leak, leak, leak, leak is not going to know anything about it because there were reporters at the Missouri base just waiting to see those things. And then there is this elaborate ruse, not just that they were going to Guam, but apparently three of them peeled off to go to Guam. It was it was brilliantly planned. There was no leaks. And so.

It's a funny kind of forever war when no Americans are killed on the first day of hostilities and apparently very few Iranians and probably no Iranian civilians. So everything about it

was professional. And I think it reflects in a way we don't talk about it, but if we had this conversation a year ago, Megan, we were 35,000 to 45,000 recruits down in the military. And the military was not honest with us. The Obama administration

Excuse me, the Biden hierarchy. They were saying, oh, it's because people are out of shape or they're in gang activity or we have to compete with private. It wasn't. It was a sense of D.I. and weaponization of the Pentagon. And Lloyd asked Austin Mark Milley testimonies, the humiliation in Afghanistan and the particular demographic issues.

that had traditionally generation after generation joined the military and had died at double their numbers in the demographic in Iraq and Afghanistan at the point of the spear in combat, they weren't doing it. They just said, you know what?

I'm not going to send my grandson to go over the end of the Pentagon and be indoctrinated and have all the DEI and I'm just not going to do it and then go to a place like Helmand and be on the front lines and be ridiculed as a white racist or they're not going to do it.

And that's all ended now. And there's a sense that the military is back to its original mission, which is battlefield efficacy. And I think it's really improved the morale of the military. And I think they know the weapons they need. Yeah. Very proud of them. That was perfectly executed. I mean, not for nothing, but on our way over to Greece, it was like a very long flight. For the first time, I finally got around to watching Top Gun Maverick.

which so many people have been pointing this out, but I get the references now. But it was, it was like the mission in Top Gun Maverick was basically the mission that our guys just had to do. It's very eerie in the way that movie Contagion with Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow really like completely nailed what would happen during the COVID-19 lockdowns. I know, I know. This movie completely predicted our military situation. Yeah. The thing about, you said just finishing, you mentioned that there was an anger that

They didn't. They said boys instead of women. If she was I think she was the only female pilot in the B-1 program. Yes. Would you know that if there is such a thing as Iranian terrorist cells, you wouldn't want to be identified as the only woman identified.

That would be too hard to find. You could go on the Internet and say, which woman is there a woman in the B2 program and find her name. So, I mean, that would be silly to identify. It's just ridiculous. These people on the left have you can't say you guys anymore if there's a woman in the crowd. Well, guess what we do and we don't want to be lectured. All right, quickly, regime change.

President Trump sent out a tweet last night saying, you know, well, what if what if why wouldn't they want regime change? You know, if this current leadership stays the way it is, my God, make Iran great again. Then today, Caroline Leavitt went on Fox and said basically he was talking about an initiative from the Iranian people. The president believes the Iranian people can control their own destiny. J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio both made clear we're not interested in regime change.

I haven't heard Netanyahu sign on to that. So what do you think is likely to happen when it comes to possible regime change? Yeah, I think what the confusion was with the aim of the mission versus the consequence. It wasn't the aim of the mission, but if that was a consequence, Trump had said, I'm not going to oppose it just because that wasn't my intention. I would welcome it if that's a consequence. Real quickly, we had the Green Revolution in 2009, Obama's

sat mute for 11 days. It was crushed. It's kind of like the Aesop's fable of belling the cat. The mice want to be warned when he comes, but the first mouse who does it is going to get killed. No one volunteers. So it's very hard to protest because it's a terrorist police state. That said, as I said earlier, I think there's a lot of military people that are now going to come into positions of command and control to replace

the most obsequious pro-Iranian, and not that they won't be themselves, but they know they're going to be targeted to be killed. They know that people are angry, that they've been humiliated. If you're an Iranian and you're walking the streets of Tehran and you look and there's a mushroom-shaped

conventional bomb cloud at Qom or Natanz or anywhere near you, or you see pictures of it, and then you say to yourself, those were billions of dollars that we never had for streets, for sewage, for water, for health care. And then you hear about Hamas and Hezbollah getting all this money and becoming completely ineffective and impotent. It's one thing to waste money, but it's another thing to waste money and be humiliated in the process.

And they've been humiliated, the military and the theocracy. And I think a lot of people in the military are going to start pointing fingers at somebody and saying that people are very, very angry and we can't protect them and we were impotent. But it was the other people who were killed and it was the theocracy. And the longer that Khamenei is...

in seclusion and not visible, it's going to be very hard for him because he's in a Nosralla lose-lose. Nosralla did that. And finally, people were saying, is he chicken that he wants us to get killed? And then when he started to communicate with people, he was killed. He was killed. And I think he knows if he keeps hitting Israel, they're going to kill him, the Israelis will, if he keeps doing it. And he knows that. And by the way, just the whole talk of like,

If there's regime change, they're going to descend into civil war. We're getting ahead of ourselves. We're not pushing for regime change. We're not. No, I think Trump Caroline made that clear. His tweet was ambiguous and she's cleared it up. And all of his top emissaries are saying it's a no. We didn't break it. I mean, yeah, we didn't break it. So we're not responsible. Let's go slow. Yeah.

Yeah. Let's go slow and we'll cross that bridge when we get closer to it. We broke the nuclear program, but we didn't break the society itself. It's their business to do what they want. Victor, so glad you made the time for us this morning. It's wonderful speaking to you. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Didn't you want to hear from him? I was dying to hear from him so, so much on this.

There's a lot more to go over. There are a lot of political implications to all of this, and there's other news too. And there's also the launch of a new MK media show with Emily Jashinsky, who I know you guys love. And so do we, she's the host of the newest one. It's called, uh, after party with Emily Jashinsky. It's going to air live. It's gonna be our first live streaming show on YouTube. And we'll be right back with her basketball season may be over, but the action doesn't stop because baseball's just heating up over on prize picks. I'm

a place to cash in on your favorite spots and sports. With millions of members, PrizePix has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. The app is really simple to use. You pick two or more players across any sport. You pick more or less on their projection, and you could win up to 2,000 times your cash. Step up to the plate and add your favorite players to your lineup with PrizePix. Whether it's strikeouts, home runs, or hits, make your picks in less than 60 seconds and turn your sports into

takes into real money all season long. Join PrizePix, America's number one daily fantasy sports app available to play in more than 40 states, including California and Texas. Download the PrizePix app today and use code Megan and get 50 bucks instantly when you play five bucks. That's code Megan on PrizePix to get $50 instantly when you play $5. PrizePix, run your game. Must be present in certain states. Visit prizepix.com for restrictions and details.

We're talking Trump and Iran, the MAGA moment and more with the next MK Media Podcast Network star, Emily Jashinsky. You know Emily, of course, well, she's been on this show more than nearly any other guest, 35 times actually. You know, her is one half of the lovely EJs. And now she's got her own show on the MK Media Network. It's called After Party with Emily Jashinsky. What's different about this one, among other things, is it's going to be live on YouTube. It's

It's our very first streaming show at 10 p.m. Eastern, and it premieres tonight. Here's a taste of the trailer.

Hey everyone, it's Emily Jaschinski, your host for an exclusive after party. And the VIP guest is you. Starting June 23rd, I'm inviting you into my home twice a week for an exciting new show direct from MK Media. It promises to be something that's largely lacking in the conservative space. A free-form, unfiltered, authentic conversation about pop culture and the news after the sun goes down. Don't bullshit us. You are not brave.

We'll talk big picture politics. Whatever consultant came up with that was actually onto something, even if their idea was wasted on a doomed candidate. Media. So even by their own objectives, they're too dumb. Current trends. And we'll share a lot of laughs, too.

It appears that he has been completely outsourcing his business to a 24 year old who's like, to put it crassly, sleeping with him. After Party with Emily Jashinsky, the late night show you didn't ask for, but won't forget. That's amazing. So excited. Okay, don't forget, it's live tonight on YouTube, 10 p.m. Eastern, and her first guest is...

is our pal Tucker Carlson. You heard his name mentioned a couple of times in the first hour. He's all over the news these days. So a great guest again, that'll be live. So uncensored, unfiltered and breaking. Go ahead and subscribe now on YouTube and on all podcasts and social platforms to support and enjoy Emily's show after party, Emily.com after party, Emily.com EJ congrats. Great to see you. And how excited are you for tonight?

I'm so excited. Thank you so much for your support. I'm really grateful. I can't believe your team counted how many times I've been on the show. It's an incredible number, 35 times. That's how much we love.

It's amazing. Oh my gosh. Every time it just makes my day. So thank you. Really excited and so excited to have Tucker on. Could not think of possibly a better guest to jump on live tonight. So we're really excited. Yes. Yes. That'll kick it off with a bang and it'll be great to hear him respond to, you know, him being in the news so much over the past week. He's obviously had his own show, but it's different when you get to ask him and he's very forthcoming. I think you guys will have a great exchange. I'm looking forward to watching it. Okay.

You're going to have a lot to talk about right now. There's news breaking out of the White House. President Trump, we believe right now is in the situation room dealing with what looks like Iranian retaliation against not one, but so far two. This is one or three p.m. in the afternoon. We are recording this. It's live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 attacks on our bases. Iran has launched six ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar.

According to open source Intel, the New York Times saying, per Jonathan Swan, a senior White House official confirms they're aware of a potential attack by Iran against the American base in Qatar. Quote, the White House and the Department of Defense are aware of and closely monitoring potential threats to al-Udeid airbase in Qatar. In addition, open source Intel reporting explosions reported at U.S. al-Assad airbase in western Iraq.

and also reporting, quoting the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Operation Fatah's blessing against the American Al-Yudid base in Qatar has begun.

The New York Times is Eric Schmidt goes on the main base in Qatar. Al-Yadid Air Base, the forward headquarters of U.S. CENTCOM has 10,000 military and civilian personnel. It's heavily fortified by an array of air defenses that have been on high alert in recent days, anticipating an Iranian retaliatory attack. This is posted by Breaking 911, an online news source, saying,

purporting to be air defenses seen activated over Doha, Qatar, after Iran fired a barrage of missiles at it, likely targeting again the Al Udeid airbase where U.S. forces are stationed. Let's watch.

And for the listening audience, it looks exactly like what we've seen over Israel in recent days, where you can see the missiles getting fired. And then in that case, Israel's Iron Dome thwarting many of the missiles, not all. And I don't know what the protections are over our air bases in these areas. You've got to think that

The United States, which is largely largely responsible for Iron Dome over Israel to begin with, has done as much to protect American troops at these outposts, these air base in Qatar and Iraq. But we will see. Now, this is this is also just coming through. Hold on. Alarms have been reported at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait. Yeah. So one in Bahrain, one in Kuwait.

Reports of three direct hits on the U.S. base in Qatar, reports Charlie Kirk. No initial reports of U.S. casualties. Let's pray that's true. So we're seeing the Iranian response right now, or at least the beginning of it. Emily, what do you make of it?

Well, yeah, that last question is really critical. No casualties so far. So right now, the question is whether this is a kind of carefully choreographed back and forth between the United States and Iran. If Iran responds in a way that does not, for example, kill American troops.

then perhaps a larger conflagration can still be avoided. I tend to think the possibility of that is tragically very low and I'm still incredibly deeply concerned about the risks to the lives of Americans or 40,000 American troops in the region. So if Iran has its nuclear program almost totally destroyed, that's also a critical question. I know you talked about that earlier in the show, but

But if that happens, they've spent decades building this up. What do we expect from them retaliation wise? Do we expect them to actually come to the negotiating table or do we expect them to escalate with more and more military strikes? And then if American if Americans die in all of this, you can expect

a much more robust response from the American president, from the American military. And that's where this becomes an all-out war. So what's happening right now is, I mean, basically we're seeing the future of this conflict in real time, depending on the reports that we're getting in minute by minute right now to determine whether or not this escalates.

I mean, this is, of course, the concern that the, you know, J.D. Vance says we're not at war with Iran. We're at war with their nuclear program. The thing is, Iran has a say. They have a say in that. And if they don't just accept that we blew up their nuclear program or at least most of it and they fight back by doing things like this and American blood and treasure is spilled.

military or not, I mean, civilian is next level because of course, you know, it's not that we're okay with our military getting killed, but it's a different matter to kill American civilians, which we did not do in targeting around nuclear sites. Then yeah, the president's got to respond. Our president's got to respond, even though we know Trump doesn't want war with Iran. I believe him that he doesn't want war with Iran, but he's not going to sit back and not respond

Right. And yeah, exactly. That's and that's where it's for the American president. You have to respond, even if you have dubs in your ears saying this is the time to get to the negotiating table and this is the time for peace. Well, if you are somebody who believes in the doctrine of peace through strength, which Donald Trump absolutely does, then you're going to feel as though you have no choice but to retaliate.

And especially if the lives of American soldiers or, God forbid, American civilians are lost. And so what we're looking at right now over Qatar and Kuwait is critical. There's also potentially, now that Iran has been damaged very heavily on the military level, the potential for attacks on the homeland domestically. There's a potential for sleeper cells to be activated.

in the United States, certainly, because Iran now has to rely on asymmetric warfare, given the attacks that they have faced from Israel and the United States in the last couple of weeks. So this is a really, really dangerous time, and not just as we're looking at those images of what's happening over the skies of Kuwait and Qatar.

This is a very, very dangerous time throughout the entire world. And we're just, again, we're waiting minute by minute, kind of bracing ourselves to see what comes of this, because we could end up just in the next couple of days into a full-blown sort of post-9-11 war. Obviously, things are different. It's not apples to apples with Iraq or Afghanistan. But this could escalate into something that looks much more familiar to us very soon. I just don't know how Iran's going to do that. They've just been so...

hobbled by Israel. And I believe that they will launch things like this against the air bases in the region to try to make a point. But their ability to continue this on and on, highly questionable. I mean, Israel's taken out

all of their top commanders of the IRGC, certainly of their nuclear program. They've cut off the head of every single snake growing militarily in Iran. It's going to be a very difficult matter for them to conduct any sort of ongoing warfare against anyone, never mind the United States of America.

I hope so. And I actually, I think the best case scenario of all of this, the best case scenario of the strikes, and again, I'm sort of in the position where it was like, I hope that I'm proven wrong when the strikes were launched, because to me, it seemed like a, it's a smaller percentage possibility that what happens from all of this is we see retaliatory strikes like we see right now. There are no American casualties, no American deaths, and Iran ends up at the negotiating table

I am one of the people that believed that was a smaller possibility. But if that's actually what plays out, then that really is the best case scenario. Then you do end up going to the negotiating table because Iran realizes that, as you said, I mean, the head of Hezbollah, the head of Hamas, Israel has absolutely done significant damage to Iran's operations, terrorist operation worldwide. And inside Iran, too.

not just the proxies, but inside Iran with respect to the Revolutionary Guard. I mean, it's they did their homework on who is running Iran's military program. And those people are almost all dead.

And, you know, the Ayatollah is in hiding and not communicating with anybody like they're not in a strong position. This is the one thing they do have. They have ballistic missiles. And you can thank Barack Obama for that, by the way. This is Barack Obama's doing. He's the one with his ridiculous Iran agreement who made sure they would have access to their ballistic missiles. The same agreement that

Tommy Veeder and these other pod save America guys are out there praising like it was going to set us on the road to peace until the evil Trump blew it up when he became president in term one. But that's what we're watching rain down on our guys right now. Emily, just adding to this

again, sourcing open source intel, which has been right about everything so far. That doesn't mean they're always right. I don't exactly understand how it works. Sirens continue to sound at U.S. bases across the Middle East, including in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. Now, that would make sense because when one of our bases in the region is under attack, or possibly two, they would be sounding the alarm at all of them, getting everybody on high alert. And again, the president's in the Situation Room

Right now, I'm sure Secretary Hegseth is there. He's probably got Radcliffe of the CIA there coming chairman of the Joint Chiefs. They're all going to be there momentarily if they're not there now trying to figure out what our response is going to be, because you do. I mean, I do think it matters in these moments, Emily, that President Trump does not want a forever war. He doesn't want an open war with Iran, but he's not afraid of them either.

Right. And he has to sort of walk that line right now. And it's the same thing with Vice President Vance and Secretary Hegseth, both people who have openly been talking about ending forever wars. If DNI Tulsi Gabbard is there, she is another voice from that section of the MAGA movement and actually from American politics. So we know that there are a lot of people with AIDs.

an ideology that's different than what was in the Situation Room in 2003, 2005, even honestly 2009. So there is something different. And I know that might sound like cold comfort to people maybe who have relatives, family members serving overseas right now, but I do think there's definitely something to be said for that. I don't think the president or even elected officials, J.D. Vance, on the cynical political level,

I think they realize that the American public is both not in favor of a long entanglement in Iran in the Middle East, but on the other hand, the American public has complicated opinions on this and also doesn't want to see American service members or American civilians be killed and not

retaliate. So it's an incredibly difficult question, both in substance and in the political side of it. So they have a lot to balance right now because every move, if they want to get to the peace table, every move

is going to be absolutely critical. And who knows what's happening behind the scenes, the back channel communications between other Arab countries, between Arab countries and other partners in the region. Who knows what the Israelis think is best in their next moves and how that may compare and contrast with what the American allies

president thinks is in his best interest. So there's just so much we don't know about. We won't for days to come. We'll just be able to tell based on what's happening, playing out in front of us. I mean, the other problem we don't we have is we haven't seen the intelligence that Trump has seen.

We don't, you know, it's hard to be super critical of the guy when we don't know everything he knows. We know some, we know what the New York times has reported in the first hour. We talked with BDH about their report saying that Israeli Intel showed Iran was accelerating its nuclear efforts. And actually the IAEA confirmed that they, they not only confirmed 60% enrichment, but the IAEA confirmed acceleration by Iran. I just wanted to point this out cause I didn't get to it in our one.

Um,

they did see a step up. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grassi has previously warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near weapons grade levels to make several nuclear bombs if it chooses to do so. And regarding its centrifuges, verified that Iran had increased the number of operating cascades by 12 to a total of 27 at its underground nuclear plant in Natanz, said that

there had been that they had significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium and that it was of serious concern. And that was as of this past November. So it both the both the Israeli intelligence, which, of course, we know has been pushing in one direction, but also the IAEA has said that Iran did it did accelerate, has been accelerating in recent months, making it look like.

They wanted that bomb like they felt things falling apart and were getting ready to gin up their last best weapon. And that could be what President Trump was looking at when he said, let's take them out, because what we had from Tulsi was a report in March that was only cited in part by reporters looking to embarrass her.

Um, Caitlin Collins of CNN got in Trump's face on air force one and said, Oh, you're your director of national intelligence said that the Ayatollah had not restarted its atomic weapons program and, um, is not making a nuclear bomb. And Trump said, well, I, I've seen different intelligence and I don't listen to her.

And the truth is, Tulsi did say that in a report, just like every DNI has said, every DNI has said that for years now. But she also added the second piece, which is, but they are enriching uranium at a seriously dangerous level and one that is totally inconsistent with a domestic energy program. No one who's using nuclear or uranium for domestic energy needs 60 percent enriched.

What you need to get a bomb is 90% enriched and it's pretty easy to go from 60 to 90. It's much more difficult to go from zero to 10 and from 10 to 60 like they did and already had accomplished. So that's where we are right now, where you've got intelligence going to the president from our own domestic sources that is mixed from Israeli sources that's not mixed and from the IAEA that has really no reason to lie in a way that makes Iran look bad.

that may have been a further alarm. So I don't, you know, it's, it's very hard to sit in our armchairs and, you know, question Trump's decision. It's one of the things, the Hawks and the doves, this is an interesting point may agree on going forward is that if it seems, and the New York times has reported this and other nuclear experts have pointed this out in the last day or so, if it seems as though, uh,

Iran did move some of its nuclear material in trucks. There were reports of trucks leaving the sites and transporting stuff out on, I think it was Friday. And so if that's the case,

You may have the hawks and doves agreeing, actually, that Iran still has nuclear capabilities, that they weren't significantly damaged, that you have to do a lot more work. I mean, they were significantly damaged, but not totally destroyed. Meaning if you're going to spend the millions and millions of dollars on these strikes,

with the intent of utterly destroying and decimating Iran's nuclear capability, then there's still a lot of work left to do. And I'm actually kind of interested in that, Megan, going forward. The intelligence, it's obviously from the armchairs here in the U.S., really difficult to understand as civilians what's going on behind the scenes. I totally agree with that. So I'm just curious going forward, like to what extent the people who want more

involvement in Iran. They want an escalated military presence from the United States and the people who say, wait a minute, let's stop doing this, actually agree that Iran still has some measure, some capacity of

to start enrichment really rapidly. That's the thing that J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard had pointed to, is that the enrichment was at a level such that you could very quickly go from zero to 100, from civilian to military use. And so I think that's one of the big questions on the table right now, is to what extent does that ability still exist? Well, the other question is, after Israel,

began with an attack on Iran. I mean, again, this is they didn't begin this war. They were attacked on 10-7-23 by an Iranian proxy, Hamas. But when Israel attacked Iran directly, we did see a response from Iran that was I mean, it was it's significant. They're raining down missiles on them.

But there's been a question for a while now about whether Iran has the capacity to really unleash hell on Israel or anybody else at this point. And like what they're doing right now at these military bases, maybe a check the box situation where it's like,

We need to do something. We're not going to just let them attack us, but we're going to make sure that we minimize casualties. And they've done this before. They did this with the United States. I think it was 2020 in 2020. And this, as I say it, the New York Times reports as follows. Iran coordinated the attacks on the American air base in Qatar with Qatari officials and

and gave advance notice that the attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans. There it is. The officials said Iran symbolically needed to strike back at the U.S., but at the same time carry out in a way that allowed all sides an exit ramp. They described it as a similar strategy to 2020 when Iran gave Iraq

a heads up before firing ballistic missiles at an American base in Iraq following the assassination of its top general, Soleimani. So, and by the way, the open source intel reporting Iran's Supreme National Security Council says it launched as many missiles as the number of bombs used by the U.S. in its strike. If that's what this is, and

By the way, Qatar is saying that its air defense systems have successfully thwarted the attack and intercepted the Iranian missiles. So they do have Iron Dome of their own. And there's no loss of American life. I mean, this would be this. This this won't escalate things at all. Right. If they make an effort, they launch the same number of bombs we launched and none of our guys gets killed because they gave an advance warning and they evacuated the, you know, the areas or they they were ready for them.

That's, I guess, about as good as we could hope for, Emily. Yeah, I mean, that would be hugely vindicating to President Trump and it would prove me wrong. It would prove if that turns out to be the case. And these indications are actually really positive, like a rare glimpse of optimism amidst all of this turmoil. If that's what happens and it looks like it's going in that direction, that is vindicating for Donald Trump. It proves people like me wrong.

And so that's a really, really good sign because that would signal that it was similar to what happened after the killing of Soleimani, that it was this kind of choreographed back and forth. Iran knew it had to retaliate. Now, one of the things that concerns me is there are reports just in the last couple of weeks that Iranian nationalism is rising again.

because of the strikes in Israel, meaning that their own public may desire something that looks different than this, that maybe this could be coupled with sleeper cell activity in the American homeland. I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is really good news, as awful as it is to watch this happening and praying right now that it remains the case. Everyone is safe and there are no casualties, but that would be vindicating for people who said it was possible to do a

a targeted, precise strike, nearly destroy all of Iran's nuclear capabilities, set them back significantly, and then get them to the negotiating table. This is the type of thing that should signal they're ready to talk more with Steve Witkoff and with the Trump administration. I would assume that's what this indicates. It's not necessarily the case. It's not a given. But this is obviously a

in the most twisted way, a positive sign if this reporting from the New York Times is borne out. I don't even know what we're going to be discussing now. What are we going to be discussing at the negotiating table? What we wanted was for them to end their nuclear program. They jerked us along and so we ended it. I mean, we annihilated it. It may not be, you know, 100 percent gone, but it's 90 percent gone. That's my back of the envelope

guess they're still assessing the damage and all that. But I mean, let's face it, it's been absolutely devastated by these bombs. It's not still in operation. They can rebuild. But the point is, what are we negotiating? Stop dropping ballistic missiles on Israel. OK, good luck with that. I mean, that's inspectors, by the way. I think that's one of the things.

You know, like Israel's got to negotiate that. That's kind of between them. And like, look, Israel's got that one handled. What are we negotiating? What we care about is the Iranian nuclear program. And we just took care of it. So I just like the Ayatollah is not going to behave in good faith. And we've seen that Trump Trump treats everyone.

everybody like they can be negotiated with, to his credit. And he went in there saying, let's talk it out. We can have a beautiful Iran with a thriving economy. Let's do this thing, same as he did in Saudi Arabia and everything. And then he realized that he's dealing with a bunch of radical Islamic jihadists whose mission in life is to martyr themselves and kill the infidels like us, not the Iranian people, but those who run its regime. And

eventually that resulted in a big number of bombs getting dropped on Iran's nuclear facilities. I just don't know, like what, what is there left to talk about with these people?

I think going forward, the Trump administration will probably want, and this was at issue in the Iran nuclear deal, they'll probably want inspections. That's going to be one of the sources of back and forth. If Iran, if that's the case, and they are at the negotiating table, they'll say, we need to be able to inspect more clearly, more reliably what you're rebuilding going forward. But if you're Iran, I mean, that's the other...

that's the other massive unanswered question, uh, open question right now is, is how does Iran see all of this in its own interest? If it wants to, I assume that Iran has every intention of rebuilding its nuclear program. I mean, this is a decades long enterprise and a sort of, they saw as a centerpiece of their negotiating power, um, the world over. And obviously that's, you know, from the American perspective, a

massive mistake, but I don't know that they've been dissuaded from using it as a bargaining chip going forward. So yeah, I mean, that makes it seem like any negotiations would be dead on arrival. I don't know what they can talk about at this point. I think that's a really great point because it's like, well, if they're in the process of rebuilding, why are we even going to talk to them after just spending hundreds of millions of dollars risking American chips lives to

basically almost destroy the program completely. And by the way, Israel assassinated all the heads of their nuclear program. So it's going to be a little tougher to rebuild than it would have been five years ago. Like, say what you will about the Israelis, they don't F around. Like,

once they've decided you're a problem for them and they go in militarily, it's not going to, it's not going to go well for you. And they, they did their homework. They obviously have a lot of Intel inside of Iran, which is their chief enemy, which exists to destroy Israel. And it has been saying that this Ayatollah has been saying that for decades now, dying to kill Israel. And Israel finally had enough in the wake of everything that's happened over there. So I just don't, I'm not sure what the next step is going to be. And I'm not sure what

what Iran has left to offer us. That would, you know, I mean, I guess everybody's looking for an off ramp. If that's true, that'd be great. They say they won't do it anymore and they allow more inspections. You know, they've kind of stopped allowing as many inspections, but they still have allowed some by the IAEA. That's okay. They say that they'll allow more and that they won't do it anymore. And we pretend that's real. And then we don't bomb them anymore and we get out and they stop retaliating against our bases. Okay. I guess that would look okay.

But the most important thing that needed to happen just happened on Saturday night, which is, you know, the bombing. I don't know when you when you say they would prove you wrong. Are you in the camp of those who don't believe we should have dropped the bombs on Saturday? Yeah. And just because I think the risk and I don't think this with any 100 percent certainty. I think, you know, anybody who said that they knew for sure what would happen if Donald Trump struck the Iranian sites was wrong.

I mean, there was no way to know for certain what would happen. I thought the probability was unacceptably high that this would pull us into just inevitably onto the slippery slope of escalation. So I would be surprised if Iran's response is exactly what The New York Times is reporting now, but I wouldn't be shocked.

Because to your point, their leverage has been significantly damaged. The thing that still gives me an enormous amount of concern is just what you laid out, their intention for what Iran should be as they see it on the world stage because of Islamism, extreme Islamism, like all of that gives me really, really concern.

serious pause about whether even if we see a kind of carefully choreographed response where they are telegraphing that they're about to do it, they give this advance notice and there are no deaths and no casualties. If we see that,

I still am really nervous that something's going to happen here in the United States. I'm still really nervous that there's going to be more provocations going forward because I just have a hard time believing that they're willing to just completely capitulate. At the same time, your point is really compelling about their lack of leverage and the amount of leverage that they've lost in negotiations, which, by the way,

were ongoing in the last few months with the Trump administration. So I don't know what's going to happen, but I'm still pretty worried about escalation, though this is a good, good sign. Let me ask you this, because I'm...

curious about this. I spent the week off as you know, but I listened to everybody. I was listening to my neocon friends over at commentary. I listened to all of Tucker's podcasts, which are a hundred percent the other way. Uh, listen to ban and you know, all of it. And so I, I find the difference in opinion, very compelling, very interesting, very sincere. I'm like,

I have almost no tolerance for the people who, you know, look at Tucker and just say he's an anti-Semite. That's such bullshit. He doesn't want another Middle East war. It doesn't make him an anti-Semite.

It's ridiculous. There are a lot of people with a very good faith belief that this is the wrong move for us. And that's that's OK. This nonsense from like AOC that he should be impeached is just absurd, absurd. There's no OK. Get back to me when you've read the Constitution or get a law degree because you sound like an absolute fucking idiot.

There is absolutely no ground to impeach the president. He 100% was within his constitutional authority and his congressionally authorized authority to do what he did on Saturday. Okay. But as for whether it's a good idea, that's a debate we should be having. And look, you know, if we could get congressional approval of the specific action, fine. I'm okay with that too. If you want to bring it to Congress, go ahead and see, see how that goes. I don't think it's necessary, but go for it if you want to. Um, in any event, I am curious as to what you think

he should have done. Like, let's say he was in a position where Bibi comes to him and says they are accelerating. I know I've said this 10,000 times for the past 25 years. I know I said, but I'm telling you this time it's real. And he has reason to believe Netanyahu because of the compromised state Iran is in, having seen all of its proxies get beheaded over the past year. You know, Hamas,

Hezbollah, the Houthis more recently, like it's not doing well. And it's scariest arms have really been hurt as a result of their attack on Israel and Israel's response and what we did to the Houthis and the war, the naval battle that we saw just, you know, a couple of months ago. So let's say Iran was in a panic and that data was real.

like it's accelerating. And we actually do believe and you totally believe that they will use a nuke against Israel and possibly against the United States, although that just I mean, that's guaranteed self-destruction. But he Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush have all said that Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. They can't. It's just this president. Forgive me, but he

he had the balls to actually do something about it. I mean, I said to my friend in texting the other day, I'm like the wrong administration officials got the nickname big balls. It's Trump. Like this required massive balls.

It's just the guy's got a very steely spine and zero F's to give. Like he he can't be pushed around. He can't be scared. He had a near death experience that changed his view, I think, of his own consequential life and in our place in the world anyway. For all those reasons, Trump did what nobody else would do. So what would you have done if they you know, like what should he have let them do? Just if he believed that intel, just let him let him get it.

I think your hypothetical about the intel is what's most difficult for me because if you are just a civilian and you have to rely on the reporting and the fog of war strategic leaks about what the intel is. So, for example, my colleague Sager has reported that we don't have any American intel. We have this really intel that Americans are relying on because Mossad has an impressive operation in Iran, no doubt about it. That seems clear.

Right. And that's really, again, difficult for a civilian to sit back and say, because we've been told for 25 years they're going to have the bomb within a year, six months, weeks. We ran that. But it's out of BB. So it has a boy who cried wolf feel to it. And you're talking about American lives potentially.

Yeah. And, you know, I was rereading some of the reporting from Judith Miller and others back in 2003 about, you know, the lead up to the Iraq war the other day. And again, I get it's not apples to apples, but when you're reading it, you just realize how eerily similar the pattern of selective leaking is. There are some people who do. I think for some.

you know, unfortunate reasons. It's not that they're bad people, but that they prefer military action who are strategically leaking things in a way that would push us down the slippery slope. And we accept all that. And I don't disagree. But let me let me ask you about like the IAEA report about 60 percent enrichment.

And even Tulsi's testimony, Tulsi's very dovish testimony that there is zero reason why they'd be enriching this much if it were purely for domestic energy purposes. Right. I mean, like no one, no one seems to be disputing that 60% enrichment thing. There's zero reason for them to do that unless they're making a nuke. And in fact, the reports are they probably already have enough for nine or 10 of them at least. So what about that? Because do you think that's made up to by the warmongery military industrial complex crew? They got the IAEA to say that.

That's what's so hard for me. I mean, I genuinely don't know. And I'm not an expert on nuclear proliferation, but from the outside, whether or not they're able to go quickly from A to Z is a hugely important question. If like where they are right now puts them in a place where just in a matter of and this is critical because even Tulsi Gabbard said this, the quote was weeks later.

or months. Okay, but months could be, you know, 15 months. But it doesn't have to be. Okay, but let me, okay, I'm going to give you the floor back. But it doesn't have to be imminent. I think what Trump is thinking is,

They're weak. They're the weakest now they've been in decades. All of their favorite arms have been cut off or severely hobbled. So there's no better time they can do the least damage to our troops at these outposts and God forbid domestically now than they've ever been able to do, at least in the past 46 years. They've been killing Americans throughout that entire time. Undisputable, indisputable that they've been killing hundreds of

of American Marines, American Air Force, American personnel at base after base throughout those 46 years, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Okay, so now you've got your chance. That's what's different. To me, the reason we have a president willing to accept that Israeli intel

And again, maybe it's real because Iran's in a different position right now. It's possible they really did say, holy shit, pedal to the metal. We need this. But even if they didn't, I think the difference is we have a president who looked at the scenario and said, now is the time that I've got to be honest. Like there's no there's never been a better time. And I know what everyone else has always known, which is, of course, they are building toward one.

And here's the other thing that we haven't talked about yet that gives me a little bit of pause. And again, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I do think also there was a sudden, and J.D. Vance was posting about this last week, there was a sudden shift from Israel and then from the United States that I am very curious about because there were diplomatic options being explored by Steve Witkoff, who I think has done a really, really good job

a really brave thing over the last several months, last six months since Donald Trump was inaugurated and opened up some important conversations. So I'm curious if the diplomatic options were actually exhausted. And again, I get obviously all of the challenges of having negotiations with Iran, but the sudden change to me, I'm,

without getting back into the intel conversation, I'm genuinely curious if that was based on intelligence that had changed very suddenly, or if because Israel moved to the strikes, we ended up not having diplomatic options that we could continue pursuing. And then the diplomatic options are now off the table in a way where they could still be explored if in this situation. I mean, that to me is a huge question about going back to what Donald Trump should have done

could Donald Trump have said to Netanyahu, we are close to having a deal that is better than risking escalation with Iran? I'm curious about that. I don't know. Again, it's hard from the outside, but I'm genuinely very curious. It sounds like what we're hearing from the reports is that our intel went to Trump and said,

It's done. Bibi's going to do it. And including Radcliffe at CIA said it's the ship has sailed. He's doing it with or without us. And Trump accepted that as a reality. And Israel's obviously in a very difficult position right now. It's been attacked brutally and it's at war with everybody. And I realize that's a lot of American detractors over here. President Trump's decisions feel like we're being led around by Israel. We're fighting wars that aren't ours.

And that I am open-minded to that too. I mean, I understand it's like,

we got our own problems. Like we can't be fighting Israel's problems, but it is an American problem. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, like it, I think that is potentially problem. I don't think it's the same as like, well, what, well, Israel has one. Well, I mean, they're not radical Islamist jihadis. Do you not understand the difference? Like go do two minutes of research on what radical Islamic jihadis want to do the, to the United States or any America. And I'm, I have zero tolerance for the people who say it has nothing to do with our

values. It's the fact that we've been too bellicose and too warmongery in the Middle East. Bullshit. Do your homework about radical Islam. They want to kill all of us, all of us. They'd like every single day. It is not just a fucking chant death to America. They actually want it to happen. They've been working to kill American troops for the better part of five decades now, and it's not going to change. They've made really clear what they want and how they feel about us.

So they cannot have a nuclear bomb. They cannot. In the same way, ISIS, when it was around, could not have a nuclear bomb. Like the people who are dedicated to killing America, this is not a good idea. So I think Trump saw an opportunity and took it. And I totally believe he's anti-forever war. And I believe that Tulsi and J.D. Vance and Steve Witkoff, all of whom I think are much closer to Tucker's view, to your view too, Mm-hmm.

We're probably much more slow rolling on this, like probably much more like, well, wait, maybe it's not a good idea, but they're all standing behind him now. Not for nothing. But here's what Tulsi actually testified to at that March hearing before Congress. So 15.

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's the second part. It's unprecedented for a state without, of course, it's

There's no reason for 60% enriched uranium if all you want is your lights to go on. By the way, it's one of the richest oil countries in the world. It does not need nuclear energy. And why would it do it when it's so controversial, given the fact that it's a wash in oil?

Right. It's just, I mean, to me, it seems very clear, but anyway, okay. Stand by. We have more with Emily Jashinsky. She's not only our friend, she's the host of after party with EJ and you've got to tune in tonight live at 10 on YouTube to see her interview Tucker. Very interesting to hear his POV in the wake of what we just saw with Iran's retaliation. These days, it feels like everyone has an agenda, the media, big tech, but let me tell you about ground news. They do not filter the news. They

They show how stories are being shaped, spun or ignored entirely so you can decide what to believe. Ground News is an independent app and website built to give users control over their news feed. It aggregates coverage from across the political spectrum and breaks down how each outlet is framing the story, including bias ownership and what key details might be missing. If you're tired of being told what matters or what doesn't, it might be time to take the power back.

Ground News is offering 40% off their unlimited access vantage plan for a limited time. This offer is available exclusively at groundnews.com slash Megan. That's ground, G-R-O-U-N-D, news, N-E-W-S, dot com, slash Megan. Don't let anyone else decide what you get to see. Take back control of your news feed today. Let's be real. Our modern world, it's toxic.

From ultra-processed foods to environmental chemicals, our bodies are under attack every single day. And one of the biggest casualties, our digestion. Millions of people suffer with indigestion, bloating, and stomach upset. But here's some good news. We don't have to just accept this. See, our ancestors had an answer to this all along. Bitter foods. Did you know bitter foods can help you?

Bitter herbs and plants have been used for centuries to stimulate digestion, support detox, and keep the gut thriving. I want to tell you about Just Thrive Digestive Bitters. With a powerful blend of ancient time-tested bitter herbs, Just Thrive says just one dose before meals can wake up your digestive system, and Just Thrive says it helps you break down food properly and help with bloating and sluggish digestion.

So consider ditching the modern toxins and getting back to what our bodies were designed for. Consider Just Thrive Digestive Bitters available now at justthrivehealth.com. Use code Megan to save 20% off your first order. That's justthrivehealth.com, promo code M-E-G-Y-N.

And that's commercial break. Nice. Ooh, hear that? My neck cracked. So satisfying. Speaking of satisfying, I just used a Clorox toilet wand. Ooh, with the cleaner already in it. Yes. All in one. The brush just clicks on. Click. The news.

and pops right off into the trash. Just click, swish, bop. Clorox. Clean feels good. Clean feels good. Oh, we're back. Use as directed. I'm

I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, I'm back, Nancy Grace, Dave,

I'm your host, Megan Kelly.

Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply.

Emily Jashinsky is back with me now. She's the host of After Party with Emily Jashinsky live on YouTube at 10 p.m. Eastern, kicking off tonight. Go subscribe now to After Party Emily. That makes you sound like a fun girl. After Party Emily on YouTube. You know, when we were coming up with names for the show, the amount of times that we were bouncing them back and forth and we're saying, okay, so that makes me sound like a stripper. Like it happened like 10 different times. We would come up with a really good idea and then be like, oh.

no can't do that wait that reminds me doug just sent to our family text chain there's this website that gives you your pirate name your your pirate name and this is how you come up with it you got to give your okay your first name is emily it starts with an e so your your first name and your pirate name is broken emily what's your what's the first letter of your middle name b

Broken Knuckles. That's your second. And then your last name is a J. The Ghastly. Broken Knuckles the Ghastly. That's your pirate name. I mean, we should just call the show that. Why didn't we go with that? Mine is Filthy Guns the Hideous. Another idea for the Megyn Kelly show. You can change the name. It's never too late.

Anyway, so it's going to be very fun and it's going to be a huge hit. And I have a suggestion for you on your first guest after Tucker, maybe tomorrow or the next show. And I think that person should be Ariana Grande because she's got a lot of thoughts, Emily, a lot of thoughts on Trump's bombing of Iran. And she has endorsed the AOC tweet saying that he should be impeached. Ariana Grande, who...

as far as I know, has done nothing other than sing and dance, which is fine. She seems to be very good at that. Would like us to listen to her political opinions now, in particular, her constitutional opinions on whether he's gone too far. And the reason she's qualified to make this conclusion is because of the segments she did for years on Nickelodeon as follows. Sometimes I wonder if you can get juice from a potato. No.

Did that air on Nickelodeon? Come on! Give up the juice! Yikes! Thirsty! In another video, Ariana's pouring water on herself in what seems like a very sexual manner. And people started saying, this feels inappropriate for children.

That's from the Quiet Onset documentary about the Nickelodeon problems. And she was exploited as a young person. It's not nice. It's actually quite sad. But now she's decided to take that troubled youth and turn it around to make constitutional judgments about our president. Your thoughts? Well,

Well, I would love to know if she ever got juice out of the potato, because that is genuinely a good question that I hadn't thought of before. But other than that, I mean, we're about to go back to, I mean, this depends obviously on what the escalation looks like. And we just talked about that. And I know you talked about that with VDH, but if we all remember, Zoomers don't, what it was like though in 2000 and around 2005, when public opinion on the Iraq war started to change, it was just a

constant onslaught of celebrity armchair punditry about what's happening and the president. And again, like some of the division that people sense in our politics today, it's amusing to some extent to hear Zoomers like be so exhausted and fatigued with it because

I mean, people remember what it was like in the mid-2000s, and it was really, really ugly. I feel like we have amnesia kind of culturally about how ugly politics and culture was during that time in the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. And it was a lot of that fueled by celebrities wading into these waters in really divisive ways that were also very, I think, offensive to people.

everyday americans i mean we don't have to relitigate what happened with the dixie chicks but part of what did happen there is people took offense to the fact that they were overseas and they were talking about the american president in a way where they were speaking to an audience in i think it was london it was in england uh and it was just infuriating to a lot of people who like literally burned dixie chicks cds um and i don't think that stemmed exactly from a um

a disagreement with the politics of what they said as much as it was like, how dare you? How dare you trash talk the American president to people in the UK? So things could get really ugly culturally very soon, too.

I think that Ariana Grande needs to put more thought into how to add one half an ounce of fat back onto her body than she does thinking about President Trump being impeached. Obviously, she is in the middle of a crisis. I'm sorry, but this woman looks ill. She is beyond skinny. She looks dangerously thin.

And someone needs to do an intervention to help her. I'm not saying this to be snarky. I genuinely think someone needs to help this woman. She's obviously troubled. And I think weighing in on this is just her latest folly. She was caught on camera a couple of years ago saying, I hate Americans. Now here she is talking about Trump needing to be impeached.

There's a lot that went on, I think, on that Nickelodeon set that's never been fully threshed out. And I think Ariana Grande should work on her own well-being and keep her constitutional thoughts to herself. Okay. Emily Jashinsky tonight. Say again how they can find it. You go to YouTube.com and you type in what to pull up the show. That's right.

After Party with Emily. You can go to afterpartyemily.com. Again, it does sound like a strip club, but you can find all of your information there. If you listen to podcasts, it'll be there. Head on over 10 p.m. tonight, live with Tucker, all kinds of questions for him. So it's going to be a lot of fun. So you get you have some fun with Emily and you get some of your best friends there when Tucker Carlson shows up live to respond to whatever the hell is happening in the country at that point. I can't wait. I will be one of the ones tuning in. Thank you so much, Em.

Thank you, Megan. All right. See you tonight. And we are back tomorrow with our friends from the fifth column. Can you imagine them on all of this? I cannot wait. We'll see you then. Great to be back with you guys. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

It's 2025, and it's time you embrace the future of toilet cleaning with the Clorox Toilet Wand. The Clorox Toilet Wand is an all-in-one toilet cleaning system that comes complete with a sleek bathroom caddy and disposable scrubbing pads preloaded with cleaning solution. The set even comes with six scrubbing pads preloaded with disinfecting toilet cleaner. Just click, swish, and toss for a fuss-free clean. Visit Amazon to purchase your Clorox Toilet Wand today.