Bombshell Report That Ilhan Omar Investigation Started Under OBAMA, Plus the Scheme to Trick Alaska Voters, with Stu Burguiere | Ep. 1430

Welcome to the Megan Kelly show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every week day at New Mist. Hey everyone on Megan Kelly welcome to the Megan Kelly show and Happy Thursday. Russell Brands wife taking the stand today in her husband's rape trial will tell you all about what she had to say. Plus, Stuber Gear will be here later with the latest on the midterms and what looks like a disastrous poll from CNN. Do we actually believe it? Plus, we've got some thoughts about the way Dana Bash is handling the news about cheating in Alaska by the Democrats. But first, another bombshell in the Ilan Omar immigration fraud case, an unbelievable update. The New York Times of all places confirming the federal investigation into the Minnesota Congresswoman is focused in part on whether Omar married her brother in an attempt to get him a green card. Now we knew that, okay, we knew that's to stay with me. But listen to this from the Times report, quote, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security investigated the marriage in summer 2016 during the Obama administration and found some evidence that it was fraudulent. Current and former officials said, excuse me, I was reliably told that this is all one big conservative conspiracy. I was reliably told by the Democrats, including Ilhan Omar, I mean Ilhan Noor Said Elmi herself, that this is all a conservative conspiracy theory. Why would Obama's justice department be investigating a conservative conspiracy theory? Obama's DOJ found evidence of the sham marriage with the brosband. I mean, that is a bombshell. We knew that the Biden administration had looked into this. We did not know that the Obama administration had looked into this, the Times and did not exonerate her, was not able to exonerate her. What they report is that they moved on because they realized that if she had done it, the statute of limitations had run. The Times says it spoke with six former and current officials familiar with the case and reports that prosecutors did not pursue the matter due to, quote, limited investigative tools for the agents. According to the Times, the investigators included an FBI agent who is an expert in public corruption and two agents from Homeland Security Investigations. Two of the investigators are still employed at their federal agencies in the state of Minnesota. Let me tell you what this means. It means they investigated whether she was a fraudster who had married her brother and they found that she had and then panicked and then some lawyer inside DOJ said, we're good because it's 2016 and she married him in 2009. So we are past the statute of limitations, which is five years, which would have taken them to 2014. And they were relieved because she was the first Muslim woman elected to Congress, the first woman openly wearing a turban, all of it. This is amazing. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card in the security it offers are under attack and that senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. They knew, okay, they knew and Barack Obama was still out there trying to defend her just last week on these charges. Remember, just last week he was ripping these allegations about her. I'm going to read you in part his ex post. It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government cannot selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say. But that's exactly what the Trump administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilan Omar of Minnesota. To understand why this is so appalling, it's important to know the facts. It is indeed Barry. It's very important. Congresswoman Omar came to this country with her father when she was 12 years old. Five years later, her father became a naturalized citizen. If Ilan had been 18 at the time, she would have had to apply for citizenship separately. But because she was 17, she became a naturalized citizen automatically. Barry used to be a lawyer. Objection assumes facts, not evidence. It is very much not in evidence that she was, in fact, 17 and not older, not above the age of majority when she was allegedly naturalized derivatively. Thanks to her father's naturalization. Neither his, naturalization is clear. We don't know that it happened and we don't know that it was lawful if it did. We believe he came here under false pretenses and was not a candidate for refugee status or asylum. And we are unable to locate according to AJ Kemp, who ran against Omar and tried to get the paperwork, the paperwork that would prove he was naturalized at all. So yeah, assumes facts, sustained. I sustained my own objection. There she has been one of the Trump administration's fiercest critics, he says in Congress, which has led the president to repeatedly single her out as someone who he believes does not belong in this country. Now the administration is actively trying to deport Congresswoman Omar, seemingly based solely on the unsubstantiated theory that she was actually 18 when her father was naturalized and therefore is not a citizen. Now, Barry, you know very well, it is not based solely on the unsubstantiated theory about her being 18. That is not an unsubstantiated theory. First of all, and the work solely, the word solely is doing a lot of work there. It is not, she appears to have committed multiple incidents of immigration fraud. This woman could be behind bars within a year. If she's lucky, she'll get deported. The number of times she applied for a passport in a name that wasn't hers, claiming she was an American citizen when she wasn't. This is all going to be determined. If she's, if she wasn't properly naturalized, if she came and claimed refugee status unlawfully and under false pretenses, if she married the brother, it would have been part of her series of immigration frauds. If she, her name is not ill on Omar and she's been using that name falsely to run for Congress. If she's not a US citizen and she's sitting in the US Congress in violation of Article 1, I, where do I end and begin? So, Barry, pay attention because I'm going to school you since you love facts so much. Here I am for you. I've got you. Federal agents have rated her home confiscated personal records and seized her phone all to try and uncover a non-existent smoking gun from 20 years ago that will somehow make their case. Think about that. Thank you so much I did. I did think about it a lot. And guess what? It led me down several paths that are extremely incriminating for her. And indeed, they will involve her phone and her personal records and whatever else they found in her home. Non-existent smoking done once again assumes facts. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president. Now, he knows that's not true. And how does he know his own DOJ looked into this and was not able to disprove that she married her brother, also known as immigration fraud. It's also, by the way, illegal under Minnesota state law. You may know it's unlawful to marry. You're sibling, but only weird pervy people need to be told that, Barry. I'm not like, okay, not sure why that would be confusing to him, but that's unlawful under state law. Yes, the statute has run, but it's definitely immigration fraud. And yes, the statute has run. But don't you dare call her law abiding. Once again, assumes facts. The fact that any president or any administration is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar's political views, because if this becomes the new normal, there is no reason to believe it will stop with her or that future presidents and either party won't do the same. Indeed one already did. His name was Joe Biden, and he did it to your arch rival, Donald Trump. And you said nothing. So spare me your moralizing. This is amazing. He knew, he knew, he knew the New York Times report is based on again, three current former officials familiar with the present day investigation and six current or formal officials with knowledge of the 2016 investigation. Who was sitting at the top of government in the summer of 2016 when this took place? Oh, yeah, that was Barack Obama. Donald Trump wasn't inaugurated until January 2017. This is unbelievable. They report that the federal investigation current one is focused in part on whether she entered into a sham marriage in 2009 to help a man suspected of being her brother, obtain a green card, according to current and formal officials familiar with the matter. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security investigated the marriage in summer of 2016 during the Obama administration and found some evidence that it was fraudulent. I mean, all you had to do was look at Powerline and Alpha News, which had found all of the social media posts before she ran for office in 2016, before when she was still just a private citizen, celebrating Ahmed Noursaid Elmi as her brother, celebrating his sister Laila who raised him in the UK as her sister. Laila was 10 years older. The family got divided. We've been over this. It was Laila, Ahmed, and Muhammad who stayed. Ilan's siblings, hello media, just ask, ask her to name all of her siblings. You don't even have to go more provocative than that. Please list all of your siblings. Say that. Do that. She came here with the one sister Sarah and their dad. They all pretended the ones who came to the United States that they were omars. The three siblings got asylum in the UK under their real last name, Elmi. Ahmed Noursaid Elmi is the brother who is gay, who she married in 2009. They became so-called estranged, in other words, he left. What happened was he got a green card temporary, then he applied for a more permanent green card, and they inquired more about his share of marriage, and then he withdrew the application and left town. I actually didn't know until today that it was in 2012 that he fled. We think to Kenya to be with his sister, Sarah Nour, the one who had come to the United States, but then wound up in Kenya and was working on her website. And we reported to you about, I think it was Paralleline, that actually found when Ilhan Omar later in 2019 was trying to divorce him, 17, such he'd been abandoned. He had abandoned her, and she had no contact with him. She had no idea how to reach him. She's trying to get a default divorce, and it was a lie because they found his entries on Sarah Nour's website out of Nairobi, Kenya, and you could see that Ahmed had been on the website like that day, checking his Instagram. I respect people who can do these like forensic examinations of people's websites without even knowing them, but this is what they did, and they saw that the Brisbane was in Kenya working for Sarah Nour, Ilhan's sister, and was absolutely not uncontactable by Ilhan Omar. She got her divorce by default, because they accepted that he had abandoned, absconded, and these are all lies. These are all lies that she told. She had to certify that under penalties of perjury, my friends, that he was uncontactable, that he had abandoned her, she had no way of reaching him. These are what we call lies, and when you tell them under penalties of perjury, then we call them felonies, felonies. Now, once again, statural limitations issues may cause problems, but if we have got 20 some instances of immigration fraud, we may very well be going rico against Ilhan Omar, and God knows what other conspiracy claim they can gin up, because conspiracy has a longer statute of limitations. You only have to find one other person who conspired with her and one or two over acts, which they definitely have. Okay, back to the Times report. She has long called this a right wing conspiracy theory that federal officials have quote, debunked during her first race during 2016 debunked, and they, to the Times is credit. They get into how she allegedly debunked it, and they actually debunked the debunking. It's so great. What's happening in the New York Times? Welcome aboard. Come on. We love all the fair and balanced reporting. Doesn't it feel good? Don't you feel like a more honest publication? Great. Keep it up. Okay, here's what happened with the, the so called debunking. In August of 2016, a local news station, it was Fox 9 KMSP, by the way, reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, this is when she was running for Statehouse in Minnesota, which she did before she ran for U.S. Congress in 2019. They reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota had opened an investigation into Ms. Omar. That prompted her campaign to form a crisis management committee, Carla Gelberg, a lawyer who represented Ms. Omar, Omar said in a 2018 deposition related to a state campaign finance inquiry. Ms. Gelberg added that the campaign worried that the story, which was being covered by right-wing publications, could gain traction in a mainstream outlet. A means to quash it came on August 22, 2016, when the campaign released a letter it had requested from Andrew M. Luger, who was then U.S. Attorney in Minnesota. In the three-settings letter and keep in mind how the U.S. Attorney posts are usually filled, it's usually somebody who shares the party ID of the sitting president. That happened under Barack Obama. That actually hadn't been the norm, where we would clean house of all the U.S. attorneys when the new president came in, thanks to Barack Obama, that became the norm. Yet another norm-breaking precedent, he set that the mainstream publications let him get away with without any scrutiny. Well, they want to talk to you about how Trump breaks all the norms. So what about Barack Obama? What about how presidents never commented on legal cases prior to Barack Obama, because it wouldn't be prudent? And he's out there if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, and all the nonsense he didn't got away with because he was our first black president. Okay. So this guy would have been a Democrat, sympathetic to Democrats, and yet, and so here's what happened. A means to quash the story came on August 22, 2016, when the campaign released a letter. It had requested from Andrew M. Luger, then U.S. In the three sentence letter, Mr. Luger wrote that, quote, "My office is not investigating nor have we requested an investigation into Miss Omar." Now we pulled the actual letter, here it is. It reads as follows. Thank you for speaking by phone earlier today about your client, Ilan Omar. As you are aware, an erroneous news report aired yesterday on Fox 9 indicating that my office has requested an investigation into the immigration status of Miss Omar. As I said on the telephone, there is no truth to this report in my office is not investigating, nor have we requested an investigation into Miss Omar. Now here's what happened, Ilan Omar ran with that as her quote, exoneration. She characterized it exactly that way, and she said it put to rest flat out falsehoods. Miss Jellberg said in the deposition that the credibility of the claim, quote, fell drastically once Andy Luger said that's false. He said no such thing. Andy Luger said we're not investigating this, we're not. I have a news flash for everyone. Andy Luger and even the current Minnesota U.S. Attorney does not speak for all of the federal government. Surprise, he doesn't speak for everyone. What we saw back in the beginning of this reporting is that it was the FBI. And Department of Homeland Security that was investigating the marriage. Now he doesn't oversee the FBI. The DOJ does oversee the FBI. They answer basically to the attorney general, ultimately. But if it wasn't his investigation, he wouldn't have known. And Department of Homeland Security is an entirely different department. It's an independent agency, well, part of the executive branch, but not they don't work for the Minnesota U.S. Attorney. So he said he was not investigating her. His office was not investigating her. That doesn't mean nobody was investigating her. And DHS would have jurisdiction. And indeed, it was Homeland Security investigations that raided her home two Mondays ago, whatever it was, which is under DHS, okay. So this is her team cleverly pretended that they had a fake exoneration when they didn't. And even that fake exoneration wasn't an attempt to exonerate because this is what the Times is reporting. In an interview last week, Mr. Luger said his letter was never meant to say anything about the substance of the claims. Instead, he said it was narrowly written to rebut the news stations report that Mr. Luger had asked ICE to investigate Ms. Omar, which he called erroneous. Federal agents may have been pursuing the matter without his knowledge, Mr. Luger said, yes, hello, correct. He added that he had never shielded Ms. Omar from scrutiny and that he actually later backed primary candidates who ran against her, which would make sense. He's a Democrat. He backed Democrats, but not this one. I'm assuming he's a Democrat, given what I said earlier. After Mr. Luger's letter became public, local news, after Mr. Luger's letter became public, local news coverage of the marriage controversy waned. Now here's here's something very telling, very telling. That original Fox 9 report was then removed from their website and it was reposted with a scaled down version and included this over the top response from Ilan Omar who blamed Trump because, you know, why not? Let me be clear. They are categorically false, I assume this is a reference to the reports that she married her brother. They are categorically false. Now the question that needs to be asked is, why are these absurd and hateful rumors being circulated? It matters that I am a woman. It matters that I am a Somali American woman. It matters that I am a Muslim and immigrant woman. I know deeply that the people of District 60B oppose Donald Trump's style misogyny, racism, anti-immigration rhetoric and Islamophobic division. Now let ask yourself, what is missing from that denial, as well as from all of her denials, which we went over the other day? They all sound just like this one, absurd, absurd, denied, these are absurd rumors, and now we hear debunked too, but outrageous racist misogynist rumors, conspiracy theories denied. What is missing? Any explanation of who she married? Any additional detail, any facts at all about who she married? I asked you to, whether you married your sibling, whether your current spouse is your sibling. You keep in mind the Phil Houston rule. The truth teller stays right over the truth. The truth is their friend, so they don't run away from it with generic words like outrageous, absurd, you know, conspiracy theories. You would say, I mean, I would tell you. I married a guy named Doug Brunt, he's from the main line Philadelphia. These are his two parents. We married on March 1st, 2008, out in Long Island. We have three kids, here are the dates of the marriages. Prior to that, I had another husband, here's his name, here's the date we got married, here's the date we got divorced, here's how we met. No children in the first marriage, three children in a second. If we want to get really personal, both marriages were consummated. Let's see if Ilhan Omar can say the same. Why does she never talk about who she married and try to give us not adjectives, but facts around his name, his background, and why he's not her brother, how she can show us he's not her brother? Okay, in her memoir, she talks about how she married the first Ahmed. They're both AHMED, the guy she married, the first two guys. Now she's married to Tim Maynett. But first was Ahmed Hersi, then came Ahmed Norsahid Elmi. Ahmed Hersi is the father of her three children. She married him when she was 18 in a Muslim ceremony, but it was never legal. Remember, what are the two things you need in order for your marriage to be? Legal, you need a marriage license and you need a ceremony. She only had one half of the equation, the ceremony, by some Muslim cleric. So in the eyes of the Muslim faith, she was married, but not in the eyes of the law, which would wind up being kind of important because she used the legal chit on her brother. The brother was running around in the UK, gay as a blade. And the father who was here with Ilan and Ilan sister Sara was mad. The reports are he didn't much appreciate his flamboyantly gay son telling everyone in the UK to taste the rainbow. So he summoned him back to the United States to try to get a better handle on him and perhaps explain to him that Bayez Muslims didn't really believe in that kind of behavior. And the behavior did not stop. There's in depth reporting now in the New York Post today, which is very good about how Ahmed Hersy, the Muslim husband of Ilan, who was the father to her children, was, quote, disgusted by the other Ahmed when he got here and his behavior. I mean, newsflash, you can't de-gayify somebody, all right? There's a long time where Christian conservatives tried it. Now some Muslims are trying it. I hate to break it to you. It definitely appears to be inborn and you can't de-gayify somebody. Now somebody could choose not to lead a gay lifestyle. That can happen. But like, you can't make a guy who's attracted to guys instead attracted to girls. Hello, get a gay friend. They will explain this to you. So but they tried. And the post is reporting, Ilan Omar's first husband was embarrassed with her effeminate brother, who she is accused of marrying when he came to live with them in Minnesota, a family friend told the post. Now we had known prior to this post report that both Ahmed's were living with Ilan when her brother got here and she married him when she was still with Ahmed Elmi, the thing with Ahmed Elmi did not, she married him in the Muslim ceremony when Ilan was 18, can't do the math, but Ilan was born in 1981. So 1989, wait, 1999, forgive the math, you know, this is not my strong suit. She married him then when she was 18, so we're around there. And then she married the brusband in 2009. And she had at least two of her three children when she married her brusband. I think the third child came, yeah, he did, she did. She came in 2012 after she had already married her brusband. She was still having her Muslim wedding to Hercy, who was the father of all three children. And then she tried during the course while she was still married to her brusband, she filed joint tax returns with Hercy, who was not her legal husband. And they got in trouble. She had to hire a lawyer to try to undo that because hello, you can't file a joint tax return with someone who's not your legal spouse. Notable that she didn't try to file the joint return with her actual so-called legal husband. It wasn't really a legal marriage because Minnesota state law doesn't let you marry your spouse. It doesn't let you marry your brother. It's so confusing and it's so bizarre and weird. So then right around 2012, the report is that the brusband left because he couldn't get a shit together. This is from the New York Post report today that Hercy was full of relief once Elmi left Minnesota around 2012. And it was from 2012 to 2017, those five years that Ilan remained married to her brusband, who was no longer in the country. But they were in touch. It wasn't just via the sister's website that we know that they were in touch. There were social media posts and other evidence that those two remained. They were brother and sister. But anyway, back to the time when he was here in the United States, this is the New York Post report yesterday that he was an extremely feminine Somali guy from London, fond of wearing short shorts with cowboy boots. This caused strain on their relationship and the three of them were living together from it would have been 2009 through 2012. And the first document, Hercy, was embarrassed of this guy. The whole community was gossiping about Elmi when he first arrived said the source, who wished to remain anonymous to the post. He was walking around in tight female clothing, which is heavily frowned upon in the Somali community. Hello, it's basically heavily frowned upon in all of our communities, except for the woke left. So I went to ask Ahmed Hercy about it, quote, he told me it was his wife's brother from London. And that Ilan had embarrassed all of us by bringing him here. Ahmed used very strong words and said it was, quote, disgusting. Hercy for what it's worth is said to have been at the heart of Minnesota Somali community. He was hugely popular after settling there with his family. Very sociable had his finger on the pulse of everything that was happening. Ahmed was known by his nickname, Ahmed Hercy, Southside. He's a good man. He has friends all over town. That's probably how they all knew. And remember when Ilan told Chris Hayes the other day, oh, at first this came, this ridiculous absurd rumor came from a Somali blog. Well, it did because the whole Somali community in Minneapolis knew she married her brother. Because among others, her Muslim husband, Ahmed Hercy, was running around telling everybody that's her brother. She had to marry him so he could get a green card. All of the Somalis in Minneapolis were gossiping, quoting here, and trying to find out who this guy was. Then everyone realized it was Nursaheed Elmi. That's what the father goes by. Her father goes by Nursaheed Elmi unless he's applying for asylum and immigration naturalization. And then he goes by Omar. Then realized it was Nursaheed Elmi's son and Ilan's brother. Everyone was shocked. Repeating the allegations which have dogged Omar for years, the source said, Ahmed Hercy told me it was his wife Omar who brought him over and it was her brother. He explained that she had married him legally to get him papers and that he was only Islamically married to her. He Hercy. He said her brother was, quote, pure trash who had embarrassed their whole family and was complaining about why Ilhan had to bring him over. The source claimed that Elmi was shunned in the community, meaning the, the brosmen. I used to see Elmi in my neighborhood, but we kept our separate ways because if people saw me with him, everyone would think differently of me. The others used to compare his behavior to that of his father, nor our respected military general. Oh, he promoted him. I think it was Colonel. But yes, we all agree. He was not some peaceful educator as they claimed when he saw to asylum. Ahmed said he was bringing a bad name to the family. [BLANK_AUDIO] She said that. Hersey allegedly did not want Elmi anywhere near his children. Isra Hersey, now 23 in Adnan, 20, their third child, Ilwad was born in 2012 when Omar was still married to Elmi. And that's the child, the niece that we have a picture of, Ahmed Noursaid. Elmi holding, saying, nieces straight out of the vagina. He sounds like a real winner of this guy. That's his niece, Ilan's daughter, because Ilan's his sister. Ahmed used to insult her brother all the time and say nasty things. Ahmed Hersey, it's confusing that they both have the same last name, Hersey used to insult Ahmed Noursaid Elmi all the time and say nasty things. He told me he's an uncle to my children. And I am scared he is going to influence them with his effeminate lifestyle. Hersey, Ilan Omar and Ahmed Elmi did not respond to the post's request for comment. Again, why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you? The only on the record response we appear to have from Ahmed Noursaid Elmi, the brusband, was to Alpha News and Prea, Samson Dar, who was on the show last week, who got him to respond in an email saying, I've never been married that I can remember. At least not to the best of my recollection. And then he had a little smiley face in his email, you know, like the colon parenthesis. He, he, like that. So funny. I committed a felony. He, he. The story is the gift that keeps on giving. Then he, I said, yeah, Ahmed Hersey and Ilan used to argue over her brother all the time. I saw them arguing and shouting in public. And after Ahmed Noursaid Elmi left Minnesota around 2012, Ahmed Hersey praised God for taking him away from his family. That is the latest. Barack Obama was onto this. His statement as usual with this guy was a bunch of bullshit banking on you, not knowing anything any better and on the New York Times, not outing the fact that he knew his administration knew. And there's no way he didn't know please. And now we have sources coming out to the New York Post talking about how, of course, of course, Ahmed Hersey knew he was filing jointly with Ilan and having babies with her while she was legally married to this guy and the three of them were living together. What do you have? Of course, he knew. By the way, he committed frauds too. It appears so he's also in potential trouble. Now separately, Glenn Beck had a report the other day having received a leaked document from Homeland Security Investigations, which is taking the lead on the current investigation that appears to shed more light on what they're looking at around Ilan Omar. I mean, Ilan, Noursaid Elmi, sought one. Now we have obtained the text of a memo from Homeland Security Investigations to the State Department came from a source inside the administration. We got a photo. I can't show you the photo, but we are telling you what it says, how we got it, and you can weigh it for yourself. It's dated February 9th of this year, eight months before anybody knocked on a door. So they've been working on this. The memo asked the State Department for certified, complete, unredacted copies of every passport application that Ilan Omar has ever filed. Also personal and official, every supporting document, every letter, anything that identifies her parents. And it says why? She is named as the subject of criminal and civil investigations for possible violations of two federal laws, making a false statement on a passport application and falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, then one more line. She also may be amenable to civil denaturalization. That's, they're going to try to take her to citizenship away. So Homeland Security Investigations, which appears to be taken to lead on the current investigation, went to the State Department. Where do you, do you know where you're applying when you, when you seek a passport, you're applying with them. They're the ones who get to decide. And they went to them months ago and said we are investigating her for, among other things, making a false statement on her passport application and falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. My friends, her goose is cooked. They have got her. There's just way too many instances of her claiming her name is Ilan Omar when we all know it's not and claiming she's not, you know, that she's in a position to marry this guy when she wasn't claiming she had no contact with him when there's plenty of proof she was. Every time you seek a renewal of your passport, you have to renew your, your claim that you are a U.S. citizen. And how, how recently, you know, they seized your passport when they went into that home, her home in DC. When was the last time she did it? Was it within the last five years because if it was, that's a new crime and it's within the statute of limitations. And by the way, they would already know that because when they went to the passport office, sorry, the state department and asked for evidence of her passport applications, they would know exactly when the most recent one was. And then they seized the passport and that alone, that alone is a crime. She sent a lot of trouble looking forward to watching this play out. But keep in mind what I said, watch how she always runs from the truth. She doesn't go over the target. She never stays on who she married. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And I was going to say in her memoir, she writes about her husband and she talks about her sea. And then she just says that she had an allotment at a low time in her life with a second husband. And that's, and she doesn't name him. She does not put his name in the memoir. Why? Again, a truth teller stays over the target. They don't run. They're like, I'm very comfortable here. Do you need to ask me about Doug Brunt? I got you. I will tell you everything, not really, because I don't want you guys to be able to find us. Not you guys, the bad guys who are out there who try to find us. But you know what I'm saying? You feel no discomfort whatsoever when you're being asked about something that is real and true and won't hurt you to disclose this. This is not her pattern. It's not her pattern whenever she speaks of it. And didn't we all see that? Plain is the nose on her face is when she spoke to Chris Hayes, who did a pathetic job. But did manage to squeak out the basic question of, you know, is this your brother? Really, it was more like, why are these crazy conspiracy theorists saying this is your brother? And was this your brother and she managed to squeak out, not to my knowledge. She's in trouble. Okay. I want to keep going. There is news in the Meghan Markle case today. First of all, there is a change.org petition that has been started to remove her from Master Seth Jr. in Australia. Remember the other day we talked about how she was like, this is devastating. She had a friend clearly speak to the mirror or someone, someone claiming to be a friend spoke to the mirror UK saying, she's devastated, she's crying all the time. Every time she looks at Lily, she cries, they said, I guess not Archie, okay. And she's just devastated about the news about her dad. Oh, by the way, guess what? She has a new gig. That was announced by the Australian MasterChef junior program within moments. The same day, she wants us to know she's really teary and crying. But she won't let that keep her down, folks. She's got to get back on TV so she can feel super relevant. So they announced that and now a petition is calling for her to be removed from, they call it their junior MasterChef Australia. This competition show saying her involvement would send the wrong message to our children who are learning and growing from the very environment the show seeks to promote. It is imperative that the role of host be filled by someone who embodies the values of trust, integrity and positivity that the show represents. This person writes, I urge the producers to reconsider this potential appointment and seek a host whose character and actions can truly enrich the experience of both participants and viewers of all ages. Let us preserve the integrity and uplifting spirit of junior MasterChef. But she's choosing a host who truly aligns with the positive and holds some message it longs has stood for. Now, my thoughts on this program is the reason she cannot host this is that she is telling she is telling us that she has set idly by for the past eight years while a man she says she knew was a child molester was roaming free in Mexico, the Philippines and the United States. And she did nothing, nothing. That's what she has told us. Why would we reward that behavior by putting her on a children's program? Seriously, I'm not saying she's a molester, but why would we reward her derelection of basic human duty by putting her on a show that markets to children and in which she will be with children all day. This makes absolutely no sense. We checked the petition as of this morning, it's been taken down by the very good objective people at change.org. What seems to be the problem? Huh? What's the matter? I feel like someone may have put a thumb on the scale because that sounds like a good petition that should be put back up. There is also this commentary from Tom Sykes who is very, very smart on the issue of Markle and has been doing great commentary. We read something from him the other day and I want to tell you what he reports for the Daily Bees to publication I can't stand but I like Tom Sykes and this is what he says. Hearing your father accused of this must be unbelievably painful but one cannot help but wonder how Megan and to a lesser extent Harry handled the events of the last week and what the public verdict is. The answer so far looks grim. If possible people are even more furious and disgusted with Megan than before and this time they cannot blame the mainstream media which it by and large reverted to parroting the Sussex line. Now he says the following. I fail to see how you can blame a British police force for not getting that agitated by a single letter about an American citizen living in Mexico penned by a person with a grudge, you know, his ex-wife. Could she not have asked any of the five policemen constantly around her in Harry? What had happened? For example, hey, has that letter been forwarded on? But if no one actually took the letter seriously, it explains a lot, he writes. It would explain why Megan never followed up. It would explain the daddy's girl comments to Netflix in her documentary which are bizarre if you believe her that she knew at that point her dad was a child molester. It would explain why Harry praised Thomas Markle in his book and why in court, Megan's lawyers said the astrangement was all the tabloid media's fault. You remember that lie about he keeps post for those photos before the wedding and then he lied about it. They've been telling that story for years and they said it in court where your testimony is under oath and it would explain the business with the friends. Remember this who talked to people magazine in February of 2019. I forgot all about that. But remember she used her friends to do a whole thing in people which is very, very Megan-friendly about what a good person she was and we're trying to do image rehab in 2019 when things had already gone to shit. She'd been a princess for not that long but people are already catching on to her. She was bullying Paris staff. She and Kate were in getting long. She had reduced Kate to tears, et cetera, et cetera. In February of 2019, she tried to save her reputation by sending the friends to people magazine which is a month after the letter exposing her dad was supposed to have arrived and he writes, and whom Megan allowed to state that she had written to her father, quote, "Dad, I'm so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can repair our relationship." Who would send that to a man they are convinced is an abuser. It's a very good point. This is, she allowed that to happen. One month after she claims she was told he was a child molester. What she wanted the message and the papers to be was how heartbroken she was, how heartbroken, how she loved him, how she had one father, and she wanted him to stop victimizing her through the media so they could repair the relationship. Wait a minute. I thought it was. She knew he was a molester and she wanted nothing to do with him and that's why she kept him at arm's length for eight years. He goes on to say the following. If they did believe the letter and Megan knew instantly that it was right and from 2019 onwards adamantly believed her father was an alleged abuser and vowed never to see or speak to him again, then that means they were lying through their teeth when Megan chose to lay the entire blame for her anguish and suicidal ideation at the feet of an evil chimera. Is that how you say that word? Whose head was the media and whose body was the uncaring institution of the royal family. In that scenario, she, in fact, was harboring a horrific secret about her father. But Megan and Harry were selling a very different story at the time into which the tale of an abusive father did not fit. Didn't I say this the other day? Why was she out there running around blaming the royal family for almost driving her to suicide, etc. in all those in the Netflix documentary, etc. when she had been told that her father was a child molester, which one of these things would be more upsetting that the royal family wants you to be a working royal and they don't want you to have side gigs. And by the way, you're going to be the spare and not the air and be treated accordingly. Or your father is a serial child molester. Come on. They ripped the royal family like they were the molesters at every turn in the Netflix documentary on Oprah through their friends and magazines and so on. Do you remember that guy was basically their stenographer, Omid Scoby? Nothing, not an unkind word about the father unless it was just, oh, he cooperated with the paparazzi poor Megan. She'd been quote, victimized by him. It is outrageous. He goes on, frankly, that Harry's family were produced by Megan and Harry for damaging their mental health through these unbelievably trivial domestic matters. When in fact, one imagines that hearing that your father was alleged to have been a pedophile would have been quite upsetting. But any such disclosure would have completely destroyed the very, very profitable narrative that their mental anguish in 2019 was exclusively the result of a rapacious British tabloid media and a heartless and cruel royal family working in lockstep with them. So good, Tom Sykes. If you believe she accepted the import of this unpublished letter that absolutely justifies her cutting off her father, but it makes many times worse the horrible lies. She told about the cruel and unfeeling and racist royal family and the British press. If you do not believe she took this letter seriously as her inaction and fond words to her dad suggest, then last week's statement starts to look horribly opportunistic. My opinion he writes is that Megan was ashamed of her ghastly family had not told Harry more than the bare minimum about his new relations took the first opportunity to cut her father off the staged pictures the media interviews and then used the great gift of the loveless letter from the first wife of Thomas Merkel senior to bolster her decision to Harry whilst keeping a copy as an insurance policy. By the way, currently Megan's favorability rate in the royal family is it's the lowest in the entire family second only to Prince Andrew. His is at four, hers is at 20, 20%, just 29% of Britons have a positive opinion of Prince Harry, which is down four points since July. Let's see, yeah and and wills and Kate and Charles and even Camilla are rated pretty high. So it's really it's pretty incredible. It really is like this this fall out and now they said they're they're apparently like out of the UK right now. They're taking a couple of weeks off from what? Are we the only ones who work honestly? Don't we all have like jobs and things to do? Why are these two constantly flitting about the globe? How it's just like Tyler Perry's money? Is it is it the Netflix money? Like what the how are they? Whatever. Okay. I want to get to the Russell brand stuff. Russell brand is presenting his defense case right now in the UK. His wife took the stand. She talked about how they met in 2006. They dated. He cheated on her. They reconnected a decade later and married in 2017. They now have three children. She tried to talk about how funny he was and what a good guy. He was the judge stepped in and said how people meet and get together is often a touching story move on, which they then did. I mean, this is the judge clearly does not like Russell and appears to be putting a thumb on the scale, but I will say that's not an abnormal thing for a judge to do to say move it along enough of the personal backstory. She the the the defense lawyer for Russell tried to ask her what is your view as to the truth of the allegations here? The judge said no, no, no, she's not an expert witness. That's a proper interjection by the judge too. Winter then tweaked the question asking what is your view as to his character? The lead prosecutor stood saying no, that's wholly unacceptable. I don't know what the rules are over there when it comes to character evidence, but at that point the jury was briefly sent out. This is a woman trying to get some sympathy for Russell and trying to convince people that he is human, that he is kind and that he has changed his life. I really I got to say I kind of hope that defense would have something better than that. I mean, of course, the wife is going to think that. I don't know how much good that's going to do Russell Brand, but his defense case. It continues. And so do we, right after this break, when Stubergear joins us on the unbelievable story out of Alaska today. We've all heard those radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare the you know what out of you and push you into calling out a fear. But tax relief advocates takes a different approach. If you owe the IRS $5,000, $50,000, or even $500,000, TRA has real solutions to fix your tax problem. You don't lose hope. TRA can often reduce or completely eliminate what you owe. Their focus is taxes and helping people and businesses resolve IRS problems. They have more than 1,000 five star Google reviews and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. You no longer have to fear the IRS, generous relief programs exist right now that can give you a clean slate. So act today. For the TRA.com, that's TRA.com or call 800-575-6845, again 800-575-6845, tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people. Let's get into the latest on polling and prediction markets. Joining me now, Stubergear, he's host of Predictable with Stu, as well as Stu and Dave do America. Thank you. Welcome back. Okay. Let's go. Alaska and dirty tricks that may be illegal. Don't believe Dana Bash over on CNN who really, really, really wants you to know what happened in Alaska. Maybe a dirty trick, but it's not illegal. Last I checked she didn't go to law school. She doesn't have a law degree and she never practiced law. This may indeed be very, very illegal. And in fact, there may have been lying under oath. We're actually looking into all of that right now, but did you read the Times article because it's stunning? Oh, yeah. Not only was it stunning to read, it was really stunning to read in the New York Times a few days before an election. It was a really stunning revelation. Okay. So we talked about it. Just the headline had broken yesterday. We had Mark Halperton and we hit that. But now I've read the piece and it's very in depth. I recommend everybody read it and it's juicy as hell. So just to start with the top line, in the state of Alaska, we have an incumbent Republican Senator who's fighting for his political life right now. His name is Dan S Sullivan, Senator Dan S Sullivan. And he is in a race against a Democrat named Mary Peltola. And our viewers may remember Mary Peltola's had some personality issues that have broken in the news via the New York Times over the past couple of months. Like she's been an abusive person towards her staff, she's throwing the papers all around her office. Oh, or did she just bump into the papers and they fell off the desk? She's one of these, you know, just like that Amy Act and running for Governor Nohayo. She seems to have a problem controlling her emotions. She had the staff feeding her lizard named Meatball, a bunch of crickets and the crickets got loose. So like, this is, she's not like your favorite boss. And she seems like a hothead. So Mary Peltola has been denying all along that she or her campaign were in any way behind the fact that there is a second Dan S Sullivan who's going to appear on the Alaska ballot for the Senate race. He's Daniel C, right? I think it's C Sullivan. Yeah. Oh, Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay, like just kidding, just visiting just here to foil the race. Sorry. So Daniel J Sullivan is the liar, just kidding candidate. And he's posing as a Republican. So these two Republicans named Daniel Sullivan, just one Democrat, Mary Peltola, and then some other guy that nobody's ever heard of, who actually is relevant to the scheme. And Mary Peltola's campaign all along because the real Dan Sullivan and the Trump White House have been saying since the beginning, what's this bullshit? This is like, it's not unusual for one party to go out and find like another Democrat if you're a, if you're a Republican or another Republican, if you're a Democrat to run in the race to like siphon away some votes potentially. This I've never seen before, where you find somebody with the exact same name in order to cause confusion with the voters, I mean, truly like to treat your voters like their idiots and then bank on them being idiotic when they go into the voting box or being just confused. One of elderly people are the primary voters in their states. Anyway, she's denied it. The Democrat Senate campaign committee has denied it. We have nothing to do with it. Like some guy named Dan Sullivan wanted to run as a Republican like ease up to Effing Bad. It went up to the Alaska Supreme Court in a legal challenge in which Republicans attempted to remove Daniel J Sullivan from the ballot, arguing he was not a good faith candidate and citing his registration switch from unaffiliated to Republican just before he decided to run in June, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected that argument, ruling there was no basis to remove Daniel J Sullivan in either state law or the US Constitution. And now we find out that the Peltola campaign and the, the nationals, uh, Democratic Senate campaign committee, um, DSCC were behind it all along. And I mean, were they ever behind it? They met, they planned, they hired a guy, they used this guy who said he was an expert just this kind of thing. They scoped the state out for anybody named Dan Sullivan who they could convince to run this guy who used pseudonyms to meet with this Dan Sullivan and, and other candidates didn't, it said his name was Zane among other pseudonyms didn't give his real name and convinced them to run, uh, push them into the race. It was them all along. Mary Peltola's been lying to us along with her campaign, along with national Democrats lying to us outright. And in the meantime, we have been subjected to segments like this one because the Trump's DOJ has smelled a rat from the beginning. They just haven't been able to prove it. And Todd Blanche, our attorney general, filed a lawsuit last week saying, if the fake Dan Sullivan wins this race, we don't want the results certified because we're going to unleash legal hell on you people. This cannot happen in America. And that lawsuit was laughed at by all the mainstream media, including in this segment hosted by Dana Bash, where Todd Blanche went on, this is on Sunday. This just happened on Sunday the 25th. Look, look how she treats him. This is before the news had broken, but there was plenty of evidence that something nefarious had taken place here. And watch the following exchanges out 13B. So how are you going to find the people who voted and ask them whether or not they intended to vote for this Dan Sullivan or that Dan Sullivan? Isn't that undermining the integrity of the election? If there were two Democratic Dan Sullivan's on the ballot and they were potentially canceling each other out, would you be filing the same lawsuit? You agree with me, Dana, right? That this is done to confuse vote. You agree with me, right? I would disagree with you on that we haven't- Come on, you say it. You say it. You said Democrats are trying to steal- This is not election. But steal this election, how? Finish your thought. It's not, I thought it's- It's not. By putting a candidate up, no, no, no, that's not all he said. He didn't stop there. You can't just cherry pick a quote from the President of the United States, then ask me to comment on it. The President is laying the groundwork for a scenario where the, whether it's Alaska or somewhere else, there is in your words a couple of days ago, a Doomsday scenario, and we could be in a situation where President Trump tries to overturn the election and the result of that could be God forbid what we saw after January 6. That is- I mean, it's not a question. No, you got to stop it with that. You're not being a real person. Come on, man. Good for him. And then I just want to give you, well, I'll get to in a second her other sound bite, but absolutely no curiosity whatsoever on how this other Dan Sullivan got there. Only pejorative questions, dismissing Todd Blanche as basically a nut case, instincts to defend Petola at all, even though Petola is a very controversial person. There's something off about this woman. This is not somebody who you're like, this is a normal politician, like she's not going to be behind something like this. She absolutely is behind it. And on top of that, there's reporting, which I'll get to in a minute, showing that the Peltola campaign operatives who put this whole thing into operation were banking on the idiocy of the Alaskan voters and were had looked at a focus group of some said voters and relished how stupid they thought the Alaskans were. Thought these were the perfect marks for their little routine. That is what the Democrats think of you might fellow Alaskan voters out there who are thinking about voting red versus blue, okay? They think you're absolute idiots and they're laughing at you. That's the other thing that has come out in this New York Times article. So you take it from here still. >> I would love to. This is incredible. And I think it's a great thing for not just people in Alaska, not just voters in Alaska. But voters all across the country, as we approach Tuesday to think about, do you really want these people in power? Do you really want to hand them the house and the Senate? People who are doing things like this too, it's not just Alaska. It is Nebraska where they're running a fake independent. It is South Dakota where they're running a fake independent. It is Idaho where they're running a fake independent. It is Montana where they're running a fake independent. Among other tricks and different things, they're attempting to do two full voters. They are going to voters in state after state after state and trying to lie to them to make them the subject of their vote instead of Republicans, why they want power. And you know, it is central to the thesis of seemingly every democratic politician that the voters in this country are dumb. They are a bunch of morons who can't figure these things out for themselves. And if we do these things, these little tricks like running a Dan Osborne in Nebraska or running another Dan Sullivan in Alaska, we can fool them into putting us back into power so that we can do all the things that we will deny doing in all these states. It is despicable. And you know, you mentioned the legality of it. I would love for you to get into the details of that because I think it's, you know, it certainly feels like it should be illegal at the very least. And I would love to know the case on that. But just speaking from a trust standpoint with voters, this is actually a really big development. And I give credit to the New York Times for actually reporting on Peltola and not just this time, but previously as you noted, this is think of what what a break of trust this is. You're asking people for your vote. And the way that you're going about doing that is to intentionally try to make their vote not count. You're trying to take this incredible privilege we have in the United States as voters to participate in the democratic part of our constitutional republic. And you're trying to take their vote and flush it down the toilet so that you can get a new gig. That is despicable. And I hope that people in Alaska realize how awful this is and don't trust her because I will say, you know, we've seen some of this stuff nationally. Peltola has a relatively good, you know, reputation in Alaska. She's won as a Democrat statewide there. She is constantly coming to the voters and telling them, oh, I'm not like, I'm not like Ilan Omar. I'm not like AOC. I'm, you know, I'm talking about oil and fishing and all these things she tries to appeal to these voters. They should know she's not only lying about her, her involvement in the dance Sullivan situation. She's lying about all these positions too. And she will go in there and she will vote like every other Democrat from New York and California when she gets this job if she does. She lied. She lied right to them. She lied to them all. This cannot stand. They cannot say this is, I mean, that ad that Vivek unleashed in the Ohio gubernatorial race was very controversial, but he didn't lie. He said it was me and I'm going to put another $4 million behind it because I like it. Like that. His whole point is she's the liar. My opponent is a liar. She's got a lifetime of lying, but he didn't try to dodge responsibility for the ad. Here she's been telling everyone she had nothing to do with it. Then she made the colossally stupid blunder of firing her campaign chair. And that woman is scorned. As she's been dishing the tee on Peltola ever since. That's how the New York Times keeps getting these exclusives. And even in this piece, which again is very lengthy, they start by saying, okay, this woman Rios is our main source. She was part of it and she's got all the receipts, but a week before we went to press, she called us to say, I want to retract every statement I've made and I don't want to be your source on anything. And I'm sorry to break it to you, Ms. Rios, that's not how it works. Once you've told us and forked over the evidence, it's ours now. It's reportable. And we don't have to take your quote, retraction that you don't want to participate. A lot of people have second thoughts after they speak to a reporter, too bad for you. That's why reporters aren't your friends. They want the scoop. That's what they want more than anything else. So she tried to dial it back. It was too late. And this woman has been spilling the tea on her, including here. And now the jig is up, like she has caught red handed. And so the New York Times to its credit, they write about how they, their reporter went out to Alaska to find this fake dance Sullivan and to do their reporting. Steve, what's the name of the reporter? Kellen, what? We're going to look it up. He's good. This guy, he's good. So he goes out to Alaska to try to figure out what happened here. And on the daily podcast today, which is all about their scoop, they interview this reporter. And he did catch up with fake dance Sullivan, meaning Daniel J instead of Daniel S Sullivan is the Senator, S for Senator. So you can remember he's actually the real guy. Anyway, he found Daniel J and here is some of their conversation. When I got down to the question that everyone wanted to know, why did you get into this race? I think the reason anybody runs is to be satisfied with what's going on. And we've had the Senate for 12 years. And we're going to step up and do that. He said that he was a moderate Republican who was fed up with Senator dance Sullivan's policies and thought he might throw his hat in the ring. And he said that people in his life for years had been making jokes that he should run against Senator Sullivan because he shared the guy's name. You're the good bands, all right? I wish you were our seniors at the event. So there's a visceral connection you have with someone who has your own name. Some people even called him Senator around town. I don't think the Republican Party needs to be a man of party. Okay. So that's, you hear him there. Super chatty with Kellen Browning who broke the story until he realized what they were going to write. And then he went dark and stopped speaking to Kellen, according to the New York Times. But here's what Kellen reports in the actual piece that. That dance Sullivan was contacted by this operative Jared J. E. R. I. D. Kurtz, the guy who was supposedly experts, a specialist and secret ballot maneuvers, according to this fired campaign chief, Ms. Rios. And Mr. Sullivan lived in the tiny village of Petersburg. And Mr. Kurtz, the operative described him as a men up until running if it would help Ms. Peltola. Mr. Kurtz told us when we found him, according to Ms. Rios, he said that Mr. Sullivan, the fake dance Sullivan said he hated Trump. And if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary. He didn't have any interest in being a politician, but he would do it if this would help. Mr. Sullivan has maintained that he entered the race of his own volition did not respond to repeated requests for comment over the past week. Mr. Kurtz, the operative, did not respond to repeated requests for comment in recent days. He removed his LinkedIn profile from public view and made his ex account private. So this guy, you heard him. He's chitchatting, like, oh, I really just, you know, people have always said you have the same name. And I just think that Republicans, they don't have to be MAGA, you know, we can, we can be. And I'm a moderate Republican. No, no, he's nothing other than a Trump hater who was unaffiliated, whose sole goal was to help Mary, Peltola that like, it's amazing. They got this guy to speak on Mike and then he went dark and so did the operative who have remained dark, but text messages viewed by the times show officials with the DSCC and the Peltola campaign communicating for months about the projects do. They were very stupid. It was all in writing. There were plenty of records. And this woman, Rios gave away the farm. Yeah. And then was intimidated to try to take the farm back, which is a real another part of the story. She can't get the farm back. I'd love to know the what pressures she was feeling to need to feel the need to send that after, you know, leaking stuff theoretically to the times for a while on Peltola, all of a sudden, right before this report, this close to the election, she has a sudden, you know, change of heart and has wants to give no sourcing at all on this ball. She supposedly is disgruntled on. That's a fascinating part of the story too. You know, it really come that whole, the whole process is so dark and twisted. And the fact that they have all the texts to prove this, they have all the documents, all the receipts to prove this is, is really remarkable. And I, you know, I, I think it, you mentioned, like, you know, like, like, you look at this and say, well, who, who knew this? Who, who would believe this? This is now new information. But like, let's be honest about it. We all knew this, right? The second this happened. Yeah. We all knew something like this was behind it. We might not have known the names and I don't know exact players. But of course, obviously, this was an attempt to manipulate the voters of Alaska into misusing their votes. These people who came to us during Bush versus Gorn, like all the intent of the voters. It's so important to us, a democracy is the thing that we care about so, so, so much. But let me steal a bunch of Alaskan's votes here. It dies in darkness now. It dies in darkness. With all this going on, we all knew, right? We all knew something like this was happening. And you know who else knew? Dana Bash. Dana Bash, 100% new entering that interview, exactly what happened. She again might not have known the text messages were going to come out on record because I doubt she would have handled that interview that way. She's stupid now. Yeah, she looks ridiculous. But like she's faking this sort of naive idea as to what's going on here. And you know, it doesn't serve the whatever four viewers they have left on CNN. It doesn't serve voters in America to just act and fake as if because Trump is their enemy, they get to say whatever they want and act however they want. It's really kind of disgraceful. How would she, why would she basically vouch for the Peltola campaign? She doesn't know whether this woman is honest or not. She's basically going off of, she's a Democrat, so she must be telling the truth. You know, like, oh, well, the Alaska Supreme Court said that there was no basis to find that there was interference by the Peltola campaign. Guess what? They were wrong. They can be wrong. Because the lawyer for Daniel Sullivan misrepresented this case, certainly the nature of it, to the Alaska Supreme Court. I want to go back. I am going to go back and pour over the transcript of his argument and figure out whether this guy violated his ethical obligation. You have a duty of candor to the court. The reason defense lawyers, criminal defense lawyers tell their clients, don't tell me anything. I don't want to know your explanation for whether you did the crime or not is so that they can have wiggle room to argue in front of the court without violating their duty of candor. You can't go in there and knowingly subborn perjury from a witness, get him to tell a story. You know his false. But if you don't have your client, tell you the story, you have wiggle room. This guy, if he went in there and made knowing misrepresentations of the court, is going to be in a lot of trouble. And I want to see what Dan Sullivan said of anything on the record was. There are sworn affidavit. I want to know all of it because now we know the truth and these guys are in a lot of trouble. So what does Dan Abash do? Now, let me tell you something. I've had situations over the course of my years in journalism where I find out a position I took was wrong. It turns out to be something other than I thought and I'll go out and tell the audience. I was wrong. I got that one wrong. And here's how I got it wrong. And here's what the new update is. What did Dan Abash do today? What did she do when this news broke, not in the free beacon, not in the daily caller, not at FoxNews.com, but in the New York Times, her paper of record. She had to deal with it, it's demondem violence. She had no choice but to deal with the reality of what it printed. So today, Stephen Gleene, what her, this is yesterday, what her messaging was having to deal with this new reality. Alaska is a state that votes by rank choice. So this is not illegal. It is not new. Two things you said are very important, it's not illegal and it's not new. But what is new is that nowadays that you really kick it away with doing these things. There's always going to be some kind of trail. I use the term dirty tricks intentionally, because it's not illegal. This is something that is untoward. It is something that Democrats have tried to do in races where they think it could be to their advantage. These are dirty tricks, they are legal dirty tricks. But again, at a time, when you have a president and his supporters, particularly those with very big platforms, trying to undermine the election, and Alaska is a potentially key and even pivotal Senate seat that could determine the outcome of the control of Senate, it's a big deal. It's absolutely a big deal and I think there's no question, despite, as you all have pointed out, and I think it is worth us saying again, this was not illegal. Something that they are going to blow up. Stu, are you gleaming anything from their messaging today? I don't know. Was it legal or not? I couldn't tell from that clip, but I mean, they really had the talking point down immediately there. No, let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. There's a great ex-follow called the Prosecutor's Podcast and they have their own podcast. These are two former, well, two current lawyers. One is named Brett Talley. Harvard Law School grad who has worked in state and federal government, clerk for judges, worked in private practice and served as a prosecutor, and Alice LaCourre, who's a Yale Law School graduate, native Texan who brought her legal background into deep dive trial and cold case analysis. And here's what their take was upon seeing the news. They're right. I was curious if this conspiracy to trick people into wasting their vote was criminal. Seems like there are several ways it is, even without a federal investigation. There are just a few interference with constitutional rights. They cite the statute. When one injures, oppresses, threatens or intimidates another person with intent to deprive that person of a right. This one is the most obvious. The whole point is to deprive people of their vote. Number two, criminal impersonation assumes a false identity and doesn't act in the assumed character with the intent to defraud. By the way, Ilan Omar might be able to, she might be looking at charges under that. According to The New York Times, there were multiple false identities in this broad, that operative was constantly using fake identities. But then they write not the least of which is fake Dan Sullivan, who is using his real name to trick people into believing he is someone else, great fact pattern for a case. They offer up unsworn falsification with you when you with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of a duty, submit a false written statement in an application for a benefit. Fake Dan Sullivan lied multiple times, including to the Alaska Supreme Court, they say, to get on and stay on the ballot. Those are just three that are potential here. And then here is President Trump, who weighed in with the following, sat 12. This is yesterday? Yeah. Yesterday. Democrats in Alaska, despite their sworn statements to the contrary, put a man named Dan Sullivan on the ballot in order to continue the public with highly think of it. They wanted to continue the public dialogue. They wanted to say that there was a man named Dan Sullivan on the ballot. He's a great esteemed senator. So they found a man named Dan Sullivan and they put him on the ballot. And nobody can tell the difference. This is voter fraud at the highest level and the Democrat candidate who was involved in the scheme, Mary Peltola, who said she didn't know anything about it in court. She should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted and so should the fake Dan Sullivan. There you have it. The president explicitly calling for her to be prosecuted. And these former prosecutors saying there are plenty of crimes here that may have been committed. But Dan Abash would love for you to know nothing illegal happens still. Yeah. I mean, you're the one with the legal background here, but my understanding is you are allowed to lie under oath as much as you need to, right? To get to your, is that how that works? Yeah. If you're a Democrat. Okay. Good. Yeah. The question I guess is, what does that mean to the candidacy and I doubt a lot of this, you know, it's not going to all run through the courts by Tuesday, unfortunately. What can go through by Tuesday, though, is that people in Alaska can realize this and they can see it. And I'm curious to see how the local media in Alaska will handle this. Will this be something that they just, you know, don't really cover and kind of brush off? It's the New York Times, usually people pay attention to it. I hope they do. And the dynamic of this race, Megan, is so interesting because, you know, we did a segment yesterday on my show, predictable where we looked through a bunch of these campaigns and tried to look at these Senate races and what the, you know, the Democrats are actually trying to do here, which there's five seats that are double digit Trump seats, Trump states just two years ago. And they're trying to flip these states by, and the polls are showing, they're doing it, right? The 18 point movement, 14, 15 point movement from just two years ago, it's a really, really heavy lift. And Alaska is one of these states where they're doing this. And, you know, if you look back, that hasn't happened really at all. There's never been a case, at least going back to the Reagan era, where you've had flips like this. The only exception was 1986, where there were seven seats that flipped from double digit Reagan states to go to the Democrats. Of course, the story behind that one is Reagan won 49 states, so he won all the states basically. Yeah. So there's lots of opportunities. That's not what happened in 2024. So this is a really heavy lift for Democrats. They need everything to go right in an estate like Alaska, where they're appealing to people who are generally speaking Republican voters, who want less interference from their government, who don't want the green new deal, who don't want all these crazy reforms that the left is trying to implement, who don't want the woke nonsense. These are normal, regular, everyday people who are in a democratic environment, maybe frustrated about fuel prices, maybe frustrated about the war in Iran, maybe frustrated about tariffs and other things. They're trying to appeal to them and say, "Hey, you got to trust me here. I know you don't want what other Democrats do, but I'm not them." I'm different from that. You can trust me, I'm different. And that is the appeal of Mary Peltola. She's coming at this as almost an independent candidate. She's saying she's not of that group of Washington people, explicitly. And I just hope the people will actually understand this and separate it from the pitch they're getting. - Listen to her today, yesterday. She was asked about this when I hit and take a listen to what she said, it's not 11. - This is just another distraction. It's another diversion. Every day, it's some new, you know, look over here moment, not day- - Did you do it or didn't you? - Registered Republican in Cumbin, voted for this war in Iran 14 times. Lisa Markowski quit voting for that war in Iran six months ago. And he's doubling in seven counts. And this is not somebody who's working in our best interest. And anybody who's working in our best interest isn't going to talk about the nonsense. This is all stuff to sell newspapers. - Did you do it? - All stuff to get subscriptions. Nobody at the New York Times cares about affordability in Alaska. - Unbelievable dodge. Won't speak to it. Of course, because she did it. She did it. Her campaign manager is saying she did it before she tried to retract it if she got scared. She's, I mean, the proof is there. Black and white, the text messages, the trail, all of it. And here's the other problem that Mary Peltola has. The Times article writes as follows. In one exchange of text messages obtained by the Times, Peltola advisors seemed to make fun of voters while watching a focus group, surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler. Quote, "Do we have a scheme for you?" Wrote one consultant for the Peltola campaign. A poster on the chat wrote that one voter seemed like the perfect audience quote for our ballot strategy plan, smiley face end quote. This is the disdain they have for Alaskan voters. They're watching them in a focus group, basically saying, oh, we got a live one. That one's an idiot. They'll never question our plan. They're absolutely going to vote for the wrong Dan Sullivan. Score that and what reporters let her get away with that? What we just saw, every reporter needs to shove a mic in her face. Did you do it? Stop talking about Lisa Murkowski and Iran or anything else. Did you or didn't you? What do you have to say about your campaign staffers, mocking the intelligence of Alaskan voters? Do you apologize? I mean, that's the only thing that people should be asking from now until Tuesday. Yeah, and these aren't like super PAC people. These aren't like, oh, loosely affiliated left wing groups. These are campaign people. These are people who are working for-- Her staff? Yeah, it was her staff who's in the middle of all this. And you know, it's hard to imagine. I come back to the reporting a little bit on this, which is interesting, the fact that the New York Times, because they could have waited on this, to be honest, and we should give them credit. They easily could have delayed this. Kind of did. Yeah, well, they did wait until the last year. They kind of did, too. They've been working it for two months. Yes. And Hugh, Hugh, it was pointing out online. We've already had, I think, 54,000 people vote in Alaskan early. Yes. So with all due respect, the times, it would have been helpful if they had broken this a little sooner. And, you know, like I didn't want to crap on the messenger, because thanks to them, we know about it. But we know about it kind of late in the process. Go ahead. Agri, and I don't want to overstate my praise here for the New York Times. I am glad that they did this, and they didn't wait until-- I feel like, typically, we'd hear about this on Friday after the election when we had absolutely no way that we could do anything about it. So I'm glad that we hear about it. And I think there's a line between left-wing reporters and commentators, which I've always found interesting, which is there's one group of those types of reporters who, while they have partisan leanings, will tell the truth, particularly when they are annoyed they've been lied to, because they have been asking about this stuff for a while. I mean, this is obviously been out there in a story for a while. Not on the list, Dana Bash. Right, exactly going. That's the other side, right? That's the other side of it, who will take the lies and take all the times that they were told behind the scenes, "Oh, there's nothing to this and all. Nothing will ever come out." And they will ignore the fact that they were used completely for this agenda, and because they want the agenda so badly, still continue to kind of tow that party line. I gave at least a little bit of credit to the Times reporters who went the other way and said, "Look, usually what happens in these situations when you're like, wow, why would the New York Times report this four days or five days before an election?" It's usually because they're pissed, right? Like they were told, they've been reporting, they've been talking about this, and they've been lied to over and over and over again by these officials. In this case, the official, the actual campaign worker who came out with this, you know, taking a brave step here. I mean, this could be, could legitimately be, control the Senate because of this. Now, I doubt it, you know, there's a lot of different, you know, things that could go right the wrong way. If it is, we are in for the nastiest legal fight. Oh my gosh, and not to mention, if it does wind up burning, Peltola, can you imagine what the left will do with the New York Times? They will think, okay, okay. - Wait, Kellyn. - Oh my gosh. - He's gonna need to move to Alaska. Just go, like one of those remote little homes. - True, I wouldn't want to be the guy. - Kellyn. - I wouldn't want to be him, but I, you know, again, I give him credit for coming out and doing that, that's good, you know, I think we talked about this a little bit before Megan. It would be great if we had a functioning mainstream media. Like, yes, we are out there and we're giving different stories and we're talking about these in different ways and you need to have multiple voices. But it would be great if we had a bunch of people who just didn't care about partisan leanings and just did the truth. Like, we could use a functioning CNN in this country. We could use a functioning New York Times in this country. And the fact that we have to kind of, you know, praise every time there's a scattered shower of journalism at one of these places is a disappointment. We really should be able to depend on them for more. But again, when you get one that's good, let's just be happy for about five hours. - Let's be happy. I mean, I would say the Wall Street Journal broke the story on Kimberly Gilfoil. She's not running for office, but she's a Trump administration ambassador. So that was, you know, that was read on Red Violence. And here we go at the time. So let's see more of it, you know, let's see more of each so-called, you know, paper journalist challenging their own quote side. We need it. It's called journalism. That's what we used to say anyway. Veterans Day is coming up and Birch Gold Group is commemorating it with something I think you're gonna appreciate. From now through October 30th, for every $10,000 you purchase from Birch Gold, you will get a free patriotic silver round. And there's no limit on how many you can earn. Birch Gold can help you convert your existing retirement savings into a gold IRA in whole or just in part, without spending one dime in taxes or penalties. For current and former military, they will waive fees for the entire first year on purchases of any amount. Birch Gold has earned an A+ rating with a better business bureau and served tens of thousands of customers, including our listeners and viewers. Just text MK to the number 989898 for a free infocate and to claim eligibility for your free silver, unequalifying purchase before October 30th. That's MK to the number 989898 to it today. You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal methods to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger? This is where Berna comes in. That's B-Y-R-N-A. Berna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammo and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Berna is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It's sleek, it's slim, and it hits like a sledgehammer. We love ours. The same size as a smartphone, allowing women to conceal carry everywhere, comfortably and with confidence. It fires at 400 feet per second. That's a lot of power to stop aggressors in their tracks. Their pistols are American-made and hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the United States. Berna is legal in all 50 states, but get this, it requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door. And Berna is trusted by hundreds of police departments too. Try before you buy, visit Berna.com to find a Berna dealer partner near you. That's B-Y-R-N-A.com. A Making Kelly Channel, series XM-1-11, and other series XM-1-1-1-1-1. would be a good trade to make. Okay. And which do you think has no shot? Number one, Susan Collins in Maine, who's got a 39% chance to win. Two, Ken Paxton in Texas, who has a 31% chance to win. Three, Mike Rogers and Michigan, he's got a 29% chance to win. Or four, Annie Andrews in South Carolina, who's got a 29% chance to win. Which one do you like? Like, they're, they're being underrated. And which one do you, do you not like? I would, let's see, I would probably rank them one, Susan Collins, who despite a couple of polls that show four or five points behind, has been very competitive and has outdone her polls there over and over and over and over and over again. So I would say she's number one. I think two, I probably put Rogers, you know, Rogers has a chance to win. It's a difficult. It's not me. Yeah, I know. You're not a Rogers fan. I'm against you. No, I don't dislike him. I don't know. I just think in this environment, especially in Michigan, it's going to be decided by Israel. He's on the wrong side for that voting block. So he's going to lose and all the stuff about El Sayed being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Those are, those are your grandfather's Fox news arguments. That's, that's just not going to work. It doesn't acknowledge the current mood, even amongst young Republican voters. That's why I think Mike Rogers is going to lose. I could be wrong, but can't wait to see how it turns out. It just, if I'm talking about putting my money on something like we're talking about with Kalshi, I'm not putting my money on Rogers, but you keep going. First of all, we got to get you a Senate fantasy team. We have this a fantasy league going on at Senate, Senate fantasy.com. What? Free to enter cash prizes. I don't know if you need some cash for Christmas presents or whatever this year, Megan, get in there. You have to pick, walk you through the whole process. You pick a bunch of senators. I think there's eight picks you have to go through and we keep score for everybody. There's like, you know, hundreds and hundreds of people in this. You should get a team. We will show which team you are and people can compete against you. This is like one of those fantasy leagues I actually could participate in, unlike everything my husband and my sons do. Yes, exactly. Get on board. It's a lot of fun. But yeah, no, I can see what you're saying. I think my argument for Rogers there is less about Rogers and more about the weakness of El Sayed, where if they had run a more moderate candidate there, I don't think Rogers would be would have a chance, honestly. Like Haley Stevens. Yeah, I know. Haley Stevens with a very strange cartoon voice, but I still think she probably would have won. Then, you know, Paxton's interesting. You know, the polling is better for Paxton than the vibes are here in Texas. You know, hundreds of millions. Wait, I should tell you the latest poll, the latest CNN poll has Paxton down by six. Yeah, that group has Talleriko up six over him. Yeah, that by the way, all those CNN polls that came out today were catastrophic for Republicans. Incredibly bad. Yes. There's been some really bad ones. That's the word. Paxton is a tough candidate because he just, you know, the people of the state are in love with him. And, you know, if he does lose that race by six points, not only-- And you are of Texas or in Texas right now, the audience should keep in mind. You know what you're speaking. Keep going. Yeah, and not only will, you know, look, the people are much more aligned with Paxton than they are Talleriko policy wise. And I think there's a really good argument for Paxton policy wise. Like, he's done a lot of good things. But, you know, people have questions about it. And there's just not a lot of passion. You know, you've brought up these points over and over again. But to just kind of reinforce this, we did a thing at predictableshow.com called the Republican Freakout Index, which was we went through all these underlying sort of problems Republicans are having in these states and ranked them. And it was, you know, stuff like oil prices, gas prices, diesel dependency, you know, tariff effect on individual states, a high level of Hispanic voters, a high level of young voters, a low level of older voters that might be more positive for Republicans. And we said, which states does this affect the most in the entire union? The number one state on the entire list out of 50 was Texas. That hit was at heartless by those factors. Number two was Michigan. So a really difficult group there. The other one I think is to have was Annie Andrews, which is, I mean, that should be, first of all, it should be. She's against darling Graham and South Carolina. Yeah, we shouldn't even be talking about that race. I mean, this is this is the, we're talking about, you know, democratic mega tsunami territory. But the problem with this race is, you know, look, darling Graham Nordone was appointed to this, this, this seat. She has not, she's not a good candidate. She is mostly, you know, only Republicans, a tie to South Carolina gives her hope here. She's not a very good candidate. Her opponent is run a halfway decent race. I think this is still on the fringes of that wave. If it's that bad, we're talking about, you know, everything Kansas. We're talking about Nebraska. We're talking about all sorts of races that are on the fringes here. And if they come competitive, going to the Democrats and who knows, probably a couple surprises. I mean, there's talk about Mrs. Cippy in that context. If we're that far down the road, God only knows where we're stopping this wave. Oh my God. I mean, now that's, that's, don't even say Mrs. Cippy. Don't say that. Mr. and Mrs. Cippy should not be making appearance on Tuesday night as a big story. I would like to tell the audience that Cal. She is a sponsor of the show. I really love them. They reflect what traders actually believe. It's real time odds on the midterms that you can give it a try if you want by using our code, Megan Kelly. Or you can just click the link in our show description. By the way, if you're a new user and you haven't tried it yet, they'll give you 25 bucks free when you trade 25 bucks. It's just kind of fun. So I'll put my money where my mouth is, perhaps not just with Cal. She, but with you still back to those polls. So yeah, CNN polls today have Tolerigo up by six over Paxton, margin of error is 4.2. So it's kind of, I mean, that goes either way. So it's outside the margin of error, right? But it's whatever. I don't know. Six is a big number. Michigan, they have L. Sia up by seven, seven over Rogers. In Maine, they've got the cousin stupper, Troy Jackson, up four over Collins. Apparently, mainers don't mind if you have sex with your cousin and reproduce with them. And not like six cousin, second, second cousin. It's very strange. But in any event that cousin stupper is up by four. In Kansas, the Democrat is up four as well. Hamilton, Adam Hamilton over Roger Marshall. There's another poll out of it's Texas Southern University. They've got Talerigo up in Texas, but only by two in the same race. They have Governor Abbott, who's a Republican, the incumbent up three over his Democratic challenger. So you're seeing potential ballot splitting, at least in the polling there. They like Governor Abbott and they just do not like Ken Paxton. But it is so hard to imagine Texans putting Talerigo as Trump calls him into the U.S. Senate stu. I just, I like, I like, I can't believe Texans would do it. It is, that has been my stance essentially since the beginning of this. You know, I, I, my thought was we'd come back out of, out of the summer and a hundred, two hundred million dollars of ads showing what a weirdo James Talerigo is would hit the airwaves and the people of Texas would say, okay, look, I don't like the situation we're in. But we're not going to go that direction. We don't want that. I might not love Ken Paxton, but hey, we're going to, let's settle this on the right side and make sure that we have saying representation in Washington. The polls have not shown that. I mean, it's moved. I would say it's moved with a CNN poll as an exception, moved a little bit toward Paxton over the past couple of weeks. I think it's tightened a little bit. Yeah, that was my impression too. Yeah, I think that's real. And I think there's about a five to seven point gap in almost every single poll between Abbott and Talerigo, you know, as a person who lives in Texas, you know, having another terrible Senator is really bad, having a terrible governor like Gina Hinoz is to me even worse because that's going to affect probably my day to day life here in the state. So that's that stuff is scary. But and there's just not a lot of tickets splitting left anymore. What we're seeing. Can I ask you a question, Stu? Is this to what extent do you think this is as a result of COVID and all the people who wanted to move to the free state, you know, some to Florida, some to Texas. And one of the big concerns is that they were going to bring their politics with them. I that's a worry of mine that it's these are not real Texans. They're transplants who, you know, left all the blue states because their policies sucked and are now turning Texas blue. Well, I will say this tentatively as a man who was born in New York and moved to Texas. So I'm also a transplanted, but I came here because I love the idea of Texas, right? And I think you're right. There's a lot of people who, yeah, there's a lot of people who did the opposite, right? They come here from in COVID or maybe they didn't have a problem with their blue state in that short period, but kind of brought a lot of their voting habits here. I do think that's part of it. There's been a move toward the purple in Texas for a very long time. This has been, and this is why this is the highest profile race. This is like the the the ultimate for for Democrats. They are, you know, in a fever dream here that they might actually win Texas and a big, big part of this though too is just younger voters who are getting really into this. The early voting numbers are not good for Republicans, as we're in the in that period right now, and Hispanic voters who have moved toward Trump significantly in 2024. In fact, you know, there are major areas where Trump was winning Hispanic voters. That's not something we'd seen in a very long time. A lot of those people have just turned on on on the Republicans and their number one issue is the economy. Yeah, their economy. They don't like that. There's some of some of the, you know, the immigration stuff that they were not happy with as well, at least the way that it was implemented. You know, I've talked to some people here in Texas who say like, you know, we want to secure border. We didn't love the way some of that stuff was implemented. So you take that into account as well. But at the end of the day, this is a very close race. And the numbers that you're talking about on Cal State, I look at them every single day, you know, are very, very low. I mean, it does appear to be value if you can find the right state. The thing that makes me nervous though, is this going to be a 2006, a big tsunami, you know, a 19, a 2010, that type of wave could bring all of this in discussion. And then we could be looking at maybe even a blue state senator here in Texas and maybe a governor too. I, I shutter the thought. Oh my God. Thank you for that lovely parting thought. It's a wonderful thing to see you, Stu Bergear. And we will be in contact often. Thank you so much, my friend. Thanks to all of you for listening. We will be back tomorrow. See you then. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show, no BS, no agenda and no fear.