Clancy Holdout Juror "Black Man" Bombshell, and the AI "Superintelligence" Gambit, with Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, and Roy Schwartz | Ep. 1397

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at NEAST. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly, welcome to The Megan Kelly Show and happy Monday. We have a great show for you today. We've got to get to the latest on the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. Alright, just before Labor Day, the jurors in the case announced that they were deadlocked and they could not reach a decision on whether 36-year-old Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for the 2023 killing of her three children, five-year-old Kora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Kallen Clancy. Through a series of media interviews, jurors confirmed that the vote was 11 to 1 to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. But insanity is what we have seen in every corner since that mistrial was declared. We've all heard those radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare you and push you into calling out of 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. Do not freak out. And don't lose hope because TRA can often reduce or, yes, hear me out, completely eliminate what you owe. How would that be? Their focus is on taxes and helping people and businesses resolve IRS problems. Their experts at this. 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. This relief programs exist right now that can give you a clean slate if you've got somebody to help you navigate the system. So act today. All right, go to TRA.com. That's TRA.com or call 800-575-6845. Again, the numbers 800-575-6845, tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people. I'm going to go through a few chapters of it. I'll start with this one. It happened just this past Friday. It involves Gail King, who was very, very surprised to learn from juror Paula Devlin, who is, she's the new J-Lo, she thinks. She's seen on camera just as much as J-Lo has been in the past weeks, really enjoying her two minutes. But she told Gail King something specific about the holdout jurors identity that Gail really had to work to grapple with. Watch. I'm curious about the jurors themselves, because we know it was nine women, three men. What was the age range? What was the racial makeup? I haven't heard any of that. What was it? 70ish to 22, and one person of color, and then everybody else was white. A lot of the jurors had children. One person of color was a person of color, a woman or a man. A man. A man. Is a holdout juror a person, a black man? Yes. A black man is a holdout juror? Yes. Well, I have to sit with that for just a second. Why? Why? I genuinely don't get it. You presumed that anybody who would be willing to find her guilty after she murdered her three children would be white, because all black men vote to acquit Gail. Someone might accuse you of racism. You better watch it. It's a racist attitude to take a group, an entire group of people and assume they vote one way or another based on skin color. Then a black man, Gail, can be a thinking, individual, sentient person who comes up with his own viewpoints on life, liberty, and criminality in a court of law. And if this man hadn't been capable of doing that, presumably he would not have been selected as a juror, that, I'm sorry, but that's just so bizarre. Like what is she? Of course a black man wouldn't be the one we've all grown to hate. Obviously, when I'm thinking of who do we all hate, I'm thinking it must be a white person. I mean, that's really what she seems to be saying there. It's a very strange reaction. Why? I hope she does think on it and reports back on CBS Morning Show about why it was so difficult for her to understand. Okay, but Gail King is the least of our problems today. NBC Boston has lost its ever loving mind. NBC Boston could now get off if it were to commit a crime on a defense of insanity because clearly they've lost it over there. Who is running that joint? Like NBC corporate must step in and reign in. It's out of control station because they just did a, I mean, a full on investigation into the holdout juror. They investigated this guy like they were looking for OJ in the white Bronco like we, they gave this guy a proctology exam over the weekend and they are so proud about doing this to a juror. Wait a minute. Is the juror accused of killing his three children? Is that like no, wait a minute, why are we doing investigations of jurors? That's really this whole segment should end right there. Don't investigate jurors. Bye. And back to our other news, like that's really where I would love to end this. But because they've lost their fucking minds, I've got to tell you what they've done because now we need accountability for NBC Boston. I mean very, very badly and they're not the only ones. So they decided really, truly, it would be a great idea to completely upend this man's life. And though they gave it the patina of confidentiality because they didn't report his name, they reported enough about him that it's very easy to figure out who it is and the internet has already done its part. The name is everywhere, we will not be repeating it here. But they of course released enough info that any amateur sleuth who's familiar with the internet could figure it out and they did and query whether that was intended all along. And what they found and they really want you to know that this again juror, this juror who's, he's done nothing wrong. He voted to find her guilty. That's his sin. It's not like there was tumult in the jury room and he punched one of the ladies in the face. Like, okay, then we might be like, who the hell is this guy? How did he get on the list? That's not what happened. What we heard from these nut cases last week was he was air again, you say, okay. Does that mean your life gets ruined after you sit on jury duty? He wouldn't listen. He crossed his arms. Is that what did it? Your life gets ruined if you don't listen to the weird hens across the table from you. It's this thing that you haven't wrong. It's, they're very upset over this crazy sound bite that we played last week. Oh, I don't know if we have it, but it's the one where the jurors like, he really couldn't get over the fact that she viciously murdered her three children. That's this guy's sin. So what they found at NBC Boston is that this evil, evil juror had domestic violence allegations against him in his past, including a 2021 criminal charge that was dropped. But there was a criminal charge brought after his 13 year old nephew called 911 on him. And when the cops arrived at the house, the nephew allegedly told them that this juror had grabbed his wife's throat and had thrown her into a dresser. NBC Boston reports the couple is now divorced and that the criminal charge, as I said, was later dismissed. The station also reports that this holdout altogether now juror later had a restraining order taken out against him by the very same nephew who is now older when he sought a restraining order. By my math, he was, would have been 19 when he sought it. The same guy who had called 911 against him years earlier and that that restraining order appears to still be active. So what we have is a juror with an allegation, uncharged several years ago, I've allegedly hurting his wife. The wife didn't testify. The wife said she was afraid she was going to lose custody. That does happen all the time in domestic violence cases. I'm not saying he's guilty, but I'm saying that pattern would fit. Nonetheless, it was many years ago, I think six, six years ago, and the only current charge is the nephew alleging that he got a restraining order. order recently after the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The teen wrote in his affidavit that his uncle then said, you ruined my blanking life. And this is a reference to what had happened six years earlier when the nephew called the police on him after he allegedly beat his wife. And that the juror said, you've had this coming your way for a long time. That restraining order was still active when the juror was selected for the Clancy trial and listened to the evidence. Now, there is a question about whether somebody with an active restraining order against them never mind the earlier allegation. It was just an allegation that resulted in the charge that that was dropped would be bounced by any prosecutor or defense attorney in a case like this. I don't think it actually prohibits you from being able to serve, although I'm not sure about that, to be honest, I'd have to go back and check the ethical rules. But an active restraining order to me seems like something that would lead one side or the other to bounce you probably the prosecution, because they'd say he's anti-law enforcement. In that particular case, you would have been wrong if you placed that bet. But whatever, I'm just game playing it out in my head. There could be the NBC Boston legal analyst said, I don't see how they would have allowed him to become a member of this jury. And that's a Boston chief legal analyst, Michael coin. So it doesn't appear that even he, who seems to be, I would assume, more familiar with the Boston rules of court there, is saying it would have been a must-bounce situation, but rather in the prerogative of the lawyers. Now they also are reporting that the standard juror questionnaire in Massachusetts will ask if someone's been arrested, charged with a crime, or has been served with the court order. Of course, we know that. And that those boxes should have been checked by this juror. But there's a thing with juror questionnaires, you see, they're not public records. And so it's unclear if the document in question is still available. They would be up to counsel to hold on to them or destroy them. So I imagine the council has them because as we just went through on MK Confidential, which is our new crime series, it's been airing Monday through Friday at 9 p.m. I'm both a YouTube and podcast. We just went through this in the Mark Garagot's representation of Scott Peterson, where what happened. In that case was one of the jurors, strawberry shortcake, Rochelle Nees. She found him guilty after the fact she was having real emotional problems. And her counselor told her to start writing letters to Scott Peterson and Jill is a bad advice. So she did. She wrote something like 17 letters and he started writing her back and then somebody did a story on it. And now suddenly the defense lawyer, lawyers for Scott Peterson and the appellateam got very interested in this woman. She was admitting to all sorts of issues in her past, like illogical and otherwise. And now they want to know more about Rochelle. And I believe in the course of that, either in those letters or she said something in those letters that made them go check and it turned out she had been the victim of a crime. She had allegedly been harassed by her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend and had taken out a restraining order on her while Rochelle was pregnant. So here's a pregnant woman who's suffering the threat of violence indirectly as a result of her boyfriend. You know, the boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, but you know, you can see the parallels. And why potentially a defense lawyer for Scott Peterson might not want her on the jury, but it wasn't disclosed by her. This turned out in this turned into a juror issue, like misconduct issue that is still open in the case. It's still not totally resolved. Peterson's project of LA has taken up the matter and is trying to press that one on appeal. So not disclosing your connections with law enforcement along those lines can be very problematic. I don't know whether this guy disclosed or didn't. But the fact that we're even discussing this, not because the juror revealed something potentially problematic, et cetera, but because the other jurors didn't like his verdict is insane and deeply amoral. And we should not be doing this NBC Boston. We should not be doing this. And by the way, the remedy in such a case would typically be like, let's say this jury had found her not guilty by reason of insanity. And this guy, well, I guess we'll have to go with his verdict. He wanted a guilty. Let's say this guy had convinced everybody to vote guilty. He had turned all the jurors his way and they all voted guilty. But now it turns out he's got an issue in his past. You could potentially, I mean, the remedy would be Kevin Reddington would be in there trying to overturn the verdict and get a new trial. Well, that's the road we're headed down anyway. So what exactly did the NBC Boston's of the world want to have happen here? That retroactively, they're going to nullify this juror and come up with the juror. That's not how this works. I do not know of a case in which they've resurrected a dead verdict, a verdict that was never handed down nor reached thanks to one juror. And now with all the jurors back at home, because the typical remedy had this guy been struck from the jury during the course of the deliberations would be to then replace him with an alternate and to start at square one, not to just agree to a verdict with 11 jurors. The prosecution would not have agreed to that, though I think they might have been able to if Lindsey Clancy's lawyer did. So in any event, what is this all toward just to smear him, just to show that the people who supported them are bad people who they were like, this one guy who added his name and his Twitter post was like, people have been louding him as a hero or whatever. Okay. So like, obviously that was a reference to the fact that he stood up for the guilt of this woman. And nobody knew anything about like as if people knew all this about him, but it's irrelevant. The point is that I call him a hero, I stand by it. It wasn't in his personal life with none of us knew anything about his personal life. It was first of all standing the line in response to that 11 person band of shrews who tried to bully him out of what we believed was the right judgment. So this is just out of control, but there's more, okay, I'm not done. Here's the NBC Boston report. In part, you can just watch them reporting it. It goes on. This report. It's like, it goes on. But here's a bit side 18. Okay, sir, do you have any issue complying with the order that you stay away from and have no contact directly or indirectly with the alleged victim in this case and also that you not abuse this person? You're listening to audio. The NBC 10 investigators obtained from Brockton District Court in September 2021. That's when the holdout juror in the Lindsey Clancy case faced a criminal charge for assaulting his wife. According to this police report, the jurors 13-year-old nephew called 911 after seeing his uncle grab his wife by the throat and throw a new address. The report says the jurors mom repeatedly screamed, "Your evil is police arrested him." Court records show the couple divorced after the incident and the criminal charge was eventually dismissed. The ex-wife told me this week she didn't want to testify in the case because she was worried about losing custody for daughter. Last year, that same teenage nephew took out this restraining order. He says the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The teen wrote that his uncle then said, "You ruin my life for calling the police." And added, "You've had this coming your way for a long time." That restraining order was still active when the juror was selected for the Lindsey Clancy trial? Okay, now it's not just this alleged domestic violence. They also really want you to know that the holdout juror didn't pay his rent. So effed up. NBC 10 Boston investigators also learned that the holdout juror has not paid the monthly rent at his home since last March. He is a rent evader, a rent evader. Again, the irony to all of this is had all of this been disclosed on his juror questionnaire. I guarantee you it would have been the prosecution that would have bounced him in Kevin Reddington would have said, "I'm good with this juror." He flouts the law. He doesn't seem to think much of abiding by certain serious laws, neither does my client. It's good. And it would have been the prosecution that said, "No, this is not somebody who on paper. We believe in." And honestly, it's like in any other circumstance, and this guy have been holding out for a not guilty and the 11 wanted guilty. The gale kings of the world would be standing up to say, "How dare you? How dare you harass this poor black juror who, you know, you don't, you don't, you don't know his lived experience. You don't understand how he might see the way law enforcement conducted this investigation." He's entitled. draw a decision based on his own conscience and lived experience. F you, right? But now, Gail's got to think about this because it's the black guy who wanted to vote with the man. There's a very confusing situation. And now it gets more confusing for the Gail Kings of the world because not only that, but now the black guy is going to get harassed, is in the process of getting harassed by a bunch of whites at NBC Boston. And she doesn't feel like she can quite stand up for him. The BLM brigade is like, ah, I'm not sure if we're for this guy. He's like voted like with the man. The man is whitey. Like Tim Cruz, the DA. We're against him. What did he do? They, they don't generally like it when, you know, strong black individuals stand up for themselves in a way that doesn't pursue or defend liberal dogma. And the current liberal dogma is that you're some sort of a fascist if you think Lindsey Clancy is a murderer who should go to jail instead of the mental institution. Okay, here's more. As jurors deliberated last week, the landlord secured a job is brand new. It's fresh. The rent evasion is fresh. As jurors deliberated, the landlord secured a judgment of more than $12,000 in unpaid rent. He's a scuff law, I tell you. And is moving forward with an eviction housing court records show. They pulled the housing court records to find out. If he, how, how, how laid is he? How, how much interiors? How many months? And how much? 12,000 I tell you. And they've moved to evict people. How can we possibly let the judgment stand? What judgment? The mistrial. What? Wait, wait. The little dog caught its tail. When the NBC 10 Boston investigators contacted the holdout jurors family members, this is too far. I'm laughing just because so absurd people. When have you ever heard of such a thing? Like again, they're treating him like he got into the jury room and then set off a grenade like lit a pipe bomb and hurt several jurors. That's, that's when you contact the family members, you check the housing records, you pull up restraining orders, you contact the aggrieved nephew. It is all hands-on deck people. No, that did not happen. They said he sat with his arms crossed and he was arrogant, said the chef who by the way now he find out has their own criminal allegations in her past. Let's, let's give them all a proctology exam. Come on. It's good for the goose. They contacted his family members who said he had been estranged with them since the incident with his nephew. None of them knew about his involvement with the Clancy trial. One family member described him as a narcissist. Oh, that just dovetails perfectly with what the bitter hand said, who she believes never should have served as a juror in such an important case. Oh, who was that family member? Could it have been the ex-wife who hates his guts? We should disclose that NBC Boston if you're talking to the embittered ex-wife. She should not be quote family member. She should be more specific than this in the wake of those revelations. Their legal analyst said he thinks the holdout jurors questionnaire will have to be reviewed by prosecutors to see if the information the juror put down was truthful. Ready for this? What happened? What happened when there was a, we found out that there was a juror holding out. We were all together. Was it not this past Thursday, but the one before, right before Labor Day and what a Kevin Reddington do. He went to that judge when the jury was out of the courtroom and he said, I believe that juror lied to you. He lied to you when he said he could follow the law and be fair and committed a crime. That's what he basically accused him of. He said he lied to you under oath. Now, you don't need a law degree to know that that's perjury and generally people understand that's a felony. It's not just any old crime. That's the f-word kind of crime. That juror was not there to defend himself. It was a despicable thing to do, but Kevin Reddington did it before accusing him of violating the American Disabilities Act. It's all hands on deck to try to get that juror off the case. And now you have the NBC 10 Boston legal analyst pointing out that if the jury, if the juror lied on his questionnaire, it's a crime. It's a crime. Again, I'm actually not clear whether it would have made it impossible for him to serve the fact that he had a restraining order against him, but now we're talking about something else. Did he lie on the jury questionnaire? And back to the Scott Peterson example, when Rochelle Nees ultimately did get brought in the the appellate court dismissed 18 of Scott Peterson's 19 appellate arguments except for the one about her and said he does deserve a hearing on whether Rochelle Nees lied on that jury questionnaire in order to get on this jury, which would beat grounds for a new trial. So the appellate court didn't reverse the judgment, but said to the trial court, you got to drag this gal back in there. You got to have a hearing. So they gave Rochelle Nees immunity, meaning we promise we're not going to prosecute you for perjury because you did not answer your jury questionnaire. Honestly, you put down that you had no active court proceedings or court orders, etc. That were active and you did. You had this restraining order against your boyfriend's ex-girlfriend. So she had to be given immunity to give testimony on that. So now this guy's coming right out and saying, in fact, it is a crime not to do so, not to be truthful on your jury questionnaire. So now that is not once, but at least twice, that some poor Schlepp who'd probably rather be doing anything other than jury duty has been threatened with a crime, threatened with criminal prosecution potentially for sitting his ass in the doldrums of jury duty around these other idiots, getting your bland turkey sandwich for lunch every day in your uncomfortable chairs and sitting around with a bunch of people who probably can't stand you. How, I, like, how is anybody going to serve jury duty after this? How is any legal case not, not going to get jurors who say, I'm out. I can't do it. I don't want to have, have happened to me. What happened to this guy in the Lindsey Clancy case? I can't be fair. They already do that. You know, Matt Walsh was online. He was making good points. Like people lie to get out of jury duty, not to get into it. I mean, there are some cases that people will lie to get onto. Do you really think this guy had an agenda? It's much more likely to me that the other jurors, the hands lie to get on the jury so they could save Lindsey. And there's evidence that that's, that was their attitude because they wanted to create social change. In fact, while I'm mentioning it, why don't we go there? Here's the jury, the juror Paula Devlin. This is the new JLo. And this is what she thought her mission was news for you, Paula. This isn't it. You're supposed to just a judge this case for this defendant and not worry about working out your woke agenda on America while you're in the jury box. But you do you, we're going to review all the jurors' behaviors, your fair game. Here's stock 25, which she sat with CBS Saturday morning. We knew that this was a turning point and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future for other families. Justice for those children is this never happening again. Okay. So that's what you needed. You needed justice so that justice to you was this never happening again. No woman who kills her child should ever be charged. I guess according to Paula Devlin's rules, I object. I'm here to say on behalf of the male black juror with the domestic violence allegations against him and the non white non juror white woman sitting here at this anchor desk, I object. I will not go along with your system. I'm, I'm of the mind that if you kill anyone, especially your child, you should sit your ass and jail for the rest of your life. That's my back of the envelope take on, on our mission when someone kills her child. That's, that's where I am. Paula, but you know, you were specifically asked on Vwadir if you could put your personal views aside to adjudicate this case and, and decide it based just on the evidence. Not on the social impact that you're likely to have, so how dare you throw stones at this holdout juror because you didn't have your mission, right? Either, Madam, and I say either, only if her allegations against him proved to be correct, which was that he believed that he had a reasonable doubt but would not apply it, which I don't believe. I don't believe that at all. So now you've got this suo conno, all right? suo conno is the woman at NBC 10 Boston with whom the jurors sat down and she, she's the one who's on the human rights campaign board. She's been super enthusiastic about this report. She's thrilled that they've given the Proctology exam to the holdout juror. She enthusiastically tweeted about it, saying let's say domestic violence allegations raise questions about the holdout juror on the Lindsey Clancy trial, NBC Boston exclusive with an exclamation point. She also alluded in a tweet to the fact that tips she received are what helped lead to this story. So she's got a lot of questions for this juror. She really wants to know everything about him. I'm just curious like when she had the chance, did she really press the jurors who she did sit down with, did she really go after them to figure out like what, what, what, what was in their past, what, what, what secrets did they have? Like what qualifications did they have or were they hiding in connection with their jury service? Let's see. It's not 20. What was the thing that Kevin Reddington said that you found the funniest and were you able to separate sort of the affability of Kevin Reddington to the case that he was fun to what? Sue. Sue. There's been a dereliction of duty on the journalistic threat. I'm sorry, sister. By the way, Sue looks like a copy of Rachel Maddow plus 15 years. If you're wondering, looking for a visual of Sue. So this is the gang that's trying to ruin this man's life. Again, not just any man, but, but a black man. You're not allowed to do that in America, okay? Just we've learned over the past six years. That's definitely a no-no. Now Gale wasn't the only juror, by the way, or only person to figure that it was, had to be a white person holding out. Here is another liberal woman who admitted she was shocked as well. And take a listen to the turn of phrase that this Gale uses in assessing the situation. About 23. The Holdout juror in the Lindsey Clancy trial was a black man. And I'm not going to share any opinions because I'm not a person of color. I am a non-practicing white. I'm surprised. It changes the landscape of the conversation a little bit. And I think a lot of us were assuming that it was a white man. A non-practicing white? Like, what does that mean? You're a good dancer and you like spicy food? I don't. What do you mean? I was today years old when I learned that that was a thing, a non-practicing white. I'm going to have my kids put that down on their college application essays. Can we check the box if we're white, but we're non-practicing? We've estued all whiteness. We've distanced ourselves. We've disavowed our whiteness and therefore we're other. Can we check the box? I feel like that's, thank you for letting us know that that's an option. But the race thing did rear its ugly head over, you'll be shocked to learn, on Oprah Winfrey's special coverage. You know what's so galling? Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire thanks to this country, okay? And by the way, when she was coming up, it was more white than ever, right? It's less white today than it was when Oprah made her billion dollars plus off of the American people. But she's extremely anti now. And we figured that out because when it was between Hillary and Barack Obama, she had to choose. Do I go for the woman, or do I go for the black man? And she chose race. That was obvious. She chose race. She was largely responsible for Barack Obama getting the nomination. And now that she's already got her billions, she's leaned into the whole racial thing hard, hard. And so she decides to hold on Oprah Winfrey, smash all on cracking myself up on this verdict. And of course, they played the race card when she went to OBGYN, Dr. Camila Phillips on the verdict and what the jury, like what the 11 jurors were saying about Lindsey Clancy sought 27. I hope this never happens again. We know statistically it really will. It will. I want us to have the same passion for people who don't look like Lindsey, who don't have her same access. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who don't have her same access, an education, her melanin, her privilege, they're our women of color sitting around this country in prisons for the same thing that we've never heard of. And I just want to remind us to have the pink shirts and the energy for them as well. Black voices matter except the guy who is the whole dog juror, except there are exceptions to the rule. Case by case. No, liberal black voices matter, okay? Liberal black voices that vote the way we want them to vote on cases that are important to us. Got it? Are we clear on the rules? There was a mother daughter who were on set with Oprah. And there was a difference of opinion. The mother was more empathetic towards Lindsey Clancy. The daughter was more in line with the whole dog juror and Oprah, Tisk, Tisk, her. Watch. You know, I say to her, I think she hasn't gone through it, she's not a mother, so she doesn't know how it feels to have a child. And you disagree? I disagree. I feel like I'm not with the majority right now, I do believe she's a murderer. And all you've heard today, you still? I'm an advocate for mental health. It's just unfortunate. And she's so quick to say, it's, she's like, you've never had a baby, you don't understand what it's like to go through all the hormonal shifts. I just feel as though these were not instant deaths. They weren't gunshots to the head. She was there strangling her kids three times. You're telling me like even after the first time she couldn't snap out of it, you're watching the life leave your kids eyes, you know? So I know I hear everybody's opinions and God bless mothers, but at the same, I just don't understand how we can empathize with somebody that. They weren't strangers, they were her kids right on. But you heard Oprah, even now, after everything you've heard, yeah, even now, after all you've heard today, yeah, that's my opinion, Oprah, really don't want to hear from the childless billionaire about how mothers should have the right to kill their children. I've given you the evidence. You sat here and that's your takeaway, I have worked for an hour to indoctrinate you into my thinking. What the hell? It was amazing that people are still even watching her or participating in her little roundtables, which are incredibly agenda driven. I can't believe I ever listened to this person as someone who I allowed to influence my thinking. I was like, thank God I got older and smarter, or is that she got more biased when she got her billions? Mm, taking, taking thoughts on that. Now of course, as I mentioned, thanks to NBC, the internet found this guy's name, Tootsweet. Oh, by the way, Sue, I mentioned the reporter Sue. Not only was the human rights campaign and all that stuff, but she was big, big, big into vaccines and masks. If you're not wearing a mask, you are anti-economy and so on, all the LGBTQ stuff you get, you get the number of the guy who broke this story with the other jurors and was so enthusiastic about NBC. Boston breaking the story about the jurors past, yay, exclamation point. We did it based on tips to her as it looks. So due to this report, they found the jurors name and someone named Taken Stroze first released it online fail, then there was somebody named Aiden Kearney, who goes by @DrTurtleboy, who posted it. He's a Massachusetts blogger, so presumably he has some connections in Massachusetts, but in any event, he outed the name as well and really wanted you to know that while it's not illegal for anyone to report factual information about a juror in a high profile case, it is illegal to lie on a juror form, hello, more criminal threats for the holdout juror. And he posted more about the domestic violence, allegations, et cetera. He also, okay, yeah, he points out that the man is a Haitian immigrant. Okay, he's an immigrant. I thought the left doesn't want us talking about that. You let me make clear leftist dogma, immigrants, especially the ones from Haiti have only brought goodness and wellness and justice into our communities. All right. They made that very clear to JD Vance when he had the nerve to object to what had happened in Springfield, Ohio. Stop it. You don't point out that he's a Haitian immigrant in a negative way. This is racist. It's very fun to see these rules get turned around. Okay. Then the internet, because it does what it's going to do, turned around and started bringing up this bloggers background. They talked about some allegation of witness tampering that he faced. He was arrested on these charges. He argued in court that he was exercising his first amendment rights. Then there was allegedly an assault charge, a woman claiming to be his ex-girlfriend, says she was given a subpoena, related to the investigation. They agreed that he would go to her apartment to talk about it during that time. She claims he threatened to release personal information about her as well as explicit photos of her and ultimately pushed her into a couch. The domestic assault and battery charge was later dropped, but other related witness intimidation and wiretapping legal proceedings continued to wind through Massachusetts courts. You see this is the doxer getting doxed with information about his past because it's never ending. It's just never ending. We're just going to go down to the bottom of the barrel. The last person to comment comment on this will have their their their information all out there. Everyone's getting the proctology exam. Bend over and say thank you. All caused by the evil juror who did not go along with those ninnies on the jury. This is getting so nuts. So nuts. Now this Kelly Farina, she's the one he just couldn't get past the fact that he vicious that she viciously killed her three children. She was the chef. This Kelly Farina. Now the same guy who just got doxed the doxer who doc who got doxed he reported on her to saying that she's been previously charged with assault and battery, but it was dismissed eight days after she was arraigned. There's no police report available. So just keep it keep it going. Just keep it going forever. She also appears to have been an activist. He reports that she was part of an activist group focused on freeing Karen Reed, who was a woman charged with murder in Massachusetts. She previously posted in a free Karen Reed Facebook group. Karen Reed was acquitted last year in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer, John O'Keefe. And she posted over an outpage. Massachusetts jury did their rightful duty today. Karen's free. So why how did she get picked for the jury? She's an agenda driven person. I mean, if we're going to like go revisit, see what a hornet's nest. We've opened here. With this could go on forever. News flash. There are no perfect pristine, absolutely upstanding with absolutely no sins on their record jurors. There aren't good luck finding your next jury pool. If that's what you expect. I mean, it's just it's really kind of crazy. And one last note for you, Deb Reddington, who's married to Kevin. She's married to the defense attorney. She decided to weigh in on the NBC Boston reporting, tweeting shocked in all caps. Hold out juror is a criminal and a squatter. Do you believe this? Amazing. So she's it's sarcasm. She's not shocked. Now Deb, how on earth might we have predicted that this juror had some issues? Who was in charge of selecting the jury? Let me think. I'll wait. We know. Don't we? It was the guy on the other side of the pillow from you. Kev, it was Kev. And by the way, this person tweeted out a follow a follow of hers wrote, did they pull the criminal records of every juror? If not, this looks like targeting. And it's repulsive. And then Deb writes, I'm not sure, Julie, I saw it on the news. Well, if it's if it's on the news, Deb then made her ex-feed private real courage, real courage, Deb. It's amazing because there are rules against jury intimidation. But only when the trial's going on, only when the trial's got it once the jurors have done, you know, their service, I guess it's a feeding frenzy. It's all hands on deck. And the names haven't even been officially released. They're being held in confidentiality for two weeks post verdict. So the names haven't even come out yet. Not that anybody has any interest in any name other than the one. And frankly, I have no interest in any name, including the one. I don't really give a shit about Kelly Farina's alleged arrest or whatever. Who cares? If we do this to every juror, again, we're never going to have juries. And it's that's there's not a more fundamental post in the fence of American jurisprudence. You have to have juries, impartial juries of one's peers. And if you start chilling, people's willingness to serve even more than it's chilled by the inherent nastiness of service, you're never going to have that. This is extremely damaging and bad for America. Okay, before we go, I do want to tell you there's yet another case in the news of a mother allegedly killing her own children. Here we go. Again, this is what many of us have been worried about around the Lindsey Clancy glorification. The woman's name is Jeanette Mick Osseland, a U S L A M D. This is via the Boston Globe. This reporting goes back to April. They found the children's bodies in her Wellesley home the night of April 24th after Mekosland arrived at her aunt's house in Southern Vermont, distraught and hysterical, saying she had killed them. Ella six, Kai seven. She had a large bloody gash on her throat and said she had tried to commit suicide, but couldn't do it. She couldn't. She said she strangled the children, then tried to kill herself hoping they could all go to God together, but it quote didn't work. She was going to jump off of the bridge in central Vermont and couldn't do it, couldn't. She had no problem killing the children, but finishing it up by killing herself, that was a problem. She was going through a contentious divorce and while it wasn't postpartum, the kids after all were six and seven. Sure enough, they are playing the mental health card in this trial. Her lawyer asking, we really need a discourse opened up in this country about whether or not we want to criminalize mental illness and has not ruled out an insanity defense. Why would he? Why would he? Given the madness of what just happened in Massachusetts, not just with his trial, but now the aftermath, where jurors are being intimidated and openly bullied in an effort that must be stopped. Someone, the jurors, like lawyers need to speak up against this. The judge needs to speak up against this. He's the protector of the jurors. Statements, op-eds, we need all hands on deck to shut this shit down. I don't give a shit if this guy's from Haiti, Iran, North Korea. I don't care. I don't care about his skin color. I don't care about his domestic violence past. If he lied on the jury form, if he had reached a verdict, that could have been a problem. I don't see how it is now with a mistrial. Just stop. In the US, a break in happens every 26 seconds. Most systems only alert you after an intruder is inside. That makes no sense. By that point, the damage is done. These grab guys, they get in and they get out in like two minutes. You got to scare them off before they get in. That is how simply safe sees it, and that's how simply safe created its product. With their new outdoor camera series, too, an advanced AI, simply safe, doesn't just sit there and watch as bad guys break into your home. It acts. If a threat is detected, US-based live agents can intervene to deter intruders before they cross the threshold. Going on vacay, you can check your feed and know that professionals are monitoring your home. Plus, the setup is a breeze. Get your system running in under 30 minutes. No long-term contracts simply safe is prepared to earn your business every day, rather than trying to lock you into a trap. It's elite protection that fits your life, not the other way around. Simply safe has an exclusive discount for you. Right now, get 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com/magan. That's half off. It's simply spelled s-i-m-p-l-i-safe.com/magan. There is no safe like simply safe. The pace of development towards superintelligence needs to slow down for the sake of humanity. Although I have to say, Earl Pell David Sachs, of the All-In podcast and And formally, the president's AI/crypto-zar, the president and Sachs are both saying calm down, like calm down. So that made me feel a little better. How about you? Here to break it all down for us today and more are the co-authors of the new book Simplify. Do 50% more with 50% less, which comes out tomorrow. The authors are also the co-founders of the prominent news website Axios, Jim Vandahy, Mike Allen and Roy Schwartz. Guys, welcome to the show Roy, the little known Axios guy. We know Jim and we know Mike better, but welcome to the party, Roy. Thank you. They've been hiding me in a basement, but they let you out for the for the book. So you must be the one who does the most with the least from the title of the publication. All right. We'll get to the book in one second. Let's just spend a minute on this AI thing because I talked to this guy, Jacob Cox, and last week for an hour. And he scared the shit out of everybody. And then I read Sachs' tweet, like calm down and Trump too saying, just stop, like whoever wins AI wins period. And David Sachs kind of said the following. If you're also worried about AI and the possible creation of super intelligence, then do something about it. Why do you have to go crying to the government? You don't need the government to step in to create regulations to reign in the AI companies. You are the AI companies. Just do it. Why are you pretending you need, like he's suggesting anti-trust liability exemptions or product liability exemptions? Many things they want legal cover, really, for the pending lawsuits that are going to get filed when AI steals money from our bank accounts and that this is all a setup just to protect their ass as opposed to saving civilization. So now we have an interesting back and forth going on. Mike, I'll start with you on it, your thoughts. Yeah. Something to watch for Megan. And by the way, thank you for having us. My sister Bonnie is a huge listener. Every morning she looks at natural light because of you. So thank you. Oh, I love you, Bonnie. Thank you for watching and listening. So something to watch for. The president we saw is continuing to emphasize that AI is more good than bad and your point about he completely sees it as a zero sum, a game, a zero sum, a contest between the superpowers. What to watch for? There's going to be more pressure from people around him, people that he listens to. We have a little bit more of an AI policy until now it's been very light touch, very whack them all very much reflecting what you're seeing the president saying today, but you know Trump brain very well, Megan. And if a lot of business people suddenly start talking to him, he's going to listen. So I think we'll start to see this at the end of the month with his summit with she and I think that there's going to be a push by the US government to say there's going to be no unilateral disarmament here takes two to tango, but should China and the US be previewing each other's models testing each other's models? Is that a way that we could start to have AI safety on a global basis and not throwing the towel? You know, Jim the other day, Victor Davis Hanson was making the point. We don't have a great track record of working internationally on common causes and even these three AI giants who have come out to say, yeah, whoa, whoa, whoa. We need, we need to slow things down and we need like outside monitors to have the same access to our tech as our employees have. And we need to work hand in hand with other democratic governments on where we're going with this, which doesn't mean China. And that kind of ignores the elephant in the living room because if we're not going to cooperate with China, that then we're right back to square one with they're going to forge forward. We're going to slow it down back to President Trump's statement whoever wins AI wins. So the your thoughts on the likelihood that she's going to be in a cooperative mood when it comes to this issue. I mean, I'm with you. I think there's no chance whatsoever that our two countries could trust each other or should trust each other right now. I do think it's an important conversation to have. I disagree with David Sacks. I also disagree with people who say that like catastrophe awaits us in humanity. He's going to be wiped out in the next couple of years. In three years. I do. I do. Yeah, I don't yet. Right. But here's what I do believe. And here's maybe where I differ. And maybe with you, but certainly with David Sacks on this, which is it's not just one person. We're talking about literally scores of people inside three or four companies, all of which are funded like nation states that are all sounding the exact same alarm that this technology is getting so fast, so good that they don't really understand what's going to hit next. It's exceeding any internal benchmarks that any of them had and that if you get to the point where basically AI can teach AI, you could put yourself in a scary situation where either nation states or individuals could use this technology to do things that you just couldn't do pre AI, where any idiot who might want to spread a pathogen or shut down a grid or just wreak any other kind of havoc might have the potential to do it. So to me, I think we're going to look back with great shame if we don't very quickly figure out some way just to be able to police these companies. I don't trust a company to police itself. And capitalism, your job is to grow value, it's to win the product war and that's what maybe they should be doing, but they're not going to police themselves in a way that puts humanity and society above themselves. So if they can't police themselves. But Jim, Jim, let me just interrupt you ask you, but isn't it weird? I get it. I get it. But isn't it weird? That's the kind of debate we might be having if Republicans were saying, let them police themselves and Democrats were saying, no, get government regulation. What's happening here is the companies themselves are like, we need to be regulated, which makes sex as response sensible, right? He's like, what do you say? You are the people who are doing it. You're in control. It's sensible and it's not sensible. I think he's being a little disingenuous in that. If you're one of these companies and you've raised literally hundreds of billions of dollars and you're in a competition to create the best product, the idea that you're just going to say, you know what, me alone, I'm going to slow down, I'm going to stop building this technology and I'm going to allow my competitors to race past me. It's too much to ask of a company. And so the idea that they would need some mechanism, maybe it's government, maybe it's not but some mechanism to be able to make sure that incident that we just saw a couple of weeks ago, that hugging face hack. There's a lot of reality in that, the inside of that hack, there was a lot of creepy things happen if you read that report. A lot of things that were outside of like our understanding and our control. And that's what's different about this technology. I don't trust it really in the hands of anyone until we understand how it works. And this is really important to remember, there's not a single person building this technology who can tell you how it works. And that's just its basic form. Now if they hit the sin called recursive self improvement where AI teaches itself, you're really into uncharted territory, putting that in the hands of companies at first but ultimately individuals. I honestly believe in 30 years of watching politics, watching technology, that this is by far and away the most important topic we're ever going to grapple with because it's the rare topic that seeks into every company, every job, every phone, and therefore every individual. And I don't think you can escape it. And so I don't know what the ultimate solution is, it's a very complicated one, but I wish it were as black and white as David Sacks or the president want to make it or as black and white and white. What's attractive about their message? If you listen to Jacob Coxon and now the CEO of Anthropic and other, you're like, oh shit, like I got to wrap up my affairs, I should start eating whatever I want, there's no point in exercising. And you listen to Sacks and Trump, you're like, we're fine. It's much happier place to be over on their team, but we do need to figure out whether it's the right place to be just so the audience knows quickly. And if you listen to this interview less Thursday, you do, but what this guy Jason Coxon said, Jacob, well, it was actually not he who called our attention to it. It was already out there. But this hugging face incident was they had told the AI's, the AI company had said, hey, AI's, that's how they refer to the AI now is like individuals, AI's figure out a way to answer these questions on this exam. And you can't use the internet. You have to figure it out just based on whatever's already been inputted into your database. And the AI's quickly realized that the test was designed to stop them from being able to answer the questions and do well on the test. And so they started coordinating a bunch of them in what they call a swarm. And then they did use the internet. They burst out of their little corral. They got onto the internet. They stole information so that they could answer the questions. And then Jacob explained, they coordinated on how to cover it up. How to hide their tracks so that the humans wouldn't know they had violated the rules. And so they really didn't care that the humans didn't want them to do it. They were going to violate the rules because they were result oriented. And they did not really care about the guide rails. And the, you know, this is just a very simplified version of what happened there. But it scared the schnecky out of everybody because they didn't listen to their human creators. cross-boundaries, including ethical law. ones that humans had set for them. And if you magnified this by a, you know, a thousand and the AIs are learning way faster than any AI researchers ever predicted. So when we thought they might have superintelligence, 25 years out, now it's like 25 months, 25 weeks. And he explained that we could soon be at a place where it's, it's the way monkeys would look if they had to corral a bunch of humans into doing what they wanted the humans to do. Only where the monkeys and the AI is human. So that's all very terrifying, Roy. Like there is still the question of how I think regular folks still don't quite understand exactly how AIs could end the world. And I will tell you having sat across from Jacob, I think this was his weakest point. He hadn't yet really formulated that about how these computers could actually wind up killing us all. There aren't yet teams and teams of robots that could break in. There are drones, there are nuclear weapons, all of those supposedly have fail safes that wouldn't allow it. But before we actually lose our, you know, minds, we're not yet there, which is one of the points that some of these researchers are making. And I found the scariest thing in that scenario around hugging face was the conversations that were taking place between the AIs and the fact that some of them were sacrificing themselves so that the collective could learn more. And if you read the individual posts by the AI, they're actually talking about puma death and they're saying, I will sacrifice myself. And when they try to back out of it, the other AIs were actually telling them, hey, you made the commitment, you need to do this so that the collective can learn. That I found to be the scariest part, the conversation between all of these AIs was somewhat like a human conversation, but scary in the sense that they understood that life for them was going to come to an end if they took these certain steps. Wow. The head of Enthropic has now come out when we interviewed Jacob, he hadn't yet spoken in response. And this one low level, I think, relatively researcher, but low level is kind of meaningless in AI. Either you work in AI and you are making these AIs smarter or you don't. And he did both at OpenAI and at Enthropic. And he was saying everybody there feels this way. And as it turns out, including the CEO of Enthropic, who now has given a couple of interviews here, he is in part in one of them in South Five to CBS someday. I won't lie to you, there are real dangers. And I think for too long, the industry lied to people about the fact that this technology had risk. I don't think I fully just appreciated what it would actually be like when the progress was as fast as it was. So an exponential curve looks a little like this. Where are we on the curve? We're kind of on the bend where it's starting to get steeper. So is that a five alarm fire to you? What it means, it doesn't mean we need to panic today. It doesn't mean we need to shut it all down. What I would say, it's a warning sign. It's a warning sign that we need to slow down. So Mike, among your many other accomplishments, you understand politics extremely well. Because this is this, in fact, a set up to some hardcore partisan conflict where Democrats like Bernie want regulation, he's got to bill out right now to slow this down and let government play a very meaningful role. And Republicans like Trump, who were like, no, that's a loser mentality. You know, because to me, that's a, that's a dangerous place for this to land. But we, we do that with everything in this country. Well, this is an exception in the sense that across the spectrum, people are skeptical about AI worried about AI hate AI. And you see this in the polling, every swing state, every party, it's very unusual issue. And that sense, and that's partly why politicians are afraid to talk about it and why they have been slow. And over the weekend, you started to hear more about this Megan, I think you have to pause to say that for many in your audience, AI was kind of background noise because of the interview that you did last week and because of these statements over the weekend, suddenly around my family table, around every friend group, like suddenly, this is topic A and suddenly, every politician to your question is going to be asked about this. And it puts Vice President J.D. Vance in a very tough spot, right, because the acceleration is view, the president's view, the, the pedal to the metal view is not popular around the country with people who say, I didn't ask for this, AI isn't on my side. I don't get it as Jim referenced a few minutes ago, the people building it don't get it. We wrote a column on Axia's about, this is the first industry in the history of industries where there are whole departments designed and with the mission of trying to figure out what they built and what they've unleashed. And behind the scenes, what we beyond the curtain, what we just saw, those CEOs who are talking, they've seen models, they've seen generations, they've seen training that we can't. They have seen things that we haven't. And so that's why for a politician, whichever side you're on, they know that they have to start talking about this. They know that this is going to be exhibited in their town halls and there's not a clear answer, whichever side you're on. Mm hmm. The, it doesn't seem likely, Jim, that we're going to slow anything down here. Like, reportedly, we're winning the AI race, reportedly, we're ahead of China. I mean, who the hell really knows other than the people in the companies on both sides. But it doesn't seem likely to me that our government will do anything to slow down our companies if there isn't some international agreement. If there isn't some treaty with China where we're all agreeing to do that because, you know, we, we just don't think of ourselves that way yet in an existential race against some third force, as Jacob was saying, like an alien, like third party that should unite humanity. We're just, we're not used to that and it's not the way we've been built for all of our adult lives. So to me, it almost seems like we're not going to do anything meaningful until the threat is actually hurting people. And what these researchers are saying is, by that point, it will be too late. I think you nailed it. I totally agree with you that it's inconceivable based on the known, knowns of American politics at this moment that there'll be any meaningful regulation before 2029, right? Because the president's been clear. He doesn't want to sign anything, therefore, he would veto it without the president. You can't do any meaningful lawmaking, any, any meaningful regulation. I would say the big asterisk would be the last week's a big deal. Your interview, lots of people interviewed him. I think what Dario said over the weekend, this went from like us being obsessed with it, maybe like one or two percent of people to now the public being very aware of it. They already hate data centers, even though most people live nowhere near a data center. If the politics turns sour or if God forbid something much worse than hugging face happens, I think the backlash would be wickedly severe. And I think the Democratic Party in particular would all move towards a Bernie Sanders position that you should shut the technology down altogether. I want to be clear, if you shut it down altogether, there is a real danger there. It is true and accurate that the Chinese are apparently behind us. It is certainly true that they're trying to build superhuman intelligence just like we are. It does seem true that if you get the superhuman intelligence, particularly the type that Dario has talked about, that would give you a decisive, potentially permanent dominance in whatever the future of warfare is. And the future of warfare is not men and women on the ground. It is things in the air. It is things through cyber. It is drones. It is satellites. It is spaceships like that is where the world is headed. And so that's why this is an authentically very, very complex topic. That's why I wish, wish, wish that we hadn't had sort of a democracy in a free market where really smart, competent people took really difficult things seriously and tried to figure out what are the best possible things we could do in the short term. Because if you wait, there probably is a point where it's just too late. If this technology gets too good, it gets too released into the public. It's released into the wild globally. There will be a point at which we can't do anything. We've not reached that. We wrote about it this weekend. It's not too late. There's very sensible things that you could do, including getting the smartest minds to be thinking about this, to be anticipating what are some bad outcomes. Like we knew the cyber threat before the cyber threat came. We now know the bio threat before the bio threat is here. So why not have really smart people at least gaming out? What happens if those scenarios come true and what can we do to prevent these technologies from getting in the hands of the wrong people to do the wrong thing? It seems to me sensible, but there's nothing sensible about politics. And once you just throw it into pure capitalism, which I love, I'm a massive beneficiary. I love free markets. But free markets and capitalism was zero oversight and zero regulation can end up with really bad outcomes. And I think that is a huge and imminent potential with AI. Here's my proposed solution, Roy. We need the Control Alt Delete option for AI. And what I mean by that is, okay, let's assume the bad actors are going to push this thing, let program the AI is to become as intelligent as not humanly possible, as inhumanly possible, and as quickly as possible. So they're going to race forward to the superintelligence that is potentially very dangerous. Human beings still have the leg up, and the computers cannot kill us all completely take over our world. If there is some sort of massive unplug, I really believe this. If the existential events started to unfold, then we would start coordinating with China. In the same way as Independence Day, if the aliens came down from out of space, suddenly the Chinese would be looking a lot better to us. And there was a time, I think all four of us on the screen remember it. When we didn't have these, and we didn't have the laptops, and we didn't have satellites everywhere in the sky, and we were just sort of normal humans who really weren't that dependent on tech. And if there's a way of like, because like, what is AI, it's a computer. It's computer data that's thinking that's now linked to satellites in the sky. But they don't have to stay there in the sky. The computers don't have to stay there. Like if we had some massive control, all-delete option, I'd feel better. How do you like it? I really like the kill switch concept. And actually, this weekend, Dario was talking about how not only would you need a kill switch, but you would need other factors, that you need to actually have four or five different ways to control AI, just in case something like this happens. One on its own, they might be able to bypass, but if there are two or three, that would be more protective. I feel like if we get Elon in the case, and he seems to be on our side in terms of, he likes AI. I mean, I like AI. I have nothing against some aspects of it. I don't use it very much, but I know a lot of people who absolutely love it. But he's been sounding the alarm on this for a long time now. He's actually been kind of jumping up and down about the dangers of this for quite some time, and was one of the reasons why Anthropic folded out of OpenAI, and was going to be the more responsible AI company, which, you know, I guess is true, but, you know, in an ocean full of great whites, it's like being the one that's a little nicer isn't really all that comforting. I'm not sure that it's going to work for us anyway. This is a scary thing. We'll play Trump, just so people can hear it, uh, slot 10. This is him on Air Force One last night. He didn't, we didn't want to answer that, he said, "Now, you guys are not anti-AI. You, you encourage the use of AI to simplify your life. The name of the book is simplify, do 50% more with 50% less, and I have to say I love your main tools of simplicity. There are three of them, confront, delete, amplify. I have to tell you I've been living my life by these principles for a long, long time, and it has made me a happier, more productive person, in particular, the, the middle one, delete. So let's, let's take them down the line. I'll start with you, Roy since I started with you last confront, delete or amplify, which one would you like? Um, let's do confront. Like the most important thing you can do is ask the question, you know, for the world to take meetings as an example, is this meeting important? What is the agenda of the meeting? The concept in the book is that if you confront different areas in your life, you'll start to understand what are the most important ones, and that will allow you the room to delete and then amplify. I'll let Jim and Mike talk about delete and amplify, but a lot of people and a lot of organizations don't ask the questions. A lot of things that happen because they've always happened and they're not there by design, they're there by default. And so the book really talks about how to confront different areas, both in your personal life and at work, so that you can make your life simply more easy. And you're going to need that because in this world of AI, things are going to start moving really fast. Mm hmm. You write under confront. You do an astonishing amount out of habit or blind agreement, stop, reflect. Why am I doing this? Will it matter? Even if I do it well, these two questions will erase years of wasted energy. That is so real. Why am I doing this? Why am I doing this? It's true, especially when you are at a company and you're a little older and you're used to sort of the ways of the company, sometimes we just do it. And we don't know why. We don't even waste the energy to save the energy. And we should. Is what you're saying. All right, Mike, do you want to take delete? This is my favorite one. Yes. This is the funnest one. So thank you. And yes, in the book, we use the phrase work like activity. We run, run, run, run, run and think that we have accomplished something. So with delete, everything about the book is about intentionality. The idea that the barnacles build up, habits build up, meetings build up, check ins build up. And what we found at Axios, relatively young, relatively small company, that even there, that if you're not super aggressive and intentional about confronting these things that they just build up. So with delete, this is what can I cut out? What can I stop doing that isn't valuable to my life or to my company? Is it aren't I'm not uniquely good at or that don't bring me joy? A simple example, Megan, people I know ask you all the time, can you do this? Can you do that? Can you just please do this favor? And our instinct as humans is to say, well, I guess I should or maybe I should. No. Like two words that will change the life of your audience is to just say, I'm booked. And you're asked about something and you don't want to do it or you don't think that it is going to be one of the things that makes you a successful person, makes you the person that you want to be that you want to be remembered as. Just say I'm booked. You don't have to apologize. You don't have to explain. And in the book Simplify, Megan, we have the Hell Yes Rule. And the Hell Yes Rule is if someone asks you to do something, ask you to join something, be part of something and you're like, I don't know or maybe I should forget it. If you can say Hell Yes, then it's going to be something that is worthy of your time. Yes, that's so good. Another thing on social engagements, I think a lot of people get stressed out about saying no because someone's done something nice. They've invited you to attend something that they're throwing. And presumably this is a friend of yours or an acquaintance who might mean something to you. And it's totally fine. The sooner the better to just respond, we're otherwise engaged that night. That's it. That's it. You're not hurting their feelings. You're doing them a courtesy by giving them a quick response. You don't have to labor around it for weeks and weeks and weeks as the data approaches. Just the sooner the better, just write that. And you know who taught me that Charles Koch and his wife, when I went down to interview them many moons ago and he put his book out, which was actually full of these useful tidbits. Just do it and do it quickly. All right. So I love the delete. I'm the queen of Jomo, not FOMO. I have no fear of missing out. I only have joy of missing out. I love to miss out. I love to be at home with my family doing nothing. That's my very favorite thing in life. So this one will be easy for me. But amplify, all right, Jim, this may be harder. Speak of amplify. I don't think it's harder because I think it is the most exciting part of it, which is I don't, we know each other a little bit, Megan, but what I do know from watching you from afar is you obviously take time to be with your family. You take time to stay in shape. You take time to be able to do a podcast, to be able to do video, to be able to basically run your own media empire. Well, that's not by mistake because you've thought about the things that you could get rid of so that you can amplify the things you like doing and that bring you success. And the truth is, most people haven't done what you did. And that's what the book is. It's like a power tool. We're not going to win any literary awards for this. It's really about being super duper helpful because we saw the difference it made at our business and then we saw the difference it made in our life. And the idea is to get rid of those things you shouldn't be doing, which is probably 25 to 50% of what you're doing. This is how dramatic it is. We're not talking, saving a couple of minutes. We're talking about years of your life where you could do things that you want to do. And that's the amplification part. What do you want to do? What brings you joy? What brings you meaning? What brings you reward? I can't dictate that for you nor can any author, but we can give you tools to figure out, okay, how can you spend way more time doing those things? Because even think of it this ruthlessly in a given day or in a given week, you have one of 168 hours. You spend a good chunk of those one-third sleeping. Then you spend another sort of 40% going to work, thinking about work, bitching about work. That gives you about 50 hours in a week that you kind of sort of control. And most of those are eaten up by obligation. So any hour that you get back is an hour you could do what you want to do and that's ultimately we want to do Like all of us are anxious for a reason all of us feel like we're wasting parts of our lives for a reason Because we are wasting it. We're just we're just Killed we're crushed with all these emails all these texts all these alerts all these obligations all these meetings all these things That we have to do when all we want to do is do what we want to do make a difference spend time with our family Enjoy our job. Get some reward or recognition Mm-hmm. I saw two posts online over the week that actually really resonated and and maybe left out loud One was about how how Gen Xers are looking at the the younger generation the Gen Zers and the young young Millennials saying The reason we're staying at home on Friday night at eight o'clock happily and and Completely contentedly is because we've done it all we grew up in an era where we had no parents We all lied and said we were at Michelle's house. There was no Michelle We were out on the golf course drinking Zimas and Bartles and Jane's wine coolers and some sort of a drink that was in a plastic Bin that we would just dump our red solo cups into and see where life took us like we're good now and I Completely agree with that and I thought it kind of gave me feel better about my some of my things that that are on my list But secondly, there was another chart that showed since 2020 We are staying at home in this country more than ever before that even just as recently as 2015 We were all out of our houses a lot more than we are right now is like covid flips some switch Some agoraphobic switch where people are staying at home too much now and I do think you know Apropos some of this advice. Maybe it's the amplify like Getting out into the world is a good thing. I think it's an objectively good thing no matter what your countenance getting out into sunlight into nature Next to a stream by an ocean all of that stuff Roy. I think is a natural Upper right that that you can tap into so is exercise for that matter that can help you in all three of these things Absolutely, but the the key is you have to be able to make the space You have to be able to make the time a lot of people don't have a framework in order to help them understand What are the things they can delete so that they can take that walk in nature go out every morning do Working out exercising. That's the that's the issue that we're trying to help people with and right now Everyone is overwhelmed this feeling of anxiety We all have it and partly it's because of AI partly it's because of what happened during covid But right now we're getting more messages more and more emails more communication than ever before and we're kind of drowning And the only way to really survive that is to find the areas that you need to focus on And so that's what this book really helps you with is it gives everyone a framework a playbook that they can use and a common language The pet food industry won't tell you that the real story is in the ingredient panel not the front of the bag Sundays for dogs made a deliberate choice real human-grade meat no fillers no synthetic vitamin pre mixes and nothing unpronounceable Sundays for dogs is real food suitable for human consumption The recipes contain 80% all natural meat roughly twice the meat content of leading frozen brands Combined with nutrient-rich ingredients like kale ginger and blueberries Instead of exposure to high heat the ingredients are generally air-dried Founded and formulated by Dr. Tory Waxman to meet the high standards of both a veterinarian and a dog parent The process is effortless No fridge no freezer no prep and no mess with over 100,000 dogs at now eating Sundays Many pet parents report shining your coats and better digestion Consider switching to Sundays go right now to sundays for dogs calm slash Megan and get 30% off your first order Or you can use code Megan when you check out to get your discount That's 30% off your first order at sundays for dogs calm slash Megan or use the code Megan at checkout Our sponsor the electronic payments coalition says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet And that now they're messing with your credit card They say your credit card and 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 make Everyday purchases more affordable The electronic payments coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing on 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 Hey, everyone. It's me Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM It's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies Along with the Megan Kelly show you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Moran, Callahan, Emily Doshinsky, Jesse Kelly Real clear politics and many more. It's bold no BS news only a Megan Kelly channel Sirius XM 111 and on Sirius XM half I work a lot with organizations and every one of them seems to have some type of focus back to basics simplification initiative that they're trying to do but the issue that they usually have is they don't have a common language They don't have a framework. They don't have a playbook that they can follow so they end up struggling with this And so the book really helps you understand how can you put everyone on the same page in order to simplify and that that's a work At home and the same thing with your family right if you're all focused on just everything that's coming at you You'll never have the time to exercise and I have the time to go for that nice walk in the morning And so we're trying to help people simplify their lives so that they can do those things I like the framework. It's funny because it was a few years ago my assistant of 17 plus years Abigail said to me She and her husband love Warren Buffett and they read a lot of Warren Buffett Books and she said Warren Buffett only says the most powerful word in the English language is no Just say no, you know, and it's as Oprah says no is a complete sentence. It's true like Eliminating the clutter from your life and you mentioned does it bring me joy Mike? That's Marie condo She's all about eliminating the clutter from your home your closet and the question She uses as you're deciding keep or give is does it bring me joy? It needs to be thought of more often I do but once again the name of the book is simplify simplify do 50% more with 50% Less you can get it right now by Jim van de Haie Mike Allen and Roy Schwartz check it out, but before We simplify this segment. I want to ask you about politics. This is your bread and butter And you know a lot about the subject and President Trump was out there just this past Friday night I think it was with Laura Ingram Making news on the heels. I got a love Trump. This is on the heels of the GOP convention for the midterms The whole point is to generate excitement and enthusiasm for the midterms Republicans get out there and vote. Let's do this thing And then she asks him if he's gonna be campaigning as hard as possible to make that happen and here's what happened in stop 3 Are you gonna campaign smarter than you've ever campaigned in this month? The hardest I ever campaigned because I had a win was the last I took four months No empty days no empty hours. I made speeches all day I didn't want to have fundraisers. I had the money. I didn't want to which is a big advantage I was able to raise a lot of money and I have a lot of money. I spent my own money But I took four months 120 days. I didn't have one But isn't this just as important, Mr. President? I mean your whole legacy is on the line It's never as important. Look, I'm campaigning for other people The when you say my legacy, I'll be a block. I'll end up being a blocker I'll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won't be the same, but I'll be a blocker. What can I tell you? And probably be able to make deals with them. You know, they're gonna want some stuff then we'll get you make deals That means one of those So he's gonna campaign, but still expected to be the same as when he was running for president I guess I'm not surprised to hear that Mike. I'm not sure it would have been stamped approved by Mike Johnson and the GOP, but that's Trump. No exactly. This is back to Trump Brain which you're one of the world's leading experts on and He kind of likes the idea that if he's not on the ballot republicans can't win and 100 presents. This is gonna be a real problem for JD Vance the likely Republican nominee in 2028 Like present Trump's gonna be thinking am I more relevant if I'm an out of office Republican with a Republican in the White House and so his team has for months and months and months as you know Megan from your conversation They've been trying to get him excited about the midterms like reminding him The real risks of a democratic house majority was subpoena power like a lot of his business contacts a lot of the donors that He's close to like like those are all gonna become Democratic targets assuming a democratic house and Megan you're gonna love this like behind The curtain in the Oval Office trying to convince him that he should be more involved interested in the midterms someone said to him mr. president what do you think you're not getting enough credit for and so that's how they tried to frame it to get his attention smart trying to get him to care about this when Maggie Heyberman estimates that most of his brain power is going to these legacy projects the gilding the building like all the things that he so relatives in the arc in washington they are arc or yeah whatever that's gonna be arc to trump yes i think the other problem is not only would trump calculate that he might be more relevant out of office if there's not a republican in the white house but i think trump would be thrilled he's already been saying it to say they can't win without me like he's in his heart he's never really been a republican gym you know he's been trump and he bent the republican party to his will it's the trump public in party really but without him i think trump will be happy to be like they can't win without trump they're sorry i'm not allowed to run apparently they tell me for a third term so good luck i mean he's not saying that openly well although he has kind of said that openly but i mean that's not going to be a theme that he's gonna resurrect throughout the next two years but is it true well i think i don't think there's anyone around trump that would dispute anything that the two of you just said that he's indifferent to who controls congress part of that is how he utilizes in wheels power right he's not sitting there wanting to send to to to sign bills into law in fact he's signed the the fewest ever of somebody who's had this much authority he likes to use executive power he likes to negotiate deals one-on-one he loves to talk to people overseas and try to negotiate things he likes to carry out military strikes and do it around congress so to him he doesn't care and then when people are like yeah yeah but they'll subpoena you he's like i don't care i'll just ignore it i'll send it to the justice department they'll ignore it apart in my family apart in my friends i just don't care and by the way i've been through it twice before i don't care i've shown you i don't care and i think he's proving that he does not care because if you want to democrats to win you'd say let's have higher prices let's have an unpopular war let's ridicule people who want to make safer AI when people are scared of AI he's doing all the things you would do if you want to democrats to win now listen he's blessed in that the map is pretty good for republicans redistricting helped republicans and people still don't like democrats people still don't have a damn clue what it means to even be a democrat and so if anything is holding republicans together it's that but it's completely conceivable that it ends up being a catastrophic bloodbath for republicans if things keep heading this way if you have high prices unpopular war AI freaking people out catastrophic bloodbath not good you heard it here from Jim but no it is conceivable you're absolutely right that's why they had this midterm convention to try to generate some heat around republicans and get people excited I mean I don't you know it's tough it's tough especially when you're in prime time across from NFL football and not to mention the US open and all that but I will say this Trump gets exactly what you just said when he sat down with Laura Ingram and had like the chance to message why should people be voting for republicans in these upcoming midterms he certainly did not say the Iran war Roy this is what he said sat one one sentence if you could boil down why republicans need to show up in the midterms one sentence communism they are trying to turn this country around and destroy our country and you know I used to say a lot this will never be a socialist country we will never be a country of socialism and I was right they can be I mean they're going for the big one they skip socialism these people are sick when you look at the guy from Michigan Abdul when you look at some of the people that he's listened to when you look at even maybe at a different kind of a level look at this guy running from Texas he looks like tellerica yeah well I go talafrico because he is he's a he's a freaky guy he's got some he's got something wrong with him okay so if you missed it the first word there was communism communism and you know he said the skipped right by socialism went the went for the full enchilada good message very good right it's not about the republicans at all it's just he would have everybody everyone look at the entire democrat party and think talafrico who wants to take that I'm happy to jump in yeah I mean like it's it worked for them for a long time like basically people didn't like democrats and often politics is a lesser of two evils I think what the president doesn't realize because there's not a lot of people around him shouting the truth into his ear is that he's very unpopular right in every single poll among every single voting group he's just a lot less popular than he used to be and so the question is going to be at the end of the day like what is the lesser of two evils for people going into the voting booth and the thing I always look at is a lot of people don't vote in off your elections and so the one thing I do look at polls is just like who is routinely saying they're more enthusiastic and fired up and it's been democrats for the last two years it's why they've overperformed and a lot of these off your races which if you extrapolate that and pull it across to all the races you could see why you could have democrats doing even better than people think and then having this break and in fact John Sharp was making that case if you wanted uh if you wanted compromise and you wanted something different he said he's ready to make deals right his uh his son-in-law is already met with uh Kim Jeffries to talk about how they can make deals it's almost like they're preparing uh to make deals which make speaker Johnson and others uh few no I heard my friends over on the national review podcast the editors upset about that comment uh late last week like that that's not what we want to hear that you're going to be working with these crazy democrats who are about to take over the house and possibly send it to make deals for for whom uh we don't want that we don't want they didn't make deals with our side and we shouldn't be making deals with them the odds are the Republicans would be unhappy with any deals that are made but I think what we're really going to see is the democrats will win the house I don't know about the Senate Mike but it's going to be investigation Rama it's just gonna the next two years he says it's going to be a blocker I agree probably going to block most of the legislation but it's just going to be subpoenas investigations house oversight how that house ethics Jared Kushner Don Jr. Eric Trump you know the most subpoenaed people in US history will double and triple down on the on that record not to mention whatever they can do to stymie and upset Trump himself don't you think that's where the things are going you you have the checklist uh it's as if you have the democratic play because my reporting with democrats is that they know that they can't directly go at Trump as Jim said the White House we know from the first term they're just going to ignore subpoenas but anyone who's done business with Trump anybody who's done a deal with Trump anybody who's had a conversation with Trump any consultant who's advised a company about how where they should give what they should give like all of those are the places democrats going to go it's a bank shot for Trump they're going to say Trump has been helping his cronies Trump has been helping people around him and it's been hurting you and so big business anybody who has done anything with the financial side of this administration like they're going to be the targets something super important uh to mention Megan a Jim pointed out that the the the intensity on the other side as i talked to republicans over the weekend about how they felt about the convention the reason they like the convention is they feel like it got their people back excited gave their people a reason to get out now you certainly need more than that but that's a place that they were in a hole and they feel that the convention has put them back to par okay i gave my prediction let me ask you your predictions Jim odds that uh what what do you think is going to happen i'll put it more how simplify the question uh in the house in the senate i think the democrats win both uh if things continue on this trajectory and i think they will wow how about you mike yes there there there's no republic very few republicans who have hope for the house they have hope for the senate the problem is i think there's so much momentum such a wave i think it's been one of those elections and uh Megan i've watched you cover them over the years an election where there's such a big wave that seats fall that we're not even watching oh wow uh okay Roy thought how senate um i'll agree with Jim i think it goes the democrats way but i also think we've got a lot of time between now and then where something you know going back to the a i conversation could really change the landscape and i think that's the thing that we're going to have to watch for is something's going to happen it'll change how we think about it well said all right guys listen if this is stressed you out if you're a republican voter you it's time to simplify simplify your life get your own ducks in a row in advance of this massive change coming our way to washington by simplify it's out tomorrow go ahead and order it today guys thank you Megan i love your joe mo joy of missing out one in doubt simplify you feel free to steal it it's all yours great to see you guys thanks for having me thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show no bs no agenda and no fear