Ken Cuccinelli, Leavitt Delays Maternity Leave, Katie Miller on WHCD

In 2025, Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. That's why so many people are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. And if you become a victim, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team is there to help. Don't wait until your identity is stolen. Start your free trial today at Aura.com slash safe. That's Aura.com slash safe. 8th. Now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app, O'Connor and Company. Good Tuesday morning here from your nation's capital, O'Connor and Company. It's Larry O'Connor with Bethany Mandel. She's the host of the Mom Wars podcast as well as a writer extraordinaire publications such as The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, and many more. Bethany, good morning. Thanks for being my sidekick this morning. Good to talk with you. Thanks for inviting me. It's always a pleasure. And we've got plenty of company coming up in the 8 o'clock hour. We'll have our regular conversation with Dr. Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale, celebrating America's 250th from a patriotic historical perspective. And then at 835, Michael Bose. He is the first chief maha officer for steak and shake where you can get your French fries cooked in beef tallow. That's coming up right now. We'll join by a friend of the program, former Attorney General, former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, et cetera, et cetera. The one and only Ken Cuccinelli. Attorney General Cuccinelli, thank you for joining us. Good to be with you, Larry. Well, listen, the day after the referendum last week, you gave us a preview of what the Supreme Court of Virginia will be looking at. And they had those arguments yesterday, but sort of break this down because there's a lot of constitutional challenges to this referendum for redistricting. What exactly did the court look at and which arguments did they hear yesterday? There are a lot of them. There are three different cases running. The easy way to break them up is yesterday's arguments were about the constitutional and statutory violations that happened in the year 2025 of our Lord. And there are so many, you know, the next case coming up to the Virginia Supreme Court is the... violations that happened in 2026, including the incredible ballot language that people have talked about so much. Okay. And then the third one is about the maps themselves. So yesterday they argued two constitutional violations and one statutory violation. The statute was requiring court clerks to post proposed amendments 90 days before an election, which of course in 2025's election was impossible.

seemed really strange to me. But see that as it may. And I think the issue that of the ones just argued yesterday that seemed most likely to knock the referendum out was their failure to have an intervening election. Because as I said, they passed the amendment on Halloween in 2025. And the Virginia Constitution requires you have an intervening election. And they wanted to count the 2025 election. as the intervening election, even though over a million people had voted. That's why that early voting commentary was so important. But Justice Russell asked, well, you know, if they passed it at 6 p.m. on election day, would that be good enough? And the lawyer for the other side ducked the question. He couldn't answer that. So the second time they passed it was January 16th of 2026. So. It's in the 2026 case. And courts moving very fast. I've never seen them. They took briefing Thursday, two days after the referendum. They heard oral argument yesterday, six days after the referendum. So they're moving. sufficiently fast that surely this is going to be decided in May. And I would not be surprised to see an order and an opinion before the middle of May. Wow. Okay. So if you're able to sort of give us a, I mean, broad strokes outline of what this Virginia court, Supreme Court is made up of, like how many conservatives, how many liberals and how many wild cards? What are we looking at here? So. The Virginia General Assembly chooses the justices and judges in Virginia, or one of two states that operate that way along with South Carolina. And Republican General Assembly's chose four of them, and Democrat General Assembly's chose three of them. including the Chief Justice Cleo Jerome Powell, who, in my view, is a very good judge. As a general matter, I don't see a lot of politicalness in Cleo Jerome Powell, for example. I'm not as confident about the other two, but that's how that lines up, Bethany. I'm not sure it matters a ton. You could see a 70 ruling here, although the one time that another justice chimed in was Justice Fulton, a new Democrat pointee came up from the Court of Appeals recently. And he seemed to be trying to defend. the Democrats position. He challenged one of the...

factual foundations related to one of the plaintiffs, who's a Democrat? One of the plaintiffs, who voted early last year, who's a big supporter of our bipartisan redistricting commission, which entered our Constitution by a two-to-one margin vote of the people of Virginia just five years ago. That's what they're throwing out, is only a five-year-old referendum that was a two-to-one margin, and here they squeak by by three points. So that Democrat plaintiff... her delegate, Willett, proposed the amendment. And she said, I was furious. If I had known they were going to do this, I would have never voted for the guy. The plaintiff's lawyer said, look, this is the purpose of an intervening election. So voters have this information and can incorporate it into their voting. And the Democrats were trying to whittle down intervening election to just election day. Hold that thought. Hold that thought, Ken, because we've got to take 60 seconds for traffic. But that's a big thing that I want to drill down on because everyone's calling this just a procedural technicality. No, there's a reason for this. We'll explore that a little bit, and we'll get Ken Kucinelli's prediction, at least on these arguments. There are more arguments to come in a moment. Continuing with Ken Kuchinelli, who's been tracking the arguments before the Supreme Court of Virginia over the referendum. You said that they've moved quickly. It does seem they've moved quickly to get these arguments already going. On this first charge, I've been... told that this is merely a technicality. It's merely a procedural thing. You were just sort of explaining why it's more than that. There's a reason why you need to have this in an intervening election and then the second legislative body affirm it and do it before voters have a chance to say something about it, et cetera, et cetera. If you could address that a little bit further and the why behind this so-called technicality, but also secondarily, will there be a stomach for these justices to overturn the will of three million or so Virginians on what is viewed as a technicality? So remember, Larry, they had this case in February and they held it. They set the briefing schedule. contingent on the yes side winning at the no side won it didn't matter but the reason they held it they weren't ducking over a hundred years of virginia precedent treats the referendum as part of the legislative process and so a court will not hear a challenge until the legislative process is complete So in other words, the court's not going to rule on the constitutionality of a process until that process actually becomes law. Then they can go back. I get it. Okay. So that's why they didn't jump in and say, don't do the vote because it would be moved. Okay. So, but along the lines you're thinking, I think the Dems believe they would have like a Abigail Spanberger double digit win.

And they would really lean hard on the will of the people. Well, that's a little tough at 51-49, you know. And when you've outspent the other side by three or four to one, and you've used ballot language that, look, these justices don't live under Iraq, presumably they went and voted. But, and they read the ballot language. So that context is all their human beings like everybody else. And they weren't ducking. And when they delayed the case, they actually, in my view, took the extraordinary step of saying, you know, we have very grave concerns and these are very serious issues. In my view, they were sending a signal. Hey, don't get, hey, yes, people, don't get too wedded to this. We'll see how they vote. But I would not be surprised to see, at least on the intervening election question, a unanimous verdict. We'll see. And we'll learn has the Virginia Supreme Court? gotten as, do they discard Virginia norms like the rest of Virginia politics do? You know, we have a very Bolshevik General Assembly now. They don't care about rules as we see in this. I mean, they just trampled these requirements of the Virginia Constitution. It was noted in oral argument yesterday. We've never had a General Assembly. passing an amendment through the General Assembly while people were voting before. No one has ever done this. Well, maybe there's a reason. So, and that, you know, that is, that was the. strongest of the three arguments the other arguments were constitutional argument was that they weren't in a special session that was proper or they couldn't consider constitutional amendment because a special session was called to deal with the budget and so to change subjects, they needed a two-thirds vote. There's some more, there's more willingness to be deferential to the legislature on how they run themselves than there is on strict adherence, which is the law of Virginia, strict adherence to the procedural requirements for constitutional amendments. And the lawyer, Tom Carthy, for the plaintiffs, hammered that repeatedly. The law of Virginia requires strict adherence. So there are requirements of constitutional processes when you're amending the Constitution. And this gangster general assembly just trampled it. How is it possible that they could sort of decide to punt a little bit and say, you know, we'll, we'll let it stand. But like, is there any way that they could make a decision that would basically infuriate everyone and have it be a non-decision? Exactly. That's the phrase I was looking for.

Courts sometimes seem uniquely capable of achieving that, Bethany. But I don't really see that happening here now. Okay. It's oral argument. I'm a firm believer in the 80-20 rule as a litigator. You never have more than an 80% chance of winning no matter how good your case is, and you never have worse than a 20% chance of winning no matter how bad your case is. And I do think if I were betting, man, though, I'd be betting on this referendum that's going to go side. I find it interesting. Because remember last week, you all were talking about Judge Jack Hurley in Tasswell County and joining the certification of the election. Well, that case has skipped the Court of Appeals. It is on the Virginia Supreme Court's docket. And yet they have not stayed his injunction, which I find very interesting. It would be normal practice to stay the injunction of a case on appeal. That would be normal practice. So you wouldn't really read much into that. But if they continue to let that injunction stand. That tells me, that may be a tea leaf, a tea leaf, that they intend to pitch the referendum themselves and they're working out the internal mechanics of votes and what orders are going to look like. So there's your tea leaf for the morning. Kent, real fast, based on that prediction and the tea leaves you're reading, is that based on the argument that they just heard? Do you think that's the strongest argument or do you think that the intervening arguments are actually even stronger that they haven't even heard yet? So. I think the two strongest, equally strong are the one I mentioned yesterday, the intervening election, but it's also the constitutional issue that's in 2026 is that the same section of the Constitution requires that after second passage of an amendment, which happened on January 16th of 2026, that at least 90 days pass before submission to the voters. That's how the phrasing goes. And they're treating the 90 days as before April 21st because there's three months between those two dates. But, of course, one of the gifts the Democrats have given us over the years is a 45-day election. And so voting began March 6th. And even the people who go to law school to avoid math know that if it's under two months, that's not 90 days. It doesn't say election day. It says an election. And by definition, an election begins when people start voting, whether it's one day or 50 days. That's English. You and the, you and the dictionary there, crazy logic you're using. But they point to a statute and there's a federal equivalent that says election day is the second Tuesday after the first Monday. And now it predates the 45-day election.

But that's where the purpose of the intervening election comes in. If you're interpreting the word election, and by the way, Justice Russell sounded like Scalia yesterday, as they were talking about different parts of the Constitution and how election was is, yes, well, it's a verb there. It's a noun here. It's in passive voice, so it obviously refers to the subject of the sentence. And... And honestly, the lawyer for the other side wasn't keeping up with his grammatical inquiries. But we're plain English rule, you know, plain interpretation. When you're doing constitutional interpretation in Virginia, legislative intent. is a fraction of the importance that you're used to at the federal level. It's plain meaning of the words. And so the two words and the lawyer for the plaintiffs, the Republicans said, hey, we don't just have good arguments on the word election. We also have arguments on the word next. Because it's next election. Well, and Russell asked, what does next mean? And it, you know, I kept having these flashbacks to Mom's Night Out. And, you know, next week, no, no, in the argument there with the concierge. But the defense didn't use any of their oral argument to really hit the next point. So next election. Yes, yes. So they have some weaknesses. And this will primarily be decided by the judges based on the briefing. Oral argument is a supplement. I don't know that it changed anyone's mind, which is probably why four of the seven justices never said anything. other than Cleo Jerome Powell, who managed the case. I did enjoy when the other side got up for rebuttal. She said, counsel, you have two minutes and one second. Amazing. All right, what a day. At the Virginia Supreme Court. History happening. And our man, Ken Cucinelli, is right there to record it all in give us his analysis. And hopefully you're not just pumping us full of opium here. That's not your style, though. I trust your analysis, Ken Cucinelli. We'll have you back. Thanks for joining us. It is 728. Now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app. O'Connor and Company.

It's 737. Good morning. Thanks for tuning in to O'Connor and Company. In our 8 o'clock hour, we're going to speak with Dr. Matthew Spalding of Hillsdale, our ongoing conversation about America's 250th. And then at 835, the first chief Maha officer over at stake and shake. They have really embraced the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. MAHA ethic. We're going to talk about how these new provisions they put forth. in fast food affects the quality, affects the operations, and affects the cost of their product. That's all coming up. It's Larry O'Connor with Bethany Mandel. Good morning, Bethany. Would you consider yourself maha? So I wouldn't. Interestingly enough, I was talking to a pollster recently about the popularity of Maha. And far in a way, the most popular component of it is the food stuff. It's not really the vaccine. Everybody thinks it's the vaccines. It's not. Yeah. Yeah, but it's the additives. It's the, yep. And on that, I'm 100% there. Yeah, perfectly tracks. All right. Bethany Mandel, by the way, for those you know, she's a podcaster, a writer, a journalist, and also a mother of six. For anybody who has interacted with Bethany Mandel in the last 10 years, the odds are that she has been great with child during those interactions. It's just the way the numbers go. Or had a child with me, honestly. Why do you think I love doing this show so much? Because it's four hours talking to an adult without someone in my ear. Mom, Mom, Mom, Mom. Imagine being the White House Press Secretary, though. because Caroline Lovett. is, as Meredith would say, great with child. She and Katie Miller, Stephen Miller's wife, posed for a picture at the White House Correspondent Association with their baby bumps, but in their beautiful gowns, their red carpet gowns. And my God, what is it, magnificent, to see those four human beings in that picture, two of them yet to emerge and see the sun. Karoline Leavitt. Last week on Friday delivered what we were told was her final briefing to the press. Here, take a listen. And then finally on a personal matter, this will likely be my last gaggle for some time. As you can see, I'm about ready to have a baby any minute. So I will see you guys very soon. I know you'll be in very good hands with my team here at the White House. And I know all of you have the president's phone number personally. So I have no doubt that you'll have a shortage of statements and news from this building while I'm gone. It's exciting. And I know you joined my affection for the idea of having as many babies as possible within your capabilities and celebrating motherhood and pregnancy and childbirth. And so I think it's really good for the country that you've got all of these high-profile young women who are pregnant and having babies, not to mention the fact that the Vice President of the United States is on the verge of having his fourth child with his wife, Usha, who also looks magnificent. But here's the thing, Bethany.

The very next day was the White House Correspondence Dinner, this iconic photograph of the entire power structure of the Trump team in the Oval Office, in the intervening moments after they left the Hilton. And there's Karoline Leavitt in the middle of it all. And then yesterday, there she was, giving another briefing because of the events of the White House Correspondence Dinner. She's in her 39th week, and she's basically postponed that maternity leave. How close can you take? I mean, did you actually take leave when you were pregnant with all your children? Or you just like, I'm going to keep working until she drops. So I only really had a real in-office job when I was pregnant with my oldest. And I went right up to the end. But I didn't have a very demanding job. It wasn't difficult. But I, if you would allow me the liberty to tell a quick story. Yeah. Today, nine years ago. Exactly pretty much to the minute, I was giving birth in the front seat of my husband's Nissan Altma on Route 1 in New Jersey because we didn't quite know when that baby was coming. This is a famous viral moment in the early days of social media Twitter where he took a selfie with... With you sort of sprawled out in the car. The police actually took it for us. They got there and they said, can we do anything for you? And by that point, there was nothing to do but wait for the ambulance to transport us to the hospital. And I said, actually, could you take a picture of us? Thanks. And so. Always wanted to recognize the value of the Instagram moment. And it did. I mean, it exploded. You did television hits afterwards. It was a great, great thing. So I just, I. I want to warn Caroline leave it. Sometimes even when it's your third baby, even when it's your sixth, you don't know when that kid is coming, and to just exercise caution because while it would be entertaining for the rest of us if she went into labor at the podium, I don't think that she would find it entertaining because it's a pretty personal thing to give birth and you don't want to do it in public. Take my word for it. True. Although there are... Crackerjack medical facilities at the White House, and I have no doubt that she would be well taking care of. And it would, I mean, let's think about this for a second. No, it's embarrassing to give Perth in public. Not in public, but if it were happened, all she has to do is go down like two stories on an elevator, and you're right there in the medical facility. And hold on. Just hold your thought. Imagine being able to say that your baby was born at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not a whole lot of people can say that. Well, now you're just going to tempt me to get pregnant again so I can try. I can drop that baby in like, I mean, Altima, that's his nickname on the internet, is Ultima. Because of the aforementioned Nissan. Exactly. He was born in 35 minutes. Wow. Front to back. 35 minutes. That's your second or third? That's your third, yeah. Happy birthday, Altima. Yeah. Really impressive. I love that today's the day that happened. And I don't know. I have a hunch Karoline Leavitt might be doing this on purpose. Maybe not consciously on purpose, but she must like, you know what? Let's have the baby at the White House. I tweeted a couple years before that I had a premonition that I would give birth in public. And so it's a thing, man. Well, coming up, we mentioned Katie Miller and the scene with her husband, Stephen.

Miller protecting her during the shooting, the videos and the photographs we've seen. We're going to explore that a little further because Katie Miller has now spoken out about it and we want to share it with you. That's coming up in a moment. We've talked about yesterday the chivalry of the men in the Trump administration and the cabinet who protected women and their wives during the mayhem there at the White House Correspondence Dinner. Stephen Miller comes to mine. Let's just be clear. Stephen Miller is a target. because of what the left has said about this man, calling him a neo-Nazi, calling him a white nationalist, saying that he has blood on his hands from ice and shooting people in the streets, all that stuff. So here he is with his pregnant wife, Katie Miller. And in one of the photographs, I think I may have mentioned it yesterday, it appears as though his hand is in the mayhem. There's no other way to say it, cupping his pregnant wife's right bosom. And he is. And so people were making fun of this on Twitter. Some people were saying, what a hero. You know, even at this moment, he's cop and a feel. You know, I get it. It's funny. But some people were saying that he was being letcherous. Some people said this is gross. All right. So here's Katie Miller, sadly, having to explain this moment last night with Lori Ingram. And so at that moment, when the detail came up, I said, oh, well, this must be real and I should be walking very quickly. And again, it's like, how do you stand up eight months pregnant from the floor? You really can't without help. So my dear husband lifts me up. And Brian, who's our detail, says to Stephen, you know, she goes first. And so I went first because the threat was behind us. And so what everyone sees is my husband may be copying a feel. But what I would say is that he wasn't going to put his hands on my stomach because that's where our baby is. And so he just. moved his hands upward. And of course, you don't notice that in the moment. And later that night, I see it on X. And there's this, like, very funny post. And I look at Stephen and I was like, did you really need to do that? And he's like, what did I do? And what's the top to feel on the way out of the ball? Katie, what they were saying was that Stephen was using you as a human shield. I'm sorry. I saw that. And I said, they're really desperate at this point. I mean, now they're just trying anything. You know what, Bethany? Meredith thought this was hilarious. because she said this is this is exactly what a man would do actually. She thought it was great. She actually made a really good point during that interview. She said that he put his hand there because he didn't want to have his hands grabbing her stomach, which is smart and it's their fourth baby. And so that was actually really fast thinking on Stephen Miller's part because that was actually the right place to hold her was on the breast. It's always the right choice when in doubt, gentlemen. That's how she gets. Oh, sorry. No, no. It's too late in the morning for that. May I just say? I mean, as a man who has had a pregnant wife four times, they're at, it reaches a point in the pregnancy where they really are irresistible. It's 755. In 2025, the FBI reported that Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. Identity thieves can steal your social security number. Open credit accounts in your name.

take over online accounts, and create financial headaches that can take months to fix. Most people don't realize they've been targeted until the damage is already done. That's why more families are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. If something does happen, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team can help guide you through the recovery process. You also get a VPN. anti-virus protection, password manager, and scam protection, all in one app. Don't wait until you're a victim. Protect yourself and your family today. Start your free trial at aura.com slash safe. That's aura.a-u-a-u-a-com slash safe.