Democrats Meltdown Over Virginia L

At Walmart, we're helping our associates build meaningful careers. One way we're doing that, investing $1 billion in training and education. Last year, more than 100,000 associates earned promotions. Combined with benefits like 401K matching and paid parental leave, we're proving that Walmart isn't just a place to work, it's a place to grow. Learn more at walmart.com slash grow at Walmart. Have you ever stopped and thought about what's actually powering your day, the coffee you made this morning, the drive you took to get here, even the device you're listening on it? I'm Tanner Faust, and that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to talk about on the energy tailgate, a podcast from Chevron. I'll be your host inviting guests to discuss big energy topics and what they mean for everyday life, all from the tailgate of our truck. This is the energy tailgate. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for teens. Instagram teen accounts have built-in content settings and limits for who can contact teens. Plus, teens under 16 can't change these default safety settings without parental approval. so parents can help teens connect safely. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more at Instagram.com slash teen accounts.

From the heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson. It is Monday, May 11th, 2026. I'm Guy Benson. Welcome to a new broadcast week here on Guy Benson. Delighted to have every single one of you on board for the next three hours. We're here between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern every weekday. And then around the clock for free on demand on our podcast, Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm a Fox News political analyst. You can join me tonight on a special report. I'll be on the panel looking forward to that. Fox News Channel 6 p.m. hour. Also a senior columnist at the Washington Examiner, my brand new column out today will be the subject of my opening thoughts and monologue here in just a moment. But before we get to that, here is a look at what's coming. I just want to note, as always, if you want to send us an email, feel free. GBS at fox.com. Follow us on social media at Guy Benson's show. You can follow me at Guy Benson. In fact, I just tweeted out my Washington Examiner column. And on today's radio show to discuss all of this news is John Roberts, up later this hour, Fox News Anchor. He spoke earlier today with President Trump by phone. We'll ask him all about that. Joe Concha in our next hour talking about Los Angeles and the mayor's race there and some media stories. Josh Krasauer with an overall look at the national political landscape, especially in light of the redistricting wars, the momentum shifting very much away from the Democrats on that front. And then Ken Cuccinelli, the former Attorney General in Virginia, who on this show, twice. predicted with specificity correctly that the Virginia Supreme Court was going to overturn the gerrymandering scheme on a constitutional level that the Democrats attempted in Virginia. And he was absolutely right as we learned on Friday. We had a guest host here, Harry Hurley. You guys covered that in some depth. I want to revisit it here because, of course, it's something that I've been talking about a lot. I had to be out and off on Friday off the show. I'll explain more about that in due time. But, man, that was huge news late last week. And then the fallout over the weekend spilling into this week. Pretty extraordinary. And in some respects, breathtaking. So I want to talk about all of that here. I lay out a lot of my points in my Washington Examiner column. And as I said, you can go check that out. The headline, Virginia Democrats, got what they deserved. And this was not even a case that overturned the preposterous maps that they drew.

overthrew the totally dishonest, brazenly dishonest is what the Washington Post called it. Framing of this is a fairness issue, the way that they wrote. The ballot question for voters was totally stacked and slanted and mendacious and confusing for a lot of people. But that wasn't actually the crux of what got them, ultimately, in court. What got them after all of that lying and all of that propaganda and all the spending and they outspent the opposition three, four to one, it was a blowout, they still barely squeaked by on this snap election referendum that they had thrown together in a way that was illegal. And Cuchinelli, who'd been here previously said, here are the constitutional challenges to this process. And we learned last week we told you about it. that according to some Democrat insiders, Abigail Spanberger, the fake moderate governor, who said she wasn't going to do redistricting, and then it was her first bill that she signed that got the ball rolling on all of this, her advisors were saying, even late last year, don't do this. It could very much get struck down based on plain reading of the Constitution, of the statutes involved. Don't do it. And then you have the Democrats in Richmond saying, screw that. And by the way, a bunch of national Democrats too saying, we're going to plow all this money in. We want those four seats. We want to punish the Republicans on gerrymandering. And so we're going to instigate this part of the fight. We're going to escalate. They were feeling themselves at the time. So those warnings, those admonitions fell on deaf ears. And they turned out to be right. And so what they did was they burned through like tens of millions of dollars to barely survive the referendum, at least on its face, hanging by a threat. It was a very, very tight result. I think if the Republicans had done a better job of messaging it at all, it could have been defeated outright. But the process problems with it remained. And Ken Cuccinelli said, here's why it's unconstitutional. Here are the tea leaves, the writing on the wall, as to why the process-oriented, that's part of their reputation. Virginia Supreme Court is going to overthrow, overturn, invalidate this illegal referendum, and he nailed it. That's exactly what they did on Friday. And so all of that effort and lying and spending and all of it was for naught. And they're not going to be able to add those four seats and a 10 to one map in time for the midterm elections because they went about the process in a flagrantly illegal, unconstitutional way. They should have listened to Abigail Spanberger's advisors all along, but they didn't, including her. She was bullied into this. She was dragged into it, maybe against her will, which is not a good sign of fortitude and strength as a leader. One of the chief bullies was Louise Lucas, right, the now under investigation, under federal investigation, Senate leader for the Democrats.

in a federal probe involving corruption and other serious issues that originated, we know, now based on reporting in the New York Times and MS now and elsewhere, originated under the Biden administration. So the idea this was just Team Trump coming in and getting their revenge, nope, this dates back to Biden. She was one of the chief bullies to push through and do exactly this. And now it has exploded in their faces and they deserve it. They have earned. this loss. And some of them are willing to take the L, some of them are not willing to take the L. And you see all the excuses and finger pointing and scapegoating that's going on. So, for example, Tim Kaine, one of the Democrat senators in Virginia, he said, Well, if the Virginia Supreme Court had legitimate concerns about this referendum, the time to stop it would have been before 3 million Virginians cast their ballots, which might make some sense, except that was not the position of the Democrats in court. We're actually seeing this from a lot of Democrats saying, like, oh, well, if this was constitutionally problematic, why didn't they stop it beforehand? Well, because the Democrat lawyers in the state. urged the supreme court not to do so in fact they said based on the precedent and the law and all of that that the justices had to wait until after the referendum was completed to tackle the constitutional questions that was literally their party's argument in court that prevailed they won that argument mark alias who's like this, you know, elections lawyer, elections raking guy for the, for the left, his firm, his group hailed the decision initially by the Virginia court to wait until after the referendum was over. So you can't say we insist as Democrats that under the law, the Supreme Court cannot look at this case until after. And then they look at it after as you request and decide, yep, it was illegal all along. You can't turn around and say, well, why didn't you tell us before? You should have done that. Nope. You literally argued the opposite in court. There was also this will of the people argument being made, including from Attorney General Jay Jones, the Democrat in Virginia, who was recently elected, despite having fantasized about murdering Republicans and their kids. He said in an angry tweet about this, he does seem like a pretty angry guy, doesn't he? This decision silences the voices of the millions of Virginians who cast their ballots in every corner of the Commonwealth. Well, it was like 51.5% in favor of this thing that then stripped away the representation of the 48 plus percent who said no. And the 47, 48% of Virginians who voted for Republican House candidates in the last election, they wanted to take that all the way down to one Republican congressman or one Republican congresswoman in one district. 11% of the delegation would represent 48% of the statewide vote when it comes to House Republican candidates. That's what they were trying to do.

That's what the voices of the people, they said, decided. But the thing is, also in oral arguments, in the Supreme Court of Virginia, Jay Jones's lawyer, because he wasn't the one arguing his own case, maybe he thought he'd be too much of a hothead. And if a justice asked a question didn't like God knows what he might say to the justice about him or his family. could fly off the handle. So anyway, he had apparently a lawyer who was better come in and do the oral arguments. And one of the questions, and we talked about this, that was asked, does the yes or no outcome of the referendum impact the constitutionality question about whether or not this whole process was legal? And Jay Jones' own lawyer, his own advocate in oral arguments, said no. The outcome yes or no was immaterial to whether or not the whole thing was done constitutionally or not. So the first argument, the complaint from Tim Kaine, bunk, based on the Democrats' own legal position, the will of the people complaint, also bunk due to the Democrats' own legal position in this case. Also, they barely won this thing. And they spent all that money and had all that... misleading language and the whole thing and it was not an impressive or decisive victory at all, if we're talking about the will of the people, even though they stipulated in court that was irrelevant on the constitutionality question. And then another whining, angry moment after this happened came from Jim Acosta, who's a podcaster and now doing fundraising for Democrats. He was a journalist at CNN. Remember him, perhaps? He was very confused, as he often is. He said, Trump gets to redraw maps in his state, but the Democrats cannot do the same? Like, oh, the whole thing is stacked against such. It's all so unfair. There's this conspiracy against the Democrats. There was some of that, woe is me. The system is wrong. The system is rigged. We've got to go after our institutions. And, of course, the premise of that is completely wrong. In fact, in California. after Texas did what it did with redistricting, with New York having started earlier than that, with questions around the 2020 census, we've been through all of it. California responded to Texas with their own redraw of their map with a very convoluted process of changing their constitution and doing all the things that they did to gain what would be five Democrat seats in California. That process, though I opposed what they were doing, that process was conducted legally. So it stands. And they will have their new, even more, gerrymandered maps in place for the midterm elections because they followed the law in California. The U.S. Supreme Court actually looked at this and unanimously, SCOTUS said, yep, California, that map.

That process, fine, it stands. There was no interference or intervening there by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, contra Jim Acosta, the Democrats can redraw their maps. The problem that they have is, number one, in Virginia, they did it illegally. You have to follow the law. You have to get the details right when you're trying to change your Constitution, and they didn't. And the other problem that they've got, because I saw Axios quoted one House Democrats saying, oh, no, like lamenting this. California and Virginia were supposed to be our big ones on gerrymandering. Part of the reason that they are running out of options in gerrymandering is because they've already gerrymandered their states to the hilt. There's only so much room for growth by drawing maps in insane ways in blue states because they've already done it. Go look at Illinois' gerrymander, for example, or Maryland's. Meanwhile, Republicans making real gains in a number of states, and there's more to come because of a Supreme Court ruling on racial gerrymandering, there's more to come after all the population shifts, get taken into account by the Census Bureau if they don't screw up their job in 2030. So I think the Democrats are realizing maybe the maximum warfare battle cry. of Hakeem Jeffries was a very stupid mistake. But some of them, as I said, are making peace with the fact that they overreached and did things illegally and might want to sort of reset things a little bit, but others are really angry. with various loud voices talking about revolution or ignoring courts or court packing. There is a New York Times story out over the weekend that is jaw-dropping. I want to talk about that briefly when we come back. National implications on this one as well. A tantrum from the Democrats after their loss in Virginia will reveal what they might be considering when we come back. On Guy Benson, keep it here. America is listening to Guy Benson. Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. I'm Guy Benson. Well, they took a big loss in Virginia. The Democrats did at the Virginia Supreme Court because of their illegal scheme to change the Constitution to gerrymander the map to make it 10 to 1 for themselves, in the name of fairness, of course, in democracy. And they are reeling from the loss, Jay Jones, the angry, incompetent Attorney General of Virginia, already appealing this to the U.S. Supreme Court. And serious legal experts say that has absolutely no chance of success there because it's not a jurisdiction for, it's not a jurisdictional question for the U.S. Supreme Court. But they've appealed anyway. And amazingly, in that appeal that they rushed out.

Jay Jones and his brief have apparently misspelled the words senators and, wait for it, Virginia. They misspelled the name of their own state in the brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. One can only imagine what Jay Jones might threaten against whoever turned off spell check on his computer. Get those kids to the bunker. Anyway, I want to note. Over the weekend, Democrats were on a call. They were very upset about everything. What do we do? New York Times reporting that one of the ideas that was seriously discussed... was the legislature in Virginia changing the retirement age, the mandatory retirement age, to 54, which would be below the youngest age of the youngest justice on the Virginia Supreme Court, in order to retroactively declare all seven justices ineligible to serve, throwing them all off the bench, and replacing them with complete Democrat hacks. Like getting rid of. the entire Supreme Court and replacing all of it. Crazy. I mean, absolutely crazy extremism. But some other Democrats are like, well, hang on. That includes our first female black chief justice. And what about these justices that we like? And this person of color. So identity politics complicated that. There was another scheme they were talking about that would allow the legislature totally illegal. But to draw the lines anyway. by going back and saying, well, actually, the referendum in 2020 was unconstitutional, the one that passed by a two-to-one margin that established the Independent Commission. Let's get rid of that. We'll just declare it unconstitutional, and the legislature can draw their own lines. Desperation and, like, civic arson is what they're talking about. Some ranking Democrats in Virginia now saying, all right, enough. We're not going to do this, which would be a relief. We'll be right back. And we're live on match day as Doug reaches for a buffalo wing. He's got it. Oh, and he's gone for a can of Pepsi 2. What a finish! There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better. Match days deserve Pepsi.

a national right to enrich uranium and they're not about to give that up i mean that's part of the issue when it comes to negotiations with a regime like this you're not dealing with rational people i mean especially once the upper tier of leadership has all been liquidated by the u.s and israel you know next man up you'd think might have an incentive to be more rational but so far no yeah it's kind of crazy crazy just he's replaced by more crazy exactly so i mean that that's one of the ongoing challenges in talking to this regime at all there is this unresolved question so there's there's the uranium enrichment and they've already enriched a ton of uranium well beyond any civilian or innocent you know, threshold. We know that, which goes to their obsessive fixation on getting nuclear weapons, which is the whole problem. So that's one of the sticking points. We want to get rid of their ability to enrich at all, or at least stop it for decades. They're refusing. There's also the uranium that's already been enriched to that 60% level, the nuclear dust, as the president sort of colorfully calls it. That came up in your conversation, didn't it? That component. It did, and the president talked about it about 15 or 20 minutes later after we got off the phone in that Oval Office event that he had this morning as well. He told me that Iran said that if the United States wants the nuclear dust, as he calls it, the Highland Rush Iranian that's enriched around 60%, that the United States needs to come and get it because there's only two countries, the President said, on the face of the planet. And again, it reiterated this in the Oval Office that had the technology to be able to go underground in such a destroyed facility. and find that uranium and dig it up are China and the United States. He says that he's already made a deal with Iran for the United States to dig up the nuclear dust. I don't know if it involves us actually taking custody of it. There's been some talk of that. But the president seemed to suggest in the Oval Office that Iran has reneged on that. But he did say that Iran told him that the only countries that could do this would be China or the United States. So the United States would have to come and get it. I asked him, okay, so what are the logistics of U.S. engineers or whatever going in to do this? And he said, we haven't quite figured that out yet. Well, I mean, because it seems to me, John. Totally. And I mean, if this was a negotiated agreement where we were going in with permission. from the regime to dig it up and extricate it. That would be one process. Then there's the other process of doing it under duress, under attack without permission to be there, right, on the ground, which would be very, very complicated. I don't know how you'd ever do that. Exactly. Very, very complicated. I know that was something that he had at least talked about before. I just, I keep coming back to comments that we've heard from people like General Keene and others. that, and it's been reported publicly and stated publicly, that the U.S. and Israel hit maybe 70, 80 percent of the planned targets as part of Epic Fury, these military targets. But that still leaves thousands of targets that were not hit. And there's been this quasi-seas fire. They keep calling it one, even though there's fire exchanged back and forth during the supposed ceasefire. But it seems like...

If Trump throws up his hands and said, all right, these people aren't making any real progress. They're slow rolling us. They're an awful lot of targets that we could go back in to hit and to really diminish their military capabilities moving forward with very little that the Iranians could do about it because we still dominate the airspace. I mean, it just seems like the regime is almost forgetting like they have amnesia exactly what was inflicted on them just weeks ago. And this is typical with Iran. They remind me of the Black Knight and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. King Arthur has cut off the arms and the legs and then King Arthur goes up on his way and the Black Knight says, oh, running away, come back here, I'll bite your leg off. They're kind of like that. They've got nothing to defend themselves with. They've got nothing to attack other countries with. And yet they're still playing like they're the big dog in the block. They do. have still a number of ballistic missiles. They still have a lot of drones. Those so-called missile cities that have dug into the mountains are still very hard to get to. And Iran manages to fire missiles and drones at places like... United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, I guess, earlier today. They can still fire them at that ship that was in cotterrey waters. But they are very much diminished compared to where they were in the past. I think there's been some rearming that's been talked about over the Caspian Sea from Russia. But they're nowhere near what they were at the start of this conflict. And I think if the president wanted to, he could go in there with more kinetic attacks and take it a lot more and really convince the Iranians that it's in there. best interest to do this. But then he runs up against Congress because we were very close to the 60-day war power deadline. I think that there's also a depletion of American arms that a lot of the generals are worried about. Mark Kelly talked about that, as you know. And there's a lot of other concerns that the president has concerns with the UAE, concerns with Saudi Arabia about renewing kinetic operations. But I think if Bush comes to shove and he can't get what he wants, there's Really no other avenue, but to go back at him. Yeah, and I think the Israelis would be more than happy to play a role in that as well, or to take the lead if there's a green light given. Yeah, I think they're just champing at the bit to get back. Totally. Totally. Meanwhile, the president is planning to head to China. And we know that Chairman Xi Jinping is, he's got all sorts of problems, actually. And I made this point on TV last night. I think we often overestimate. China's prowess, not to dismiss them or diminish them at all, a very serious adversary, a very serious threat, but they do have major internal challenges and the purges within the regime and the military and some of the real economic issues that they're facing. They have an oil problem. They have a fuel problem. Because of Iran, because of Venezuela, some of the moves that we've made on the chessboard really squeezing them. So you wonder if the Chinese could maybe pressure their friends, their remaining friends in Tehran.

Because this is starting to really impact China's bottom line as well, which also, I mentioned Venezuela. I mean, that is a play that seems, at least from a pure American interest standpoint, that has worked out tremendously well. The critics have basically gone silent on that one. Did Venezuela come up in your conversation at all with the president? Venezuela did come up. We talked about Delci Rodriguez and his... strategy to leave her in place as opposed to going with Maria Corina Machado. And I said, you know, you received a lot of criticism for that, that you were leaving elements of the Maduro regime in place. But I said, in hindsight, it looked like a brilliant move because if you had to put Maria Corina Machado in and thrown out all the elements of the Maduro regime, we could have had a situation like we had in Iraq. Remember the debathification? It was anybody who had anything to do with the Saddam Hussein government had to go. created this entire faction that became a terrorist insurgency. And the president said, yeah, if he had to put Maria Corina Machado when he said there would have been riots in the street and Venezuela would have fallen apart. So that really was, I think, on his part, a brilliant strategy. Is there a sense that he's still committed to getting to elections? Because I don't like the idea that we just say, all right, well, this strong man's... deputy gets to stay indefinitely. I want there to be elections so the people can actually decide their future. I get the idea of waiting and not doing things prematurely, but is there a sense that the administration is still committed to get back to democracy in that country? I think that in the overall, that would be one of the long-term strategies. I think that the president wants to give a little more time to that, but he also has another idea that he floated to me. And you're probably trying to drag me, kicking and screaming around at this point, that the president told me, he said, John, I want to tell you, and I want you to tell everybody in America, that I am very serious about the idea of pursuing statehood for Venezuela. Now, it's interesting that we've obviously absorbed plenty of territories. into statehood in the United States, you know, including all the territories out west, Alaska. People talk about Puerto Rico, which is a territory. But I don't know that a sovereign country. has ever been absorbed into the United States. And I'm not sure the exact other continent, a separate continent. I'm not sure what the exact process would be to do that. But he said he's very interested in doing that. There's $40 trillion of oil wealth in Venezuela. He says the Venezuelan people love Trump. So who knows, maybe we'll see him start to push in that direction in the months ahead. Huh. Okay. Meanwhile, last question, John, not sure if it came up when you were talking to the president. Certainly, we've been covering it pretty heavily at Fox News. We're going to be bringing in a medical expert here tomorrow on it. You guys have covered it on your show. Haanta virus.

jitters. I understand we all lived through 2020, 2021, a lot of the fallout and aftermath from that. This seems to be a dramatically different disease, much, much, much more deadly, but much harder to contract. So not a parallel really to COVID, but something people are worried about. Do you have an overall take on that and did the president raise it at all? You know, I didn't talk to him about that, but just in terms of where we are with the haunted virus, everybody remembers. Back in the early throes of 2020, there was a cruise ship. A number of people came down with COVID on board the cruise ship, and then it started spreading light wildfire. I mean, it didn't all come from the cruise ship. There were isolated pockets of it elsewhere from which it spread. But hauntivirus typically, typically we talk about this, it's also called the Four Corners disease because it's prevalent in the Four Corners area of New Mexico, Utah, Colorado. And it typically involves... People who have cabins that are out in the desert areas and they leave them for months at a time over the winter and mice move in and rats move in and, you know, their feces gets everywhere and they're infected with the haunted virus. Then a person will come back after a number of months and start sweeping with the broom or vacuum cleaner, whatever, to clean up. the whatever's left over from the mice being there. And it will become aerosolized. And so you've got a lot of dust in the air and that dust contains the virus and people will come down with the virus. And to some degree, a hanta virus can be a really terrible disease to contract. This is a, it's the same virus, but it's a different form of the virus, which can be transmissible human to human under certain circumstances. Typically with Four Corners disease, it's a single person, contracts it from... exposure to the aerosolized dust, including viruses of rodent feces. But with hauntavirus under certain conditions, it can be transmitted human to human, but those conditions apparently are much more exquisite. than with COVID. For example, you have to have symptoms in order to transmit this. COVID, we found out you can be asymptomatic and still transmit it. So I think there's a lot of concern because it's a cruise ship. It's a deadly virus. It's become transmissible human to human, but I don't think this is going to be anything near what we had with COVID. In fact, I think it'll probably burn out after these people are isolated in both Atlanta at Ameri and at UMC. Hope. In Nebraska. On the big weekend show, yesterday we had a medical doctor on who said, these are diseases that are well known to experts, and they have successfully contained and extinguished previous outbreaks using the various protocols that are now apparently underway. Obviously, something to keep an eye on for the reasons that are apparent to all of us, you know, who've been sentient for the last decade. But a very, very different type of virus here. It's really worth highlighting that point. And what a fast... I was just going to say that back in the 1990s when I was the medical correspondent at CBS News, I actually went out to New Mexico. University of New Mexico researchers had what they called the very large mouse array, which was next to the very large array, you know, the satellite data.

that you see in all the movies. And they had this really extensive testing and research project going on, tracing antivirus and trying to come up with some treatments for it. Okay. Since then, they haven't come up with much. You know, he can still just basically treat the symptoms. But, you know, it's been around for a long time. Not like COVID. Right. It's not a novel. Coronavirus, novel being the operative word there. John Roberts, quite a day, a talk to the president, then anchoring his own show, and then hosting for Brett on special report tonight in the 6 p.m. hour Eastern Fox News Channel. I will be part of that program on the panel. John, we'll see you then. All right. I'll see you tonight, guy. Take care. Thanks so much. And we will be right back after this. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson. Adobe Firefly is the all-in-one creative studio with AI-powered image and video editing for today's creative process. Built for creators of every kind, Firefly helps you generate, edit, and experiment fast. Because the asks aren't getting smaller. The budgets aren't getting bigger. And the timelines, oh yeah, still tight. With all the best creative AI models in one place, Firefly brings your ideas to life. Unlock a better way to make with Adobe Firefly. Back here on Guy Benson, we've told you about Spain's left-wing government, how awful. especially their prime minister is terrible, really barely a NATO ally, if you can even consider him an ally at all. And hopefully the people of Spain who are not happy with that government will make a change, in my opinion. But one of the things that they are trying to do, I think for their own long-term power play, the Spanish socialist, is this huge amnesty program legalizing 500,000 illegal immigrants. And now here's a headline from the UK Daily Mail. Surprise, surprise. Spanish police fear Islamist terrorists are taking advantage of the left-wing PM's decision to open the door to 500,000 migrants by creating fake identities. Spanish police have warned that Islamist terrorists could exploit the government's mass migration legalization program as reports of lost passports and identity documents surge among applicants. An internal memo from the National Police Service for immigration and borders, revealing that complaints over missing documents have continued to rise sharply among migrants seeking to benefit from the scheme. According to the document, the most dramatic increases in the lost, quote, documents. And those reports have been recorded among Pakistani, Algerian, and Moroccan nationals. And... I mean, you can anticipate exactly what the problem might be here. And I guess that's worth it to the socialists who run that place for now, perhaps putting their people in real danger. Another hour of Guy Benson coming up.

This is summer at its peak. Whole Foods Market's summer fruit fest is your invitation to eat the season. Fresh, organic, and bursting with flavor. Start your day with peaches and organic blueberries and yogurt. Build a grazing board with fresh fruit, prosciutto, and artisanal cheese. Then fire up the grill with no antibiotics ever proteins and fresh produce. Savor the season. Shop summer fruit fest at Whole Foods Market. A new generation of conservative talk. Right here, right now. Fair, fun, and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of Fox News. Fox News. You're listening to Guy Benson. And now, here's your host, Guy Benson. It's a new hour here on Guy Benson on this Monday. Thank you for being with us. Guy Benson.com is our website, podcast, always free. See you on special report tonight on the panel. Looking forward to that in the latter part of the 6 p.m. Eastern Hour Fox News Channel. Tune in please. Fox News Alert. The Dow in the green today up. just shy of 100 points, closing at 49,704, up 95 points at the closing bell. Well, joining us now, Joe Concha, Fox News contributor, best-selling author and columnist at the Washington Examiner. And Joe, great to have you back here. Great to be back. I hope you had a good mother's day. I absolutely spent some of my mother's days singing my mother's praises on the big weekend show and then talk to her after the show. So that was great. Hope all the mothers in your life had a fabulous Sunday as well. Joe, a couple things I want to get to with you. Let's talk about Los Angeles. And we've been playing some clips out of that mayor's race out there where you've got this really. Just pitiful, failed incumbent in Karen Bass, Los Angeles Mayor. And then there's a left-wing challenger, even further left than she is, if you can believe it, in this three-person race. The last person, of course, being Spencer Pratt, who has been a guest on this program. And one of the big questions out there, and it was something we debated on TV over the weekend, and we've sort of wondered it here as well as, you know, he's getting a lot of attention going viral with some, I think, really impressive videos. He speaks like a passionate. sane, normal person who's just fed up with all the government failures and these politicians. I like all of that. But can someone like Spencer Pratt actually win in a city that is so deeply blue? And you look at the registration numbers and just Democrats dwarfing Republicans in Los Angeles. You have a column at the examiner making the case that he can win. Walk us through that. Well, I look at the numbers guy, right? You take opinions out of it, feelings out of it. You say, okay, what is the approval of Karen Bass, the incumbent mayor right now? 25%. I don't know how many people can win an election when you're that low in approval. And there are...

are many, many votes out there right now that obviously are undecided. So Spencer Pratt shared after his debate last week where the Los Angeles NBC poll showed that 89% of people who watched that debate felt that he won the debate and something like... 7% of ass and then the rest to the other person that was there. That is something that says, wow, there's real opportunity here where people do not like the incumbent. She's not a good politician. And at the same time, her performance as far as the wildfires and being in Ghana at a wedding when she was warned that there are Santa Ana wins that obviously can cause wildfires. It was wildfire season. She still went anyway, took several days to get back. And he doesn't come across as a Republican, as a MAGA guy. He comes across as a guy who wants to fix the city. This is a nonpartisan election. In other words, as though R or D next to anybody's names, and I think in the end, when you see Karen Bass dropping out of the debate tomorrow, saying, all right, I can't make it. I don't want to do this. After that, she'llacking she took in that last debate, that shows that all the momentum is behind Spencer Pratt where it's not a matter of him just getting Republican votes. you know, trying to get past the finish line there, because to your point, there aren't not enough Republicans in Los Angeles, but there are enough Democrats, enough common sense people say, I want my city fixed, I want to be run in a competent matter, and no more fraud, no more mismanagement. That's what's going on there. And by the way, that's why Steve Hilton is leading right now as far as all comers in the California governor's race. People are fed up, they don't care about the letter next your name, whether it's D or R. Now, the thing is, I hear you, and I think it's notable that Bass and the socialist who's on the city council are constantly trying to paint Spencer Pratt as a Maga Republican to try to like, you know, basically signal to the electorate. You can't go with this guy because we're going to use the worst words we can imagine, Maga Republican to describe him. And he, when that happened, you could see in the debate, he kind of made a face like, oh, wow, you know, what a talking point. And he does seem to cut through some of that stuff, focusing really exclusively on local issues and local failures from people like Karen Bass. You just mentioned that she's dropped out of this next debate. She had committed to being at it, although she also committed not to leave the country. if she was elected mayor and then she was in africa when the the palisades fire started so you know her word only means so much but she had committed to this debate did not go well for her in the first round so she's now dropped out of the next debate which does seem telling she gave an interview actually a few of her interviews Joe, recently been awful. She was asked about Spencer Pratt. She's like, I don't really know anything about him, but he just wants to be famous again, and he's exploiting people's grief about the fires. It's like, excuse me, he lost his home and his parents lost their home. It's his grief. What are you talking about? And then she was asked subsequently after the debate.

about some of these issues, including her responsibility after the fires and the response. And she said, well, the buck stops with me, and then she promptly, in the next breath, passed the buck to climate change. And Joe, we found out recently that these fires were set deliberately by a leftist who worshipped the CEO alleged assassin in New York City. You're going to come in as the mayor with this botched response, and you're going to be just chanting climate change in light of that detail. She's just not very good at this, Karen Bass. No, it has bond. Even though I would make the argument guy, and you'd probably agree with me, she may be worse, right? There's not a lot of there there. And to blame climate change, just as Gavin Newsom has, by the way, as far as these wildfires. And then we learned that you mentioned the New York assassin. That's Luigi Mangione, who shot a man, a CEO of United Health Care in the back, a father of two boys. Now, obviously, just like with Charlie Kirk, we have a widow has to raise these two boys. And we have people celebrating this, including the person that set those fires. So in the end, I mean, there's nowhere really for her to go. I mean, she can't backtrack out of what happened when she went to Africa. She can't backtrack out of the fact that the water was not in the reservoirs. It wasn't in fire hydrants for firefighters who would give their lives to save Los Angeles, didn't have the proper tools to battle. So in the end, as long as Pratt sticks to those issues and those facts. And again, these AI videos that he's putting out there or videos in general have gone so viral. Somebody should teach a class on this one day. They're that good. So I think even in Los Angeles, I think he has a very good chance. And I love the response he had, by the way, when someone said, wow, you're a lot like Zohran Mamdani M.Dani with social media. He said, yeah, Zohran Mamdani M. Donnie offered free busing. I'm offering busing free of poop. and of drugs. So I guess that's where the difference is. Every answer seems to be perfect at this point. Yeah, that is a good answer. And look, I'm still skeptical because it's still L.A., but he is running this campaign that it's clear that these two left-wing career politicians just don't really know what to do with him or how to come after him. And he's kind of running this, like, liberated. campaign where he knows he's right. He knows they've failed. And he's not afraid of failure because they're the ones who represent the failure. And he just kind of has good instincts for the most part and is quite articulate. So we'll see where that all goes. Joe, before I let you go. I just want to quickly get your reflections last week, the passing of a legend in the media space, Ted Turner, CNN founder, a big media titan. He died at the age of 87. And whatever you think of his politics, et cetera, I mean, he was a visionary and a very significant...

player that really changed how Americans consume news and, you know, the 24-hour news cycle was something that he kind of jumped on, if not created. Any additional reflections you have on the legacy of Ted Turner? I mean, just the fact, guy, that in 1980, when cable was in its embryonic stages, to say, you know what, I think people probably want 24-7 news, and he was laughed at, this can't work, you can't compete. And then during the Gulf War, 1991, Bernard Shaw and others, very famously, the only... network that was able to broadcast from Baghdad and able to bring video of that first shock and awe attack, just amazing stuff. And they became part of the big boys during that day. And obviously owning the Atlanta Braves as well. I mean, that's a pretty good life, right? I wouldn't mind that guy. If I could own a cable news network and a baseball team while the winning World Series, I think I'd like that kind of life. There's still time, Joe. I believe in you. Joe Concha, Fox News contributor, read his stuff and my stuff at the Washington Examiner by his book, The Greatest Comeback Ever. Joe, thanks so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Guy Benson. Have a good day. When we come back, speaking of failures in government and Democrat-run cities, we've got one out of Chicago to tell you about next. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. On July 16th, the hawk lands on Netflix. From the mind of Will Ferrell. Oh, mama. I'm back. Come in love. Comes a new original series. Get ready. Get ready. That's it. Did I stutter? When an iconic pro golfer. Lonnie. Hockey! Takes one last swing at greatness. You were a big shot golfer. I still am a big shot golfer. No one. Dad, I'm the Hawk now. Will stand in his way. Ah! That's how it's done. The Hawk, only on Netflix, July 16th.

I'm Guy Benson. We are back. Here's a story out of Chicago, and our WLS audience perks up. Unfortunately, we've seen stories like this in major American cities, especially deep blue cities, deep blue states, for years now. This is part of a pattern. And the reaction from some local politicians, depressingly predictable and stupid, let's start with the story itself. Walgreens has announced the closure of a store in Chicago. after enormous losses have been incurred at that location. The announcement that the Walgreens at 86th and Cotton Grove in the city of Chicago will close on June 4th has prompted a major backlash among customers and residents. And of course, then you've got the politicians rolling in to try to exploit this as well, even though it's their policies that are at fault. Earlier in the week, Walgreens made the announcement that they'll be closing the store, which has served the community for more than 20 years. And because of this closure, residents are saying they're going to have a prescription desert where they'll have to travel much farther to pick up their prescriptions, right? Their medications, those sort of things. We saw stories like this playing out in California cities. We actually saw it in Minneapolis after there were locations that shut down key brick-and-mortar stores. In the aftermath of the fires and the riots in that city during 2020, these things have serious consequences. Failed policy, lack of law and order. It hurts innocent people. So I get why people are upset that this decision has been made by the company, but you cannot blame corporate greed. You can blame public policy. Over the weekend, a Walgreens executive revealed that the store has lost more than a million dollars per year. So specifically last year, this location bled more than a million dollars. Partly due to declining prescription sales, but also due to a massive amount of store theft. Quote, theft at this store is 16%. That's four times above the company average. Let's just pause there for a second. The fact that on average at Walgreens locations around the country, the average Theft rate is 4%. That strikes me as very high, unacceptably high in a civilized society. But 16% is absurd. It's like cartoon land. How can you expect any business to survive when 16% when they are contending with and are being victimized by a 16% theft rate? The company explained they've actually tried to stop theft. Quote, lockboxes help protect us and the merchandise at the store. A lot of the time the lock boxes are getting destroyed anyway. That comes at a great cost to the company, says a district manager. Now listen to this. They also point out that Walgreens was spending $400,000 a year on security guards in the store.

But there were still attacks on employees, and the theft continued. No wonder this location was losing more than a million dollars. They were coming in out of their own pocket, at their own expense, this company, and spending 400 grand on security. And the security guards can only do so much and only have so much authority. It did not deter a number of these criminals who were attacking employees and stealing constantly. Quote, we've had people jump across the counters because we sell liquor behind the counter, taking liquor, taking cigarettes. That wears down. Not so much the financial piece, but the endurance of that day in and day out said the store's manager. Walgreens is now encouraging people to use the next nearest Walgreens store, which is more than a mile away. And it seems like a lot of people are now raging at and lashing out at the store. Like it's their fault. Like they should be forced to keep losing money at a million-plus dollar annual clip, which of course is nuts. Here's an alderman from the Windy City, William Hall. You can guess what political party he's associated with saying that Walgreens should be charged. Listen to Cut 32. All greens should be charged with first degree corporate abandonment. Yes. It should be a crime the way they're treating our elders. Yes. It should be a crime the way they're treating our families. Just sub moronic. First degree corporate abandonment. They would love to stay there and run a successful business and turn a profit. In fact, it sounds like they'd be willing to stay there, even if they were losing less money than they are, but more than a million a year because of a 16% theft rate. The fact that they have to out of pocket spend 400 grand on security and it still doesn't stop the problem. And the politicians, their solution is demagogue the company blaming them. It's like Katie Wilson, the communist mayor in Seattle, out in Seattle Red territory. Although in this case, it's very, very blue, maybe a different sort of Seattle red, actually, when it comes to her politics where she was trying to shame grocery stores that cannot survive because of public safety concerns. And her public safety policies are also total lunacy, saying, oh, no, actually, it should be illegal for these companies to shut down locations. This is like the final endgame of hardcore left-wing failure. where companies that exist in a jurisdiction cannot continue to exist because of the crime and the violence and the shoplifting, etc. It is not viable. It is dangerous. They've got all their reasons. They cannot survive any longer. They cannot get past the policy failures of the people who run these places. And then the people who run these places decide that. The best thing to do is to scapegoat the business owners that can't take it anymore, or even try to pretend like it's somehow unethical or even illegal, that they don't want to do business or really cannot do business in these places any longer. It is the very end game of the failure, and of course the blame is always outward. They never look inward and fix the problem because they are ideologically incapable of it.

And it just kind of descends sometimes into dark parody, sad, almost satire of politicians saying, oh, it's first degree corporate abandonment. It's a shame. It's a crime. They're treating our elders this way. It is a crime to let criminals terrorize businesses, drive them out of business, and then blame the business. That's what should be the crime, or at least deeply embarrassing and shameful. to the people who run a city where it's happening. But don't you dare tell that to the politicians in Chicago or anywhere else? It's big, greedy, corporate, fat cat, Walgreens. That's who's at fault. Keep paying those security guards. Keep losing a million plus dollars a year. Keep putting your employees at physical risk. That's the message from some of these politicians in Chicago, dominated by one political party. Madness. And there's your update. on how the glories of left-wing policies are working in some of our major cities. Let's step aside and come back. Josh Krasauer here talking national politics on the other side of this break. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FM Radio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. No.

Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Half time here on Guy Benson on this Monday. Thank you very much for being with us. Guy Benson.com is our online home. The podcast is free every day on demand. With us now, Josh Krasauer, Fox News, radio political analyst, editor-in-chief at Jewish Insider. You can follow him at Josh Krasauer on social media. Hey, Josh. Hey, Guy. Great to be back with you. All right. I want to start with Virginia. I talked about it earlier. We've got Ken Cuccinelli, the former Attorney General, joining us in the next hour as well. I'm not as interested in getting into the weeds. on the specifics in Virginia, so much as I am getting your reaction to not just the loss that Democrats have suffered at the Virginia Supreme Court last week and sort of this explosion of anger over the weekend, but also just the context within the Commonwealth of now a political brand in jeopardy when it comes to Governor Abigail Spanberger and all the squandered political... Capitol that she decided to expend on this, reportedly despite the fact that her own team was warning that this whole scheme might not survive legal scrutiny, which of course, now it has not. It seems like the Democrats might need to literally and figuratively re-center things. Maybe hit a reset button because the first couple months of her governorship and this misadventure really have been a debacle. Yeah, look, as a native Virginian, this is a state that has a long history of moderation, bipartisanship, totally rejects extremism, whether Democrats or Republicans, like generally has this good governance seal of approval. And what was so striking when, when Governor Abigail Spanberger had the pressure coming for pressure in the state legislature from the Democrats in control to really impose what would have been one of the most extreme gerrymanders in the country. Not only did it accept Governor Abigail Spanberger's capital, not only did it cost, I think, $70 million from the national democratic groups and outside groups. And not only did it only win by two points in a blue-leaning state in Virginia, but then it was rejected by the state Supreme Court because it was rushed through and the legislative process was done haphazardly and illegally. I mean, it's a lot of egg on the Virginia Democratic Party's face on the national Democratic Party's face because not only do they lose in this court ruling and they don't gerrymander the seats and give themselves a 10-to-one advantage in the delegation. But now, I... I think it's fair to say that their efforts encouraged Florida to go ahead with a gerrymander, which gave Republicans for additional seats, and it's just really fueled his arms raise and really deprived Democrats of the argument that they actually care about electoral reforms, and they don't like gerrymandering, and they're only doing it to block the most extreme Republican gerrymanders. So, I mean, there's just so many ways this move backfired. It also underscore, I mean, Abigail Spanberger, as you've noted on many occasions, guys, she ran as a moderate, she ran kind of as a pragmatist.

And she tarnished her own legacy at what cost. I mean, in short order, like she spent all that political capital wins with almost 50% of the vote in Virginia. And now her job approval has taken a beating and her bipartisan image, or her moderate image at least, has also suffered as a result. So there's just so many things that transpired in the aftermath of this state Supreme Court ruling that have really hurt Governor Abigail Spanberger, hurt the Democratic Party nationally. And yeah, now Democrats are back to the drawing board and have no good option. That is. part of their problem and the dilemma that they're facing one of their other problems to me at least is the fact that one of their most outspoken and influential and powerful leaders is the house minority leader who wants to be speaker likely will become speaker Hakeem Jeffries who you know look i disagree with him on on on most policies But I can often set aside disagreements to assess whether someone is an impressive political actor or not. I have not been impressed at all with Hakeem Jeffries. He's a lot of bluster. He is talking the hardcore language that his base wants to hear. And there's a lot of chest thumping, Josh, about, you know, Virginia. And the Republicans started the redistricting wars, but the Democrats finished it. And I was disputing all along this idea that the Republicans started it in Texas for a number of reasons. But even if you want to believe that and accept that. Quite clearly, they have not finished it because this is blown up in their faces in Virginia. You mentioned Florida. Now there's a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that's opening the door actually in some ways kind of mandating changes because of the ending of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, which is institutionalized racism. The Supreme Court saying you can't do that anymore. Then you've got the... 20, 30 census on the horizon and the relocation of a lot of people from blue states out of there to red states because they can't afford to live in these blue cities anymore. public safety concerns, all of that. It does seem like there was a big premature celebration and a lot of that bravado coming out of Hakeem Jeffries himself. And now that they look humiliated in Virginia and are very worried about the factors that I just mentioned, it seems like Hakeem Jeffries is one of the loudest voices doubling down talking about.

court packing at a national level. I mean, the Virginia Democrats might be waking up and saying we've got to calm down here a little bit. Hakeem Jeffries, it seems to me, hasn't gotten that memo. Maybe he never will. I don't know. Well, look, I think if you look back at the processes of all the different states doing their redistricting, you had Texas, which I mean, you can argue whether Texas was first or not, but let's just say for the sake of argument that Texas was first, and then Gavin Newsom in California decided to play his hand and basically offset what was happening in Texas. And then, if you remember, the Indiana Republicans rejected the efforts by the White House that we draw the Indiana maps, and we were sort of in a holding pattern. That was pretty much a wash. The California offset, Texas, and Republicans stood down despite the pressure from the White House in Indiana. That was when Virginia really just went up full plumbing. They started the process a little bit earlier, but they pushed the pedal to the metal, the metal. The comments from Hakeem Jeffries, you're talking about the ridiculous spending. I mean, I live in Virginia, and I saw the ads for this referendum at least two months, if not more, before the election. That's part of the $70 million plus that was spent. on behalf of this measure. They really jammed it through. They also took the maximalist approach. They could have... They called it maximum warfare, right? Everywhere all the time, maximum warfare. That was the mantra. from Hakeem Jeffries, and it seems like the full war is now underway, and I don't think his side is winning. I think there's a real case that they're now losing and might continue to lose across the South after the VRA change at the Supreme Court, and then, of course, 2030 as well. If you're the one out there screaming maximum warfare, you better have a plan to win the war, and it seems like they are not, at least on this front. winning the war and to your point josh i'm glad that you brought this up the indiana de-escalation, the off-ramp from Republicans in Indiana was met with escalation with two middle fingers from Virginia Democrats, which I think then emboldened, as you pointed out, Ron DeSantis down in Florida. I also think the recent primary elections in Indiana where you had the state senators who had bucked the White House and said, no, we're not going to redistrict mid-decade. Almost all of them were defeated by primary voters. I'm not sure that anger and passion exists absent. what the Democrats did in Virginia, or at least tried to do. And then the Republican voters said, well, if this is what they're going to do, we've got to play the game as well. I think there's been this whole cascade of events. And the Democrats, and led by someone like Hakeem Jeffries, you just think maybe he might want to look in the mirror on this one.

Yeah, look, I think people have lost their minds when it comes to gerrymandering deciding who's going to win the House. I mean, first of all, I think Democrats still have a decided advantage still in the House. For sure. For 26. Like I think when we talked about this last before Orleans, I almost thought it was like a guarantee, but I will say the House is in play. I would give Democrats that still disadvantage. But the fact that people lose their minds in terms of the excessive language, the rhetoric. drawing, it's probably going to, Republicans are going to, what, net four seats or, you know, they, they, that four seats from Florida and then they get the four seats back from Virginia. So it is a pretty sizable swing. But, you know, the way midterm elections have been going is usually even if it doesn't make the difference between the majority and the minority. Obviously, Republicans hold in a very narrow majority right now. So it would be, I think a lot of Democrats are actually waking up to this. If you read some of the post. Supreme Court, state Supreme Court decision commentary, you're seeing Democrats, hey, why don't we appeal to moderates? Why don't we appeal to swing voters? Why don't we stop being so partisan and actually try to improve our brand as a way to get more House seats? That's going to be a reality, by the way, in these southern states as they undo the voting, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, Mandated minority districts, yeah, there's going to be a need to win over white, you know, both black and white moderate voters in districts that could be competitive in the South. So, you know, that's been the ongoing debate. You play to the base or do you actually try to win over persuadable voters? Democrats in recent years have stopped trying to persuade those moderate middle-of-the-road voters. These rulings actually may incentivize them to start getting back to the act of doing politics, which is what we're going. democracy is all about. But you then have some very loud voices with megaphones on the Democrat side, who, for example, are saying Hasan Piker, who's become this popular influencer thought leader, who's a communist terrorism supporter, said America deserve 9-11. He is on the campaign trail with a bunch of left-wing Democrats. He is associated with their party. A lot of them are welcoming him with open arms when the Virginia Supreme Court. upheld the rule of law and the Constitution on a procedural basis, Hasan Piker was out there talking about violent revolution. You had Jamel Bowie at the New York Times saying that the legislature in Virginia should simply ignore the court and just do what they want anyway and just... toss out that court ruling. I mean, this is a New York Times columnist, right? And Hasan Piker, you might say, you know, well, he's just some streamer, but he's got a massive following with kind of the left-wing element of the base idolizing the guy. The New York Times had a story that we discussed earlier with all these cockamamie schemes that were being discussed about, you know, throwing the entire Virginia Supreme Court out of office and trying to do it again anyway. There doesn't seem to be that recalibration, at least. with the people screaming the loudest who appeal to a rapacious base that have been just going on this engine of anger and hate whenever Donald Trump is, you know, on the scene. And I just wonder if that instinct, that impulse might prevent the party more widely from getting back on some sort of moderate or sensible track because that type of thing, I think, is actually punished.

At least among base voters, they view it as weakness, and it makes them furious. So they're kind of stuck in some ways. How do they break through that, or do they? Or are they going to be some growing pains here as they try to figure it out? Well, I mean, the only way people get the Democrats or anyone who's too extreme gets the message is by losing an election. So I mean, but the challenge, though, is that when you have, you know, gerrymander districts, you have an election in Philadelphia coming up this month as an election in New York taking place next month, where the socialist candidates. And if you look at their platforms and what they espouse, so far to the extreme of what you would ever imagine could get elected. Someone like that could get elected, but they are actually front runners in a couple of these house contests in deep blue districts. So I don't see, we've talked about this a lot, but I don't see the Democratic. Democrats moderating or a lot of the candidates moderating, for them to do so, they have to be in swing districts or competitive districts, but even those running for the Senate in states like Maine and Michigan, with Graham Platner in Maine and El Cyanid in Michigan, there's not a whole lot of incentive for them to move to the center, even in swing states. So, you know, this is where the party is right now. There's a kind of anger and in a radicalism, frankly, that's taking place before our very eyes. And it could have consequences in the general election in some of these races, but some of the deep, districts and areas, probably not going to have a political consequence in a general election. Again, something that you've mentioned before and bears repeating here before we say goodbye, if a wave gets big enough, then you can get some real radicals and extremists elected just in a no election or a backlash election in a midterm. But extremism, direction of the country, that kind of thing, Canada quality matters a lot more in statewide races and then in a, let's say, more neutral environment. couple years down the line, let's say 2028, then you start to run into problems again if you're the Democrats if this is what the party is becoming. So it is in some ways a frightening dynamic, certainly a fascinating one for those of us who care about politics, and we'll be tracking it all with Josh Krasauer and others, Josh, a Fox News, radio political analyst, editor-in-chief of Jewish insider at Josh Krasauer on social. Josh, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks, Guy. We'll step aside and come right back after this. Always Fresh, Always Fair. Guy Benson. We are back. It's Guy Benson. I wanted to address this last week, but for various reasons, I had to take Friday off. More on that to come. But there was an election in the UK on Thursday. And I would describe it as the British equivalent of the midterms, but that's not quite right. These are elections all across the country to their local councils. And it's kind of sort of a midterm because it gives a sense of where the electorate is, sort of in a headspace and their mood and their attitude and that kind of thing. And it can signal where a general election would go. and what kind of message voters want to send to the political parties. And so the results are watched very, very closely. They can have an impact, even though they do not actually affect Parliament directly at all.

There were no midterm elections in that. There were members of parliament getting elected or thrown out of office. That would have to be in a general election, which is going to happen sometime in the coming years. And it's a moving target under their parliamentary system. I think they have to be done the current government by 2029. Sometimes elections come earlier. Now I'm in the weeds. The point is, the midterm quote-unquote elections. were significant on Thursday because they had unmistakable results. And the number one result was kind of twofold. The collapse of the ruling Labor Party, they lost across the country nearly 1,500 seats on these councils. They lost 1,496 seats, was the last count that I saw. And then the corresponding soaring performance was the Reform Party, this still relatively new Populist Right Party, led by Nigel Farage. who, of course, is friendly with President Trump, who is a hardliner on immigration, et cetera. And if this were a general election, there'd be a very good chance that Nigel Farage would be the next prime minister of the United Kingdom. His party gained 1,451 seats across the country. Again, this was a party that a number of years ago did not exist. And some of its ideological predecessors never broke through even close to this level of mainstream. And now they are in first place nationally in the national polls. And these elections, the council elections, showed that the polls aren't just messing around. Voters actually behaved this way. The Green Party, which has become this sectarian left-wing Islamist party, they gained seats, hundreds of them, although not as many as expected. So that was a bit of a relief. The conservatives lost hundreds of seats as well, but outperformed in certain ways. But the big, big story is the Labor Party got crushed almost in this existentially threatening way with reform leading the pack by a country mile. And what that means for the current prime minister. who's a lefty, Keir Starmer, extremely unpopular. Well, I guess we'll know in the coming days or weeks the knives are out for him within his party. A lot of calls among his own members of parliament for him to step aside and get replaced by someone else in labor. He's reportedly maybe resisting that, but who knows how long he can hold out because it was a brutal beatdown for labor. The country is furious at their leadership. And the election

underscored that in a very dramatic way, something that we might explore further with a guest later on in the week. But I wanted to bring this update to you because what happens in that country, a significant ally of ours, special relationship, I feel like they've got a last few chances upcoming in their elections to change the direction of their nation. And I think for people desperate for that change, Thursday's elections were quite significant. Final hour of Guy Benson coming up next. Ken Cuginelli, who nailed it in Virginia. He'll be here with a victory lap and then a very serious conversation about what comes next. You don't want to miss it straight ahead. Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit thelongdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson.

It's the happy hour here on Guy Benson on this Monday. Thank you very much for being with us. Guy Benson.com is our online home. The podcast is free every day on demand as soon as the show is over in just about an hour, which is when I'll be heading over to special report. I'll be on the panel this evening. On set here in D.C. Hope you'll tune in for that on Fox News Channel. This radio hour is sponsored by the Finnish long drink. We recommend it highly if... You're 21 or older. Please drink responsibly, The Long Drink.com. Well, joining us now is Ken Cuccinelli. He's the former Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Virginia, former acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security as well. Mr. Attorney General, welcome back. It's good to be with you. Well, I want to start by just congratulating you, not just on the major success on Friday with the Virginia Supreme Court throwing out the Democrats' gerrymandering scheme as unconstitutional, but you specifically with your legal acumen and also your ability to read tea leaves. You were one of the people who was really kind of... Putting down a marker on this one saying you thought that the court was going to do exactly what it did. Many of us were hopeful but skeptical, but you nailed it. So before we get into all the noise and the meltdowns that have ensued after the decision was rendered, let's talk about what led us to that decision and what the justices actually said on Friday. So, guys, there were actually a lot of challenges to the referendum. There were two cases. The case they decided was the first case, not surprisingly, that included two constitutional challenges and one legal challenge. And all of this is under Virginia law or the Virginia Constitution. And the challengers only had to win one of these arguments to knock the referendum out. And the defenders, the Democrats in this case and the current Attorney General of Virginia, had to win all of these challenges, every single one. They had to win on every argument. And so the Supreme Court found that the Democrats did not allow for a proper intervening election, which is required out of the state constitution when you want to amend the Constitution. And the General Assembly has to pass the proposed amendment itself on both sides of that intervening election. Well, we have 45-day elections in Virginia, also thanks to the Democrats, by the way. And in 2025, of course, Abigail Spanberger was elected governor, and our House of Delegates was elected then. Well, they wanted to treat that as the intervening election. Well, that election ran for voters from September 19th to November 3rd. The problem was they didn't pass the proposed constitutional amendment until Halloween.

After 1.3 million Virginians had already voted, and they wanted that to count as the intervening election required under the Virginia Constitution. It was the active current election at the time. It wasn't the intervening election. That's exactly right. And that argument failed on their part. They wanted to argue that for purposes of an intervening election, only election day matters. And that was not upheld. And therefore, the entire process was the fruit of a poison tree, tainted, illegitimate, and they ran this illegal referendum at enormous cost. Of course, not just to taxpayers, but their donors, tens of millions of dollars in the battle over this thing, flush down the toilet. They can do this again. There's a way to remedy. It will get to that in just a moment. This was, I think, constitutionally a very sound decision by the High Court in Richmond. But the excuses now flying from Democrats, pointing the finger all over the place, blaming the court, etc. I think a lot of them are just ignoring what we talked about last week on this show, which was the revelation from a Democratic strategist who's plugged in. on his podcast that internally, within the Democrats' own camp, there were precriminations playing out where Abigail Spanberger's team was basically steamed at the legislative leaders, all Democrats, this is all blue-on-blue, saying, we told you so, we told you not to do this, we didn't think it would withstand legal scrutiny, we thought it would be very vulnerable to a challenge, and of course, that was all proven to be correct. Is it your understanding as well? Mr. Attorney General, that at least some of the smarter Democrats in Richmond were worried about this outcome and made those concerns clear before the party decided to plow ahead anyway? Yes, some were, and they were basically told to sit down and shut up and play along. And let's not forget, guy, last October, when this happened, the House of Delegates was up for election, and I believe there was a quid pro quo. They demanded more money out of Washington for their then current election, even though they frankly didn't need it. And in exchange, they would press ahead with this legally, very dubious approach to gerrymander, Virginia. And people should know right now, we operate. Our congressional maps are drawn by a bipartisan redistricting commission that was voted in as a constitutional amendment. Just five years ago in the 2020 election, by a two to one margin, it was widely popular, gave us some of the fairest maps in the country, acknowledged on all sides as such. It's really taken Virginia out of the gerrymandering wars, which for the average, Virginian, is right where they want to be, is out of it. And the Dems came along here running a Trump derangement syndrome campaign. As you noted, outspent our side over three to one. They spent more on this yes campaign to try to get the gerrymandering amendment than they did. Then Abigail Spanberger spent running for governor, which is incredible.

And yet now all that money goes up in smoke. It all goes up and smoke. And there's a lot of recrimination going on, not just in Virginia, but across the country among Democrat leaders. Yep. And I would just quickly note on the subject of Governor Abigail Spanberger, she had set on the campaign trail on this issue that she was not going to engage in redistricting. She touted the bipartisan, widely supported. constitutional amendment of 2020 on the independent commissions. She was for it. She said so as the candidate running for governor, she said she was not going to redistrict, and then the first bill that she signed after getting elected was to set up the process to attempt the gerrymander anyway, again, despite some of her legal aides reportedly saying, this is not going to survive scrutiny, or it may not, we shouldn't do this. And of course, the rest now is history. I did see. that as they're going through the various stages of grief about this outcome at the Virginia Supreme Court, the Democrats are now appealing this to the U.S. Supreme Court, amusingly, Attorney General Jay Jones, best known for his fantasies about murdering Republicans and their children, he, in this brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, misspelled, I believe on one page, both the word senator and the word Virginia on one of his documents that he put out shortly after taking office, he also misspelled the word attorney in Attorney General. So there seems to be a competence problem with this man on top of many others. But you are out there very confidently, even more confidently than what you were saying the Virginia court would do, you are saying this has 0% chance of success at the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? Absolutely, zero. In fact, as a technical matter, it'll never even get to the Supreme Court. And the reason is that state Supreme Courts are the final arbiter. of state constitutions. And the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Democrats violated the state constitution. There's no federal equivalent. There's no federal question. There's no federal hook. The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't have legal jurisdiction to hear any aspect of this case. And they won't. The appeal will go to the Chief Justice who sits on the Fourth Circuit in Virginia. is in the Fourth Circuit. So there's a justice assigned for quick appeals from every circuit, and the Chief Justice has ours. He will not even forward it. to the rest of the court. He will not do anything with it because they don't have jurisdiction, and he won't leave it open to the whole court to decide because there is nothing for them to decide. He won't waste his colleagues time. That's just how frivolous this is. So why rush out to do it with all of your embarrassing misspellings and the like? Is it just to say, oh, look, we're exhausting another option, and, hey, maybe we can use this as an opportunity to attack?

the integrity of another court, maybe? So I think it's just a sign of the pure mind-blowing desperation that the people responsible for bringing this train wreck down the rails. are feeling. And they just, they'll do anything. And this is something thereby qualifying as within the boundaries of anything. And even though it's idiotic, spelled wrong, there's no legal jurisdiction, and a first year law student could tell you that. Frankly, you don't need to go to law school. Anybody who remembers their civics class from high school should be able to tell you this one. And it really is pathetic, and it has one result has been it has utterly cratered Governor Abigail Spanberger's popularity within the state. Normally, Virginia governors, new ones, get a really fairly substantial honeymoon period. Well, her honeymoon is over, and she has the lowest approval ratings of any governor in years in my lifetime at this stage of her governorship. And it's largely because of this gerrymandering effort. There will be, at some point, in the next year plus, an actual legitimate intervening election. So the Democrats, while this will not work out for them for 2026, which was, I think, their whole goal in doing this and why they rushed it through the way that they did, well, that's now gone. So they'll have a chance to regroup and maybe come back at this for another bite at the Apple. Do you anticipate that they are going to... basically do take two, a redo opportunity on this type of referendum to change the Constitution in order to get that teed up for 2028. And if they do that legally, is it then just a completely different debate that we're having if they pursue it? Because I'm sure some of them want to do it immediately. Others might be wondering, do we really want to do this again and spend more political capital and all that money? Is it worth it? We'll see what decision they come to. My guess is they'll probably try again. I just wonder what your thought is on that piece. So I don't think that they will. You are absolutely correct. If they did this correctly under law and constitution of Virginia, they could tee it up for the 2028 election. and to have new maps for 2028. But keep in mind that even with the referendum and the political capital they had to spend to get through that process, they also had to outspend the opponents by over three to one.

to get to squeak out a three-point victory. Right. A lot of their own supporters like the bipartisan redistricting arrangement. And they ran their whole campaign as a Trump derangement syndrome campaign. And in 2028. We're going to be in the middle of an election for the successor to President Donald Trump. And so the motivation to their base to violate their own beliefs and principles is simply not going to pull the cart, even with three to one spending margin. They would lose next time. And I just don't, because I think that is the conclusion they'll draw. They won't even go forward with it. Interesting. Well, you were... They wouldn't get the money to outspend our side by the same margin this go-round. And maybe the Republicans would fight it more aggressively and more competently in a subsequent battle. which you're saying may not even happen, and you were right about what the Virginia Supreme Court did, so I'm not going to write off your prediction here. I hope you're right. I'm not convinced yet, I guess we'll see soon enough. But when we come back, I want to turn to, speaking of desperation, some of the breathtaking things that are being proposed by Democrats as they grapple with their loss here. New York Times has a story about it. We've got to discuss. We'll do so after this break. Ken Cochenelli, our guest, here on Guy Benson. We'll be right back. Not the same talking points here, Guy Benson.

Back here on Guy Benson, it's our happy hour. The former Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, our guest talking about the major, major developments in the Commonwealth on Friday and then reverberating throughout the weekend. So, Ken, I know that you have watched this like the rest of us, and I did address it a bit earlier on as well, but that New York Times story, talk about desperation, some of the truly crackpot schemes that were being debated by at least some Democrats about... Like retroactively throwing the entire Supreme Court off the bench in Richmond or invalidating in their minds, I guess, a previous constitutional amendment so the legislature could draw the maps they want anyway. It looks like some Virginia Democrats are finally having that sobering moment like, you know, maybe we need to lay off of this a little bit. This is going too far. But. The fact that it's being even discussed some of this stuff at a very high level in Democrat politics, both nationally and in Virginia, is pretty astounding. Quickly, your thoughts on that? So first of all, I think the national Democrats dragged the Virginia Democrats into a mess. And they used them for fools, and it didn't work out. And the craziest stuff you're hearing now is to get rid of the Virginia Supreme Court by lowering the retirement age to 54, so it knocks all seven of them out. So the General Assembly can reappoint seven new ones. Virginia is one of two states where the General Assembly appoints judges and justices. So they could theoretically do that. But they need a special session called by Governor Abigail Spanberger to do that. And they need to hold all of their Democrats in the state Senate, which is only a 2119 margin. They can lose one Democrat to make their plan work. And this goes beyond. the packing the court idea that i know you've talked about before at the federal level this is a trashing the court this is literally we're going to pass a law that suddenly makes it illegal for all seven of these justices to sit as justices and replace them it is it is truly crazy and so as you noted Some Democrats in Virginia are starting to finally voice some reservations with the degree of insanity that is showing up for other people, other Democrats in other parts of the country that want these Democrats here in Virginia. to implement. Yeah, it's like walk the plank again in an even more preposterous and insidious scheme. And like does someone like Abigail Spanberger, who's blown through so much political capital for nothing, does she want to go even further here? I'm skeptical of that. I don't put a lot past the Democrats in Virginia for the reasons that we've just seen, but I do think that there's been enough of a brushback pitch and they realize what has been squandered.

in pursuit of this thing that is not going to happen this year, and perhaps finally, cooler heads are prevailing. Unfortunately, one of those cooler heads is not the man who might be the next speaker of the House nationally, a separate conversation. Ken Cuccinelli, former AG in the Commonwealth of Virginia, who's been all over this. Mr. Attorney General, thanks so much again for your time and your work on this issue. It's been a huge, huge win for the rule of law. Amen to that. Thanks for having me. And we'll be right back after this. Talking about the issues you care about. Guy Benson. In our first hour today, John Roberts, our colleague here at Fox News, co-anchor of America reports. He joined us. He spoke by phone with President Trump earlier today on a wide array of issues. We talked about that phone call. Here's part of the conversation. You had an interesting morning. You spoke to the President of the United States by phone. Tell us about what was discussed. I know a lot of it was about Iran. Give us some of the highlights there. First of all, let me just set the stage. Here's the great thing with President Trump is you call him and sometimes he picks up the phone and sometimes he doesn't. This morning he didn't pick up the phone. And I thought, okay, he's busy, he doesn't want to talk to me. And then 15 minutes later, my phone rings. Thankfully, I had my AirPods in because I was actually down the hall from my office getting a cup of coffee. And the air pod announced in my ear. Your phone is ringing. It's Donald Trump. Okay, you better run back. I better take that one. Yeah, so it's great. You know, you call him. He doesn't pick up, but then he calls you back. I guess he was busy. But we did talk a lot about Iran, and one of the questions I had for him was, you know, this regime just keeps playing the same old games that it's played time and time and time again. And, you know, are they ever going to get serious? Are they ever going to agree to what you want them to do? And he said that at some points they're going to fold. I said, do you know when that point is? He says, I don't. Not yet, but they're getting squeezed pretty hard. And he thinks that this regime will eventually cave in. I asked him, I said, you know, do you need to employ Israel again to affect a little more regime changed? And he said, no, I'll deal with these people until they make a deal. So it doesn't sound like there's anything in the works in terms of getting rid of people like Vahidi and others. Although it seems optimistic. could be in the works and he doesn't want to give anyone a heads up that the bombs could be dropping again at some point because he did respond publicly very angrily and very dissatisfied john to the counter proposal or whatever from the regime and like my instinct is the same as yours that they're playing games again he's saying this is totally unacceptable i mean i just wonder how much more of this game playing he's willing to to tolerate Well, he did tell me that he's strongly considering renewing Project Freedom and that escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz would only be, quote, a piece of it. I asked him what the other pieces might be. I said, I don't want to tell you just yet. We're, you know, getting all of that together. But it does sound like, according to some people I've talked to, that you would get U.S. Navy ships escorting tankers in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. And at the same time, there might be some other military actions somewhere else. He did say that Iran likes to claim that it's in charge of this Strait of Hormuz.

Hormuz, but the United States is in charge of the Strait of Hormuz. And President Trump is trying to do everything he can to disabuse Iran, and the notion that they've got any cards in this diplomatic dance. But we'll see where it goes, because, you know, these guys, guy, they just keep on saying the same thing again and again and again, that negotiations for getting rid of enrichment are off the table. There might be some sort of a moratorium, but they believe that they have a... a national right to enrich uranium and they're not about to give that up i mean that's part of the issue when it comes to negotiations with a regime like this you're not dealing with rational people i mean especially once the upper tier of leadership has all been liquidated by the u.s and israel you know next man up you'd think might have an incentive to be more rational but so far no yeah it's kind of crazy crazy just he's replaced by more crazy exactly so i mean that that's one of the ongoing challenges in talking to this regime at all there is this unresolved question so there's there's the uranium enrichment and they've already enriched a ton of uranium well beyond any civilian or innocent you know threshold we know that which goes to their obsessive fixation on getting nuclear weapons which is the whole problem so that's one of the sticking points we want to get rid of their ability to enrich at all or at least stop it for decades they're refusing there's also the uranium that's already been enriched to that 60 percent level the nuclear dust as the president sort of colorfully calls it that came up in your conversation didn't it that component It did, and the president talked about it about 15 or 20 minutes later after we got off the phone in that Oval Office event that he had this morning as well. He told me that Iran said that if the United States wants the nuclear dust, as he calls it, the highly enriched Iranian that's enriched to about 60%, that the United States needs to come and get it because there's only two countries, the President said, on the face of the planet. And again, it reiterated this in the Oval Office that had the technology to be able to go underground in such a destroyed facility. and find that uranium and dig it up are China and the United States. He says that he's already made a deal with Iran for the United States to dig up the nuclear dust. I don't know if it involves us actually taking custody of it. There's been some talk of that. But the president seemed to suggest in the Oval Office that Iran has reneged on that. But he did say that Iran told him that the only countries that could do this would be China or the United States. So the United States would have to come and get it. I asked him, okay, so what are the logistics of U.S. engineers or whatever going in to do this? And he said, we haven't quite figured that out yet. Well, I mean, because I guess that seems to me, John. Totally. And I mean, if this was a negotiated agreement where we were going in with permission. from the regime to dig it up and extricate it. That would be one process. Then there's the other process of doing it under duress, under attack, without permission to be there, right, on the ground, which would be very, very complicated. Don't know how you'd ever do that. Exactly. Very, very complicated. I know that was something that he had at least talked about before. I just, I keep coming back to comments that we've heard from people like General Keene and others.

that, and it's been reported publicly and stated publicly, that the U.S. and Israel hit maybe 70, 80 percent of the planned targets as part of Epic Fury, these military targets. But that still leaves thousands of targets that were not hit. And there's been this quasi-seas fire. They keep calling it one, even though there's fire exchanged back and forth during the supposed ceasefire. But it seems like... If Trump throws up his hands and said, all right, these people aren't making any real progress. They're slow rolling us. They're an awful lot of targets that we could go back in to hit and to really diminish their military capabilities moving forward with very little that the Iranians could do about it because we still dominate the airspace. I mean, it just, it seems like the regime is almost forgetting like they have amnesia exactly what was inflicted on them just weeks ago. And this is typical with Iran. They remind me of the Black Knight and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. King Arthur has cut off the arms and the legs and then King Arthur goes up on his way and the Black Knight says, oh, running away, come back here, I'll bite your leg off. My full interview with John Roberts, Fox News Anchor, available online at Guy Benson.com. It's part of the free podcast. It's every day. It's on demand, of course. Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch, producer Christine had a memorable Mother's Day and a pretty eventful end to her week as well. We'll get into all of that on the other side. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson.

And now it's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home Stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on. So I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. Home Stretch Monday edition, Guy Benson.com, our online home, the podcast free every day on demand. All be on special report tonight on the panel. We just replayed our chat with John Roberts. He's filling in for Brett Bayer tonight. And I'll be there. Fox News Channel, 6 p.m. hour, so coming up in less than one hour. So please tune in for that or set your DVR. Well, yesterday was Mother's Day, and I wished a very happy Mother's Day to my own mom, Lisa, on the big weekend show on TV last night. And we talked about our moms and memories and that sort of thing over the course of a full segment that we did on TV. I did not quite know what producer Christine was up to because, believe it or not, she is in fact a mother. So, Christine, what was your Mother's Day celebration on Sunday? Wait, what? What do you mean, believe it or not, she's actually a mother? Well, I mean, given what a lot of people know about you and your comportment, it might come as a surprise that you're a mother that you brought life into this world and are raising a human being. I don't even know what the word means. Comportment? Yeah, just sort of your conduct. Oh, okay. Fair. Fair. All right. You're just conceding that one, throwing in the towel. You spent your mother's day in maybe somewhat ironically the city of brotherly love. Is that correct? I sure did. We, Bobby, myself, Megan, and then we brought my mother, Judge E. Joyce, down to Philadelphia, and we went to see the Phillies. Colorado Rockies game. Okay. Why? My niece is in a very, she's in high school and she's in a very top level choir. Right. The anthem. And her choir sang the national anthem, which was unbelievable. They did a good job. Oh, beautiful. So you made it for the anthem. You weren't still out tailgating and missed it? It was so funny. My mother. God bless her. I don't know if she's ever been to a sporting event. She goes, what? Why are all these people? Did they not get tickets? Did they just, she thought maybe they sit out there and listen to the game? I mean, it kind of probably seems like something you would enjoy. Just tailgating all day? Oh, God, yeah. Just skip the game. Like, you know what, I'll be in eventually. I'll see it the seventh inning stretch. Well, never shows up. But here's the thing, guy, again, did not drink yesterday because we were too high up. I was too scared. I mean, like the seats were in the upper deck. Yeah. So you were too scared that you would have your normal amount of alcohol and just tumble down the steps or maybe over the railing to your death? It's a real thing that happens. And I actually can't believe.

it's not in the news more or it doesn't happen more because I'm sorry it is really high up there I mean my poor mother I was frightened I mean we should have never brought her up there but I mean she's almost 80 years old God bless oh she's gonna kill me for that but she's a little spitfire that one and she knows she moves around she's great but you know it's scary up there so she wouldn't move she was terrified I didn't drink Because I was terrified. Even Megan goes, you know what? I'm not usually scared of heights. And I don't like this. This is not enjoyable. So we stayed until, I think, maybe the top of the four. Oh, my goodness. You didn't even make it halfway through? And also, can I tell you something? Is this just maybe you have to have a love of the game itself? But I don't enjoy going to, I didn't enjoy going to a baseball game that I had no interest in rooting for either team. Yeah, I sometimes like just sitting there and letting the game wash over me and just take it in with very little stress connected to having a rooting interest. I like just watching baseball. People watching is great at baseball games as well. But maybe this is a lesson for the future, Christine, that the upper deck isn't your friend. You're just going to spend more money to be down closer to the action, but then, of course, closer to foul balls and being potentially struck. struck down by a foul ball. I'm just not sure anywhere is safe for cookie in the whole stadium. I mean, listen, live events sometimes aren't safe. I mean, where were we that I was scared? Is this a threat for our event in Sonoma this week? We're like live events aren't, when cookies around and there's alcohol. Sporting events. Sporting events. Okay. All right. And by the way, just a handful of tickets left. Thursday night, KSRO.com. Get your tickets. It's going to be great. And it's going to be safe despite cookie being there with wine, I hope. Go ahead. Yeah, maybe sporting events. You know, I find it different, though. When I went to the... the first and only NFL game with you. I enjoyed it and I didn't, well, I didn't have a team then. So I don't know. Maybe it was just because it was my first. But you were, you were terrified of being in the upper deck. Yeah, it was high. Remember, I only had. And on the escalators you were freaking out. Because that's where the people usually fall over and die. That's the ones you see on the news. It's true. I think it's like even less frequent than alligator attacks. No. Mm. It's on that list of irrational fears. It's a long list that you've got. Yeah, well, don't get me started with this new, um, hanta. Oh, the hanta virus? Yes. Yeah, we're not, in fact, and get started on that. But I am going to bring it back to alligator attacks because, oh, you told me that you now have a golf trip lined up with some new besties. We didn't get to this last week. I was out on Friday, sort of last minute, and I'll have more to say about that in the coming days. But I wanted to ask you about this. You had this event, this golf-related event in New York City with that woman that you tortured on the plane and forced yourself to become friends with her, really forced her to become friends with you. And it sounded like you had a grand old time, had a lot to drink at the open bar, won a huge prize, and then made major plans. So quickly, what happened?

Yeah, it was amazing. It was like a virtual golf place. And you got drink tickets. They had like champagne flowing, past apps, racks and racks of golf clothes. Now, I know you don't play, but golf clothing is very expensive, usually. And they had this thing where like you could buy a shirt for 10 bucks. That was normally maybe 200. So it was really cool. And then the best part was I did win the grand finale Raffle Prize. It was $1,500 towards building a custom men's suit. I think the place is on Madison Avenue. So that will be fun. I think we're going to try to book an appointment for Father's Day. Okay, so it's going to be Bobby's, not a lady's suit? They don't make ladies' suits. Oh, so you'd have kept it for yourself if that were the case? Nope. I don't think I would have. I was very excited. Okay. Have you told Bobby or is he learning this right now? Well, yes, I did, but Guy, it might become your gift card because he's like, I know that just because it's $1,500, that doesn't mean we're getting everything, you know, a suit. It's probably those suits are starting probably at 2000 because it's a very high-end place. So he's not sure he wants to invest more money of his own into it, which I think he should. You should make the appointment and go see how far $1,500 can take you. It could be a blazer in slacks, maybe a full suit. I would definitely explore that situation. If not, it's going to you. And you won this, like, out of the whole crowd? Out of everybody. Wow. I was golfing with my new friend, and I don't think she knew my name. Because when they call my name and people are looking around and I go, oh, my God, that's me. And she goes, oh, your name is Christine. And then my last name, I go, yeah, that's me. She's like, we'll go up there. Does she know you as cookie? Is that why? I told everybody that everybody calls me cookie and that. That's always an icebreaker. I have to say most people, well, I mean, most people enjoy me. Not the bartender, though. He actually told me to go to H.E. You again. He told me to go to H.E. Double hockey sticks. Really? I think he meant it. Wow. Yeah. Why were you trying to swindle him on the drink tickets? Well, kind of, yes. How did I know? I wanted an espresso martini, and he was very busy. And he's like, go to the espresso machine and get me a double espresso then. Espresso. Yes. Yes. It's not ec. It's just espresso. Anyway, so are you going to Florida for a golf trip as well? Is that a real thing or is that one of your plans, quote, that you made after several? cocktails. Yeah, eight of us got to talking and we are, well, what we're going to do is this summer we're going to meet up at one specific golf course and we're all going to golf together like on a Saturday and then maybe try it one more time in the fall. And if we all get along, then it's not Florida anymore. I have to tell you where it is. Dylan, I told you on Friday, right? Yeah, I think you did. Yes. Going to Scotland.

Oh, boy. Is that a Scottish accent? I don't know what that was. I told her to work on it over the weekend. I did. There was no progress, hey, as evidence. That was after her work, what we just heard there. I don't know what that was. But, all right, well, it sounds like you have to pass two more tests before you get the Scotland invite. Is that what that is? Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's a couple speed bumps here. A couple excuses, I think, to maybe dump the cookie. But, you know, we can see. We can see if this is a legitimate new friend group that's forming, or this was them protecting themselves from, well, you. Anyway, we got to go. I got to go do special report with John Roberts in for Brett Bayer, Fox News Channel, up in the next hour. Back here again tomorrow, same time, same place on Guy Benson. We'll talk to you then. But here's the thing, Guy, again. Did not drink yesterday because we were too high up. I was too scared.

Listen to the show ad free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.