Benson Grills Biden Official

This episode is brought to you by San Pellegrino Chau. A gift from Italy to your home. San Pellegrino Chau is a flavored sparkling water made with real fruit juice, finished with a pinch of Sicilian salt for a perfectly balanced taste. So which flavor will you choose? Peach, lime, blood orange, cherry, or maybe the all-new limoncello. Crafted in Italy with zero grams of added sugar, San Pellegrino Chow. Buy it now. Your team just added its 67th AI tool and also your 67th security blind spot. The good news? The Vanta agent works like a GRC engineer in the background, finding every app your team uses, scoring the risk, and drafting fixes for you. Vanta is the platform used by over 16,000 fast-moving companies like Ramp, Cursor, and Harvey, who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk. Get started at Vanta.com. 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 Tuesday, November 11th, 2025, 1111. Welcome everyone to Guy Benson. I'm your host, Guy Benson. Kind of how these titles generally work. So glad to have you along for the next three hours, three to six p.m. Eastern every weekday, and then around the clock for free on our podcast, Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. We've got a lineup for you that we're excited about today, starting this hour with Dagan McDowell. Bill Malugan has been breaking a number of big stories on the immigration enforcement front. He will be here starting the next hour, about one hour from right now. Yemisei Egbe Wale will make her debut on the show. She's a Democratic strategist. She worked in the Biden administration. I've gotten to know her just a little bit from some TV appearances and thought maybe we could have her on the show and have a conversation across party lines or ideological lines a little bit. So looking forward to that discussion with Yemisee later in the program today. And then Hugo Gurdon, who is the editor-in-chief at the Washington Examiner. He's here. There is... Quite a scandal or a controversy, as they say, across the pond involving the BBC and a really disgraceful, dishonest edit that was done and aired involving a speech from President Trump. And that is just one of many problems at the BBC. Real upheaval there. And in British culture generally. A lot of Brits, very concerned about the state of that country. Hugo is from the UK, and it's quite a moment that they're having. So he will join us to talk about all of that. As we begin today's show, it is remarkable to me how angry and dysfunctional the Democratic Party is right now. They should be fresh off of just a week ago. Big sweeping election wins in Virginia and New Jersey, New York, some other places, statewide in Pennsylvania, statewide in Georgia. It wasn't just all these blue places went blue. It was beyond that. A lot of worrisome signs, I would say, for Republicans. You shouldn't like over-interpret, over-analyze it off-year election. But as I've said, you also shouldn't under-interpret it either. And I'd say there were some red flags. flapping out there for the GOP, and the Democrats seem to have enjoyed their wins for like a few minutes, and then they've gone right back into a complete meltdown where they are... ripping each other to shreds, including leadership on Capitol Hill. You've got people doing all sorts of posturing and positioning for the presidential race in a few years who are engaging in, I would say, fantastical, made-up political analysis. They are viewing the world, or at least pretending to, for public consumption, through a lens.

That is not actually reflective of anything that's plausible or reality in the governance of this country. What they're looking at is the mood and the vibes of their base and trying to match that vibe. And the vibe is angry. The vibe is dark. The vibe is frustrated and dissatisfied. And a lot of that, of course, is directed at Donald Trump and the Republicans all the time. But now the sport, at least for the moment, seems to be the internal, internecine, circular firing squad. Why? Well, because the Democrats shut down the government for well over a month. Government still shut down, by the way, because you may have heard last night, the Senate. passed a funding bill that would reopen the government, at least for a period of time, for a number of months. But because it took so long, the House needs to get their members back and into session and vote. Apparently the plan is for that to happen tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon, as a matter of fact. But the Senate had the big vote a couple of nights ago, the cloture vote. to finally break the Democratic filibuster that was what was causing this whole government shutdown for whatever, 41, 42 days, whatever it's been. That was all because of Senate Democrats using the filibuster to keep the government shut down. You needed 60 votes to overcome it. Finally got to 60 votes, exactly 60. The vote was 60 to 40. The Republicans plus eight Democrats, and then all the Democrats doing the filibuster along with Rand Paul, who's often a wildcard for all sorts of reasons. But this is a partisan Democrat filibuster to keep the government shut down, and then it's not really a deal, frankly, that the Democrats got. They didn't really get anything. They can point to a handful of tiny things, I guess. But ultimately, eight Democrats broke ranks and decided we can't keep this government shut down anymore. And they are catching hell for that. Their people, their colleagues, a lot of their friends in the media are just furious with them for giving up, surrendering, caving. And isn't it interesting, I'll keep pointing this out, that the same people who insisted that this was a Republican shutdown. The Republicans are doing this. When it finally took eight Democrats to vote to open the government to stop the Democrat shutdown, the other Democrats, all the other Democrats are really, really mad at them. It's like, hey, we had this shutdown going here. We're resisting Trump. And now you've ruined it. So it was never a Republican shutdown, obviously. That was a lie, obviously. It was incoherent, and they were really relying on the ignorance of their supporters and the complicity of the so-called news media to keep afloat any notion that this was a Republican-engineered shutdown. It was not. The Republicans voted 15 times in the Senate to open the government. 14 times the Democrats said no, most of them. There were three Democrats voting yes all along on the bipartisan non-

partisan, clean funding bill. Five more and they got the five. One of them is Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Someone who has been probably not among the favorites for many of my listeners listening on WLS in Chicago. Dick Durbin for a period of time was my senator. I lived in Illinois in Chicago land for about seven years. Not a fan of Dick Durbin. Dick Durbin, a member of Senate leadership. He's been there a very long time. He's retiring. So there's going to be a big, long line of Democrats to replace him in the Senate. He's stepping away, and that's why I think he felt liberated or free to vote to open the government. He doesn't have to care about the wild-eyed base in their pitchforks and torches anymore. So here's what he said. addressing people within his own party who are not happy with his decision to join this group to reopen the government, cut 14, a pretty incredible statement. Many of my friends are unhappy. They think we should have kept our government closed indefinitely to protest the policies of the Trump administration. I share their opinions of this administration, but cannot accept a strategy which wages political battle at the expense of my neighbor's paycheck or the food for his children. He sounds exhausted and beaten down, doesn't he? That sounds like a guy who's ready to be out of there, just like Jared Golden from Maine, the perhaps last truly moderate Democrat in the House of Representatives who's also retiring because he doesn't want to be there anymore. Dictor, that was a sad-sounding bite from here, wasn't it? But the substance of it is interesting. Many of my friends are unhappy. True. They think we, we Democrats, should have kept our government closed indefinitely to protest Trump. That is again a confession. We, the Democrats, are doing this. We've been keeping the government shutdown. And many of my friends feel like we should have kept the government shutdown. We being the operative word. This is a Democrat shutdown that's finally ending because of a tiny number of Democrats going against the screaming. braying hyenas of the base who wanted to keep the government closed indefinitely as a means of sticking it to Trump. He's like, look, I also hate Trump. That's basically what he said. He put it a little bit more politely than that. I share their opinions of this administration, but cannot accept a strategy, meaning the Democrat strategy, for more than 40 days, which wages political battle at the expense of my neighbor's paycheck or the food for his children. People's paychecks and food for their kids is what Democrats for the last 40 days have called their leverage in this political fight. And for what? They want an Obamacare bailout to fix the unaffordable health care law that they passed with no Republican input, and they want to extend special emergency. funding for these subsidies that they passed with no Republican support and then extended with no Republican support and set a deadline for it in a few weeks with no Republican support. It was never realistic. It was never going to happen. Republicans would have been...

deeply wrong to reward this strategy and thank God they did not. President Trump, Speaker Johnson, John Thune, they stuck to their guns and said, nope, we're going to reopen the government and then we can talk. And by the way, we'll have the talk and I don't think that they should give Democrats a blank check on Obamacare bailout. No, thank you. That's a separate issue that we will definitely continue to discuss. But the Democrats did this for 40 days. They had their election wins last week. They had their resistance moment. Longest shutdown in history. And then the inevitable Danumont is upon us. And they are foaming at the mouth, steam coming out of their ears. They are so angry that some of their colleagues would actually vote to open the government and end the chaos at the FAA. and reopen basically the airports and the airspace so people aren't stranded for hours on end to let Capitol Hill police officers and air traffic controllers get paid, to make sure that the troops get paid, to make sure that indigent families can get their snap benefits so the kids can eat. These are things that Democrats often talk about, like, oh, they care. They care more than anyone. They're so, so, so empathetic. And it's those mean Republicans, you always want to steal things from people and withhold benefits. It was the Democrats doing it this time. So they would rail against the bad outcomes of the thing that they were doing. And here's Dick Durbin just admitting it. I can't do this anymore. We can't do this anymore. We can't keep our government closed indefinitely to stick it to Trump. I'm not going to do it at the expense of hungry kids. What a confession. But he's the enemy these days. The eight of them are. And so is Chuck Schumer, the leader. He voted no on this, but everyone knows it's just a game. It's a game. And in fact, Senator John Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of Louisiana, he called this weeks ago. Last month, he was on Ruthless, the Ruthless podcast. John Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is a trenchant observer of politics and obviously very entertaining, quite funny, has all sorts of one-liners that are, that are, he's one of a kind. He's hilarious. And I will give him tons of credit. What you're about to hear is prescient. He's spelling out exactly what happened. But it's not like it was that much of an insight. This is how these sort of things end. And it was never going to end well for the Democrats and all the sort of Potemkin village posturing that they're doing about, oh, well, we're really mad and Chuck Schumer is a no. A lot of it is just a show. And I think a lot of their supporters know it, which is why they're fit to be tied and really pissed off. But here's Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., on Ruthless. Back last month, nailing at Cut 12. Here's how I predict Chuck Schumer's going to get out of it. I could be wrong. But I think we're not going to budge. And he's going to be forced to go to six or eight of his Democratic Senate colleagues. And Sengok, I need a favor.

vote to get me out of this shutdown. He said, now, he's going to tell him, now, look, I got to vote no. And I got a dog cussie a little bit. We've got to make it. We've got to have some play acting and make this look good. And then we come out of the shutdown, but Bernie, you know, he's tough. But the danger, Bernie, I'm serious. What he's got to watch, he doesn't want to look like he's had a mutiny. Because then he's weaker than when he went in. And he wasn't strong then. That is all exactly correct. It's all exactly what's happening. But guess what? He does look like he's got a mutiny. Because this is all done very clumsily. So here are some on the left raging away, cut ten. Oh, I think this whole thing stinks. And I think most members of the House caucus on the Democratic side are absolutely outraged. We'll continue that fight today, tomorrow, this week, next week, this month, next month, this year, next year. What this Senate is about to do. is make a horrific situation even worse. There's no way to defend this. And you are right to be angry about it. I'm angry about it. The president is kind of getting what he wanted. It doesn't feel like a gentleman's agreement. It feels like Lucy in the football. Now you're going to open the government up and what did you get in return? Nothing? Right. Nothing? This is the end of Chuck Schumer. I think Chuck Schumer, his days are over. He cannot. Put that, if he cannot keep his caucus together, if he cannot keep his caucus together, he needs to go. He needs to be recognized. Yeah. The ladies at the view are done and the clapping train seals in the audience. They're all so Matt and Chuck Schumer, of course, it's part of the show, voted no. No one's buying that. They're all seeing through it for what it is. Fine. But it is just wild to see all of these people. so angry that their party did not keep the shutdown going that they were blaming on the other party. They're now finally after the fact embracing their shutdown that apparently they wanted to keep the pain going and the leverage going even longer. That's their position. Why? So that we could all bail out the health insurance companies for these massive failures of their health care policies. It is like another planet, and we feel very far removed from the high highs that the Democrats were experiencing just a week ago, aren't we? Miserable. It seems like they like the misery to some extent. We're just getting started. It is Tuesday on Guy Benson. Please stay tuned. America is listening to Guy Benson. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FNRadio 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.

I think he's been in trouble. I think he is in bigger trouble now. I honestly, I think Chuck Schumer's been there since 1982. My guess is that he won't be leader of the party in 2007 after this election, unless something really surprising happens. I'm Guy Benson. That's David Axelrod, Democrat Guru. Chuck Schumer's been in Congress since 82, like years before I was born. And it sounds like they've had enough of him. He's too weak. For a lot of them, he's too Zionist, if you know what I mean. Bernie Sanders railing on MSNBC earlier, calling everything that's happening with the shutdown and all that, quote, really quite pathetic. Now, Axelrod, later in the interview that he gave on CNN, He said the Democrats have done a good job of highlighting, quote, the general issue of health care costs. Yeah, healthcare costs have exploded, haven't they, acts? Didn't you guys? Wasn't it your boss who famously signed the signature legislation, signature law, the Affordable Care Act? What happened? Oh, is a failure now you want us to bail it out with partisan so-called solutions from the people who got it wrong and lied to us on health care? I don't think so. Dagan McDowell is here. Coming up next on Guy Benson. Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. We're back. It's Guy Benson. Appreciate you being here, Guy Benson.com. Podcast always free. Joining us now from our New York headquarters is Dagan McDowell, anchor and analyst on Fox Business Network, co-host of the bottom line, 6 p.m. Eastern Time on FBN. Dagan, welcome back. Thank you, Guy. I have so many things I want to talk about with you, and I open the show on the shutdown, so I don't want to belabor it too much, but... I know that you have a very dim view of Senator Chuck Schumer, and I generally do as well. And it really seems like the knives are out for him. In the Democratic Party, the media, they're all turning on him. They're all angry with him. I think his days in that position are probably numbered, and I'm not shedding any tears for him, frankly. On the other hand, are you a little worried like I am that whatever comes next could very well be worse and crazier? For the Democrats? Yeah. Let them go crazy. Have fun. Nancy Pelosi, retiring. Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. Is it going to be any worse? Maybe. Maybe not. That's on them. Because they shut down this government. And I just, you know, I put this on X last night because I woke up and I saw the vote. And I said, let me correct a headline that I saw because all the headlines are like, see how the two senators from Ohio voted to reopen the government. And I thought to myself,

Those two senators are Republicans from Ohio, and they never voted to shut the government down in the first place. So I'm sitting alone talking to myself. And I said, Senate Republicans continue to vote to keep the government open operating and funded. Enough Democrats, eight total, finally realized that wrecking people's lives and risking their safety for political game is unacceptable. chicanery is the word that I will use on your fine radio program. I do appreciate that, but they're pretty angry. Most of them, the rest of them are so angry that it's over. Like, well, you know, we're not going to have our government shut down anymore. Right. What are they angry about that they didn't, they were fighting for? subsidies that enrich insurance companies that have been insurance companies stocks that have skyrocket and insurance executives whose pockets have been filled with essentially gold de blooms since the creation of Obamacare. These are supersized subsidies. They're not subsidies. They have only been in existence since 2021. So they haven't even been around for four years. They go. Temporary emergency COVID substance. They go to wealthy people, families who earn $600,000 a year. have access to these, quote, subsidies. And as G. Buy from Johns Hopkins wrote, simply put, since 2021, the Democrats have been bribing higher income Americans to purchase expensive Obamacare plans by hiding the plan's true price tags using your dollars, taxpayer dollars. Actually, it was money that was purely borrowed. So none of it makes sense. It needs to go away. And that's what they were fighting for. I don't buy it. I think that they shut the government down to win Abigail Spanberger, the governorship in Virginia, because that's who it hurt the most. People who work for the federal government living in northern Virginia. And I loved what John Stewart said last night because he is willing to make fun of conservatives and Republicans and liberals and Democrats. And he essentially said, hmm, you put up five people, five senators. Chuck Schumer, who are not up for re-election next year, did you cut a backroom deal with the Republicans and then put up these five, you know, the senators whose jobs aren't on the line next year? They're who are retiring in some cases. And then you gave everybody else. Now you can let them jawbone and get mad. But it looks like that this is all just.

That's exactly what happened. That's exactly what happened. And, you know, people hear the argument, well, without these emergency giant subsidies, even wealthy people won't be able to afford health care plans. That's how bad it is. I'm like, well, if that's how bad it is. Who designed the current law that's in effect? That would be Democrats exclusively. They didn't get a single Republican vote for Obamacare. We said it wouldn't make health care more affordable. They said we were a bunch of racist liars. And now here we are years down the path, Dagan, right again on our end at least. It's 7% of the American people are on Obamacare marketplace plans. A quarter of people. Now, you want to talk about the road to single payer and the road to government health care. That's Medicaid and the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. Because one thing that's never gotten fixed is the fact that the federal government for the Obamacare Medicaid expansion plans, the federal government and the U.S. taxpayer pays $9 for every dollar that is spent by the states. When for a traditional Medicaid beneficiary, oh, like children. and the disabled, those states get a buck 33 from the federal government for every $1 that's being spent. So they are wildly enriched for Obamacare recipients under the Medicaid expansion, but not people who are truly in need. But the Democrats never talk about that. They don't care. They don't care about people's safety. They don't care about people missing family obligations. They don't care about people who have been working at inner airports and in air traffic control with no pay. They don't care. Again, the pain's the point. Paying for their political power. No, the pain is the point. And then they're also at the same time trying to pretend it's not even their shutdown. But once their shutdown ended. with a few people who defected from their side. They're really owning the shutdown in retrospect. Like, hey, you ruined our big moment here. Our big shutdown. It's just, it's pretty gross. Dagan, I want to turn to a couple other topics as well here. President Trump has floated this idea. A couple ideas here. One is this tariff dividend. payment out to Americans. They're talking about something like two grand per person because of all the income we're getting from tariffs. I don't love this idea at all. I understand maybe the politics behind it, but I wonder what you think. I understand the politics of sending checks to people. According to what President Trump said, he said, moderate income, lower income people. So we collected as a nation.

A little close to $200 billion in tariff revenue last fiscal year ended in September. That's enough. So $200 billion, that's enough to cover the interest on the national debt for two months. The average interest we paid last year monthly was $102 billion. So we need to pay the interest on the debt. Not even talking about like paying down the debt. We need the money to pay the interest. This is a tax, regardless of what they argued in front of the Supreme Court. It is a tax. It's a consumption tax. It's a value-added tax that's hidden. It's part of a value-added tax, a little sliver of one. And so a tax is not inflationary. It actually reduces consumption in essence. But if you take that money and then give it to people to spend, it does become inflationary. Yep. I just think that this is classic jawboning. I don't think it happens. And if you listen to the Treasury Secretary on one of the Sunday talk shows, he kind of tried to talk his way around it. I don't think it happens. But President Trump is 25 points underwater on people, his approval on inflation, and he's double digits underwater on his approval on the economy. So there's certainly this. You lurch to do something in the short run that makes people feel better. I think that the one big beautiful bill will, your results for the White House and the Republicans. But right now, prices don't fall. And the inflation rate, the most recent month that we got is where it was in January. And people are still squeezed. Affordability, the message, it clearly works for a communist and others. Oh, and Republicans, right? It worked for Republicans last year, and then it worked for Democrats this year. Never mind that the Democrats caused the affordability crisis. helped Trump win last year, now Trump's in charge. The Federal Reserve. And the Fed. The Federal Reserve picking up the, you know, sopping up the excess spending by buying up that debt. Anyway. Another thing that people are upset about is, and by the way, I would just. underscore one other point that you made, which is the interest on the debt. Solvency is something that is not an option. Like we have to remain solvent as a country. And so the second, I don't think the way you should be selling tariffs to the public is, oh, look at all this revenue that we're taking in because we're getting that from foreign governments. Yes, but it does. It's this hidden tax you talk about. It does raise some prices. certainly in certain sectors as well, which hurting more people, certain people more than others. But regardless, if you then brag about the income that you're getting, quote unquote income or the revenue that you're getting from the tariffs, and then you're going to turn that around and just...

cut checks to people, put it right back out into an economy that we're just getting past all this inflation. It just, that is the opposite of a, I'd say, wise, sound fiscal policy when we already have all sorts of problems coming down the pike when it comes to solvency. So I just didn't want to let that moment pass because it's such an important point. Then there's this. A lot of young people. In fact, I just saw a study out today that the average age of someone buying their first home in this country just keeps going higher and higher. A lot of people imagine, okay, maybe in my 20s, I'll date, I'll find someone, maybe I'll get married, maybe in my early 30s I can buy a house. For a lot of people, that's just not... a reality. And there's a lot of frustration there. And I fear that for young people, that frustration might end up getting channeled back into socialism, right? Because they'll make all sorts of big promises to them. So there have to be ideas that work for young people who feel stuck and like the system isn't working for them. Something that's now been floated and Trump seems to be excited about the idea is now... Not just, you know, a 30-year mortgage, which is standard, 15- or 30-year mortgages. How about the Donald Trump 50-year mortgage proposal where maybe you can buy a house in your 30s and it'll finally be really yours right around the actuarial tables would suggest it's time for you to pass away? 50-year mortgage idea, Dagan. What's the... What's the idea behind this? And what do you make of it? Well, the idea would be, I suppose, to just reduce the monthly payment a little bit more. It's just spreading it out over 20 more years. Right. It's essentially like an interest-only mortgage because it takes so long to even begin paying down principle that that's in essence how it works. But that little... month that little additional it's all about the monthly nut and that's how people kind of look at how much they can afford But afford is, why would you stretch to buy a wildly overvalued investment? And that's what it is. And that's why a 50-year mortgage doesn't make any sense. Because it takes so long for you to even begin to actually paying down the principal and owning the home. You'll never own it, in essence. Right. It's kind of like if you pay off the more. It's, you feel like an owner, but you're not. But you're not. You're a renter. And this happened in before 2015, the new, standard new car loan term was five years. And as prices on cars kept going up and up and up, 2017 to 19, it turned into a six-year loan.

Because, again, we got to get you in that car. Right. You can't afford the raw price. So we got to extend the loan term out to make the monthly nut manageable. Then during the 2020, 2020 craze, the... There were supplies change shocks, but there was limited supply and people were out buying cars. You got to seven-year loans. And what is happening now is pulled back a little bit. But many people who are buying cars are underwater on their loans. They have negative equity. And so they're having to roll these loans, which they're short on, these losses. into their new loans. They're having to roll over these underwater loans into their new car loans. And so what happens with a 50-year mortgage, you buy an overpriced home, you're underwater on that house. You can't move. Unless you walk away, just give the keys to the lender to the bank, you can't move. You're stuck in that home. There is no mobility if you need to move for a job because you can't get out of it, in essence. And the only thing that's going to fix this, people talk about, we need reform in building codes. We need to build more supply. The one thing that will fix it, and it's not even lower mortgage rates, it's not a lower monthly nut with a longer term on your mortgage. It's home prices coming down. Because by every metric, adjusting for inflation, price to rent, price to income, homes are way more expensive than they were, even at the peak of the bubble before the 2008 financial collapse. Yeah, oh, much, much more. So the only thing that fixes it is prices come down. And that is unfortunate and awful. But I bought a house in Cincinnati. I can't afford to own a home or I can afford to own a home that I don't want to own in the greater New York area, in the tri-stared area. I might have been able to afford a crap ranch house. But I can, so I bought what in is, is in essence a retirement home in Cincinnati, Ohio. Because you can get a mansion in Cincinnati, Ohio for what it cost you to buy a literally a studio apartment in New York City. Well, and a lot of it also is to your point that you also mentioned, you know, supply. If you can also. build more and deregulate more. It's the opposite of what a lot of people are proposing, but that actually would increase the supply, which could help bring down prices. This is going to be an ongoing conversation, Dagan. Don't make a stupid investment. Do not borrow money from your parents or your relatives and put money down to make a bad investment. It's going to fall and you will lose that money that you got from your family and you will get stuck.

I'm telling you. To be continued, Dagan McDowell, anchor analyst at Fox Business Network, co-hosted the bottom line 6 p.m. Eastern tonight. Dagan, thank you. Thank you, Guy. We'll be right back. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson. We're back here on Guy Benson. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California. seemingly the part-time governor of California. He's down in Brazil at this climate conference where the Trump administration is not taking part in this. It's not a priority for them, and I actually don't blame them. I don't like these global solutions to climate change. Gavin Newsom, of course, loves that. So he flew down there, flew a very long way. Commercial, private, I don't know. seen some rumors it was private thousands of miles huge carbon footprint to go talk about and preen about climate change with other people who all decide to fly there rather than doing a zoom call all while energy costs are the highest in the country in california but this is all about one man's ambitions obviously as usual with that guy another hour coming up on Guy Benson next

new generation of conservative talk right here right now fair fun and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of 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, middle hour of three, Tuesday edition. Grateful for your listenership every day. Guy Benson.com is our website, our online home. Lots of content there, including the free podcast on a daily basis. That's guy Bensonshow.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Fox News alert as we hit this middle hour, the Dow is soaring again. Seems like the markets are excited that this government shutdown is finally coming to an end, despite the angry recriminations among Democrats who want it to keep going. Apparently, indefinitely, just enough of them have decided let's put an end to this madness. And the markets like it, Dow up 559 points today at the close, finishing just shy of 48,000. Wow, 47927. To be exact. Well, joining us now is Bill Malugian, currently an L.A.-based correspondent here at Fox News. Bill, always good to have you. Hey, guy. Pleasure to join you, as always, my friend. All right, so you are working on a couple pretty major stories that you've broken the last day or two involving immigration enforcement. Let's start with the one that just came out today involving a Moldovan fugitive. What can you tell us here? Yeah, so this one's pretty wild. DHS confirmed to us that ICE in Los Angeles arrested an illegal alien fugitive from the Eastern European country of Moldova, who was convicted in her home country of premeditated murder with exceptional, like, damage or exceptional circumstances, essentially what she did. is she tied up, bound, and beat and tortured her victim, then threw that person out a ninth store window and killed them. She was convicted of that crime in Moldova and was sentenced to 17 years in prison, but at some point escaped to the United States during President Trump's first term. Now, ICE in 2020 arrested her and took her into federal custody, but DHS says she got a lawyer and... tried all sorts of legal efforts to get herself out of custody, filed all sorts of appeals. And in 2022, the Biden administration... did release her from federal custody into the United States, despite her being a convicted murderer from Moldova. So fast forward to where we are now. She was arrested by ICE in Los Angeles last week. DHS is blasting the Biden administration for releasing her in the first place. It is a head scratcher guy. I mean, you would think somebody convicted of murder would not be a priority for release, but you and I have talked about this before, right?

We don't always have records for other countries. Not just not a priority for release. A priority for get the hell out of the country. Go back home and go back to prison where you're a convicted murder. That's the priority. But the Biden people. Put this woman back out on our streets a convicted murderer with, quote, exceptional cruelty in this murder that she committed. And she was released by the last administration. Now she's back in custody. Can they bounce her out of here post-haste, I hope? That's what they told us that's exactly what they're going to do. They're going to keep her in federal custody. They're not going to allow her to be released no matter what kinds of appeals she files. But DHS gave us a statement essentially blasting the Biden administration saying this is case and point what they were doing over the four years, right? It was just get people out of federal custody as fast as possible, keep the numbers down. And in this case, it was a convicted murderer. Not just a murderer guy. She was convicted of essentially torturing her victim and then tossing him out of a freaking window. So you'd wonder why was this person a candidate for release in the first place? We don't know. We're going to be looking into that. What happened in 2022? Why is someone like this walking America's streets? But this is a country we don't hear about very often when it comes to ICE enforcement, right? Moldova, Eastern European, it's a blonde woman. It's not what we're typical used to seeing when it comes to ICE enforcement, but it does show they will arrest anybody. who has committed crimes and should be removed from this country. And to your point, guys, she's not just a priority for a least. This is a get-the-f out of the United States kind of person, a convicted murderer. So she's back in ICE custody. She's in federal custody right now, and you can bet they're going to basically do everything they can to get her back to Eastern Europe. Yeah, someone who bound and tortured in a vindictive way, the victim, these are not allegations as a conviction, came here illegally. Again, just like small little detail, not allowed to be here. scooped up by the Trump era ice people last term and then released into the United States from custody during Biden and now they've got her again and they've got to throw her out of the country. Although I wonder like, will any U.S. senators decide that she's the new cause du jour? Have we seen Chris Van Hollen recently? Could he go, you know, visit her in prison or something and say this is unfair? I mean, I say it only half-jokingly because it is shocking the types of people they are willing to champion. And this woman, you know, maybe is more telegenic than a Kilmar-Abrigo-Garcia. Who knows? So that's one example. Here's another example out of it. What states were we talking about? This was California? This was in Los Angeles, yeah. Okay, so here's another one from Southern California, Orange County, to be specific. This was a story I saw that you broke yesterday involving a deadly DUI hit and run. Tell us the details.

Yeah, so it feels like we have one of these every single week in California guy. Last Friday, there was a deadly DUI hit and run crash down in the enclave of Dana Point in Orange County. Real nice, Rissy area. 71-year-old elderly man was walking across the street, got hit by a car, and died, and the car took off and drove away. Police arrested the driver a couple days later, and it turns out he is a Mexican illegal alien. who's had a deportation order since 2012. He was initially arrested by ICE in 2011 for being in the U.S. illegally. That was during the Biden administration. But he was released into the country by the Obama administration back then with a notice to appear. And guy, guess what happened? He didn't show up for court. He never appeared. And a federal immigration judge ordered him deported in absentia. That was in 2012. He's been an ICE fugitive ever since. living happily in the sanctuary state of California until he now allegedly killed this innocent man on Friday while driving drunk in Orange County. So over a decade of being in U.S. illegally in the state of California with a deportation order and he wasn't touched. So the woman we talked about from Moldova, she had due process and she was convicted of murder and then escaped and came to the United States and was here illegally. and was released by Biden into the United States from custody. And on the subject, on the theme of due process, this guy came into the country illegally from Mexico. He went through due process. He was ordered to show up and then never did. The judge reviewed the case, ordered him to be removed. That is due process. And he was a fugitive. He was just thumbing his nose at our sovereignty and our laws for well over a decade. And then, allegedly, in the process of being here illegally, with no consequences, totally protected by the sanctuary state of California. This guy had some pops, got behind the wheel. I would imagine it was probably not the first time. I can't prove that. But that's my guess. And drove drunk and hit and killed an American citizen. And will there be any comment from the leaders of California whose sanctuary policies gave... specific personal sanctuary to this man, harbored this man for this many years, resulting now in a death. I haven't seen a single word from any of the politicians out there about this. I haven't even seen the local media covering this guy. You want to know how bad it is? The Orange County Register covered this story. In it, they referred to him as a Laguna Nigel man, and they said nothing about his immigration status. If we didn't put this out at Fox News, nobody would know. I mean, it's just... It makes your blood boil. And then you wonder, you know, why are all these people all angry about ICE deportation raids? It's because they don't know any of the details. They lie. The left lies about a bunch of these raids and the people that get caught up. For example, there's one guy who would generally be referred to as a non-criminal. I just saw this, where he was scooped up. And it turned out he's a wanted killer and a gang member. He's got 666. Yeah, the fake tattooed guy. Yeah, 666 tattooed across his forehead. That guy wanted in El Salvador for aggravated homicide.

But the only crime here in the U.S. was driving without a license and being here illegally, you'd probably have a bunch of people saying, well, that's not a real criminal. We shouldn't be prioritizing those people. Well, he's wanted for homicide back in his home country. Meanwhile, less than a minute here, Bill, but there were shots fired at CBP officers. In Chicago last week, any comment from the Democrats in Chicago and Illinois? I haven't seen a whole lot of anything, but, Guy, we felt like it was coming, right? There have been all sorts of threats. The temperature had been going up with Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino and Border Patrol agents out there being pretty aggressive with their arrest. Then the word comes out that they were shot at outside of Chicago the other day. An arrest has been made. We're just waiting to find out the identity of that person. They took off in a Jeep after the shots were fired. But to your point, Guy, I'm not seeing a whole lot of condemning of this shooting. Thankfully, no agents were hit, but I'm not saying a whole lot of condemning from politicians who are eager to attack ICE and Border Patrol any chance they get. But you'd think it'd be nice for them to say, hey, please don't shoot at federal agents, even though it's okay to disagree with them. No, they're too busy egging on these mobs. That's the reality. Bill Malugian, our colleague here at Fox News, bringing us stories that would never see the light of day otherwise. Bill, thank you. Thank you, guy. I appreciate it. We'll be right back. After this break.

I'm Guy Benson. A race that we covered a lot leading into last week was the Virginia Attorney General contest, and as we have now discussed, multiple times, it ended very badly, in my view, with Jason Miaris, the incumbent Republican, losing to this sociopath, Jay Jones. who, among other things, and there were many issues with his campaign and his history and his character, but he had angrily wished death upon one of his Republican colleagues in the legislature, said that he himself would murder that Republican and also wanted to see his children die in their mother's arms because this Republican and his wife were breeding little fascists, he said. It's not a joke. He meant it. and people in Virginia decided to elect him to the highest law enforcement position in the state. Jason Mayaris ran nine points ahead of the top of the ticket when some Sears got crushed, but nine points was not nearly enough. And he lost by six percentage points, roughly, the same margin that Kamala Harris won Virginia by. It's a blue state. And there were some crossover voters, some people undervoted and refused to support Jay Jones. But overall, Democrats in the state of Virginia, who turned out in huge numbers, decided that... Jay Jones was worth putting in there. They didn't really care about what he said. In some cases, they probably liked it. Some people that I know who supported him said, well, we didn't love that, but he apologized. And at least he'll sue Trump, unlike Miaris. And that's the mentality. Those are the ads that Jay Jones ran. I hate Trump. Don't you hate Trump? And that was enough in spite of his horrible horrible. problems and baggage. So I think that is a very, very unfortunate outcome. Of all the elections across a number of states last week, that one was the most disturbing to me. Democrats winning, not a surprise. Jay Jones even winning. I was warning about that on this show and on social media. It's like, guys, I don't think Miaris has broken this thing open. I don't think that Jay Jones has tanked. And the more indication that we got that Perhaps it would not be that close at the state level. That had me very nervous that that kind of blue tide would sweep in someone like Jay Jones, and that is precisely what occurred. But I was very much hoping that there was still some sort of standard that people would not abandon, even in the interests of partisanship at a lower level elected position. But what happened happened. Jason Mierrez, the center-right conservative, who's done, I think, a very solid, credible job for the most part as Attorney General the last four years in Virginia. He gave a speech basically not just conceding the race, but also preemptively thanking Virginians for the opportunity to serve. And here's part of what he said in that speech. I wanted you to hear it. This is the man who was defeated.

Unfortunately, in my book, Cut 27. Listen, Virginians politics is like a pendulum. The public sentiment swings one way and then the next. Tonight, it swung a little bit too far in the wrong direction, in my opinion. And folks, it will swing back. It always does. The Democrats that have won tonight need to remember that as they govern. The people of Virginia do not want an extreme agenda. They do not want a government that divides us. They do not want a partisan, radical approach out of the people they are sending to Richmond. They want both parties to work together. I keep a sign of my office in Richmond. I see it every day when I sit at my desk. It's my favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson, and it is this. I have never found a difference of opinion in politics, in philosophy, or religion as cause to withdraw from a friend. It's just the idea that we're so much more than our political divides. Amen to that. We talked about... Jimmy Kimmel's wife and what she was saying on a podcast. This is our discussion yesterday with Jimmy Fala, where she talked about how she is withdrawn from a lot of her own family members because of differences over politics. And I think that's very sad and very unhealthy. And Jason Miaris seems to be on the healthy side of that question. Just like he was on the healthy side of the should we want to murder our political opponents and their children question. his opponent in the race was on the wrong side of that, and yet his opponent won. Really hard to be magnanimous, I think, about a loss to that kind of person. It's not been easy for me to grapple with the reality that this guy is going to be the attorney general of my state. Someone who might very well want, I don't know, me dead, my family dead. He said it. But Miaris. Part of being in the public eye and running for office, I think involves just understanding and accepting the will of the people, which is what he did here later in that concession speech, cut 28. We're so much more than our political divides. We are Americans. And a wise Marine once told me that if you walk in Arlington National Cemetery and you see those crosses and those stars of Davids, you do not see an R. or a D next to anyone's name. And to never forget that someone that thinks differently than you politically has literally died for this remarkable country. And so, as the hallmark of our democracy, I wish Jay Jones the best in this new job. I know given the circumstances of the last six weeks, many of my supporters will find that difficult. But the reason I wish Jay the best is because we, the people of Virginia, need it. We need an attorney general who focus every day on keeping us safe, and is my sincere hope that Jay does that. As I've said before, the least of these deserve the best from us. He took the high road. What a classy concession speech from Maris, underscoring, I think, even further.

The folly, the mistake of the Virginia electorate last Tuesday. But because Miaris was the bigger man and said things that I think needed to be said, I'm sure even amid a crushing feeling for him, that's worth highlighting. Tip of the cap from me. Thank you for four years, Jason. We'll see where this goes, won't we? Guy Benson continues after this break. Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. We are halfway through Guy Benson on this Tuesday edition. Thank you for tuning in, Guy Benson.com, podcast always free. We are pleased to welcome to the show from our D.C. studios, Yemisi Egbe Walei. She's the former Chief of Staff and Advisor to the Biden White House Press Office, also a Democratic strategist, founder of Podium Strategies. Yemisee, good to have you here. Thanks for having me, Guy. Absolutely. So you and I have appeared a few different times on TV together on several Fox programs, and we were talking about getting you here on the radio as well, so we're delighted that you've made some time for us. I want to talk about politics of the day and the shutdown and all of that. Let me just start with this, because as I read in your bio, you worked in the Biden White House, you were in the press office. We have relayed a few items to this audience about Corrine Jean-Pierre's autobiography or her book that she's put out here. And a lot of people on your side of the aisle have been critical of what she's written and saying, oh, some of this is very self-serving. A lot of conservatives say, how's it possible that people in Biden world, some of them, are still insisting that he was perfectly fine, and there was no cover-up. I just wonder where you land in all of this, because I know it's got to be delicate and you want to be loyal to someone that you worked for, but obviously this was a massive controversy in American politics, and a lot of voters feel like they were being gaslit or lied to. What is your view on that in the rearview mirror? I think what she says goes a bit in the opposite direction of what we've heard, people who were even more senior to her, like Jeff Seines, who said when he went before the House Oversight Committee, right, that he questioned whether Biden should run again. Jake Dan Sullivan said the same thing. Ron Clayne has been very verbose in his feelings about the Biden admin and President Biden running again. And so to lean so much into. He was fine. He was sharp. He could have definitely run again. And when she was asked during her book tour, you know, like, well, that means another four years. You think he could have done the four years again. There was no direct answer. And look. I get you have to sell books, but at the end of the day, I think that what you believe in your ideology should never be tied to a man. It should be tied to like the values of the party that you exist in. And so if her belief that the president was so fine that the way he was treated within the party towards the end is demonstratively evil in some sort of way, that's my language, not hers, that she should then leave the party. I don't know. I don't think that holds up very strongly. And I think it's why she's gotten such.

high criticism on the Republican side. but also just heavy on the Dems. Sure. And I think a lot of Dem World really wants to be done with Biden and the 24 election and all of it. The Bidens, Kamala Harris as well, I think, you know, the knives are out for her. She got thrust into the race. Of course, she ended up losing. KJP is all over the place in this book that she's written and the answer she's giving or evading in these interviews. Yeah. Oh, my gosh. I mean, just like I think, I mean, All of the hits were pretty choppy, but I think we could, I mean, the New Yorker was just kind of the one where folks were like, okay, let's be pencils down and done here with this now. Let's all move forward. However, and I get that, I get the impulse of why Democrats would want to do that. But for those of us who aren't Democrats and are sort of saying, okay, if we're going to avoid a massive gaslighting. event like this in the future where people are saying our partisan interests mean that we have to basically lie to the public about the condition of a president in this case it's worth it until it doesn't work politically and then we can all come out and say oh this is horrifying and these people should go away and all of that i just wonder How much FaceTime, for example, did you have in your position with President Biden? Did you get a sense that things were off or problematic or wrong before, let's say, that infamous debate back in June of 2024? Where was your head in all of this? What was your process like as you were looking at it in real time? I think as somebody on. what I would say is the more younger end of the folks who worked within the White House. To me, my belief has always been like, it is time for a new generation of leaders. So I always believed that the president should stick to his word due the one term that was agreed upon, right, that he ran on when he first came in. Kind of, right? He never quite said it. He implied it. It was a politician's agreement, right? It's like there's always room to move. But I will say I will give, I will give Corrine this. She did not get to be in the room a lot with the president. And so I do think sometimes when she's talking about Biden and the way she saw him, that's coming from a real place because I think there are like four or five people that can say definitively. They got FaceTime with the president and they were with him. They were strategizing with him. They were in meetings with him for a long time. I think the Ian Sams. uh interview that he did with house oversight where he said you know i was senior spokesperson counsel and i you know saw the president four times i could count on one hand right um but isn't that okay so isn't that part of the problem because i saw a lot of people saw that revelation of what he said in his testimony they're like wow

Here's this guy who's a senior advisor and he never saw the president basically. Maybe that's why he didn't know. But he was out there on the front lines brawling away on behalf of his boss. Like he's great. He's sharp. These are all lies. And Corrine Jean-Pierre, of course, said cheap fakes and misinformation. He's sharper than me. Exactly. Oh, it's like we can't. We can't keep up with him was something that was said at one point as well. And the thing that I think is frustrating for a lot of us, and I'm just like having this conversation as I think our audience getting to know you and having you here for the first time would probably want me to ask some of these questions. we could see and hear a declining man in his 80s who obviously, at times at least, was not up for the job. People are trying to pretend like, oh, it was late June, and he came out on that stage with Trump, and he was muttering and losing his train of thought and said, we finally killed Medicare, and all of a sudden the alarm bell started ringing, and golly, we just didn't know that any of this was happening. And then it became clear that he had to go. I think many of us said, no, we were noticing all of that for... if not years, certainly many months. And we were called liars just for noticing things from watching him on television from a distance. So it just seems odd that people, even with maybe limited FaceTime with him working in the administration, was it just like a bunker mentality where people didn't want to see? It's just like, hey, he's our guy, he's the president, he's going to run again. So we have to pretend? Like, what was going on there? I think when you work in a White House, it is very insulating. You're working 15 to 16 hours. So these are the only people you're spending a lot of time around. And so when we talk about the time around the debate, a week before the debate, he and a bunch of senior advisors, right? They all go to Camp David. They hunker down and do debate prep. And we were told the readout from debate prep was, it's great. He's strong. It's going to be a great matchup. This is going to be fantastic. He's headed down to Atlanta and he's ready to win this thing, right? And so then... You sit down as a junior zaffer and you're watching the television and he comes out. And from the second he came out, it was like, okay, something's terribly off here and this is not going to go well. Did you think the readout, sorry to interrupt, but you said, oh, the readout was all this bravado. It's great. Things are going great. Was that delusion? Was that, you know, self-delusion? Was that a sense of, we have to. We have to lie about this because what's the alternative? Like, you know, we've got to get elected because we can't have Trump, right? I think, like, people are trying to sort through the motivations of what was said and therefore what was. done yeah i think that you have to you have to hype it up beforehand because had they said to had they said to staff beforehand you know we don't think this is going to work out well that would have been leaked and then that would have been the tee off before the debate even happened but what was interesting to me was after right the debate happens we got to go to work the next day and

nobody talked about it we never we never had a kind of all hands on deck come to jesus moment what was that i mean we whispered about it we gathered in little groups in the hallway uh but nobody really from leadership i would have expected our chief of staff jeff signs to say hey guys we know you all saw that we want to talk about what you saw what it means where we're going from here we didn't do that and that was just the way it operated is that you know four people gave you readouts Four people gave you next steps and directions, and you just kind of like marched on. I mean, no one needed a readout after that debate, right? The readout was the first 20 minutes, and it was very clear what was going on. And then, of course, the rest is history. They forced him out. I would love to get a full accounting of what really happened there, because I think there's still some of it shrouded in some mystery. And there was some Machiavellian stuff going on. Some people wanted this very quick flash primary. Others did not. So there were endorsements being made. comes Kamala Harris. She goes out there. That was the craziest day for all of us. I was sitting by a pool in Navy Yard. And to your listeners, that's just a neighborhood in D.C. And this was just after the Republican convention. I had just gotten home from the RNC coverage. And then that was the day, right? It all happened in like an hour. Yeah, and people often say they said, well, you guys knew. And I was like, no, no, no, no. Everybody, I found out on Twitter. Yeah, I found out through the tweet, the tweet that got sent out. And of course, like you've heard senior advisors all hopped on a meeting five minutes before. But that was, I mean, and when that happened, I think the first call I got was from Eugene Daniels who at the time is now an anchor at MSNBC, but at the time worked at Politico who called me. And I remember saying, Eugene, I. I'm like processing. I have staffers, you know, like 22-year-old staffers calling me being like, what does this mean? I don't know what it means because this never happened in the history of ever. So that was. Definitely a shocking day. And then you didn't even have enough time to breathe because then in the very next breath, he endorsed Harris. And then we were all off to the races again. Right. And then the election went the way that it did. Yemisei, that's the very recent past in democratic politics. Let's talk about the present and a bit about the future when we come back. Yemisi, Egbe Wale, Biden administration alum and Democratic strategist with us on Guy Benson. More coming right up. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson.

We're back here on Guy Benson. Glad to have you along. Our guest is Yemisei Agbe Wale, a Democratic strategist. We were just talking about all the drama and the turmoil among Democrats in 2024. And then we had a follow-up election last week in a handful of places. Went very well for your party, very badly, broadly speaking, for the Republican Party. I had one great week. Yeah, well, you had like a couple great days, I would say. You're right. It doesn't even count to a week because today makes the week. Right. The shutdown, I was actually, I got a text from a good friend of mine who thinks more along the lines that I do, just marveling at the Democrats going from pretty big election wins in this off-year election to absolutely. gunning for each other at each other's throats over the government shutdown and the, you know, the cave job, whatever you want to call it, eight Democrat senators agreeing to reopen the government, which seemed like was always going to be the final conclusion of this. They were always going to have to vote to reopen the government, probably in exchange for not very much. It's how these things go. But right now, the recriminations, I mean, it's not like it's over. The active and furious within your party. I've never seen Democrats seemingly angrier with each other certainly than they are right now, right on the heels of these election wins. Is it because there is a realistic belief that this could have ended better for Democrats or is it people just trying to appeal to a base that wants? angry resistance to Trump, no matter where it leads? Are there people running for president who don't care what's realistic? They just want to show that they are fighting, fighting, fighting, and just as angry as the core voters. What's your read on what's happening right now internally? My quick answer to all of that is yes. Let's take it piece by piece, right? Gavin Newsom first out of the gate, and he is, of course, our loudest, loudest, maybe not the top, loudest, ex post heard around the world he just says pathetic so there are people who have to get out in front of this in order to show people that they are different than congressional democrats because democrats as a whole are not widely unpopular Congressional Democrats as a bucket are at the bottom of the barrel unpopular. And so I think for a lot of the 2028 folks, they want to continue to differentiate themselves from congressional Democrats. And then those congressional Democrats that have interest in 2028, looking at you, Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy. One of the first people on TV that was like, guys, New Jersey? I think there's one from someone from New Jersey might want to run again, it seems. Sure. Whatever. Fine. Okay. But there's a few of them is the point, right? There's a few of them in there. Yeah, yeah. Cory Booker is out there too. So many people who have to make sure that they are on, you know, the other side of this and not wrapped up in the blowback.

Also, yes, there is the pressure from the progressive base that Chuck Schumer faced so much in March. Now, I think he faced a lot of that pressure because he moved very clumsily like Winnie the Pooh-esque almost when it came to strategizing with Democrats. He blindsided his caucus in March. So all of that ire he got from the progressives, I think, as a centrist's mod in the party, was well deserved. He should have talked to them. But I also think that people thought that they could at least eke out or squeeze something additional, because I know they agreed to the same things that John Thune said I would have given you this weeks ago. I think there was a real belief because of the way that leadership was operating that they were going to get close to something else, something additional that was going to say, hey, here you guys go. This was all worth it. Was that not naive? I mean, just like naive. It's not how the Republicans, I've, look, as a conservative, I've watched this movie before on my side, it doesn't end well. It just doesn't. Yeah, it is very naive to enter into something when the outcome was you were always going to just end up right back at the starting point. Well, especially when you're telling your people. that are mad not just at Trump, but mad at you. You tell them, well, this is going to be different and you make all these promises and you let this shutdown go for 40 plus days only to end up here. Like, I get the anger, but I also wonder, like, do people not feel like the rules of politics apply to them? Do they actually think this is going to be different this time? It's just, it's odd to me. Well, I know some members, I talk to some members on the Hill who got, they were a bit excited by Trump's, was true social posts where he said, you know, the shutdown had a negative impact for Republicans on the election. And they said, oh, my gosh, could this be a break? And folks were thinking that Chuck Schumer should just go directly to Trump. He should try to have a conversation, go around soon. I don't know. Maybe a Harry Reid could have navigated something else out of this shutdown in his heyday. I'm just not sure a Chuck Schumer at the end of what I will call his era was in the fighting position. Do you think he's basically done? Yes. Is that going to become official, do you think, or is it just kind of a zombie leadership here for a while? I think we are just moving in neutral at this point. And he's just chugging away to the end of it. I mean, when he's back up for the vote for leader, I mean, I think he's going to have some real pushback from folks who are a lot younger in the party and who have been out there a lot more. Their voices are more respected and heard. I mean, we talked about Chris Murphy. But also, Brian Schatz has been making moves in the background, inching his way up leadership. Hawaii. Yeah. Oh, yes. Senator Bryant shots from Hawaii. And he's not somebody who has to really play the political game in his state, right? He's in a very safe sea. No, no primary worries from people. No, I guess you never know. You don't have primary worries until you have primary worries, right? That is kind of how politics tends to work. And then a big question moving forward is, all right, if the days of Chuck Schumer or the era of Chuck Schumer is basically ending, Nancy Pelosi, of course, on her way out, this.

passing of the torch. What does that look? I mean, speak for yourself. But what does that passing of the torch look like? To whom does the torch go? And then what does that mean for the party moving forward? These are things that I actually have a great deal of concern about. As someone who's not a Democrat, but I want us to have two healthy, rational parties. I'm not sure we're heading in a better direction. But that is, I think, something that hopefully we can explore. in a subsequent conversation because we are out of time. Yemisi Egbe Wale, our guest here on Guy Benson, an official inside the Biden White House, Democratic strategists, and founder of Podium Strategies. Yemasee, really appreciate your time. Thanks for answering my questions, and hopefully we'll do this again soon. Yes, let's do it soon. The final hour of Guy Benson is coming up next. A huge scandal exploding at the BBC and the UK. We'll talk to a British, now American journalist about all of that. It involves Trump, foreign policy, left-wing bias. It's an incredible story. It's next.

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 Tuesday. Glad you're with us. Guy Benson.com is our online home. Podcast is free, every day, on demand, no charge at all. That's guy Bensonshow.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. This radio hour is sponsored by the finish long drink. It's so good. If you haven't had it, check it out. If you are 21 plus only, please. Always drink responsibly, the long drink.com. Well, joining us now is Hugo Gurdon. He is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Examiner, and he has quite a journalistic pedigree, including in his home country, his homeland of the United Kingdom, and we are thrilled to have him here on the show. Hugo, welcome. Thank you so much, Guy. It's great to be with you. So there is a big controversy, or a row, I think, is what they call it over there. At the BBC, resignations being announced a lot of anger and finger pointing. Some of it relating to an edit. of a speech from President Trump from 2021, January 6th, that has now snowballed into this big scandal at the BBC with heads rolling. What happened here? Well, the first and sort of proximate cause of this row was that editors and people working at the BBC edited a video of President Trump speaking on January 6th, 2021, which you'll remember and all your listeners will remember, was when there was the riot at the Capitol. And they edited it in such a way that by basically taking one bit from the beginning of a speech that... Trump made to the crowds long before the riot actually happened and taking another bit from 50 minutes or something later and splicing them together to make it sound as though President Trump was deliberately invoking violence and stoking the crowd to violence. And an investigation by a British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, revealed that this had taken place. And it exploded in part because there has been grievous concern about the left-wing bias and the continuing slide towards the left-wing of the BBC. And it just seemed to encapsulate.

what it, you know, that it's biased. It doctored some video in order to make things look bad for President Trump. And this seemed to capture its long-standing problems at the BBC. And the Director General and the chief executive of the news division at the BBC both resigned saying, you know, ultimate responsibility stands with them and they buck stops with them. But the truth is that, you know, a lot of us who've been complaining about the BBC for... a decade or several decades, in fact, you know, wonder why it is that the bucks stop with them or they take responsibility only when they're on the way out of the door and why they didn't take responsibility and their predecessors have not taken responsibility for making sure that a broadcaster, which is paid for amazingly out of tax dollars in Britain, not commercial or it's not private, it's a public broadcaster. why it was that it was allowed to become a kind of propaganda arm for left-wing ideas. Yeah, and the propaganda side of that is something I want to return to. But here's what's so interesting to me, Hugo, and we talked about this story a little bit on Gutfeld last night, and one of the points that I made was it's almost refreshing. I don't want to say that it's fully refreshing, but it's quasi-refreshing to see anyone. resign over a scandal like this because i feel like there's been so little accountability at least on this side of the ocean when it comes to the media the media gets many big things wrong all the time they do it through their bias sometimes intentionally in my view and if anything the people responsible are rewarded for that performance. Now, I know the media itself is going through this wrenching time, and many people are losing their jobs, and no one takes pleasure in that, but in terms of here is malpractice, will there be consequences? I feel like often the answer is no, and perhaps this is belated, perhaps it's just a few scapegoats, but am I wrong to think at least someone got the axe for doing something this indefensible? No, you're absolutely right, guy. It is refreshing, and I don't want to be too stingy with, and they should be praised for actually resigning and quitting. They should be. It's absolutely appropriate that they did so, and far too few people do do that. And you're quite right that it's... something which one would like to see over here where distortion and outright falsehoods are just kind of complex in the media. I think that one of the reasons why it happened there is, as I say, because this is a public broadcaster, because essentially, you know, people, your listeners probably have been to some extent at least aware of growing discontent in Britain with the government over there. The population feels like they have been gaslight, gas-lighted, or gas-lit, whatever the right word is there, on mass illegal immigration and mass legal immigration. They feel like there's real cultural problems that have developed over there because of the clash of cultures within the multicultural Britain.

They feel like that, you know, obviously the BBC rather notoriously reported early in the Gaza war that a hospital had been hit by an Israeli air raid when, in fact, you just have to wait for a little while before it comes out that, in fact, it was a missile fired by the Islamist terrorists. There's been so many examples over the course of a generation and more. And I was writing about this when I was back in Fleet Street, you know, in the 1990s. Fleet Street, by the way, being just the epicenter of journalism in the UK based in London. Right, exactly, exactly so. But there have been so many of these things that what happened with this particular incident was it crystallized the fact that an organization, a corporation, a public corporation, was set up to be... to serve all sorts of functions and has 21,000 employees worldwide, the biggest broadcaster in the world. it has become so captured by sort of leftist ideas, you know, right across the gamut. There's not one which is not adopted. That, you know, people have been saying for a long time, why should I pay my 175 pounds, about $230 a year for the privilege of watching TV just so that we can... finance all of these people who are distorting the truth, putting out a kind of narrative of the sort that you're, you know, people over here in America will recognize with which I disagree. And even if I turn off my TV or I switch channels to somebody else, I'm still paying, you know, a lot of money or some money anyway, each year. to have this public broadcaster propagandize on behalf of a left-wing narrative. And it also goes beyond that, too, because this is something that was discussed here over NPR and PBS. And, of course, they have both been defunded of taxpayer money, thanks to the big, beautiful bill, a long time coming. Because many conservatives in this country said, why should I be forced through the government to pay my hard-earned dollars, tax dollars, to these media entities run by people who don't just disagree with me? and are propagandizing for the other side, but in some cases seem to actively hate me and my worldview. I think that's a completely fair question. Some Brits have been asking that for a long time, more of them asking it now. And by the way, just about this January 6th, edit. because Trump is threatening a billion dollar lawsuit wants this retraction, all of that. I'm of the opinion, Hugo, that you don't need to lie about January 6th to paint a very bad picture of it. I think it was a national disgrace. I think President Trump bore a lot of responsibility for what happened that day.

You can make those points without splicing together things that he said in such a dishonest way that even someone like me is going to step forward and say, what on earth are you doing? That's gratuitous. It's malicious, right? Which is why I think we saw these resignations. Yes, I think that's right. I mean, an old journalist friend of mine now dead, but he was killed in the line of duty, in the line of journalistic duty in the Middle East. I remember talking with him once, and he said, it's extraordinary that they make these things up, because the truth is extraordinary enough. You don't have to do, you don't have to do these dishonest things. You don't have to stick together narratives. It's just that there are these people, and they came out when President Trump was first elected in this country, journalists who said, our duty is no longer to report objectively. Our duty is to oppose a dangerous... a demagogue who is going to destroy democracy, et cetera, et cetera. And the amazing thing is, of course, that, you know, destroying democracy in one month might be that there's a riot at the capital. And, you know, another month it might be that the president is extending the White House with the ballroom. No matter what the president does over here, there are those who are going to say this is somehow or other a would-be tyrant undermining democracy. Yeah, you're right. There's enough that's extraordinary. There's enough that's true that really is newsworthy of reporting and worthy of listening to. Why make it up? You mentioned the Middle East. In this same report, because there was a devastating report about the BBC, the telegraph reporting, and this is just an extraordinary headline, BBC forced to correct two Gaza stories per week. So you look through the history of the last two years and the conflict in Israel and then in Gaza, started by Hamas, of course, with their incursion and their terrorist attack in Israel, murdering 1,200 people, taking hundreds hostage, and the resulting war. It takes effort, I feel like, Hugo, to be so consistently wrong and bad at your job, as we've seen at the BBC, that you are making multiple correctable errors every single week about a war for two years. And I would... very much be confident in saying that nearly every single error, quote-unquote, went in one direction. Is that a fair assumption? Yeah, I think it is, you know, in fact, I wrote a column about this just yesterday, Guy, and I was saying that it becomes just as suspicious as when every mistake you make in your tax returns in your favor. You know, it's actually, it's deliberate, it's planned, there is a bias which produces this. And, you know, the...

It may seem extraordinary to listeners here in the United States who have heard the extraordinary way in which a... horrific day of massacre against Jews back on October the 7th, 2023, has turned into a massive outpouring of support for the terrorist side and a condemnation of Jews of the state of Israel for supposedly, and it's completely false, conducting a genocide. People may, it's bad enough some of the stuff that you see over here. It may seem extraordinary, but it is, I think, the case that in Britain, as in some other parts of Europe. The range of discussion is even more to the left of it, even more in favor. It's worse. So it's that... If you go over to, if you're in Britain, you know, you can be part of a conversation, and it is taken pretty much as axiomatic that Israel is in the wrong, that Israel is conducting a genocide. And the suggestion is, well, you know, all you have to do is look at the pictures, you know. All you have to do is look at the results of the war. That's idiotic. It's absolutely idiotic, and it's fed by the biases of the media. Now, there are... good conservative publications over there, good, not necessarily conservative, never the objective reporting publications over there. But the vast mass of it, it takes place in a position even further to the left on at least a number of issues than you find over here. Yeah, it does sound familiar though. Hugo, stand by, if you would. When we come back, a soundbite, a clip going viral in the UK, I think it will resonate with a lot of Americans as well. A World War II veteran. shocking people with what he says about the current state of his country and the sacrifice that his generation made will get to that after this. Not the same talking points here, Guy Benson.

Hugo Gurdon is our guest here on Guy Benson, editor-in-chief at the Washington Examiner. And as I alluded to before the break, Hugo, I want to play a soundbite. There was a veteran, a World War II veteran, bless his heart, who appeared on a show called Good Morning Britain on Remembrance Day. And everyone's wearing their poppies, and that's a tradition that I really like. I wish we had something like that here. And he was interviewed about his service. That was on behalf of an alliance that literally saved not just the country, his country, but the world in many ways. And he was asked about this, and he gave voice to, I think, a despair and a disgust about what is happening to Great Britain. Here is part of what this man said. His name is Alec Began, cut 34. My message is... I can see in my mind's eye there was rows and rows of white stones, all the hundreds of my friends and everybody else that gave their lives for what? A country of today. No, I'm sorry. The sacrifice wasn't worth the result that it is now. Oh, well, I'm sorry. What do you mean by that, though, at this point? What we fought for, and what we fought for was our freedom. We find that even now it's darn sight worse than what it was when I've fought for it. Hugo, a heartbreaking thing to hear. I think a lot of Brits saw that clip. It went very viral and said, yeah, I know what this guy's talking about. And there was another... video that I saw this week of a Remembrance Day parade in the UK where the local council had tried to cancel it for various reasons. I think there were some people offended by Remembrance Day, and we can sort of understand and guess who the offended parties might be. And so the locals decided, screw that, we're not going to cancel this. We're going to show up ourselves, and they said it was one of the biggest turnouts ever. There seems to be a battle on for the soul of the United Kingdom. and for the proud people of Britain right now. And that man, in all of his regalia, with his medals, saying what he said at the age where he can look back and look at the sacrifice and where things are today, there's a very striking moment. Very striking indeed. And he was expressing in his faltering 100-year-old voice. a feeling that many, many people in Britain have. And that is that the place is no longer being run for the British. They feel that there is a government, which is sort of, I guess, it's part of, it believes in things which, and has policies which they never voted for. This is in particular, there's crimps and restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press. You know, right now, you know, the freedoms of the press and of the press.

Freedom to express yourself on social media are very limited. The police come knocking on your door in the middle of the night because of some tweet that you put out. And in addition to that, and more particularly, people feel like they are losing their country, the country that they recognize. And they're losing it because the government, successive governments, in fact, but particularly the government of Keir Starmer. is more interested in sort of virtue signaling on matters of multiculturalism and race than it is in actually governing the country in the interests and according to the concerns and wishes of the people who put them in power. Hugo, when you see polls, like I saw just the other day, showing this new Reform Party, Nigel Farage, ahead nationally by double digits in the UK. This would be why. I'm not necessarily sold that reform is a panacea, but people, many of them. sense something is deeply wrong, and perhaps this is the way they will channel that energy, although an election would be years away nationally, a conversation that matters to Americans because of the importance of this alliance and a conversation that I hope we can continue again. Hugo Gurdon, the editor-in-chief of the Washington Examiner, on Guy Benson. Hugo, we appreciate it very much. Yeah, me too. Thanks very much, Guy. More of Guy Benson next.

You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. In our first hour today, we welcome back to the show, Dagan McDowell of the Fox Business Network, a friend of the program, you might even say. Energetic conversation, as always, with Dagan on the economy and beyond. Here's part of it. Dagan, welcome back. Thank you, Guy. I have so many things I want to talk about with you, and I open the show on the shutdown, so I don't want to belabor it too much, but... I know that you have a very dim view of Senator Chuck Schumer, and I generally do as well. And it really seems like the knives are out for him. In the Democratic Party, the media, they're all turning on him. They're all angry with him. I think his days in that position are probably numbered, and I'm not shedding any tears for him, frankly. On the other hand, are you a little worried like I am that whatever comes next could very well be worse and crazier? For the Democrats? Yeah. Let them go crazy. Have fun. Nancy Pelosi, retiring. Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit you. We're the good Lord split you. Is it going to be any worse? Maybe. Maybe not. That's on them. Because they shut down this government. And I just, you know, I put this on X last night because I woke up and I saw the vote. And I said, let me correct a headline that I saw because all the headlines are like, see how the two senators from Ohio voted to reopen the government. And I thought to myself, Those two senators are Republicans from Ohio, and they never voted to shut the government down in the first place. So I'm sitting alone talking to myself. And I said, Senate Republicans continue to vote to keep the government open operating and funded. Enough Democrats, eight total, finally realized that wrecking people's lives and risking their safety for political game is unacceptable.

chicanery is the word that I will use on your fine radio program. I do appreciate that, but they're pretty angry. Most of them, the rest of them are so angry that it's over. Like, well, you know, we're not going to have our government shutdown anymore. Right. What are they angry about that they didn't, they were fighting for? subsidies that enrich insurance companies that have been insurance companies stocks that have skyrocket and insurance executives whose pockets have been filled with essentially gold de blooms since the creation of Obamacare. These are supersized subsidies. They're not subsidies. They have only been in existence since 2021. So they haven't even been around for four years. They go. Temporary emergency COVID substance. They go to wealthy people, families who earn $600,000 a year. have access to these, quote, subsidies. And as G. Buy from Johns Hopkins wrote, simply put, since 2021, the Democrats have been bribing higher income Americans to purchase expensive Obamacare plans by hiding the plan's true price tags using your dollars, taxpayer dollars. Actually, it was money that was purely borrowed. So none of it makes sense. It needs to go away. And that's what they were fighting for. I don't buy it. I think that they shut the government down to win Abigail Spanberger, the governorship in Virginia, because that's who it hurt the most. People who work for the federal government living in northern Virginia. And I loved what John Stewart said last night because he is willing to make fun of... conservatives and Republicans and liberals and Democrats. And he essentially said, hmm, you put up five people, five senators, Chuck Schumer, who are not up for reelection next year. Did you cut a backroom deal? My full conversation with Dagan McDowell, available online at Guy Benson.com. It's also part of that free podcast that we offer every day. Absolutely free, no charge, on demand. Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch, Kim Kardashian has an issue. And it's one that perhaps Christine might take an interest in. We'll explain why when we come back. Always Fresh. Always Fair. 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. Homestretch Guy Benson Tuesday. Thanks so much for being here with us. I'm scheduled to join Fox and Friends tomorrow morning in the 6 a.m. hour very early. So you can maybe set your DVR if you're not an early bird. Or you can tune in live. I plan to be there, hope to see you there. Guy Benson.com is our website here. The podcast is always free, always on demand. Now, I must confess that I am not one who is terribly familiar with the goings on, the life and times of the Kardashian family. One might even say that I do not truly keep up with them, which is a reference. to a reality, quote-unquote, television show that they at least did for a while. Is that still a show? I don't even know. Yes. It is still a show? Yes. Keeping up with the Kardashians is still going. It's not called Keeping Up with the Kardashians anymore. It's just called The Kardashians, and it's on Hulu now. Okay. See, did not know that. This is illustrating my point. But one thing that I did know is that Kim Kardashian, who is one of the central figures in that whole... clan she has taken an interest in the law and criminal justice and has been an advocate in certain ways and and i applaud her for pursuing some of those interests and trying to get an education and perhaps become an attorney i knew that she was in that process i knew that she had gone to law school i did not know that she was studying for the bar exam but apparently she was and apparently it didn't really end the way, at least so far that she had hoped. She, Dylan, if I'm not mistaken, has failed the California bar exam. Is that correct? That is correct. She's actually filled the bar exam many, many times, but again, has failed it. Yeah. Oh, many times? Yeah. Also, she didn't go to law school. There's two ways you could do that in California. You could go to law school or you can do a six-year apprenticeship, and that's what she did. So it was like more of a study program that she had to work along with a lawyer. I see. So she was kind of learning on the job as she studied the law. and then has, I guess, taken a few bites. I was not aware of this. Again, I'm now catching up, it seems, with the Kardashians. She fell the baby bar a couple of times. Now, what on earth does that mean? It's part of that apprenticeship. So, like, you have to take this one bar. They call it the baby bar. And I think she failed that multiple times. And then she passed that. And then she was done with the apprenticeship in May of this year. So she was studying for the big bar. Correct. Not the baby bar. Right. The big bar exam just as a reminder to everyone out in California, something that Kamala Harris once failed. And then eventually became attorney general of that state and vice president of the United States. So, I mean, that.

We'll leave that aside for the moment. But Kim Kardashian was apparently feeling pretty confident that this time she nailed it, this time she passed the bar, and Kimberly Kardashian Esquire was in her future. And then she has announced, I suppose, that indeed she has failed the bar exam. Again, part of the reason that she seems especially upset about it this time, and I'm not like gleefully reporting this. I'm just for the purposes of this conversation trying to get us to a place where we can get to kind of the punchline. She is upset because she had sources that I suppose she fancied to be reliable telling her that she had passed. Who were these sources? Cut 31. I'm just letting you guys know that all the psychics that we have met with and that we're obsessed with are all full of shit. They all collectively, maybe four of them have told me I was going to pass the bar. So they're all full pathological liars. Don't believe anything they say. Okay, so welcome to that reality, Kim. That's a good step, maybe a good step toward more success here in the future. She had multiple psychics, four of them, collectively all telling her she was going to pass the bar and then that did not come to pass. Pun intended. And so she has apparently come to the conclusion that these psychics are, quote, all full, pathological liars don't believe anything they say. And I affirm that message. I affirm that lesson. I'm not sure why it took her this long to get there. But yeah, I mean, that all tracks. And you would think maybe. someone who is that wealthy and prominent, perhaps people in the orbit might want to just tell them what they want to hear. So maybe the psychics, who are not really psychics and have no special insight, would just tell her, feed her this positive vibe because that's obviously the answer that she wanted. The problem is that then ran into the brick wall. That is reality and a failed bar exam. Now, why do we bring this up? to attack Kim Kardashian. I have no interest in doing that. I almost never mentioned her or her family on this show ever, although we've had Caitlin Jenner here a number of times on the show. We bring it up because of this object lesson on psychics. And because... It might provide a moment for reflection from a member of our team who has at least from time to time engaged in spending money, wasting money, on psychics and pet psychics and I don't even know, other different like forms of fake therapy. Christine, let's bring you in here. Has Kim Kardashian's situation where she was bamboozled by these.

psychics, so called, has this affected your thinking at all? A little bit. Go back for a second. I've never gone to a pet psychic. I've brought it up. I've thought about it. I've brought it to your attention on air, but I have never taken any... Did you do a medium? A pet medium? Yeah. No. Or some sort of human medium? You've done an array. You've done an array of these things. Oh, yes, yes, yes. I've done mediums. I've done psychics. The last one I did, he was a pretty big name on Long Island. Yeah, was this the guy who, like, cut out early because he had to go, like, have pasta dinner with his ma upstairs? His mom was making dinner, so he had to go. Yeah, I remember. I remember. And you didn't get the answers that you wanted. Maybe is it possible that Kim Kardashian, with all of her money, is just seeing the wrong psychics. And the one that she has to see is the one that accosted you in Times Square with the incredible lightning bolt insight that you at one time in your life had a father. Yes. Don't you remember she stopped me? And she's like, your father passed away. No, no, no. She said your father has a message for you. Yes, but she knew because she knew he died. So when Kim says they're all full pathological liars. You don't agree? I don't know. I don't think they are all pathological liars. You spent a lot of money on a prominent one in Long Island before the macaroni was done. He had to run up from the basement to eat it and ditch you. Did he give you any insights into your life? And we're now many months, maybe even a year or two. Oh, years. No, that was, yeah, there was like over two. A couple years ago, time flies in cookie world. Have any of the things that he predicted or fed to you? Now looking back, is there like a checklist to how accurate have those predictions been? Sometimes I go back and listen to it and I really want to believe, Dylan, I think I, I don't think I told you this guy. I think last year something, I can't remember exactly what it was, but Dylan, didn't I send my psychic clip to you to see if that was something that may be something? I have a vague memory of you sending us a clip from. It's pretty vague. I remember something of you sending it. And I think the ultimate conclusion was that it did not sound like something that was in your future. And was it? No. No. Yeah. No. So I go back and listen to it every now and none. Has any of it? No. None. Nothing. No. Nothing. There was like one, you probably would have been happy. There was like one big career one he had told me. Like a very big one, and nope. Which one was that? Oh, he told me I was going to be.

I don't want to tell you because you're just going to make fun of me. No, now I'm curious. He told me that I was, like, going to go move on into, like, huge things. Like, I was going to be on TV, in TV, like, I was going to. Like, you're going to be a TV star? Yeah, like, I should cut it and play it for you, but I don't know if I would be allowed to. But, yeah, not a star, but, like, he's, like, all I just see is really huge things. And anytime he would get something else wrong, he'd go back to this. I mean, yeah, but your dad is telling me about this, this, this. So, yeah, no. It's surprising that he didn't go with, like, oh, I see, you're getting fired, right? Because at least that would be, like, plausible. Obviously, you're still here. He would have been wrong about that, too, somehow. So you're saying that you can't see me just, you know. Up, up and away. Well, I do know that you said, maybe based on this, which I didn't realize at the time, but you have loudly proclaimed on this show that you will be on television this year. And there's only a few weeks left this year. I was. I was. Mission accomplished. How, like you spoke on television? No, my leg, don't you remember? My leg was in water, and that was on Fox and Friends. Oh, you mean the clip from the flooding that you sent Fox and Friends? Yes. With a part of your... Yes. My leg. Your appendage. Ah. Part of one of your limbs was in a clip that was played in a weather report on Fox and Friends. Yes. And you're saying, you've checked the box. I would say so. Maybe that's what the psychic meant. Maybe that was the big moment. No, no, no. He said it was like, no, it was going to be like big. Big. Big. Yeah, big flooding. Big. Well, he'd ever talked about a flood. He never talked about a flood. He kept telling me, like, you know, that he was so sorry because I was so close with my mother's father and, like, he felt so bad for me. And then I had to explain to him. I never met my mom's dad. He died in the 70s. Yeah. Huh. So then. It's almost like he's a full pathological liar. Don't believe anything he says. Well, I think some things. He knew my dad was from Brooklyn. No, so he's just like guessing. He's guessing a bunch of things. Yeah. and getting almost none of them right. How much did you pay for that one? Oh. How many years ago was it? So I'm not going to get in trouble with Bobby. 500. I was going to say hundreds of dollars. Yeah, I think four or five hundred. For that. I mean, that is like a full time. He had to go. That is, I mean, on one hand, extremely expensive. On the other hand, less than one third of what you paid for the Olivia Rodrigo tickets that you never got. He never warned me about that either. He got swindled. Yeah, like he might have been like, hey, I see an Olivia Rodriguez concert in your future, just like these psychics saw a bar exam success in Kim Kardashian's immediate future. Are you like sensing a pattern here at all, Christine? I'm trying to help. Kind of, but there's just one more I want to go to. She is supposed to be like amazing in New Jersey, but it's really hard to get an appointment. I think I would be done after that. Can I tell you one?

Fun fact, you know how I usually try to book a lot of people for a montage for your birthday? I asked him the psychic one year. Why? I thought it would be funny. But I didn't even know his name or his voice. I would have no idea who it was. You kind of did. You kind of did. You know, like, hey, I'm cookie psychic. Happy birthday? Well, yeah. And he'd be like, it's July 7th, right? Your birthday. It's like, oh, no, you know, off by about half a year there, bud. No, I, listen, oh, I once went to a psychic when I was 19, and she said I needed dental work, and I did. Oh, wow. No, no, no. What an incredible insight. She pointed to the back. I should get my best friend on because she was with me. Maybe they were a dentist. Maybe they actually were trained in something useful. But it was like really big dental work, like a lot of money dental work. And she was right. But hang on. You interrupted yourself. You went to the psychic to ask for a happy birthday wish, and let me guess he wanted to charge you. Yeah. How did you know? Oh, maybe I'm a psychic, Christine. Yeah, I wanted $125. Yeah, maybe I can do a reading. We got to go. We do, because I can read a clock. Guy Benson's show back here tomorrow, same time, same place. We'll talk to you there.

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.