In a recent episode of the NewsNation program, renowned SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly engaged in a spirited debate with host Dan Abrams regarding Donald Trump’s conviction. While Abrams staunchly defended the guilty verdict, Kelly vehemently contended that the former president was innocent of any wrongdoing. This exchange between the two esteemed hosts captivated audiences and showcased their differing perspectives on the matter.
Abrams began the sparring conversation by stating, “There was definitely wrongdoing,” even though what transpired may have been considered legal.
“What was it?” Kelly asked.
“What was the wrongdoing? Alright, number one, it’s $130,000 to a porn star to keep her quiet, to try to protect your campaign. Can we at least agree that’s wrong?” Abrams replied.
“How was it wrong?” Kelly pressed. “I don’t know what kind of weird marriage these two have. Same as I didn’t know what kind of weird marriage Bill and Hillary Clinton had. So I don’t know what their covenant is in terms of what he’s allowed to do on the outside of his marriage.”
However, Abrams countered by stating that the focus was not on the purported sexual encounter involving Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels.
“I’m not talking about the sex. I’m talking about the $130,000 to keep [Stormy Daniels] quiet to protect his campaign,” Abrams said.
However, Kelly reiterated that the payoff was not unlawful, citing previous findings by the Southern District of New York, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, and the Federal Elections Commission.
“It’s not immoral,” Kelly said. “There’s nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing.”
Abrams then shifted to the accusation that Trump falsified business records. “You don’t think he falsified business records either?” he asked.
“I don’t know what he did,” Kelly countered.
“What does that mean?! We just had a whole trial! We heard every detail of this! How can you not know?” Abrams blasted.
The former Fox News host then argued that any payoff could “easily” be considered “a legal expense.” She went on to say that there’s “nothing illegal about paying hush money for an NDA.”
“There’s not, but when you’re doing it to protect your campaign, it is. That’s the difference,” Abrams said.
“What law are you citing, Dan?” Kelly demanded to know, leading the host to respond: “Campaign finance laws!”
“Wrong! You don’t know what you’re talking about! You’re wrong!” Kelly shot back.
Watch:
Journalist @megynkelly joins Dan to debate Trump's guilty verdict. Kelly predicted a guilty verdict and says she believes the jury "followed the instructions that the judge gave them." pic.twitter.com/fa8lUTMMTK
— Dan Abrams Live (@danabramslive) May 31, 2024