‘NO, WRONG!’ – Megyn Kelly Gets in SCREAMING Match Defending Trump


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

Top-rated SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly went back and forth with host Dan Abrams on his NewsNation program late last week discussing Donald Trump’s conviction, with Abrams insisting that the guilty verdict was correct while Kelly argued that the former president did nothing wrong.

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.”

But Abrams responded by saying that this was not about the alleged sexual encounter between Trump and adult film actress 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.

But again, Kelly insisted the payoff wasn’t illegal, as the Southern District of New York, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, and the Federal Elections Commission all previously found.


“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.

“Explain to me then. Tell me what I’m getting wrong,” Abrams said.


“It does not amount to a campaign contribution if it is the kind of payment that could ever be made outside of the campaign context,” she said.

“That’s not the standard. The standard is substantiality,” Abrams said.

“It’s not,” Kelly said.

“It is!” Abrams responded.



Legal expert and constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said following Trump’s guilty verdict in his hush money trial, there are grounds for an easy reversal on “procedural and constitutional” grounds.

The jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts.

However, Turley and other legal professionals have been pointing out for weeks that Judge Juan Merchan was severely—and possibly unconstitutionally—impeding Trump’s defense because the charges made by Bragg were false.

Turley argued that this could give Trump a great opportunity on appeal.

Speaking with Fox’s Larry Kudlow, Turley said: “Very few of us outside of Manhattan have a lot of faith in the legal system right now, and the former president may have rough sledding on the first level of appeal and after that, some of the glaring errors will go in front of the Supreme Court and in my view, it’s, it would be impossible to sustain this verdict, and there’s so many problems, so many errors that were committed by Judge Merchan but we may have to wait a bit.”

Test your skills with this Quiz!