WATCH: Megyn Kelly Schools Mainstream Host On Trump Verdict: ‘You’re Wrong’

Megyn Kelly took her defense of former President Donald Trump to another mainstream media network, battling a host who accused Trump of misinterpreting campaign finance law and belying legal violations with perceived moral failings through his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

Speaking with host Dan Abrams on NewsNation, the former Fox News anchor and nationally syndicated SiriusXM star went tit-for-tat with her counterpart as they debated the merits of last week’s guilty verdict against the former president. After Abrams cited “wrongdoing” by Trump in the case, Kelly prodded him for details.

VOTE: Do YOU Stand With Harrison Butker Against The Woke Mob?

“What’s the wrongdoing? Number one, it’s paying $130,000 to a porn star to keep her quiet, to try and protect your campaign,” Abrams responded, prompting Kelly to quickly point out such a payment isn’t illegal.

“Can we just agree that’s immoral?” he replied, doubling down on an argument that liberals in the media have made in response to citations from Trump’s defenders that the Federal Elections Commission previously identified no campaign finance violation.

“Here’s my response to that, and I said this on my show the other day: 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 on the terms of what he’s allowed to do on the outside of his marriage. For me, it would be a serious problem,” Kelly said.

“I’m not talking about the sex. I’m talking about the $130,000 payment to keep her quiet for his campaign,” Abrams continued.

“There’s nothing wrong with that at all. If somebody runs for office, they just lose the right to have any privacy? They just have to air all their dirty laundry from the moment they declare, forward, or somehow they’ve done something morally wrong or legally wrong?” Kelly asked rhetorically.

Pivoting to Trump’s legal culpability, Abrams claimed Trump was “crossing a line” through his payment to Daniels before stopping to “back up” and ask Kelly, “You don’t think he falsified business documents?”

“Even if it’s illegal conduct, you can just put it as a legal expense?” he also asked, prompting Kelly to school him on the ins and outs of the laws around Trump’s personal contributions to his own campaign.

“This wasn’t. There’s nothing illegal about paying hush money for a [non-disclosure agreement]. It’s done all the time,” she replied. When Abrams accused Trump of making the payment to “protect his campaign,” Kelly corrected him again.

“What law are you citing Dan?” she asked. He replied blithely, “Campaign finance laws.”

“Wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about… I get it, because you’re saying there are limits to the campaign contributions somebody can make and this has exceeded them, and then they hit it. I understand, that’s [Alvin Bragg’s] theory. This has been wrong from the start. 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.”

Like a belligerent young child, Abrams continued to deny his ignorance, asking that they “agree to disagree.”

WATCH:

Megyn Kelly gives Dan Abrams a legal lesson.

Megyn is right on the final point, according to the FEC.pic.twitter.com/w5hBx1z63P

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) June 3, 2024

Since Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts, Kelly has emerged as a vociferous defender of Trump on her show and during external media appearances. Just hours after the verdict was announced, she used her satellite radio platform to propose that Trump, if elected again, apply the same standard used against him to his Democratic opponents and former presidents like Barack Obama.

“It’s going to be Joe Biden. It could potentially still be Barack Obama. It could still potentially be Hillary Clinton. We’re going to have to look at what the statutes of limitations are on the various crimes they surely committed. We’re going to have to look at passing laws to revive those dead crimes, felonies or misdemeanors, so that those cases can be brought out of time. That’s what may be in the interest of justice, just like what they did for E. Jean Carroll with the New York state law that was passed so that she could sue him. That’s what happened,” she predicted.

(BREAKING: This Is The Handshake That Will Collapse The Western Economy)