‘How Can You Not Know?!’ Dan Abrams and Megyn Kelly Throw Down Over Trump Verdict

NewsNation host and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams battled Megyn Kelly on Thursday over the guilty verdict in Donald Trump’s criminal trial.

Abrams spoke to Kelly on his NewsNation show Dan Abrams Live after Trump was found guilty by a jury of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his New York hush money trial.

However, the conversation blew up after Abrams said “there was definitely wrongdoing” on Trump’s part, even if the case could be made that it wasn’t illegal.

“What was it?” questioned Kelly, to which Abrams replied, “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?”

“How was it wrong?” protested Kelly. “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.”

Abrams shot back, “I’m not talking about the sex. I’m talking about the $130,000 to keep [Stormy Daniels] quiet to protect his campaign.”

“It’s not immoral,” Kelly insisted. “There’s nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing.”

The conversation continued to become heated after Abrams pressed, “You don’t think he falsified business records either?”

“I don’t know what he did,” claimed Kelly.

Abrams snapped, “What does that mean?! We just had a whole trial! We heard every detail of this! How can you not know?”

Kelly went on to argue that Trump’s payoff to Daniels could “easily” be classified “as a legal expense” and that there was “nothing illegal about paying hush money for an NDA.”

Abrams responded, “There’s not, but when you’re doing it to protect your campaign, it is. That’s the difference.”

The argument continued:

Kelly: What law are you citing, Dan?

Abrams: Campaign finance laws!

Kelly: Wrong! You don’t know what you’re talking about! You’re wrong!

Abrams: Explain to me then. Tell me what I’m getting wrong.

Kelly argued, “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.”

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

“It’s not,” Kelly protested.

“It is!” Abrams insisted.

Watch above via NewsNation.

Have a tip for us? tips@mediaite.com