'You got spanked!' Internet sides with Megyn Kelly in fiery clash with Dan Abrams over Trump's conviction

MANHATTAN, NEW YORK: In a heated confrontation on live television, Megyn Kelly and Dan Abrams clashed vehemently over the recent guilty verdict handed down to former President Donald Trump in the hush money trial in a Manhattan court.

The GOP nominee was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records after a brief deliberation on Thursday, May 30, with sentencing scheduled for July 11. 

Abrams argued there was 'wrongdoing' on Trump's behalf

The fiery exchange, lasting approximately five minutes, unfolded during Kelly's appearance as a guest on 'Dan Abrams Live' on News Nation.

Kelly, 53, known for her tumultuous relationship with Trump, wasted no time in expressing her views on the matter. While acknowledging the jury's decision, she launched into a scathing critique of the judge and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, denouncing their handling of the case.

Abrams, 58, countered by arguing that despite debates over 'morally' or 'legally' wrong, Trump's actions constituted "wrongdoing."

"Number one, it's paying $130,000 to a porn star to keep her quiet, can we at least agree that's wrong? For a minute, I'm talking about morality vs. legality," Abrams stated.

The debate quickly escalated as Kelly defended Trump's actions as a private matter between him and his wife Melania Trump, prompting Abrams to emphasize the implications of using campaign funds for such purposes.

"I don't mind the sex, I'm talking about the $130,000 to keep her quiet to protect his campaign," Abrams said.

Kelly argued, "So when somebody runs for office, they just lose the right to privacy?" Abrams then questioned, "When you're doing it to protect the campaign and you're spending money on it, you are now crossing the line into legal problems, right?"

Debate intensifies over Trump's alleged financial misconduct

Kelly asserted that he was mistaken, while Abrams persisted in his line of questioning, "You don't think he falsified business records either?"

In response, she stated, "I don't know what he did," prompting an irritated reaction from Abrams, "What does that mean? We just had a whole trial, we heard every detail of this."

Kelly then offered her perspective on the matter, suggesting, "I don't think he wrote down 'hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.'"

She proposed that such payments may have been recorded as "legal expenses" within the Trump organization's records.

Continuing her argument, she explained, "He was paying his lawyer, who paid the money to Stormy Daniels, and he was reimbursing him, though he denied that on the stand."

Kelly defended this action, stating, "I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. I think you pay your lawyer money... you could easily classify that as a legal expense."

Abrams reacted with skepticism, almost laughing as he replied, "No matter what it's for, right? Even if it's illegal conduct, you can just put it as a legal expense."

Kelly countered, asserting, "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," Abrams said.

The disagreement intensified, with both individuals seemingly talking past each other.

Kelly sought clarification, asking, "No, what law are you citing?" Abrams replied, "Campaign finance law." Kelly rejected this, stating emphatically, "Wrong! You don't know what you're talking about, you're wrong."

Abrams pressed for an explanation, leading Kelly to reiterate her stance, declaring, "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 the campaign."

Abrams disagreed, citing legal precedent and asserting, "That's not the standard." Despite Kelly's persistent assertion that he was mistaken, Abrams concluded the segment by suggesting, "We're going to have to agree to disagree."

Netizens react to Dana Abrams and Megyn Kelly's exchange

A user tweeted, "@danabrams just a reminder that Bill Clinton paid $850,000 in hush money to protect himself. No indictment. No conviction. Just saying...."

Another said, "I like you, Dan, but the former head of the FEC (under both parties) sides with Megyn on the law."

A third said, "Damn Danny, you got spanked!"

"Dan, you are so biased you can’t think straight. The FEC deemed the matter NOT worth looking into. That corrupt judge would NOT allow the former FEC commissioner to testify to that," read a tweet. 

"Wow....@megynkelly ripped @danabrams a new one! Advice to DA, figure out what you're talking about before spouting-off your biased blither," a fifth said.

Nevertheless, Megyn too caught flak. "She desperately wants to get back into Trump’s good graces," added a user.

"She has completely lost her way. She refuses to accept the defined law because she doesn’t understand the law. She refuses to hold Trump to a moral standard because she has none," commented a user.

"What a sad woman: doesn’t know the law, doesn’t know precedent. How that gentleman kept his poise before her unpleasant gnashing is beyond me," read another.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.