Dan Abrams and Megyn Kelly went head to head disputing the meaning of former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict Thursday.

The battle played out between Abrams, NewsNation host and Mediaite founder, and Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show, on “Dan Abrams Live.”

Trump had just been found guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records when Kelly pointed out she did not see any wrongdoing on Trump’s part, according to Mediaite.

Abrams led the conversation with stating “there was definitely wrongdoing” even it it may be 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 continued. “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.”

Advertisement

But Abrams retorted this was not about the sexual encounter alleged between Trump and porn actress Stormy Daniels.

“I’m not talking about the sex. I’m talking about the $130,000 to keep quiet to protect his campaign,” Abrams said.

Kelly, however, could see nothing wrong.

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

Abrams then focused on the meat of the trial — falsifying business records.

“You don’t think he falsified business records either?” he asked.

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

Advertisement

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

Kelly said any payoff could “easily” be considered “a legal expense.” She added 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.

Kelly asked, “What law are you citing, Dan?” and Abrams responded, “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.