Is Retribution Necessary?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
My mother loved that to the point of distraction for
the rest of her family. So thank you Mike for
playing that for my mom. I'm sure she's smiling wherever
she is up in heaven. Six one seven two sixty
six sixty eight sixty eight six one seven two sixty
six six eight six eight. On the text, line seven
zero four seven zero nine seven eight says if my

(00:22):
wife cheats on me, I can forgive her, but that
doesn't mean we don't divorce. Forgiveness but consequences. Yeah, I
have heard that from a number of people that Donald
Trump should in fact forgive, but there need to be consequences,
whether you call it justice, retribution, whatever you want to
call it. Should Donald Trump seek to impose consequences on

(00:46):
those who who went beyond the pale to destroy him
during his election and for the past four years really,
you know, those who slandered and lied and so in
some cases broke the law. Should those people face consequences now?
Or do we just wipe it into a clean slate

(01:08):
and move forward. Let's talk with Charlie and Westboro. Charlie,
welcome to w RKO.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
How are you, hey, Sandy, Merry Christmas.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
To you, too, Charlie, what I wanted to say.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
You know, quite a while back, the subject I was
talking to you guys, and the subject was it was
one of the Trump impeachments. And I remember saying, you know,
we can't have one party get in and impeach and
the other party get in and impeach back. We as people,
we have our lives. We don't want to be dealing

(01:43):
with that crap all the time, and we just want
to wake up in the morning and go about our
days and joy life.

Speaker 4 (01:51):
But the.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
With this, it's not it's not revenge. It's boils down
to human nature. If a five year old will argue
to the death just to get another cookie, and and
and these yeah, one of my one of my granddaughter's

(02:13):
teachers actually said to my daughter five year olds are
natural liars because they don't know any better yet. They
haven't been taught everything yet. And exactly, but these politicians
and all these people, I always say to my wife,
these people are not doing this for nothing. Rachel Madda

(02:34):
or whoever doesn't get on TV and lie through their
teeth to everybody in the country for free. They're doing somehow,
they're getting aid for it, and and so the cookie
just got a lot bigger in a situation like this,
so human nature says, if they're not punished, they're just

(02:55):
not cheap doing it, And and there needs to be
an example. And I believe even if you don't get
the low hanging fruit, you know people who haven't done
too much but are definitely implicit in this whole thing,
get some of the bigger people and send the message
that you can't do this anymore. I think it really

(03:18):
needs to be the law just needs to be enforced.
It's not like we're asking for something crazy.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
Well, I completely agree with enforcing a law. I'm as
an attorney, I'm very I'm very much you know, support
the court system, the justice system. So I think, without
a doubt, if the laws on the books and they've
broken it, you need to prosecute. And but here's the
thing I don't think you need. I don't want to
see selective prosecution, which is I think some of the

(03:46):
things that happened in the last election people were selectively prosecuted.
I think if you're going to prosecute, you got to
do it across the board. And so it doesn't matter
you know on which side of the fence. You're on everybody.
Everybody needs to be held accunt. I think that's the
only way to do that moving forward without creating really
bad precedent, don't you think, Charlie.

Speaker 2 (04:08):
Bro And that's and that's that is a problem with
my theory. But but and if if that, if prosecuting
everybody is what it takes, it's better than prosecuting nobody.
Because you had a previous call of there Wardell I
think his name was, Yeah. He said he was kind

(04:32):
of getting on you about you know, revenge and all
this stuff, but then he said, we need to fix
the country. Well, this is one of the biggest problems
that made the country what it is what it is.
We're trying to fix because with this and and also
you know then and it goes to the media too.
The media helps support these people and cover them up

(04:52):
so that they can continue to do what they do.
So if you're gonna go after it's a complicated problem,
but it is then time it absolutely has to be addressed.

Speaker 3 (05:03):
But I think you're right.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
I think you need there do need to be consequences,
but it has to be uniform, it has to be
for everybody. And you just brought up the media, which
just made me think I was talking about selective prosecution.
You know, they do selective broadcasting. They've only picked the
news that they want to put out and then they
put their own spin on it, so a lot of
people didn't even know that there was another side. Just

(05:24):
like what happened with the New York Post and the
whole Hunter Biden laptop. You know they got they got
xed off of x and Twitter because they were telling
the truth. We've been treated to Mike's choices for Christmas
carols this morning. I'm not sure he's played my favorite.
He's played his favorite. You can always ask him for
your favorite. He might be able to do it in
the time we have left. Six seven two six six

(05:46):
sixty eight sixty eight is the number here. The text
number is seven zero four seven zero. We've been talking
about should Donald Trump basically make those people who've persecuted
him face legal consequences for those who broke the law, lied, slandered,
et cetera. In regard to their zeal in keeping him

(06:08):
out of the White House, which of course didn't work
for them. But should they face the consequences for bad
acts now that he's in he's coming into power, and
we've been talking. We talked about the media, we talked
about bad prosecutors, but we haven't talked about the J
six Committee and what they did, and specifically what one
member did, Liz Cheney. The J six Committee was anything

(06:32):
but a normal congressional investigative committee or put on nowhere
near a normal investigative hearing. First of all, they hired
a TV producer and televised they're hearing in prime time. Secondly,
they manipulated the evidence to show only what they wanted.

(06:53):
They deep sixed other evidence. Apparently they've destroyed evidence. And
for instance, one of the things that just came out
this week was that the FBI was undercover at the
Capitol on January sixth amongst the Trump supporters, and uh,
the committee with the FBI said they weren't. In fact,

(07:15):
they completely hid that fact, and that's come out now
in a new report.

Speaker 3 (07:19):
The they've also.

Speaker 1 (07:24):
Revealed a series of what I would say are dubious
UH practices that they took part in during during the hearing.
And I'm specifically referring to uh, you know, Liz Cheney

(07:45):
and the fact that she was in contact with one
of the witnesses, and that would be I'm just looking
at the report now as i'm talking to you.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
It was there.

Speaker 1 (07:56):
It was a report from the Committee on House Administration
Subcommittee on Oversight. The chairman is Bury Loudermilk. He's from Georgia,
and his report that was released on Tuesday reveals that
there wasn't just one single cause for what happened, but
there were multiple causes and multiple failures that happened. But
he outlined criminal recommendations against co chair Liz Cheney for

(08:18):
witness tampering based on her communication with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson.
Now do you remember who you know who Cassidy was.
Cassidy Hutchinson was essentially the woman who got up and
testified that Donald Trump grabbed the steering wheel in the car.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
She said that.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
It was more than just that it was it was that,
you know, Donald Trump was refusing to go down to
UH to stop people from from rioting. I mean, she
gave a lot of very dangerous testimony that was not
backed up one by anybody else. She was the only
one testifying to any of this, and.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
It was really.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
The crux of their whole case. And I want to
play for you some of her testimony. This is her relaying.

Speaker 3 (09:24):
A secondhand account.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
She says a Secret Service agent, because she wasn't in
the car with Trump, told her that this happened.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
Cut nineteen A, Please, Mike.

Speaker 5 (09:36):
Tony proceeded to tell me that when the President got
in the Beast, he was under the impression from mister
Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol
was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby
had more information. So once the President had gotten into
the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going

(09:57):
up to the Capitol, and when Bobby had relaid to him,
we're not. We don't have the assets to do it.
It's not secure. We're going back to the West Wing.
The President had very strong, very angry response to that.
Tony described him as being irate. The President said something

(10:20):
to the effect of I'm the efing president taking up
to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we
have to go back to the West wing.

Speaker 6 (10:31):
All right.

Speaker 3 (10:31):
But she wasn't through that. Cut nineteen B.

Speaker 5 (10:35):
The President reached up towards the front of the vehicle
to grab at the steering wheel. Mister Engel grabbed his arm,
said sir, you need to take your hand off the
steering wheel. We're going back to the west wing. We're
not going to the capitol. Mister Trump then used his
free hand to lunge towards Bobby Angle and or not

(11:00):
had recounted the story to me, he had motioned towards
his clapicals.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
Okay, first of all, none of that could physically happen
because there is a divider between the back seat and
the driver in the front, and Donald Trump wasn't sitting
in the front seat. The President's not allowed to sit
in the front seat. So it was on its face ridiculous.
But then it comes out, according to Laddermilk, that Liz
Cheney colluded with Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson's attorney knowing about it,

(11:29):
and the Select Committee had knowledge that Hutchinson's claims were
false when they publicly promoted her. Basically, the report says
that President Trump did not attack his Secret Service detail
at any time, he did not have intelligence indicating violence
on the morning of January six, and that Hutchinson falsely
claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump

(11:50):
on January six, and that Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson basically
attempted to disbar Hutchinson's former attorney. Oh, this is all
pretty scary stuff, actually, And what the report says is
that Cheney used the January sixth Committee as a tool

(12:13):
to attack President Trump at the cost of investigative integrity
and capital security.

Speaker 3 (12:20):
That's what. That's a nutshell. There's more, you know, there's
more to charges, but that's the crux of it.

Speaker 4 (12:28):
Now.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
Cheney has responded by saying Chairman Laddermilk's interim report disregards
the truth and the Select Committee's tremendous weight of evidence,
and instead fabricates lives intofammatory allegations in an attempt to
cover up what Donald Trump did. Their allegations did not
reflect the review of the actual evidence and are malicious
and cowardly assault on the truth. No rappidable lawyer, legislator,

(12:52):
a judge would take this seriously. So that's her response
to it. So you decide who you believe. Do you
believe their report or do you believe at the time
Congresswoman Cheney, this is you know, what Ladermuks does think
is a criminal investigation because this she indeed did tamper
with a witness. What that means is that she knew

(13:13):
she was represented by counsel and approached her without without
going through her her uh, her lawyer. She had direct
communication with the witness without the attorney's knowledge, and that's
absolutely codified, is unethical. And did it both directly and

(13:36):
through an intermediate intermediary. Who is Alyssa Fara Griffin. You
know she's on the view. There's a shocker. She's an
attorney on the view. So there are two attorneys involved
in this that should have known better. And they did
a lot of trans This su companee conducted. I think
it's like six transcribed interviews of Hutchinson in total, and
Hutchinson for the first three interviews was represented by attorney.

(13:59):
In last three they cut the attorney out. So Liz
Cheney did something she shouldn't have done. She knows she
shouldn't have done it. The report says this rises to
the criminal level. Liz Cheney says, this is made up.
I never did any such thing. So you have to
decide which of these things is true. Did is Liz

(14:21):
Cheney culpable for manipulating a witness and feeding the january
sixth Committee fake.

Speaker 3 (14:30):
Evidence or is she right?

Speaker 1 (14:32):
Is she being now held up to be the scapegoat
for the failed January sixth report, which was supposed to
take Donald Trump out of play for the election, and
which it didn't. And that's just one of the issues.
You know, that was at probably the biggest one, but
one of the issues. It's in regard to the January

(14:54):
sixth Committee.

Speaker 3 (14:54):
There's others. You know, the fact that they didn't.

Speaker 1 (14:57):
Call Speaker Pelosi at all, even though the Speaker is
in charge of security for.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
Capitol Hill.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
And we find out just this past year that because
your daughter was filming her on the day in a documentary,
that she acknowledges that she had a responsibility for security
and failed. And in fact, I have that cut. Let's
play that cut number fifty, if you please, Mike.

Speaker 7 (15:22):
The fact is that the President of the United States,
the former president, and his toadies do not want to
face the facts. They're trying to do revisionist history on
January sixth. But we cannot let us be dragged into
their again false impression of what happened that day. They

(15:45):
know what happened that day.

Speaker 3 (15:47):
Okay, that was not the cut.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
I was thinking of we will find that cut and
play it on the other side. But this is what
the January sixth Committee was doing. Now were they doing this?
Are they protected by being congressman? I think they are
to a certain extent. But if a congressman breaks the
law like Liz Cheney does or did, or what's claimed,

(16:08):
if she did what is claimed that she did here,
should she be criminally prosecuted. This is Sandy shack In
for Jeff Cooner. We're talking about retribution or imposing legal
consequences on bad actors who broke the law in pursuit
of destroying Donald Trump for the past four years. The

(16:29):
Jay six committee members are under review at the moment
for at least one of them. Liz Cheney's under review
for unethical behavior for talking directly to Cassidy Hutchinson without
her lawyer. And Cassidy Hutchinson, by the way, at this point,
has been proven to have given false testimony according to

(16:52):
a recent report just released by the House Oversight Committee.
But is not the is not the only problem. The
committee as a group did some suspicious things. For instance,
they never called Nancy Pelosi, which just shows me what.

Speaker 3 (17:11):
A political witch hunt this was.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Because the Speaker of the House, and I mentioned this
before the break, the Speaker of the House is responsible
for the security on Capitol Hill, and Donald Trump has
put out there on more than one occasion that he offered,
he offered Nancy Pelosi and as well as the DC mayor,
you know national guard he did, he asked for he
called for a National Guard, and she said no. Nancy

(17:36):
Pelosi said no, and the mayor mayor Bowser of DC
said no too, And then they always said no, we
didn't do it. No, no, no, he never offered no, no,
it's not our fault.

Speaker 3 (17:46):
We had nothing to do with this.

Speaker 1 (17:47):
And then a video surface of Nancy Pelosi that was
taken by her daughter on January sixth, where she admits
that security was her deal and she dropped the ball
and I played the wrong cut for the break. But
this is the right cut.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
Fifty A.

Speaker 8 (18:06):
We have responsibility, Terry. We did not have any accountability
for what was going on there, and we should have.
This is ridiculous. You're gonna ask me in the middle
of the thing, when they've already breached the inaugural stuff
that that should we call the Capitol Police, I mean

(18:28):
the National Guard why weren't the National Guard there to
begin with?

Speaker 6 (18:35):
They thought that they had sufficient Well, there.

Speaker 8 (18:37):
Was not a question of how they had made They
don't know. They clearly didn't know, and I take responsibility
for not having them done to prepare for more.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
You should because the head of the Capitol Hill Police
testified that he asked for more and she wouldn't take
his call. So there's all sorts, but she was never called.
They never So the question is, you know, what what
what kind of consequences should the Jay six committee face?
I don't think they should face any, to be honest

(19:09):
with you, I think that unless they broke the law,
which it looks like Liz Cheney may have. If they
broke the law, then yes, those people who broke the law,
then they need to be face the consequences of their actions.

Speaker 3 (19:23):
But those who just who just used.

Speaker 1 (19:29):
You know, political machinations to to steer the committee. That's reprehensible,
but it's not illegal, and I don't think you can
have regress for that. But that's just you know how
I feel about it. But the question I have for
you is should Trump forgive and forget or should he
seek legal redress in regard to some of the wrongs

(19:51):
that were done him, like what happened to Jay six Committee.
Let's go to let's see oh Andy and Milford, Andy,
welcome to WRKO.

Speaker 4 (20:01):
How are you Andy, Hey, Sandy, I already said it
to the whole Cooner team, but Merry Christmas to you
and your family.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
Thank you so much, Sandy.

Speaker 4 (20:15):
I think the issue is a lot bigger than President
Trump or any of us. When you look at the
whole totality of what was done to President Trump. Serious
crimes were committed, and those crimes just simply can't be

(20:35):
allowed to go unanswered. And there's another aspect of this too,
the J Sixers. There are still some of the J
sixers are still being held in pre trial detention. Some
of them were held in pre trial detention like for

(20:56):
over a year, and just the inhumane conditions that many
of them were held in. We've all heard the reports
of the cells overflowing with sewage, and you know, just
these roach motels that they've been forced to stay in
in the system. Here's what I think, Sandy. I think

(21:22):
all these actors, just Deep State and whoever else that
went after President Trump and committed crimes, I think they
should all be rounded up. They should be charged, no bail,

(21:42):
no club fed. They should be held in pre trial
detention and the DC jail, And they should be held
in pre trial detention in the DC jail and other
praise is in those exact same conditions as the JA

(22:03):
six political prisoners. And of course they're all going to
start squealing like a bunch of stuck pigs. And when
they do, they need to be reminded, Hey, this was
good enough for the JA six political prisoners, it's going
to be good enough for you, and especially the Democrats
that are caught up in that. Hey, all those blacks,

(22:26):
round people, minorities that for decades you said you cared about.
It was good enough for them. Now it's going to
be good enough for you and as president for this
because in some of these major cities, these slum lords
that created like deplorable conditions for their tenants in some
of those cases, those judge sentenced those slum lords to

(22:49):
live for a time in those same deplorable conditions to
like teach them. And I think this same thing needs
to be done to teach all these actors that there
has been a human cost to how they've abused the
system and that's my take on it. Sandy, Well, I.

Speaker 1 (23:07):
Know how what you just said appeals to a lot
of people because it makes you feel like justice is
being done. But the problem that you have is the
slumlords you were talking about, they broke the law, so
there was a criminal there was a criminal violation, so
the judge was able to jail them. In regard to,
you know, rounding up everybody the Deep States, are you
saying what they did may be reprehensible, but it's not

(23:31):
necessarily illegal, you have to what would you charge them with.

Speaker 4 (23:36):
I was actually speaking specifically to those places picked to
those cases where crimes were.

Speaker 3 (23:44):
Committed, such as like, what are you talking about?

Speaker 4 (23:47):
Oh, take your pick. Let's start with perjury. There's many
of them that committed perjury. They perjured themselves in court,
They purgaed themselves before the phiz of to get those
okay adfisor larrants to go after political opponents. And so

(24:07):
there's there's that, and there's also the J six Committee
destroyed documents and evidence on their way out the door.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Yeah if they did, you know, I I've heard that,
just as you have heard that, and that, Yeah, that's
that's illegal. Anybody who did that, I think should face
charges anybody who committed perjury under oath. I agree with
you there should be consequences there. But the problem is
that a lot of what you see done wasn't so

(24:39):
much breaking the law as it was immoral or unethical,
not necessarily illegal. So I don't think you can have
wholesale a wholesale prosecution like that. I also don't think
that you have the ability to put them in those
I understand it makes you feel good to put them
into the same conditions that the JA six prisoners have

(24:59):
been in, but that's not feasible.

Speaker 3 (25:02):
You really just can't do that.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
You can't pick the jail you're going to put them to,
because you know there's people are in jail because what
they what they allegedly did was in d C, and
that's why they're in DC. But so there's a lot
of there's a lot of issues with what you're talking about.
I get that this makes you feel like justice is
being done, and there's a huge justice injustice that was

(25:26):
done to the people on January sixth, But you have
to ask yourself if you start doing this, if you
start jailing everybody, then when does it stop? Does it stop,
you know, five administrations from now. I mean, so when
the next administration comes in that's not a conservative administration
and they turn around and punish everybody that got in

(25:47):
their way, You've got to draw the line. And so
my question is do we draw the line now? Does
President Trump draw the line? Or we are we not
ready to do that yet? Do we still have to
punish some people? Know in your heart that you cannot
make everybody. You can't make everything equal. You can't punish

(26:10):
everybody for doing a bad thing. It has to be
meet certain criteria. It has to be actually illegal, and
you have to have proof to prove it. There's a
burden of proof involved there, and it has to be
reasonable and under the law, it has to be commensurate.
It has to be meaning that the punishment has to
fit the crime. You can't just punish people because you're

(26:33):
so angry at them. And I understand the need for
consequences to stop recidivism, meaning to stop people from doing
it again, but you've got to be very careful. Just
because somebody what somebody did was bad on a moral, ethical,
intellectual level doesn't mean it was bad illegally or legally.

(26:55):
And then it was an illegal action, and you have
to keep that in mind right now. Every but he
is still feeling the anger from bad behavior that was
in this past year, and in particular with the j
six prisoners. Some of them were just you know, there
are some people and this is the reason why President
Trump said he was going to look at pardons on.

Speaker 3 (27:14):
A case by case basis.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
There are some people who did some bad stuff, but
there are some people who just you know, went through
the door because the officer opened it, and we're walking
around looking around, and those people have been punished just
for being in Washington, d c. And that's horrible and
they need to be they need to be freed. And
those are horrific stories. But we don't want to repeat

(27:37):
those horrific stories by doing the same thing to people
who were who were on the opposing side of Donald Trump,
who may just have been working for somebody or who
may have Now there are bad actors, like I think
Cassidy Hutchinson led her ass off, and I think she
should in fact be prosecuted for perjury if she was
under oath. But I don't think that you can that

(28:00):
you can do that to everybody because they said a
lie in the press or they said a lie in public.
That's not the same thing as perjury, and that's not illegal,
it's just reprehensible. So I think you have to keep
all of that in mind. On the text line, which
is seven zero four seven zero eight five seven says
Ashley Babbitt's murderer needs to be put on trial.

Speaker 3 (28:20):
I don't disagree with that.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
I think that that was one of those moments that
they covered that up that officer.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
It needs to be investigated.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
I think that needs to be investigated and not just
swept under the carpet. Maybe the result of the investigation
is a charge for manslaughter or a charge of secondary murder,
or maybe it's it's nothing, but I think it needs
to be investigated.

Speaker 3 (28:45):
And it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
It was just you know, nobody would even identify him
for a while, and they protected him, and he had
a bad record on top of it. So I think
without a doubt that needs to be investigated and brought
to its and brought to its just conclusions. So I
don't disagree with that at all. Thank you for the call, Andy,
I appreciate it very much. Let's go to Lisa in
New Hampshire. Lisa welcome to WRKO.

Speaker 6 (29:08):
How are you anddy? Merry Christmas, Happy.

Speaker 3 (29:12):
New Year to you too, Lisa, how are you?

Speaker 7 (29:16):
So?

Speaker 6 (29:16):
Look at I have a lot to say about this,
a lot to say on first fall, punishment doesn't necessarily
have to be going to jail. Punishment is bringing to
light ethics, right, isn't the whole Congress and the whole FBI,
and doesn't everybody live under the umbrella of ethics?

Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (29:40):
So okay, So if they investigate and they find out
conspiracy is a crime. So when they investigate and find
out that forty two people will part of a conspiracy
to allow.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
Honey, conspiracy is not a crime. Conspiracy to commit a
crime is a crime. So you can conspire with somebody
and that's not a crime, but if you're conspiring to
commit a separate crime, that is a crime.

Speaker 4 (30:10):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (30:11):
So we all believed that there were crimes committed as
far as j six ers, what they did to Trump,
the Trump up charges and all of that, and so
there were a lot of bad goings on. There were
a lot of shenanigans. There are a lot of ethics
that went out the window. So as far as I'm concerned,

(30:31):
if you can't get them on a crime if they
didn't do anything illegal. But what they did led to
this massive mess, right that there was two different kinds
of justice. Right. So, you know, if you were a Democrat,
you didn't go to jail or get in trouble for this,
But if you were a Republican, they came after you

(30:53):
for a million different things. So what they did to
the Catholics outside of abortion clinics, what they did to
j six a slew of things that they've gone after parents,
a million things. There was a conspiracy behind that. And
it is illegal to muster up a crime that doesn't
really exist, or to go after your political opponents. Right,

(31:15):
So there's a whole bunch of shenanigans that went on
for eight years that they basically got away with. And
the reason why they got away with it is because
Trump didn't prosecute Hillary. So it started there, and once
he didn't prosecute Hillary, they went full speed ahead with
Russia and decided that they were going to trash them

(31:37):
and you know, make his life miserable. And I'm sure
there were some crimes in there. There was leaking, there
was all kinds of stuff that went on. So with
the proper investigations as to everything that wasn't right. The
punishment has to be that they either lose their jobs

(31:58):
they or they get embarrassed, or they have to go
to court and defend themselves and pay for attorneys like
they did to everybody else. Look what they did to
Trump's lawyers. They went after every one of them and
try to get them disbarred. They put them through millions.
Look at what they did to julianni and they put
Stephen Peter in jail. I mean, they did a lot

(32:20):
of bad things that somewhere along the line there were
crimes committed in conspiracies to put these people away or
to bring them through the law fear that was going
to break them. They probably knew that ninety percent of
them weren't going to go to jail, but they wanted
to bankrupt them. Look what they did to Michael Flynn.

(32:42):
There were so many wrongdoings that went on. These people
have their jobs, they were able to retire with their pensions.
They went on to become you know, multimillion dollar pundits
and you know on CNN and MSNBC, while they literally
trashed and ruined and bankrupted good people because they defended

(33:06):
Donald Trump. That's a crime, conspiracy that led up to
all these bad things. There's crimes in there, and if
there isn't, they need to be stripped of their titles,
their reputations, their pensions, their jobs. So it doesn't necessarily
mean that we have to go after every single person.

(33:29):
And every single person committed a crime. They did wrong,
and they ripped the country pot while doing it in
the media allowed it. So here's my second part. Unless
you before, you know, fifteen years ago, if you were
afraid to do something unethical or to commit a crime

(33:52):
for several reasons, One you had a reputation to protect.
Two you were afraid of the media, you didn't want
it posted everywhere. Three you could potentially go to jail.
So people want to very fine moral line. The moral
line has been ripped out of DC. There is no
line because they know they got the media in their pocket.

(34:13):
And if they're not going to be shamed and the
media is not going to go against them, and they
have you know, thirty four percent of the country that
you know believes the media, then the moral compass, the
line keeps moving. So until we put our foot down
and we go after the people who have trashed the

(34:35):
system and who have broken the justice system, and who
conspy it and who leaked and who bankrupted these people,
not to mention what they did to Jay six. It
will never stop because they have wind under their wings.
They think they can do it and get away with it.
Until you prosecute, embarrass fire, punish in any form, it

(35:01):
will continue.

Speaker 1 (35:04):
Very well, stated Lisa, that was extremely articulate presentation of
your point of view. And I don't disagree with a
lot of what you said, But don't you think that
instead of using you know, taxpayer dollars and so forth
to go after what could be you know, thousands of

(35:25):
people under that perspective, that you let almost like a
Darwinian process takeover, meaning you know people who are identified
as that. Do you think they're under the Trump administration,
you think they're going to get a raised, Do you
think they're going to get a new job, Do you
think they're going to get they're going to flourish? Or
do you think that they're going to probably be treated

(35:48):
as outcasts as they try to treat Trump supporters on
a social level. And isn't that enough to teach them
what they did was wrong?

Speaker 6 (35:58):
Oh? No, I'm sorry, absolutely not. They cannot be allowed
to treat the system, the Justice Department, the government the
way they have and go and get away with it. Sandy,
I am adamant about this. Unless there is public shame

(36:19):
and punishment and layalties and embarrassment and potential job losses
and pensions gone and jail time, this will go on forever.
You have to put the fear of God back into
the public square. You have to bring the line back
to where you'll get to the line, but you won't

(36:41):
cross it in fear that you could lose your job,
go to jail, get shamed and everything else. These people
are evil and they are are CABA and it's been
going on for a very long time. And unless we
break it up and we make it public and they're
a people who pay, everything that went on in the

(37:03):
last eight years is for naught. Cash Fit holl being
the head of the FBI will be for naught, Pam Bondie,
everything that they have done will be for naught if
we don't bring it to the surface and say look
it it's done. It's over. You played, you had your body,

(37:25):
you ruined lives, you all locked about it, and you
all made fun of it, but now the shoes on
the other foot, and we're coming after you. And in
my opinion, if you committed a crime, preserve your documents
and get an attorney, because.

Speaker 3 (37:41):
Don't read one of them, don't you think so?

Speaker 1 (37:43):
I mean, you're coming up saying it's over, and from
your perspective, from the conservative perspective, it's over. But that
doesn't mean it's over because when there's a change of
power and you have these people come in who are
who are on the other side, who are in the
bigger groups that you want to punish. Now, then they
come in and go, Okay, now it's your turn, and

(38:05):
then so forth and so on and so forth and
so on, and it just goes back and forth forever.

Speaker 3 (38:10):
Is that how we.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Should be, you know, structuring and living our society, because
that's what I see happening.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
It's a slippery soap