Is Trump Right to Exact Retribution?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The text line is seven zero four seven zero. On

(00:03):
the text line let's see eight five seven says Democrats
or Lucy. Republicans are Charlie Brown. Until Charlie Brown kicks
Lucy in the head for pulling the ball away, Lucy
will continue. A lot of people agree with that, and
I'm not saying that that's wrong. I think that there
is a certain truth to that. On let's see eight

(00:23):
three four says stop trying to clap these people on
the hand. They need to pay. These people are evil
and they will never stop. What part of this do
you not understand? Okay, you're being a little snarky there.
To be honest with you, Just because I don't agree
with you, doesn't mean I don't understand your argument. I do.
And it's very seductive, this idea that you punish them

(00:46):
and you know they will stop, and if you punish them,
you know that's what you have to do in order
to get them to stop. But while while doing that,
might you also find I think that's going to make
you feel good for the time being. But looking ahead,
I think there's a danger involved in that, and that
is if you don't draw line and say, okay, let's

(01:12):
punish the egregious offenders, but everybody else you did bad stuff,
but you're getting a second chance at life. And in
this quest, I think to stop this cycle of bad
behavior and going after your opponents when you win an election,
I think that's the trouble. And I understand the idea

(01:35):
of feeling good about punishing people who were mean to
you or who were horrible to Donald Trump and who
and I think those who broke the law in doing
that absolutely should be prosecuted. But I think trying to
do a wholesale you know, abuse of power, the color
of the law, civil rights thing, which is what you'd

(01:55):
have to do in this case, is not productive in
the long run. I think in the long run you
have to stop it. And Donald Trump is the guy
who can stop it. He can punish those people that
did really bad stuff that broke the law. I think
that needs to be done. I think abuse of power
needs to be dealt with. But then I think you say, okay,

(02:16):
we're now going to move forward. You get a shot.
If you do this again, you're in deep crap. Otherwise
we're moving forward. I think that a certain amount of
graciousness is not untoward here. I'm not saying across the
board everything, forgive and forget everything. But I think wholesale
punishment is going to do nothing but create a horrible

(02:38):
cycle of wholesale punishment, and every time you lose an election,
get ready to be punished. I think we have to
stop that. That cannot be I know it doesn't seem fair,
especially those people who have suffered under the hands of
the left administration. But don't you have to stop it somewhere?
I mean, seriously, don't you if you think I'm I'm

(03:00):
being lily livered. Okay, it's not the first time somebody's
called me that, But I think adults in the room
have to take responsibility and have to say no more.
And that includes bad behavior and also includes punishment saying
no more. Let's go to let me see who's been
waiting on the line. Jeff and Chelsea. Welcome to WRKO.

(03:22):
How are you, Jeff?

Speaker 2 (03:23):
Oh, Sandy, I'm going just fine now, Sandy. As far
as Trump going after his opponents, if Trump goes after
his opponents like he most likely wants to, it will
backfire because these bureaucrats are so entrenched, They're so ingrained
in the media in these bureaucracies. I mean, even if Trump,

(03:48):
let's say, puts Fauci in jail, the pharmaceuicals will kneecap him.
If Trump tries to put all the evil doers in jail,
the media will ncap him. And when the next administration
comes in there the bureaucrats will then go after the Conservatives.
So simply put, all this stuff should have been done

(04:09):
twenty to thirty or forty years ago when they shouldn't
have allowed all these communists to infiltrate the halls of power.
But now it's pretty much too late. So so Trump
is between a rock and a hard place. If Trump
does anything, they will be heck to pay. That's that's

(04:30):
the way I see it, because because you see and
then and then if Trump continues on the path, they
will label Trump a Francisco Franco and a Gusto Pinochet,
and the Normanies will just shut it off. And then
and then, if you really want to go down this path,

(04:51):
look at Latin America to where everything is determined by
a bullet. If you're a judge that goes against the cartels,
you get a bullet, go or led Do you want
to go down that path. It can go more extreme.
We can split, we can have a literal division in
this country between the left wing zombie states like Massachusetts

(05:11):
and areas, and then saying America, I mean, this path
can get really, really ugly. Look at the First Civil
War under Abraham Lincoln in eighteen sixty three.

Speaker 1 (05:24):
So I agree with you. I agree with you, Jeff exactly.
I think there needs to be a compromise. I think
there has to be a bar set. You know, people
who broke the law, people actually broke the law need
to be criminally held responsible. People who did things that
were unethical or that our civil liability sue them in

(05:47):
the courts, which is what Donald Trump is doing. I
think that's appropriate. But to start digging around doing wholesale
abusive power type of prosecutions, I think is asking for
trouble and I think it's it's not going to service
in the long run for all the all the reasons
that you were just stating is that where does it stop.

(06:07):
I don't think it does stop. My problem is I
don't think that stops. I think that gets worse and
worse and worse, to the point where you have, like
you were you were saying like Stalinist Russia. This is
Sandy Shack sitting for Jeff Cooner and this time every
week we have the Kelly Financial Report and we're going
to speak with Kelly Kelly, CEO and co founder of
Kelly Financial Services. How are you doing this week? Kelly?

Speaker 3 (06:30):
Good morning, Sandy.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
Merry Christmas to you too, Kelly, Merry Christmas or police navidad.
I think is what Mike was just telling you when
we came back.

Speaker 3 (06:38):
From so absolutely. I have to say I love this
Friday morning call in with you and Jeff and it
always kicks my Friday off with a good vibe.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Oh that's a wonderful way. We love talking to you.

Speaker 3 (06:51):
Well, thank you Tomorrow. Speaking of tomorrow, yes, or we
will be focused on those people contemplating when to retire,
as it will be both confusing and concerning. If you're
wondering whether you are ready to retire, don't go it alone.
Our advisor that Kelly Financial will discuss your goals and

(07:14):
provides you with the planning strategies and reassurances you need
to begin writing this next exciting chapter in your life.
We also have a free investor guide called The Changing
Story of Retirement that might provide the answers to some
of your retirement planning questions. For the guide, or for
a free consultation with a Kelli advisor, give us a

(07:37):
call or email Kelli at Kellyfinancial dot org. Do tune
in tomorrow morning at nine am for Safe Money Strategies
Radio right here on WRKO, or go to our website
for our radio. Rewind Sandy again. Merry Christmas, Happy New
Year to you, your family, the Kooner family, everyone out

(07:58):
WRKO and all of Pooner contrary.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
Thank you, Kelly, right back at you. And people are
not going to believe me, but I actually put this
show on, and I because they think on Saturday she
listened to the radio because it's like, you know, Karen
calls to Newcastle. But I listen every Saturday, and I'm
going to be listening tomorrow too. If you want to
set up a complimentary retirement consultation with Kelly and a
Kelly Advisor, you can call it eight eight eight eight
hundred and one eight eight one. That's eight eight eight

(08:23):
eight hundred and one eight eight one, or you can
email Kelly at Kelly Financial dot org. That's Kelly at
Kelly Financial dot org. There's such lovely people there. I
think you'd like it if you call them. So we're
talking about retribution and of Donald Trump and the Trump
the new Trump administration and the Conservatives basically for what
they've been through and the j six ers two from

(08:46):
the horrible things that have happened in the past few years.
And I wanted to share a text with you, and
this is the text. One is seven zero four seven zero.
It's five o eight. It says, Sandy, if your parents
or kids were in a dec see gulag for the
past four years, you'd be singing a different tune without
a doubt. I completely agree with that. I would I

(09:07):
would be I would be out for vengeance, probably absolutely positively.
But that's why, for instance, you don't have the family
of victims, uh pick the punishment for people. They can
put their two cents in with a judge, but they're
not the ones who decide what the And there's a
reason for that. It's because you're emotionally involved in something
horrible and you're going to be responding from your gut

(09:31):
and not from your intellects. It's up to those people
who are not victims of the crime. We want to
hear what the victims have to say. We want to
hear what they want and think about it and incorporate
it and what you do and what your actions are.
But you don't necessarily want to follow it wholesale because
it's based on emotion and not necessarily on justice. That's

(09:56):
why you know you don't have members of the family
passing sentence. You don't do it. That's why you don't
do it. I'm not saying that their opinion is invalid.
It's absolutely valid. But there's more than one perspective in sentencing.
You have to weigh a lot of things besides the

(10:16):
pain of the victims. And I know that sounds coldhearted,
but that's what the justice system does. It tries to
incorporate all aspects into a fair and just decision. I
would be furious. I would be infuriated if one of
my family members was incarcerated. Without a doubt, I would
still be sitting outside the jail screaming and shouting. And but.

Speaker 4 (10:40):
I'm not.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
My family members aren't there, so I can look at
it a little bit more dispassionately than they can. I
don't expect them to. I don't expect you to. If
you have a family member there. But that's my response
to you. I'm not unsympathetic to what they go through.
I'm not sympathetic to anybody who's been harmed. I have

(11:02):
dealt with issues myself in the past four years, as
has Jeff that we've been treated differently based upon our
political views. I understand the ire and I understand the
need to make sure it never happens again. My perspective
is that one of the ways we make sure it
doesn't happen again is that we stop retaliation within it,

(11:25):
within reason. I'm not saying all retaliation, I think absolutely
and the j six Ers, you know, I think President
Trump is going to deal with that, and he said,
you know, and though some of those people are going
to have lawsuits against against the federal government, and they should.
But I think if you just turn around and the
knee jerk reaction go after everybody every election, there's a

(11:47):
problem there. I mean, it's never going to end and
you're going to get whiplash from what it's right to
do what's not right to do. That doesn't mean that
the big dogs, the ones who create the most havocs,
the one that broke the law, that they're not punished.
You punish them, but you don't do this wholesale party
group disagreed with me punishment. That's what I'm saying. So

(12:09):
I don't think I think you're responding to what you
want me to be saying as opposed to what I'm
actually saying. And you want me to be somebody you
can argue with, So you want me to be saying
no punishment for anybody. That's not what I'm saying, and
I've never said that. I'm simply saying you have to
draw a line and you have to be measured about
it to stop this from devolving as what our last

(12:34):
callers said, because that's what will happen. It will devolve
into a horrible, horrible situation where we are like the
People's Republic of China, or we are like you know,
stalinist Russia, where anybody who disagrees with anything is executed.
That's what we need to get away from, and we're
not even near that right now. But there's a really

(12:56):
steep slope that heads right into that environment, and you
have to stop it before you start sliding down it.
That's what I'm saying. Vicky from Lowell, Welcome to w RKO.
How are you, Vicky very much?

Speaker 5 (13:10):
It's so great to talk with you. I just love
how you dig deep into everything.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
Oh, thank you very much.

Speaker 5 (13:16):
Yeah, you know, so I just agree so much. I
don't think Donald Trump should you know, should you know,
get involved with with all sorts of stuff, you know,
you know, the prosecutions and things. I think, you know,
I always like to pull back, you know, pull back,
pull back, you know, you know, from thers and start
looking down and say, you know, it's just a world
full of human beings, you know, and this kind of

(13:38):
thing is going to be going on for a long
time and it always has. But he, you know, uh,
I think that he's just going to be surrounded by
a lot of intelligent people. And I think that these
intelligent people probably would like to do things in a
common sense way. And I think that whole you know,
his line of you know, the common sense way, I think,

(13:58):
I think that that's very strong and important and I
and I think, yeah, you know, I could just see
him standing up in front of the American people at
some point, maybe maybe after he's inaugurated, you know, and
just you know, reassuring everyone and say, you know, you know, ladies,
and gentlemen, we're gonna we're gonna move on. We're gonna
let this go, and we're gonna manage, you know, the

(14:21):
very worst things that we need to manage it. And
we'll keep you we'll keep you informed, you know. And
and you know, it's it's just like everybody has to
uh go through their own uh you know, uh the
wrong doors of the world, all of us are, but
some more than others. And we just have to, you know,
reap the consequences of our behavior, you know.

Speaker 4 (14:42):
And I hope that.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
Yeah, but you know, it's it's interesting. Do you do
you agree with President Trump bringing civil lawsuits against those
networks and media outlets that have slandered him.

Speaker 5 (14:56):
Yeah, I don't. I don't know, you know, I.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
Think that's appropriate. That's a remedy that is open to everybody.
It's open to me, it's open to you. It's how
you deal with that situation. And so I hear a
lot of criticism from against President Trump for doing that.
The press is saying, oh, it's going to have a
chilling effect on what online because you're not supposed to
lie if you're the press, and that's what this is about.

(15:22):
They lied about them. They're getting sued for it, and
I think that that's appropriate, and that's how you're supposed
to do it. You're supposed to if somebody lies about you,
you bring a civil suit for a slander or defamation, whatever, libel,
whatever works in the context of the actual the idiosyncrasies
are the actual case. That's how you do it. So

(15:42):
I have no issues with him doing that whatsoever. And
where I'm drawing the line is, I don't think President
Trump should get involved in what the DOJ is going
to do next. If the DOJ is going to bring
criminal charges against people, I don't think the President should
be involved in that. That should be just the DOJ
making decisions on people who broke the law. That's how

(16:05):
our justice system works. That's how it's supposed to work.
That's what protects all of our rights, the defendant's rights,
our rights, the witness rights, anybody in the environment. It protects.
If somebody else is getting their rights protected, it means
your rights are also being protected. So I jealously guard
the justice system. And I think that as long as

(16:27):
the DOJ is prosecuting people based on what their actions
were and not based on their political views, I have
no problem with it. But to do that, we have
to make sure and i'm President Trump knows this because
he's given no indication of being involved with the Department
of Justice so far, that that's how it's supposed to work.

(16:48):
And that would that would make me feel very comfortable
about whatever repercussions various people were going to be facing
based upon their actions, as long as you don't have wholesale,
blanket prosecutions like you did with the poor people who
are Jay six. Like I said, some of those people
were put in jail because they were walking through the Capitol.

(17:10):
There was no consideration given to what they were actually doing.
It was a wholesale prosecution. I don't believe in that, so,
but that would make me comfortable.

Speaker 6 (17:18):
Would it make you comfortable, VICKI, yes, yes, I mean
that's exactly why I'm listening to you, because you you know,
you drill down into this stuff and I agree with you, Yes, absolutely,
and and that's why you know you're here, and that's
why we listen to you.

Speaker 5 (17:33):
And then Donald Trump, I think is surrounded by a
lot of important people like that that are intelligent to
you know, guide us in the right direction. Back again,
because there is the right way in the wrong way,
and we've just been you know, imploded with you know,
and you know Monday, you know, just with with with
all of the corruption.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Yeah, I know, right, it's been it's been horrible. But
I think we have a chance now at cleaning out
the swamp. I think we really do for the next
four years.

Speaker 5 (17:56):
We certainly do. And I just I'm just going to
trust everybody because I know that there's a lot of
smart people that are that are going to be in
charge now. You know, it's like that, It's like that
big table the Lego you know, the Lego city that
you've been trying to build for fifteen years, and then
one person comes and just knocks it.

Speaker 7 (18:11):
You know, we all know that.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
So we do. We do. Thank you so much on
the call, Vicky. I really appreciated it was very thoughtful
and I share your optimism going forward. Let's talk to
you Mel in New York. Mel, Welcome to w RKO.
How are you, Mel?

Speaker 8 (18:26):
Oh?

Speaker 7 (18:26):
Yes, good morning Sandy and America. Christmas to you and
the mic, Jeff and all the family. Yes, thank you
Sandy for taking my call. You know, Sandy, you know,
if you know power a Democrat. I wouldn't want to
be prosecuted either because it seems to be or right,
because it seems to be that those those two fashions

(18:48):
of our government did things that were not only an
ethical book criminal. But you know, if we don't take
these things seriously and make people pay for them. Just
for example, well, those men at Lexington and Concord who
resisted the British government for all the parlishment today against

(19:09):
free living Americans at that.

Speaker 4 (19:11):
Time seventeen seventy five, if they had not stood off
and got seriously dealt.

Speaker 7 (19:18):
With there uh, the problem that they were dealing with
from the from the government of Britain of Britain, they
would have been just rolled over and things would have
just exacerbated and got further and further worse or for
them to live under. You know, if we don't take
this in hand and deal with it.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
Very I'm going to hold you over, Mel, because we're
up against a break and we don't have any control
over that. We have to break for the break we
were talking to Melfro New York. I'm sorry we had
to go to break, Mel, but I have you back,
so please finish your thought. Mel.

Speaker 4 (19:55):
Yes, yes, Andy, please finish. Yes as far as Lisa goes.
You know, I don't agree with Lisa one percent. I
agree with least of ten thousand percent.

Speaker 1 (20:04):
Uh.

Speaker 7 (20:05):
You know, you know we're sending money over over over
to Ukraine by the billions. And I don't care if
there's ten thousand people who are in the government on
the on the on the on the left side that
took took part and all this mishap, all this, all
this chaos that we have to live, we had to
live under for the last four years, four years that

(20:28):
I'm willing to keep working, to pay my taxes, to
make sure that this there's accountability, there's punishment for all
the all the wrongdoing that they've done. You know, I'm
sure there's millions of millions of other Americans that feel
the same way as I do. I have no doubt
I'll pay my pactice as long as it's being spent
to to bring these criminals to justice.

Speaker 4 (20:45):
It's not retribution. This is called justice.

Speaker 7 (20:48):
You you break the If I go downtown to break
the law, I don't care where I'm at.

Speaker 4 (20:52):
I break the law.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
I expect that.

Speaker 7 (20:53):
There's going to be consequences that I have to face.
You know, there's no two tiered justices, a system of justice.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
No, nobody says people Actually, nobody's saying that, Nobody. Anybody
who actually broke the law should not be punished. Nobody has,
Nobody has said that at any point this morning. What
we're talking about is not necessarily people who've broken the law.
What we're talking about is people who haven't broke the law,
who maybe what they did was unfair, but it wasn't illegal.

(21:21):
That's what we're talking about. No, rep it's retribution for
not doing that. That's where the line is. We're not
talking about people who did actually broke the law. Nobody
has said that they shouldn't be punished. Nobody. So, but
what we're talking about is not vengeance for breaking the law.
It's vengeance for having a different opinion or doing something

(21:43):
that's unfair. Is that reprehensible?

Speaker 8 (21:45):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (21:46):
Should there becomes that's not a social consequences for that?

Speaker 4 (21:49):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (21:50):
You know, do you have legal consequences for that? No,
that's what we're saying. And if you make that, if
you persecute people for doing something that's legal, maybe not fair,
but not illegal, that's when you have a problem. And
that's where you start to disappear into a chaotic, you know,
despotism system.

Speaker 4 (22:08):
Mal.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 7 (22:10):
Now, if you're if you're an accomplished to a law,
to a crime where the media seems to be because
that's all I mean that the Democrat Party owns the
media in this country.

Speaker 4 (22:18):
We all know that lying.

Speaker 1 (22:20):
To the public is not illegal, Mel. It's it's unethical,
it's immoral, but it's not illegal.

Speaker 7 (22:26):
But if there's a me if if there's an end
to the if there's an end to the means of
your lying for someone else to break a law which
the laws have been broken by, that's.

Speaker 1 (22:36):
Too I get you want that to be true, Mel,
but it isn't. That's not. That's not how accomplished is
being accomplished works, That's not it's too tortured. I understand
that you want it to be true because you want
to hold them accountable. We all want to hold them accountable.
But it's not unless they actually slander somebody, they're not.
They can lie, it's just it's it's reprehensible, but they

(23:00):
can do it. The way that we show our disdain
is by what's happening to MSNBC now, you know, their
ratings are so low that they're cutting all their anchors pay.
And my guess is they're going to be sold on
the auction block and hopefully Elon Musk will buy it,
and then we'll all get a good laugh and it
will be pretty interesting to see what they promote. What
they're programming is. But it's not illegal to lie. You
can't hold you know. Then then who decides what's the lie?

(23:23):
What's the truth? Well, it's the truth. It's the truth,
not necessarily so it's it's it's too much of a
slippery slope. You cannot go there. I know it makes
you feel good to go there. I understand that it
makes all of us feel good to go there. But
if you hold justice up the way you say you do,
you can't do that. You have to find the people

(23:44):
who broke the law, or find the people who've done
something actionable like Donald Trump has done. He is civilly
suing people who committed slander or defamation. That's what you're
supposed to do. He's doing what you're supposed to do.
And then if he broke the law, that's up to
the law enforcement and the Department of Justice and to
go after those people who actually broke a codified law.

(24:05):
That's what you're supposed to do. If somebody did something
that that you don't like, that's really disgusting or is
you know, immoral, If it's not breaking the law, there's
nothing you can do about it except for let your
disdain be known. And you know, except for the media.
That means, don't go there, don't don't support them, don't
support their advertisers. That's what you do. That's how it works.

(24:28):
And the natural marketplace takes care of them as as
it is MSNBC. So that's how you that's how you
deal with it. You can't hold them, you know, you
can't punish them as accomplices, because then we can all
be punished for accomplishing something, you know, next to somebody.
I mean, it's just there has to be a legal line,

(24:48):
and it's way before what you want it to be.

Speaker 4 (24:50):
E mail. Yeah, yeah, that's funny. It's good.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
Good yeah, sorry, mel So, anyway, thank you so much
for calling. I appreciate it very much. Let's speak with
Oh who can we get in here? David from Boston. David,
welcome to w RKO. How are you?

Speaker 8 (25:06):
I'm fine, Sandy, uh, good morning, even though it's snowing.
But uh, it's a good morning when it's snowing at
Christmas time.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
But Mike and I, Mike and I both just looked
up for the first time in four hours and realized
it was knowing. Neither of us realized it was knowing.
It was like, Oh my god, when did that happen?
So sorry, anyway, I digress.

Speaker 4 (25:24):
Go ahead, David, Yeah, we get you know.

Speaker 8 (25:26):
We got in Washington, d C. Commonly called the swamp Sandy.
Jeff many times he's hotting back to his years in Washington,
d C. When he worked for the I believe the
Washington Times.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Yes, yep.

Speaker 8 (25:39):
And and I know you have mentioned, uh that in
your past years ago you worked down in Washington, d C. Also,
I have you so what I was wondering, And I
think Kula Country would be curious to this. They probably
never wondered about it. But you and Jeff have such
a good work in relationship with each other. Did you

(26:00):
guys actually meet years ago when we both worked out
in Washington, DC?

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Nope, Nope. I never I met Jeff when I used
to work for a different show that was on in
the afternoons and I had a Jeff. I used Jeff
as a villain houst, a guest villain houst for that
particular show, and that's when I first met.

Speaker 8 (26:18):
Jeff worked down in Washington.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
Here in Boston. Oh okay, I never knew Jeff and Washington.

Speaker 8 (26:27):
Oh okay, were you down in Washington around the same time, Jeff, Nope,
Oh okay. That answers the question. Then. I just was
wondering about it because you guys have such a close
working relationship. I was on on how far how long
ago you guys became friends and everything.

Speaker 1 (26:44):
Nope, we did by working together up here in Boston, Dave. So,
I hope that satisfies your curiosity. So, did you have
anything to say about the fact that you know, we
are making decisions now how to go forward with people
who have person to Donald Trump.

Speaker 8 (27:03):
Sandy, I feel like that, and with all due respect,
I'm not trying to bash bash you, Sandy. You do
an excellent job, but I feel like I feel like
it's premature. We've been talking about this because a lot
of people are still a wondering if Come's ever even
going to be inaugurated with these drones.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
That you think the drones are going to stop President
Trump from being inaugurated. I I don't think that we
need to worry about that.