March 6, 2024 • 45 mins
Jamie talks all about Post Super Tuesday and President Trump's victory.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
That's friend says, good morning everyone, and happy post super Tuesday. Yes,
indeed, it's all in the morning, and it's common Sense Radio,
and it's pretty much everything that weexpected. And President Trump is on his
(00:28):
way to a delegate swamp. Lastnight was Nikki Haley's last stand. She
has said nothing throughout the evening,hasn't really even messaged or anything on the
social media's. She wins Vermont andshe has won DC, both pretty much
(00:51):
the same. Vermont could fall offthe face of the earth for all I
know, and she's done or isshe follow up on that in just a
little bit. Meanwhile, President Trump, with his victory speech, I realized
that there were some people on theair last night even before he like Hannity,
even before he made his victory speech, these people all calling on him
(01:15):
to be conciliatory and to be thisand to be that. And again,
you know, I don't want tocause chaos and cause fights and do all
this kind of stuff, But isthis really the time that Donald J.
Trump needs to be conciliatory and startreaching out to people who wanted to undo
(01:38):
him? Is this really that time? Maybe at some point, but give
the dude at least a little bitof a chance to celebrate his victory,
to celebrate his hard work, tocelebrate his accomplishments, and the rest of
you pro clutters out there, it'scalm down for just a second in your
(02:02):
calls for him to be conciliatory,to be this, and to be that.
My goodness, gracious, I'll neverunderstand. Just tell us what you
think about what's going on, andleave your advice for another time. Let's
celebrate now the victory. He's theworst president in the history of our country.
(02:27):
There's never been anything like what's happeningto our countries today. It was
announced that three hundred and twenty fivethousand people were flown in from parts unknown.
I mean, notice, by theway how Donald Trump gets right into
it on the facts. You don'thear some flowing we're on our way to
(02:50):
victory. This is America, wherethis is who we are we're gonna do.
You don't hear that kind of thingfrom him. He goes right into
the heart of the issue and themeat and the potatoes of America. That's
one thing that I really like aboutthis guy is that he doesn't mess around
(03:15):
with all the phoniness and all ofthe other stuff. He gets right into
it and explains exactly what's going onand why he's up on that podium as
a victor on Super Tuesday. Ilike that. It's funny how everybody talks
(03:35):
in the in the news beating andbeyond, they tend to kind of talk
about, you know, him beingscurless and him being vacuous and eating taco
bells, salads and you know,but this guy's one of the smartest guys
in politics that we've seen in along time. And and he's probably the
most authentic as it relates to apolitician Republican one that we've seen in a
(04:01):
long time. You could try toknock him on the orange hair or the
spray tan or whatever happens to be, give me all of that as long
as you give me substance. Andthat's what last night was. Surprisingly,
he didn't take any time to doany kind of glow fast or fake little
(04:26):
stump speech or what have you.He got right into it. Migrants were
flown in aeroplane, not going throughborders, not going through that great Texas
barrier that I was with the Governorof Texas, Greg Abbertt the other day
and we were looking at the jobthey're doing. But in the meantime,
they're pouring into California and they're pouringinto Arizona because those governors aren't doing anything.
(04:47):
They're doing nothing. Yeah, thisis the kind of speech he gave
after des Moines, and all thepundits were like, it was a very
dark speech. It was very sullenand Trump seemed like he was down,
and it's like, no, he'sjust laying out the facts, and the
facts are what they are. Hetalked about California. He swept all the
(05:11):
delegates in California. Nicki Haley.It has been determined that eighty five percent
of the people who voted for thinkBiden's doing a good job. Eighty five
percent. And the reason why NickiHaley didn't show up well in California.
And of course, as I toldyou, the polls showed him at seventy
(05:34):
six percent victory. He wound upwalking away with about seventy four to seventy
five percent victory. But it wasn'tIt was a closed primary in California.
You couldn't have independence voting, youcouldn't have Democrats voting. And when it
came time to have primaries where Independenceand Democrats couldn't cross and vote for Nicki
(05:56):
Haley. She lost. That's howworked. And I realized, yeah,
she had twenty five percent of thevote, but that's because there was a
preference. That doesn't translate to thosetwenty five percent of the people not voting
for Donald Trump in the general election. So Carl Rove and all these other
votes can calm down just a littlebit, because those twenty five percent voting
(06:21):
for Nicki Haley take a big chunkof them, and they will vote for
Donald Trump in November. The restof them we don't even want in our
foxhole. If you can't bring yourselfto vote for Donald Trump in November,
(06:41):
there's no hope for you if you'rea Republican. But yeah, this is
a this is a great speech substancesubstance substance. But today Fax Fax Facts
just announced before I came out,it was unbelievable. I said, that
must be a mistake. They flewthree hundred and twenty five thousand migrants flew
on and over the borders into ourcontract. So that really tells you where
(07:05):
they're coming from. They want openborders, and open borders are going to
destroy our country. We need bordersand we need free and fair election.
Yeah, and now you know why. Now you know why. Rachel Maddow
over at MSNBC didn't want to hearPresident Trump's speech and actually on the air
(07:28):
attacked her network for airing it onthe air yesterday, where it said,
this is one of the finest runcampaigns that anybody has ever seen. That's
pretty good, right, that's prettygood. It's purely a statement, and
we have no choice. Yeah,okay, you know it's it's it is
(07:54):
okay. I will say that itis a decision that we revisit constantly.
This poor girl is a child.The seething, sore, losory attitude that
she had yesterday, it was athat of a petulant, spoiled, rotten
child who didn't get her way.It's pretty crazy how brazen these people are
(08:18):
in showing their rears to the entiretyof the world. It's really weird.
I mean, it's a blowout interms of the balance between It's a breakdown
mentally, emotionally, everything else.In allowing somebody to knowingly lie on your
air about things they've lied about before, and you can predict they are going
(08:39):
to lie about, and so thereforeit is just it's she's in the middle
and there are a bunch of thesyncophants around her, joy Read who is
her little lap dog, and O'Donnellis over there, and a couple other
people I don't recognize, but Iknow they're on. And she's kind of
like the class bully, you know, the you know, the the in
(09:05):
like West Side Story or in anyother television show where you have kind of
like the gang of bullies, youknow, and there's always like the one
guy, the one little greaser guywith the leather jacket, you know,
and he's kind of the he's kindof the lead bully. That's what That's
what Rachel Manow reminds me of.You guys know what I'm talking about.
(09:28):
It's able to allow them to dothat. It's a balance between knowing that
that's irresponsible to broadcast and also knowingthat as the de facto soon to be
de facto nominee of the Republican Party, this is not only the man who
is likely to be the Republican candidatefor president, but this is the way
(09:48):
he's running. Well, here's howto balance it. Why don't we fact
check the hell out of him.Yes, and we do that after the
fact, and that is the bestremedy that we've got. It does not
fix the fact that we broadcast it. But honestly, yeah, she's that
mad. I mean, it's prettycrazy, but it is. It is
really super fun to watch the mentalcollapse of the left as we move on
(10:15):
into the week. Good morning,everybody, it's all in the morning,
and it is Common Sense Radio.Jamie Allman here with you. It's one
all four to nine the Patriots,Common Sense Radio. As I said,
good morning, This boarding post superTuesday, and Nicki Haley slated to give
(10:39):
some kind of response to what's goingon at right about probably eight o'clock our
time, and I'm not quite sure. It's nine o'clock Eastern, I believe,
and we'll see if that's eight o'clockour time, so we might know
before the end of the show whatNicky Haley is going to do and whether
or not she's going to keep upwith this fool's errand somehow in terms of
(11:05):
continuing her fight. We talk alot about this so called party unity thing
and that Donald Trump's job is tounify the party. And that may be
true, but the reality is,as I've said before, donald Trump can
do this without a lot of theRepublicans who are clutching their pearls and who
(11:30):
just can't stand the reality that he'sthe inevitable nominee. And that is something.
I'm not a bitter, sore winneror anything of that nature, but
I've been hearing more than a coupleof times these people in the commentariat in
(11:52):
conservative circles saying that it's Trump's jobnow to unify the party, and if
anything, it's Nicky Haley's job tounify the party after the kinds of torch
runs that she made through the DonaldTrump campaign and her efforts to burn this
(12:13):
thing down. I'm just not quitesure that it's Trump's job to really reach
out to her. But again,I don't want to get into petty politics
or whatever. I mean. Ithink that the sooner the better that everybody
gets on board the Trump train.But I'm not really thrilled with this idea
of spending the next seven months orso kissing the rear end of the Nicky
(12:37):
Haley people. That's not going tobe happening, not on my end at
least. And there will be people, and you'll hear them in just a
couple of minutes here who are onthe Trump train and who maybe haven't been
before. And for the nicky Haleypeople who still can't bear to support Donald
(13:01):
Trump, then stick your head inthe gas oven and leave us alone,
because this isn't going to be whatwe're doing for the next seven months up
through November. This isn't going tobe what we're doing. Our job right
now is not to make you happy. So if that's what you're expecting,
(13:22):
it's not going to happen. Justletting you know. Carl Rove with this
suggestion last night for Donald Trump ina campaign having said that the high command
of Team Trump ought to be concernedabout unifying the Republican Party because as we
see in these states, a thirdof the vote in Virginia, forty three
(13:43):
percent of the vote in Massachusetts goingto Nikki Haley. What kind of a
surprise is that, mister Whiteboard,Virginia is chock full of swamp people.
That's where the swamp people live inVirginia. They live there, they live
in Virginia. Is it any surpriseat DC votes for Nicki Haley? Is
(14:09):
it any surprise at Virginia is atforty three percent, or thirty three percent
for Nicki Aley. Come on,I mean this is this is ridiculous.
It's swampland a quarter of the votein North Carolina. Maine has now dropped
down to about a quarter of thevote, but it was thirty one percent
for Nikki Haley Vermont forty eight percent. Yeah, whose problem is that it's
(14:35):
it's those percentage people. It's theirproblem. If they're not on board with
improving this country and saving this country, then they've got another problem altogether.
There's still some work to be doneto unify the Republican Party. Yeah,
by those people they lost. Sothis is not unlike when the Yankees the
(14:56):
Cardinals win the World Series. Theydon't im imediately go and try to improve
the team that they beat. Ohhere, you guys, I know,
we'll put down our celebration here andas we move on and we'll come into
your locker room and see where youkind of made your mistakes and everything else
and try to help you next time. I was like, that's not how
(15:18):
it works. Right now. It'sthe job of the people who try to
defeat Donald Trump to now realize thatthey lost, They made their run.
They lost, and now it's theirjob to get on board and get on
the stick and fight for this country. It's not our job to fight for
(15:41):
their vote. It's their job tofight for this country. If you look
at what's going on with a lotof people who otherwise might have voted for
Biden. Before, I want tojust I want to let you know about
this woman who spoke to the DenverCity Council. She's an elderly woman.
(16:02):
I don't know how she votes.If I wanted to make my prediction,
I would bet she voted for Bidenlast time. But guess what happens.
The border is absolutely porous. Illegalswind up swamping California, Colorado, other
states, and their lives suddenly change, and suddenly the border actually becomes hugely
(16:26):
important where it wasn't before. Thisis a vote that will replace any pearl
clutching Nikki Hayley on the planet.This is her explaining to the Denver City
Council what has happened to her inher life as a result of the economy
(16:47):
poor as it is, mixing inwith an absolute invasion of illegal advisors.
And they assured us that we weregoing to have enough money to survive.
Well, I'll tell you how Isurvive on thirty thousand dollars. You have
done such wonderful work with your housingthat you have cost my taxes to go
(17:11):
up to four thousand dollars sloops.I'm getting really close. Three thousand for
insurance, three thousand for my car, ten thousand dollars extra. Take that
out, and I live on twentythousand. Now I go to have to
go to get clothing from the Goodwill. Now I'm so poor, I have
(17:34):
to repair the clothing. I goto the food bank, and I'll tell
you what I see. I seeimmigrants coming in shartling and pushing us out
as the cut line, take morefood than is they're required to do.
And our poor staff that deals withthose things are out of their every love
(17:56):
in mind trying to figure out howthey're going to handle it it. H
Yeah, do you ask how I'mcoping? For God's sakes, help me.
Yeah. And guess who's going tohelp her? Donald J. Trump
and the Trump campaign. And shehas something very very much in common with,
(18:19):
for instance, a black person inthe inner cities who are now more
scared of Venezuelans than they are ofgangbangers. That's the world we live and
get on the train people. Goodmorning everybody, and for a lot of
(18:45):
us, it was also a superMonday as the Supreme Court nine to zippo
sides with President Trump on the wholeColorado battle ballot issue. And guess what
it was? Probably I know,I may look a hope this snake,
but it ain't too bold. Butyou judging freedom, the great Judge of
(19:11):
Politano. And first of all,I know, for the people who are
on Facebook and who are able tosee the judge, I hate to be
mister Blackwell all the time with thejudge's clothing. That's another great color on
you, you know, that rusticorange brown, rusted color. I could,
I could, I did, Idid think of you this morning about
(19:32):
five point thirty when I selected thisshirt to where I said, we find
a shirt that I'm not going totake on my trip to Italy and I'll
wear it for Jamie. All right, that's awesome, man, that is
that is great? Well? Goodnow you know so I'm always checking it
out, Judge of Politano. Yes, this was a big decision, but
not anything that you didn't expect.Correct, correct, you know, by
(19:57):
by ruling just on the meaning ofthe words in the amendment. The Chief
Justice was able to get a decisionthat was unanimous, and it was important
that it was unanimous in order toavoid the allegation that, oh, the
Republicans on the court saved Trump.So the issue here is, can the
(20:21):
States interpret the fourteenth Amendment in theirown unique way, even if they disagree
with each other, in such amanner as to affect a national election,
And the Court said no, thereneeds to be one uniform interpretation of The
states can interpret the fourteenth Amendment howthey want for their own elections. So
(20:44):
somebody running to be the mayor ofBoulder, Colorado, or somebody running to
be the governor of Colorado could beremoved from the ballot by a court in
Colorado if the court found that thatperson aided or abetted and then after they
took an oath of loyalty to theConstitution. There's no dispute about that.
(21:04):
They just can't do it for federaloffice. Why because the fourteenth Amendment says
Congress shall have the authority to enforcethe Amendment, and Congress has yet to
speak on this issue with respect tothe presidency. Now, sometimes I don't
want to beat the skunk at thegarden party here, Jamie. But sometimes
(21:26):
one needs to look as much asat as much at what the court didn't
say as what it did say.It did say what I just did my
best to explain. It didn't giveDonald Trump all the relief he wanted.
Remember, a trial judge in Coloradofound that he aided and abedded an insurrection.
(21:47):
He asked the Supreme Court of theUnited States to reverse that finding.
They did not. The Supreme Courtof Colorado found that the president is an
officer of the United States. Trumpasked them to reverse that. They did
not. They only ruled on thatnarrow issue of whether the states can interpret
a clause of the Constitution different fromeach other in the manner so as to
(22:11):
affect a national election. And byruling in that way, it's obvious that
they can't. Otherwise we'd have fiftydifferent meanings to the Constitution. So that's
how they got their unanimity. Sothey didn't even It wasn't even about whether
or not he was convicted of aninsurrection either. It was just on the
(22:33):
remerits of that Fourteenth Amendment element right, correct. It was almost as if
This was a law school hypothetical exam, not one based on actual effects,
because there's no analysis here of whatTrump did or didn't do. It's just
(22:55):
whether or not it's just what thestate of Colorado did. Now, of
course this effects all states. There'sa ruling in Maine that has now been
invalidated, and there's a ruling inIllinois that has now been invalidated. Those
even though those rulings aren't even mentionedin the case because they came about after
the case was argued and after thecase was decided, but before it was
(23:19):
published. Right, So it's interestingwhat the words of Amy Carr. I
don't know about her and tell youthe truth of Amy Cony Barrett. And
she did kind of do what somepeople are calling kind of a passive aggressive
take on the ballot issue. Wheredo you think that came from. There's
(23:44):
a principle of law that appellate courtsfollow, which say you decide cases on
the narrowest issue, and you don'tdecide more than you need to decide in
order to decide the narrow issue.She chastised the majority for deciding more than
they needed to. What does shemean when the court said only Congress can
(24:07):
address this. The Court actually saidwhat it will accept and what it won't
accept from Congress. Now that's notunprecedented, but it's very unusual for the
Court to pre guess, to prejudgewhat Congress is going to do. Courts
don't do that because the Court andthe Congress are equal branches of the government.
(24:29):
So the Court's not in the businessof saying to Congress, don't do
this is what we expect you todo. The Court can evaluate the constitutionality
of what Congress has done in thepast, but it can't prescribe what Congress
needs to do in the future.That's what she chastised them for. There's
a part of Supreme Court opinions calleddicta diicta Latin word just meaning it has
(24:56):
been stated, it has been said, But dick to is the part of
a Supreme Court opinion that is notbinding on future Supreme Courts because it wasn't
necessary for the Court to go there. That's what Justice Barrett and the other
actually the men against the women.The four concurring justices chastised the five in
(25:22):
the majority of four female and fivemale justices. The four concurring justices three
liberals. One conservative chastise the fivemale justices, all conservatives, for going
beyond where they needed to go.This is hair splitting that is of interest
only to those of us who arein this business of monitoring what the Court
(25:45):
does and commenting on it. Thisreally doesn't mean anything, in my view,
to the public or to the outcomeof the case. Well, she
did mention something that to me isdisturbing. I obviously don't like chaos and
strife and that kind of thing.But when she said that, particularly in
this circumstances, writings on the Courtshould turn the national temperature down, not
(26:11):
up. Since when is it theSupreme Court's job to have anything to do
with a national temperature? I mean, isn't that The problem sometimes with the
Supreme Court is that it's making decisionsnot necessarily by law or even writing them
by law. It's making them onthe whim of the public, which is
(26:33):
disturbing to me, Which must explainwhy she went ahead and allowed I can't
remember what state it was to tobar people singing in church during COVID It
it was Indiana, that's the caseyou're talking about. It very upsetting to
you and me. It was particularlyupsetting because she was brand new on the
(26:56):
Court. It was especially upsetting becauseit was inconsistent with some other rules of
the Court. The Court should haveno concern with the temperature of the public.
The court should The Court is theanti democratic branch. It does not
exist to reflect what the public wants. Its job is to protect life,
(27:18):
liberty, property, and the constitutionfrom the overreaching of the popular branches of
the government or the state. Andthe Court should do the right thing though
the heavens fall. Now I say, though the heaven's fall. There's a
model of the Justice. The modelof the Justice Department is, uh,
let there be justice though the heavensfall, meaning we are not concerned with
(27:41):
popularity. We are only concerned withdoing the right thing. Yeah, I
mean, and that's why you knowwhen you look back, for instance,
that we've talked about this before tothe Bush Gore decision. That was a
super gutsy decision given the volatility.Uh, and the they did it anyway,
and it took the case. Andso you said, actually in heights,
(28:06):
I never forget you talk about this, because I was brilliant when you
said, actually, they should neverhave taken the case. You should just
let it play out. But stillI think that was one where I don't
think they really paid attention to thenational temperature at all. I think Roversu's
way was right. Well, Rovers'sWade was decided at a time when abortion
(28:29):
was very rare and almost novel inthe United States, and there were only
very few states in New York amongthem, that permitted abortions. But and
you and I have condemned the opinion. There's one or two parts of it
unworthy of condemnation. But what itultimately did, of course, was to
permit the slaughter of fifty million babiesin the womb in the United States.
(28:53):
However, it was written without regardto what the public thought, and the
Supreme Court should not have regard forwhat the public thinks. That's why they
have lifetime tenure. They can't beremoved from office because what they did was
unpopular. Again, the whole purposeof an independent judiciary is to be anti
(29:15):
democratic. It's to put breaks onthe popular will when that popular will interferes
with rights guaranteed by nature or guaranteedby the Constitution. Yeah, it's really
kind of shocking. It was veryuncomfortable seeing her say that, and just
(29:37):
knowing that's a Supreme court, thedemand is that it be really assertively and
aggressively independent from any opinion outside ofit. So that's crazy to be.
So the Democrats now in their grief, are trying to come up with ways
that Congress can move in and whatis the constitutionality of how that works.
(30:03):
If Congress were to step in anddo something about this, what would what
would what would it be? Well, I can't imagine it would be anything,
because the Congress can't agree on thetime of day, yeah, or
couldn't agree on a speed limit.Even those speed limits are outside the constitutional
confidence of Congress. But I thinkwhat the Supreme Court was inviting was a
(30:29):
statute saying, in order to bedisqualified under Section three of the fourteenth Amendment,
the following would have to happen.A the person would had to have
taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. B they would have had to have
avetted an insurrection, and we definean insurrection as follows. Then they have
to define it. Then they'd haveto define a betting, and then they'd
(30:52):
have to give the standard a proof. Can this be proven in a criminal
trial by a preponderance of the evidencethat's like fifty one percent of evidence or
does that have to be proven ina criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is like ninety seven, ninetyeight, ninety nine percent of the evidence.
So Congress would have to lay laythat out. Congressman Jamie raskin Maryland,
(31:14):
a former professor of constitutional law,is introducing legislation to that effect this
week. But again it's not goingto pass. This would be irrelevant for
Donald Trump and for twenty twenty four. They may want to address this for
the future, but it's a fool'serrand to think that they're going to get
anything done between now and the timeballots are printed for the general election,
(31:41):
which would be six or seven monthsfrom now. In October of this you
mentioned speeding. I want to askyou a quick question, quick personal question.
So I was going up to DesMoines, Iowa to see Cardinal Burke,
not to Moinn, Iowa, uptoo to Wisconsin to see Cardinal Burke.
Had to go through Iowa because mymapping took me all through these almost
(32:01):
these crazy rural areas, and Iwound up. I got back home and
I had two speed camera tickets takenby a camera and They even showed me
video of me speeding, and thatwas taken by some camera. It was
on some kind of rural road andall that kind of stuff, and so
(32:24):
I don't want to pay them.I've gotten red light cameras before, and
I don't really run red lights thatmuch, but you know how, it
happened sometimes way back in the day. And I never paid a red light
camera ticket never. And I didlook it up though, and there are
apparently some cases that uphold the robotissued ticket, aren't there. Well,
(32:51):
it's different in different states. Therobot issued tickets are unlawful and invalid in
New Jersey, so theoretically it doesn'teven happen because it would be a waste
the government's money even to have thesecameras. So under Governor CHRISTI, the
cameras were reverted from giving tickets tojust monitoring what happens in an intersection.
So, god forbid, you havean accident there, your lawyer can get
(33:14):
a video of what happened and helpdecide whose fault it is, but the
camera can't issue the ticket. Butmy understanding is that these are valid in
other states. I don't know whatthe law of Iowa is it is repellent
that something like this can happen,but it does happen. Yeah, well,
(33:35):
okay, well I guess I gotto rethink my position on that.
Then I suppose I mean you don'twhat you don't want is and here I
am giving one of my best friendsin the world legal advice on a nationally
broadcast But what you don't want isfor them to adjudicate you guilty in your
absence, and then this thing ishanging out there and they may suspend your
(33:59):
license in Iowa, and God forbidyour driving in Iowa? Was it Iowa?
Idaho? It was? It wasto Iowa people that I'm saying this,
But I'm from New Jersey's right,Iowa and Idaho is the same,
Okay, d Exagerinney. You don'twant them to suspend your license in that
state. You might end up drivingin that state and the next thing you
know, you'll be arrested without alicense. So they never take a better
(34:22):
to bite the bullet and pay thefine then than risk the consequences. Yeah,
the other hand, you want tohire lawyers to challenge this thing.
There are civil liberties lawyers who willchallenge the power of the state to use
a robot to give you a ticket. Yeah, go all the way to
Supreme Court. Man. Maybe thattime, Amy Cony Barret will be on
(34:43):
my side, all right. Andthen and then the New York case.
Uh. It just so happens thatthis ruling came down almost amazingly on the
very same day that Trump's trial onthe insurrection issue was supposed to yesterday.
(35:04):
Well, yeah, the original trial. Yeah, I mean you're talking about
the federal the federal case now,not the Georgia case, right right,
Yeah. And when that federal caseis on hold because of the issue of
immunity, she has indicated she'll beready to the trial judge. She'll be
ready to go as soon as thecourt rules. Unless they really has total
and absolute immunity, I don't thinkthey will. That would be a radical
(35:29):
change from the law. But hehas a very busy spring and summer.
He has a criminal trial starting onMarch twenty fifth, and he has to
be in court one of that trialtime starting March twenty fifth. That's the
New York It's the Stormy Daniels case. Stormy Daniels is going to testify,
(35:50):
Michael Cohen is going to testify.The former president's going to testify. This
is going to be a bit ofa circus. Wow, Yeah, no
doubt so. Now, last timeI talked to you about the Fanny Willis
case in Georgia, you were notYou didn't have the opinion that this was
actually well even if it disqualifies,or it wasn't going to make the case
(36:14):
totally go down the tubes. Sincethat time, have you heard anything and
some of this information's got a littletestier and crazier with all these people testifying.
Has your mind changed on that atall? Or is this going to
be a case it sticks, butthe people might not be there to prosecute
(36:34):
it. I don't think he's evengoing to remove her from the case.
I think that he may refer herto the ethics people for an ethics investigation,
but I don't think he's going toremove her from the case. I
don't think it affects the case atall. I also think he totally mishandled
this. I am generally reluctant tocriticize other judges, particularly a judge who's
(36:55):
so young and new. Yeah,I'm sure that I made a lot of
mistakes early on in my time onthe bench. But this thing should have
taken about two days instead of amonth. He really, really really dragged
it out in ways that, inmy view, were unnecessary, and he
should have rolled by. Now.You have a lot of human beings and
(37:15):
a lot of assets involved in prosecutingand defending this case, and everybody has
a right to know who's the prosecutor, when's the case happening, where are
we going, what's taking you solong? So but my view is there's
not enough misbehavior on her part hereto remove her, and there's no evidence
(37:36):
of contamination of the case itself.I had to think the case against Trump
and the others is very weak,but there is no evidence of its having
been contaminated by the personal relationship betweenthese two prosecutors. Yeah, her attorney,
in listening to some of the courtroomappearances, her attorney actually did a
(37:59):
pretty good job of establishing that,regardless of what, for instance, her
boyfriend's colleague in the law office said, there's no way actually that he would
know, and there's a lot ofReally, he really did a good job
in establishing the plethora of hearsay thatwas going on, and I was I
(38:22):
was kind of impressed. Tell you, the truth, and that's what I
was thinking. Oh, no,she's not going to be disqualified then probably
Yeah, listen, I'm not sayingthat the judge was unfair or that the
proceedings were unfair. I'm just sayingthey took far, far too long.
But then again, I'm Italian,so I don't have a lot of patience.
(38:45):
This is a good old Southern boy, and he moves at a different
pace than we two in the northeast. Yeah. Well, and again,
even if she's not disqualified, though, there are some real problematic transactions,
and you know, I don't knowhow she can run for reelection. I
(39:05):
would think I'm going to assume she'sa Democrat, and I'm going to assume
that the Democrats would want to challengeher in the primary, maybe not even
give her the party line. Idon't know, but I would think politically
she is seriously damaged over this.Yeah. Well, this is a system
where processed. It's alien to me. And New Jersey has the federal system
(39:28):
where judges are appointed for life.Proskers are appointed for five years. They
don't seek a political base or seekpolitical public political endorsements, but in Georgia
they do well. And then youhave the aspect of the Biden operative or
the alleged Biden operative who was alsoin her office, and there was this
(39:51):
sense or this insinuation somehow there wasa commanding presence of this Biden operative kind
of running the show there. ButI guess that's for somebody else to investigate.
Correct, correct, correct, don't. I don't know how that again
infects the case. Maybe it does, but it certainly is not at a
(40:14):
level where it would require dismissal ofthe case. Yeah, gotcha, at
least not at this stage. Imean, something may come up during the
trial which would shock the conscience ofthe court. I think the great example
of this is the trial of DanielEllsberg for stealing the Pentagon papers and giving
them to the New York Times.They had already been published. The Supreme
(40:37):
Court said, the Times and theWashington Post can publish them. The thief
can be prosecuted, but not thepublisher. So the papers were out there.
The next administration was humiliated, theLBJA administration was humiliated, the generals
who were humiliated. Elsberg's on trialand the government is really claboring him in
the courtroom, and then a coupleof FBI agents decide we're going to help
(40:59):
the guy government out. We're gonnabreak into his psychiatrist's office and get the
records of what he told is Shrink. Well, the judge was so outraged
that what they did. He dismissedthe indictment right there, and the FEDS
decided not to appeal and not toreprosecute. So occasionally government behavior so shocks
(41:21):
the conscience of the court, Andadmittedly what I just told you is an
extreme example, rarely happens, butoccasionally government behavior so shocks the conscience that
the court throws the case out,even though it has nothing to do with
the merits of the case. Thereis no question but that Daniel Ellsberg,
and I think he's an American hero. He's now deceased, and now there's
(41:43):
no question but that Daniel Elsberg committedespionage by stealing national security secrets to which
he was entitled ye to hold butnot to reveal. All right, well,
judgeph Aultello, what's happening on JudgingFreedom today? Well? Nothing,
I'm on my way to Rome,so you're actually even today? Oh yes,
yes, I got a lovely notein the middle of the night from
(42:04):
our favorite member of the College ofCardinals. So that began with Unfortunately I
am still in Wisconsin in Rome,but he answered immediately and it was a
very upbeat, uplifting Jamie Ullman likeemail. Yes, yeah, well that's
good because I well, I'm goingto talk to you later on this morning,
(42:25):
or at least about about an hourfrom now about what's we're planning with
you later on in the springtime.But I'm glad you connected with him.
And he did tell me that hewas probably going to be spending more time
in was Concinent, especially after thePope basically kicked him out. I don't
know whatever it became of that thing, but it was really just a bad
(42:45):
treatment on the part of the Pope. And yes, yes, he did
tell me he's going to be backin Rome by the end of March,
so I missed him by a coupleof weeks. Yeah. Well, he
loves Lacrosse. I'll tell you that. That's that's his home bank. So
he built that magnificent, magnificent structurethere. Oh yeah, that is a
(43:06):
beautiful place. The shrine is justabsolutely amazing. I managed to be able
to get through a lot of itand hang out there and it's really truly
moving and beautiful up there. Yes, all right, judge, Well,
I'll talk you a little bit andlooking forward to excited about you getting to
Italy and it'll be a ton offun. Where exactly you're going to go
(43:28):
or you can go all over.Where's your family from? Again? Well,
this is a work trip. Myfamily. Three quarters are from Naples,
one quarter is from Florence. I'mgiving a lecture on natural law at
the Pontifical Academy in the Vatican.I am staying in the guest house where
the Pope lives in the Vatican.Really, I'm told the breakfasts are communal,
(43:53):
but if he wants to talk toyou, he'll send a Swiss guard
to come over and tap you onthe shoulders retaps. That means the Holy
Father wants you. Wow. Sodo you think you're going to see the
Pope? Chances are I will,but I don't want to get my expectations
up. It's not a very largeplace and I'm gonna be The Vatican's about
(44:15):
the size of Central Park and I'mgoing to be there for four days.
Wow. Well, uh, howare you gonna tell us staying to him?
Are you just gonna be just whatyou know, my traditionalist friends want
me to say, Oh, yourholiness, I am a big fan of
(44:35):
your immediate predecessor. But I thinkhe wants to hear that. Yeah.
Yeah, well maybe you can givehim my phone numbers we can call into
the show sometime. He does speakEnglish. That'd be great coming up next
to the pope. Wow, allright, buddy, my column scoped out
(44:59):
my breakfast with the Pope. Butwe'll see if it happens. Okay,
well that sounds great. All right, Judge to Politano judging freedom, I
appreciate you so much, and I'lltalk to you a little bit. My
friend you Jamie. All right,then, is Judge you hadda Poloitano?
Yeah? I mean, you know, for all of our bluster right about
the Pope, I don't know Isaw him, I would be like,
(45:20):
oh, hi, mister Pope,how are you? Oh lordy
That's friend says, good morning everyone, and happy post super Tuesday. Yes,
indeed, it's all in the morning, and it's common Sense Radio,
and it's pretty much everything that weexpected. And President Trump is on his
(00:28):
way to a delegate swamp. Lastnight was Nikki Haley's last stand. She
has said nothing throughout the evening,hasn't really even messaged or anything on the
social media's. She wins Vermont andshe has won DC, both pretty much
(00:51):
the same. Vermont could fall offthe face of the earth for all I
know, and she's done or isshe follow up on that in just a
little bit. Meanwhile, President Trump, with his victory speech, I realized
that there were some people on theair last night even before he like Hannity,
even before he made his victory speech, these people all calling on him
(01:15):
to be conciliatory and to be thisand to be that. And again,
you know, I don't want tocause chaos and cause fights and do all
this kind of stuff, But isthis really the time that Donald J.
Trump needs to be conciliatory and startreaching out to people who wanted to undo
(01:38):
him? Is this really that time? Maybe at some point, but give
the dude at least a little bitof a chance to celebrate his victory,
to celebrate his hard work, tocelebrate his accomplishments, and the rest of
you pro clutters out there, it'scalm down for just a second in your
(02:02):
calls for him to be conciliatory,to be this, and to be that.
My goodness, gracious, I'll neverunderstand. Just tell us what you
think about what's going on, andleave your advice for another time. Let's
celebrate now the victory. He's theworst president in the history of our country.
(02:27):
There's never been anything like what's happeningto our countries today. It was
announced that three hundred and twenty fivethousand people were flown in from parts unknown.
I mean, notice, by theway how Donald Trump gets right into
it on the facts. You don'thear some flowing we're on our way to
(02:50):
victory. This is America, wherethis is who we are we're gonna do.
You don't hear that kind of thingfrom him. He goes right into
the heart of the issue and themeat and the potatoes of America. That's
one thing that I really like aboutthis guy is that he doesn't mess around
(03:15):
with all the phoniness and all ofthe other stuff. He gets right into
it and explains exactly what's going onand why he's up on that podium as
a victor on Super Tuesday. Ilike that. It's funny how everybody talks
(03:35):
in the in the news beating andbeyond, they tend to kind of talk
about, you know, him beingscurless and him being vacuous and eating taco
bells, salads and you know,but this guy's one of the smartest guys
in politics that we've seen in along time. And and he's probably the
most authentic as it relates to apolitician Republican one that we've seen in a
(04:01):
long time. You could try toknock him on the orange hair or the
spray tan or whatever happens to be, give me all of that as long
as you give me substance. Andthat's what last night was. Surprisingly,
he didn't take any time to doany kind of glow fast or fake little
(04:26):
stump speech or what have you.He got right into it. Migrants were
flown in aeroplane, not going throughborders, not going through that great Texas
barrier that I was with the Governorof Texas, Greg Abbertt the other day
and we were looking at the jobthey're doing. But in the meantime,
they're pouring into California and they're pouringinto Arizona because those governors aren't doing anything.
(04:47):
They're doing nothing. Yeah, thisis the kind of speech he gave
after des Moines, and all thepundits were like, it was a very
dark speech. It was very sullenand Trump seemed like he was down,
and it's like, no, he'sjust laying out the facts, and the
facts are what they are. Hetalked about California. He swept all the
(05:11):
delegates in California. Nicki Haley.It has been determined that eighty five percent
of the people who voted for thinkBiden's doing a good job. Eighty five
percent. And the reason why NickiHaley didn't show up well in California.
And of course, as I toldyou, the polls showed him at seventy
(05:34):
six percent victory. He wound upwalking away with about seventy four to seventy
five percent victory. But it wasn'tIt was a closed primary in California.
You couldn't have independence voting, youcouldn't have Democrats voting. And when it
came time to have primaries where Independenceand Democrats couldn't cross and vote for Nicki
(05:56):
Haley. She lost. That's howworked. And I realized, yeah,
she had twenty five percent of thevote, but that's because there was a
preference. That doesn't translate to thosetwenty five percent of the people not voting
for Donald Trump in the general election. So Carl Rove and all these other
votes can calm down just a littlebit, because those twenty five percent voting
(06:21):
for Nicki Haley take a big chunkof them, and they will vote for
Donald Trump in November. The restof them we don't even want in our
foxhole. If you can't bring yourselfto vote for Donald Trump in November,
(06:41):
there's no hope for you if you'rea Republican. But yeah, this is
a this is a great speech substancesubstance substance. But today Fax Fax Facts
just announced before I came out,it was unbelievable. I said, that
must be a mistake. They flewthree hundred and twenty five thousand migrants flew
on and over the borders into ourcontract. So that really tells you where
(07:05):
they're coming from. They want openborders, and open borders are going to
destroy our country. We need bordersand we need free and fair election.
Yeah, and now you know why. Now you know why. Rachel Maddow
over at MSNBC didn't want to hearPresident Trump's speech and actually on the air
(07:28):
attacked her network for airing it onthe air yesterday, where it said,
this is one of the finest runcampaigns that anybody has ever seen. That's
pretty good, right, that's prettygood. It's purely a statement, and
we have no choice. Yeah,okay, you know it's it's it is
(07:54):
okay. I will say that itis a decision that we revisit constantly.
This poor girl is a child.The seething, sore, losory attitude that
she had yesterday, it was athat of a petulant, spoiled, rotten
child who didn't get her way.It's pretty crazy how brazen these people are
(08:18):
in showing their rears to the entiretyof the world. It's really weird.
I mean, it's a blowout interms of the balance between It's a breakdown
mentally, emotionally, everything else.In allowing somebody to knowingly lie on your
air about things they've lied about before, and you can predict they are going
(08:39):
to lie about, and so thereforeit is just it's she's in the middle
and there are a bunch of thesyncophants around her, joy Read who is
her little lap dog, and O'Donnellis over there, and a couple other
people I don't recognize, but Iknow they're on. And she's kind of
like the class bully, you know, the you know, the the in
(09:05):
like West Side Story or in anyother television show where you have kind of
like the gang of bullies, youknow, and there's always like the one
guy, the one little greaser guywith the leather jacket, you know,
and he's kind of the he's kindof the lead bully. That's what That's
what Rachel Manow reminds me of.You guys know what I'm talking about.
(09:28):
It's able to allow them to dothat. It's a balance between knowing that
that's irresponsible to broadcast and also knowingthat as the de facto soon to be
de facto nominee of the Republican Party, this is not only the man who
is likely to be the Republican candidatefor president, but this is the way
(09:48):
he's running. Well, here's howto balance it. Why don't we fact
check the hell out of him.Yes, and we do that after the
fact, and that is the bestremedy that we've got. It does not
fix the fact that we broadcast it. But honestly, yeah, she's that
mad. I mean, it's prettycrazy, but it is. It is
really super fun to watch the mentalcollapse of the left as we move on
(10:15):
into the week. Good morning,everybody, it's all in the morning,
and it is Common Sense Radio.Jamie Allman here with you. It's one
all four to nine the Patriots,Common Sense Radio. As I said,
good morning, This boarding post superTuesday, and Nicki Haley slated to give
(10:39):
some kind of response to what's goingon at right about probably eight o'clock our
time, and I'm not quite sure. It's nine o'clock Eastern, I believe,
and we'll see if that's eight o'clockour time, so we might know
before the end of the show whatNicky Haley is going to do and whether
or not she's going to keep upwith this fool's errand somehow in terms of
(11:05):
continuing her fight. We talk alot about this so called party unity thing
and that Donald Trump's job is tounify the party. And that may be
true, but the reality is,as I've said before, donald Trump can
do this without a lot of theRepublicans who are clutching their pearls and who
(11:30):
just can't stand the reality that he'sthe inevitable nominee. And that is something.
I'm not a bitter, sore winneror anything of that nature, but
I've been hearing more than a coupleof times these people in the commentariat in
(11:52):
conservative circles saying that it's Trump's jobnow to unify the party, and if
anything, it's Nicky Haley's job tounify the party after the kinds of torch
runs that she made through the DonaldTrump campaign and her efforts to burn this
(12:13):
thing down. I'm just not quitesure that it's Trump's job to really reach
out to her. But again,I don't want to get into petty politics
or whatever. I mean. Ithink that the sooner the better that everybody
gets on board the Trump train.But I'm not really thrilled with this idea
of spending the next seven months orso kissing the rear end of the Nicky
(12:37):
Haley people. That's not going tobe happening, not on my end at
least. And there will be people, and you'll hear them in just a
couple of minutes here who are onthe Trump train and who maybe haven't been
before. And for the nicky Haleypeople who still can't bear to support Donald
(13:01):
Trump, then stick your head inthe gas oven and leave us alone,
because this isn't going to be whatwe're doing for the next seven months up
through November. This isn't going tobe what we're doing. Our job right
now is not to make you happy. So if that's what you're expecting,
(13:22):
it's not going to happen. Justletting you know. Carl Rove with this
suggestion last night for Donald Trump ina campaign having said that the high command
of Team Trump ought to be concernedabout unifying the Republican Party because as we
see in these states, a thirdof the vote in Virginia, forty three
(13:43):
percent of the vote in Massachusetts goingto Nikki Haley. What kind of a
surprise is that, mister Whiteboard,Virginia is chock full of swamp people.
That's where the swamp people live inVirginia. They live there, they live
in Virginia. Is it any surpriseat DC votes for Nicki Haley? Is
(14:09):
it any surprise at Virginia is atforty three percent, or thirty three percent
for Nicki Aley. Come on,I mean this is this is ridiculous.
It's swampland a quarter of the votein North Carolina. Maine has now dropped
down to about a quarter of thevote, but it was thirty one percent
for Nikki Haley Vermont forty eight percent. Yeah, whose problem is that it's
(14:35):
it's those percentage people. It's theirproblem. If they're not on board with
improving this country and saving this country, then they've got another problem altogether.
There's still some work to be doneto unify the Republican Party. Yeah,
by those people they lost. Sothis is not unlike when the Yankees the
(14:56):
Cardinals win the World Series. Theydon't im imediately go and try to improve
the team that they beat. Ohhere, you guys, I know,
we'll put down our celebration here andas we move on and we'll come into
your locker room and see where youkind of made your mistakes and everything else
and try to help you next time. I was like, that's not how
(15:18):
it works. Right now. It'sthe job of the people who try to
defeat Donald Trump to now realize thatthey lost, They made their run.
They lost, and now it's theirjob to get on board and get on
the stick and fight for this country. It's not our job to fight for
(15:41):
their vote. It's their job tofight for this country. If you look
at what's going on with a lotof people who otherwise might have voted for
Biden. Before, I want tojust I want to let you know about
this woman who spoke to the DenverCity Council. She's an elderly woman.
(16:02):
I don't know how she votes.If I wanted to make my prediction,
I would bet she voted for Bidenlast time. But guess what happens.
The border is absolutely porous. Illegalswind up swamping California, Colorado, other
states, and their lives suddenly change, and suddenly the border actually becomes hugely
(16:26):
important where it wasn't before. Thisis a vote that will replace any pearl
clutching Nikki Hayley on the planet.This is her explaining to the Denver City
Council what has happened to her inher life as a result of the economy
(16:47):
poor as it is, mixing inwith an absolute invasion of illegal advisors.
And they assured us that we weregoing to have enough money to survive.
Well, I'll tell you how Isurvive on thirty thousand dollars. You have
done such wonderful work with your housingthat you have cost my taxes to go
(17:11):
up to four thousand dollars sloops.I'm getting really close. Three thousand for
insurance, three thousand for my car, ten thousand dollars extra. Take that
out, and I live on twentythousand. Now I go to have to
go to get clothing from the Goodwill. Now I'm so poor, I have
(17:34):
to repair the clothing. I goto the food bank, and I'll tell
you what I see. I seeimmigrants coming in shartling and pushing us out
as the cut line, take morefood than is they're required to do.
And our poor staff that deals withthose things are out of their every love
(17:56):
in mind trying to figure out howthey're going to handle it it. H
Yeah, do you ask how I'mcoping? For God's sakes, help me.
Yeah. And guess who's going tohelp her? Donald J. Trump
and the Trump campaign. And shehas something very very much in common with,
(18:19):
for instance, a black person inthe inner cities who are now more
scared of Venezuelans than they are ofgangbangers. That's the world we live and
get on the train people. Goodmorning everybody, and for a lot of
(18:45):
us, it was also a superMonday as the Supreme Court nine to zippo
sides with President Trump on the wholeColorado battle ballot issue. And guess what
it was? Probably I know,I may look a hope this snake,
but it ain't too bold. Butyou judging freedom, the great Judge of
(19:11):
Politano. And first of all,I know, for the people who are
on Facebook and who are able tosee the judge, I hate to be
mister Blackwell all the time with thejudge's clothing. That's another great color on
you, you know, that rusticorange brown, rusted color. I could,
I could, I did, Idid think of you this morning about
(19:32):
five point thirty when I selected thisshirt to where I said, we find
a shirt that I'm not going totake on my trip to Italy and I'll
wear it for Jamie. All right, that's awesome, man, that is
that is great? Well? Goodnow you know so I'm always checking it
out, Judge of Politano. Yes, this was a big decision, but
not anything that you didn't expect.Correct, correct, you know, by
(19:57):
by ruling just on the meaning ofthe words in the amendment. The Chief
Justice was able to get a decisionthat was unanimous, and it was important
that it was unanimous in order toavoid the allegation that, oh, the
Republicans on the court saved Trump.So the issue here is, can the
(20:21):
States interpret the fourteenth Amendment in theirown unique way, even if they disagree
with each other, in such amanner as to affect a national election,
And the Court said no, thereneeds to be one uniform interpretation of The
states can interpret the fourteenth Amendment howthey want for their own elections. So
(20:44):
somebody running to be the mayor ofBoulder, Colorado, or somebody running to
be the governor of Colorado could beremoved from the ballot by a court in
Colorado if the court found that thatperson aided or abetted and then after they
took an oath of loyalty to theConstitution. There's no dispute about that.
(21:04):
They just can't do it for federaloffice. Why because the fourteenth Amendment says
Congress shall have the authority to enforcethe Amendment, and Congress has yet to
speak on this issue with respect tothe presidency. Now, sometimes I don't
want to beat the skunk at thegarden party here, Jamie. But sometimes
(21:26):
one needs to look as much asat as much at what the court didn't
say as what it did say.It did say what I just did my
best to explain. It didn't giveDonald Trump all the relief he wanted.
Remember, a trial judge in Coloradofound that he aided and abedded an insurrection.
(21:47):
He asked the Supreme Court of theUnited States to reverse that finding.
They did not. The Supreme Courtof Colorado found that the president is an
officer of the United States. Trumpasked them to reverse that. They did
not. They only ruled on thatnarrow issue of whether the states can interpret
a clause of the Constitution different fromeach other in the manner so as to
(22:11):
affect a national election. And byruling in that way, it's obvious that
they can't. Otherwise we'd have fiftydifferent meanings to the Constitution. So that's
how they got their unanimity. Sothey didn't even It wasn't even about whether
or not he was convicted of aninsurrection either. It was just on the
(22:33):
remerits of that Fourteenth Amendment element right, correct. It was almost as if
This was a law school hypothetical exam, not one based on actual effects,
because there's no analysis here of whatTrump did or didn't do. It's just
(22:55):
whether or not it's just what thestate of Colorado did. Now, of
course this effects all states. There'sa ruling in Maine that has now been
invalidated, and there's a ruling inIllinois that has now been invalidated. Those
even though those rulings aren't even mentionedin the case because they came about after
the case was argued and after thecase was decided, but before it was
(23:19):
published. Right, So it's interestingwhat the words of Amy Carr. I
don't know about her and tell youthe truth of Amy Cony Barrett. And
she did kind of do what somepeople are calling kind of a passive aggressive
take on the ballot issue. Wheredo you think that came from. There's
(23:44):
a principle of law that appellate courtsfollow, which say you decide cases on
the narrowest issue, and you don'tdecide more than you need to decide in
order to decide the narrow issue.She chastised the majority for deciding more than
they needed to. What does shemean when the court said only Congress can
(24:07):
address this. The Court actually saidwhat it will accept and what it won't
accept from Congress. Now that's notunprecedented, but it's very unusual for the
Court to pre guess, to prejudgewhat Congress is going to do. Courts
don't do that because the Court andthe Congress are equal branches of the government.
(24:29):
So the Court's not in the businessof saying to Congress, don't do
this is what we expect you todo. The Court can evaluate the constitutionality
of what Congress has done in thepast, but it can't prescribe what Congress
needs to do in the future.That's what she chastised them for. There's
a part of Supreme Court opinions calleddicta diicta Latin word just meaning it has
(24:56):
been stated, it has been said, But dick to is the part of
a Supreme Court opinion that is notbinding on future Supreme Courts because it wasn't
necessary for the Court to go there. That's what Justice Barrett and the other
actually the men against the women.The four concurring justices chastised the five in
(25:22):
the majority of four female and fivemale justices. The four concurring justices three
liberals. One conservative chastise the fivemale justices, all conservatives, for going
beyond where they needed to go.This is hair splitting that is of interest
only to those of us who arein this business of monitoring what the Court
(25:45):
does and commenting on it. Thisreally doesn't mean anything, in my view,
to the public or to the outcomeof the case. Well, she
did mention something that to me isdisturbing. I obviously don't like chaos and
strife and that kind of thing.But when she said that, particularly in
this circumstances, writings on the Courtshould turn the national temperature down, not
(26:11):
up. Since when is it theSupreme Court's job to have anything to do
with a national temperature? I mean, isn't that The problem sometimes with the
Supreme Court is that it's making decisionsnot necessarily by law or even writing them
by law. It's making them onthe whim of the public, which is
(26:33):
disturbing to me, Which must explainwhy she went ahead and allowed I can't
remember what state it was to tobar people singing in church during COVID It
it was Indiana, that's the caseyou're talking about. It very upsetting to
you and me. It was particularlyupsetting because she was brand new on the
(26:56):
Court. It was especially upsetting becauseit was inconsistent with some other rules of
the Court. The Court should haveno concern with the temperature of the public.
The court should The Court is theanti democratic branch. It does not
exist to reflect what the public wants. Its job is to protect life,
(27:18):
liberty, property, and the constitutionfrom the overreaching of the popular branches of
the government or the state. Andthe Court should do the right thing though
the heavens fall. Now I say, though the heaven's fall. There's a
model of the Justice. The modelof the Justice Department is, uh,
let there be justice though the heavensfall, meaning we are not concerned with
(27:41):
popularity. We are only concerned withdoing the right thing. Yeah, I
mean, and that's why you knowwhen you look back, for instance,
that we've talked about this before tothe Bush Gore decision. That was a
super gutsy decision given the volatility.Uh, and the they did it anyway,
and it took the case. Andso you said, actually in heights,
(28:06):
I never forget you talk about this, because I was brilliant when you
said, actually, they should neverhave taken the case. You should just
let it play out. But stillI think that was one where I don't
think they really paid attention to thenational temperature at all. I think Roversu's
way was right. Well, Rovers'sWade was decided at a time when abortion
(28:29):
was very rare and almost novel inthe United States, and there were only
very few states in New York amongthem, that permitted abortions. But and
you and I have condemned the opinion. There's one or two parts of it
unworthy of condemnation. But what itultimately did, of course, was to
permit the slaughter of fifty million babiesin the womb in the United States.
(28:53):
However, it was written without regardto what the public thought, and the
Supreme Court should not have regard forwhat the public thinks. That's why they
have lifetime tenure. They can't beremoved from office because what they did was
unpopular. Again, the whole purposeof an independent judiciary is to be anti
(29:15):
democratic. It's to put breaks onthe popular will when that popular will interferes
with rights guaranteed by nature or guaranteedby the Constitution. Yeah, it's really
kind of shocking. It was veryuncomfortable seeing her say that, and just
(29:37):
knowing that's a Supreme court, thedemand is that it be really assertively and
aggressively independent from any opinion outside ofit. So that's crazy to be.
So the Democrats now in their grief, are trying to come up with ways
that Congress can move in and whatis the constitutionality of how that works.
(30:03):
If Congress were to step in anddo something about this, what would what
would what would it be? Well, I can't imagine it would be anything,
because the Congress can't agree on thetime of day, yeah, or
couldn't agree on a speed limit.Even those speed limits are outside the constitutional
confidence of Congress. But I thinkwhat the Supreme Court was inviting was a
(30:29):
statute saying, in order to bedisqualified under Section three of the fourteenth Amendment,
the following would have to happen.A the person would had to have
taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. B they would have had to have
avetted an insurrection, and we definean insurrection as follows. Then they have
to define it. Then they'd haveto define a betting, and then they'd
(30:52):
have to give the standard a proof. Can this be proven in a criminal
trial by a preponderance of the evidencethat's like fifty one percent of evidence or
does that have to be proven ina criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is like ninety seven, ninetyeight, ninety nine percent of the evidence.
So Congress would have to lay laythat out. Congressman Jamie raskin Maryland,
(31:14):
a former professor of constitutional law,is introducing legislation to that effect this
week. But again it's not goingto pass. This would be irrelevant for
Donald Trump and for twenty twenty four. They may want to address this for
the future, but it's a fool'serrand to think that they're going to get
anything done between now and the timeballots are printed for the general election,
(31:41):
which would be six or seven monthsfrom now. In October of this you
mentioned speeding. I want to askyou a quick question, quick personal question.
So I was going up to DesMoines, Iowa to see Cardinal Burke,
not to Moinn, Iowa, uptoo to Wisconsin to see Cardinal Burke.
Had to go through Iowa because mymapping took me all through these almost
(32:01):
these crazy rural areas, and Iwound up. I got back home and
I had two speed camera tickets takenby a camera and They even showed me
video of me speeding, and thatwas taken by some camera. It was
on some kind of rural road andall that kind of stuff, and so
(32:24):
I don't want to pay them.I've gotten red light cameras before, and
I don't really run red lights thatmuch, but you know how, it
happened sometimes way back in the day. And I never paid a red light
camera ticket never. And I didlook it up though, and there are
apparently some cases that uphold the robotissued ticket, aren't there. Well,
(32:51):
it's different in different states. Therobot issued tickets are unlawful and invalid in
New Jersey, so theoretically it doesn'teven happen because it would be a waste
the government's money even to have thesecameras. So under Governor CHRISTI, the
cameras were reverted from giving tickets tojust monitoring what happens in an intersection.
So, god forbid, you havean accident there, your lawyer can get
(33:14):
a video of what happened and helpdecide whose fault it is, but the
camera can't issue the ticket. Butmy understanding is that these are valid in
other states. I don't know whatthe law of Iowa is it is repellent
that something like this can happen,but it does happen. Yeah, well,
(33:35):
okay, well I guess I gotto rethink my position on that.
Then I suppose I mean you don'twhat you don't want is and here I
am giving one of my best friendsin the world legal advice on a nationally
broadcast But what you don't want isfor them to adjudicate you guilty in your
absence, and then this thing ishanging out there and they may suspend your
(33:59):
license in Iowa, and God forbidyour driving in Iowa? Was it Iowa?
Idaho? It was? It wasto Iowa people that I'm saying this,
But I'm from New Jersey's right,Iowa and Idaho is the same,
Okay, d Exagerinney. You don'twant them to suspend your license in that
state. You might end up drivingin that state and the next thing you
know, you'll be arrested without alicense. So they never take a better
(34:22):
to bite the bullet and pay thefine then than risk the consequences. Yeah,
the other hand, you want tohire lawyers to challenge this thing.
There are civil liberties lawyers who willchallenge the power of the state to use
a robot to give you a ticket. Yeah, go all the way to
Supreme Court. Man. Maybe thattime, Amy Cony Barret will be on
(34:43):
my side, all right. Andthen and then the New York case.
Uh. It just so happens thatthis ruling came down almost amazingly on the
very same day that Trump's trial onthe insurrection issue was supposed to yesterday.
(35:04):
Well, yeah, the original trial. Yeah, I mean you're talking about
the federal the federal case now,not the Georgia case, right right,
Yeah. And when that federal caseis on hold because of the issue of
immunity, she has indicated she'll beready to the trial judge. She'll be
ready to go as soon as thecourt rules. Unless they really has total
and absolute immunity, I don't thinkthey will. That would be a radical
(35:29):
change from the law. But hehas a very busy spring and summer.
He has a criminal trial starting onMarch twenty fifth, and he has to
be in court one of that trialtime starting March twenty fifth. That's the
New York It's the Stormy Daniels case. Stormy Daniels is going to testify,
(35:50):
Michael Cohen is going to testify.The former president's going to testify. This
is going to be a bit ofa circus. Wow, Yeah, no
doubt so. Now, last timeI talked to you about the Fanny Willis
case in Georgia, you were notYou didn't have the opinion that this was
actually well even if it disqualifies,or it wasn't going to make the case
(36:14):
totally go down the tubes. Sincethat time, have you heard anything and
some of this information's got a littletestier and crazier with all these people testifying.
Has your mind changed on that atall? Or is this going to
be a case it sticks, butthe people might not be there to prosecute
(36:34):
it. I don't think he's evengoing to remove her from the case.
I think that he may refer herto the ethics people for an ethics investigation,
but I don't think he's going toremove her from the case. I
don't think it affects the case atall. I also think he totally mishandled
this. I am generally reluctant tocriticize other judges, particularly a judge who's
(36:55):
so young and new. Yeah,I'm sure that I made a lot of
mistakes early on in my time onthe bench. But this thing should have
taken about two days instead of amonth. He really, really really dragged
it out in ways that, inmy view, were unnecessary, and he
should have rolled by. Now.You have a lot of human beings and
(37:15):
a lot of assets involved in prosecutingand defending this case, and everybody has
a right to know who's the prosecutor, when's the case happening, where are
we going, what's taking you solong? So but my view is there's
not enough misbehavior on her part hereto remove her, and there's no evidence
(37:36):
of contamination of the case itself.I had to think the case against Trump
and the others is very weak,but there is no evidence of its having
been contaminated by the personal relationship betweenthese two prosecutors. Yeah, her attorney,
in listening to some of the courtroomappearances, her attorney actually did a
(37:59):
pretty good job of establishing that,regardless of what, for instance, her
boyfriend's colleague in the law office said, there's no way actually that he would
know, and there's a lot ofReally, he really did a good job
in establishing the plethora of hearsay thatwas going on, and I was I
(38:22):
was kind of impressed. Tell you, the truth, and that's what I
was thinking. Oh, no,she's not going to be disqualified then probably
Yeah, listen, I'm not sayingthat the judge was unfair or that the
proceedings were unfair. I'm just sayingthey took far, far too long.
But then again, I'm Italian,so I don't have a lot of patience.
(38:45):
This is a good old Southern boy, and he moves at a different
pace than we two in the northeast. Yeah. Well, and again,
even if she's not disqualified, though, there are some real problematic transactions,
and you know, I don't knowhow she can run for reelection. I
(39:05):
would think I'm going to assume she'sa Democrat, and I'm going to assume
that the Democrats would want to challengeher in the primary, maybe not even
give her the party line. Idon't know, but I would think politically
she is seriously damaged over this.Yeah. Well, this is a system
where processed. It's alien to me. And New Jersey has the federal system
(39:28):
where judges are appointed for life.Proskers are appointed for five years. They
don't seek a political base or seekpolitical public political endorsements, but in Georgia
they do well. And then youhave the aspect of the Biden operative or
the alleged Biden operative who was alsoin her office, and there was this
(39:51):
sense or this insinuation somehow there wasa commanding presence of this Biden operative kind
of running the show there. ButI guess that's for somebody else to investigate.
Correct, correct, correct, don't. I don't know how that again
infects the case. Maybe it does, but it certainly is not at a
(40:14):
level where it would require dismissal ofthe case. Yeah, gotcha, at
least not at this stage. Imean, something may come up during the
trial which would shock the conscience ofthe court. I think the great example
of this is the trial of DanielEllsberg for stealing the Pentagon papers and giving
them to the New York Times.They had already been published. The Supreme
(40:37):
Court said, the Times and theWashington Post can publish them. The thief
can be prosecuted, but not thepublisher. So the papers were out there.
The next administration was humiliated, theLBJA administration was humiliated, the generals
who were humiliated. Elsberg's on trialand the government is really claboring him in
the courtroom, and then a coupleof FBI agents decide we're going to help
(40:59):
the guy government out. We're gonnabreak into his psychiatrist's office and get the
records of what he told is Shrink. Well, the judge was so outraged
that what they did. He dismissedthe indictment right there, and the FEDS
decided not to appeal and not toreprosecute. So occasionally government behavior so shocks
(41:21):
the conscience of the court, Andadmittedly what I just told you is an
extreme example, rarely happens, butoccasionally government behavior so shocks the conscience that
the court throws the case out,even though it has nothing to do with
the merits of the case. Thereis no question but that Daniel Ellsberg,
and I think he's an American hero. He's now deceased, and now there's
(41:43):
no question but that Daniel Elsberg committedespionage by stealing national security secrets to which
he was entitled ye to hold butnot to reveal. All right, well,
judgeph Aultello, what's happening on JudgingFreedom today? Well? Nothing,
I'm on my way to Rome,so you're actually even today? Oh yes,
yes, I got a lovely notein the middle of the night from
(42:04):
our favorite member of the College ofCardinals. So that began with Unfortunately I
am still in Wisconsin in Rome,but he answered immediately and it was a
very upbeat, uplifting Jamie Ullman likeemail. Yes, yeah, well that's
good because I well, I'm goingto talk to you later on this morning,
(42:25):
or at least about about an hourfrom now about what's we're planning with
you later on in the springtime.But I'm glad you connected with him.
And he did tell me that hewas probably going to be spending more time
in was Concinent, especially after thePope basically kicked him out. I don't
know whatever it became of that thing, but it was really just a bad
(42:45):
treatment on the part of the Pope. And yes, yes, he did
tell me he's going to be backin Rome by the end of March,
so I missed him by a coupleof weeks. Yeah. Well, he
loves Lacrosse. I'll tell you that. That's that's his home bank. So
he built that magnificent, magnificent structurethere. Oh yeah, that is a
(43:06):
beautiful place. The shrine is justabsolutely amazing. I managed to be able
to get through a lot of itand hang out there and it's really truly
moving and beautiful up there. Yes, all right, judge, Well,
I'll talk you a little bit andlooking forward to excited about you getting to
Italy and it'll be a ton offun. Where exactly you're going to go
(43:28):
or you can go all over.Where's your family from? Again? Well,
this is a work trip. Myfamily. Three quarters are from Naples,
one quarter is from Florence. I'mgiving a lecture on natural law at
the Pontifical Academy in the Vatican.I am staying in the guest house where
the Pope lives in the Vatican.Really, I'm told the breakfasts are communal,
(43:53):
but if he wants to talk toyou, he'll send a Swiss guard
to come over and tap you onthe shoulders retaps. That means the Holy
Father wants you. Wow. Sodo you think you're going to see the
Pope? Chances are I will,but I don't want to get my expectations
up. It's not a very largeplace and I'm gonna be The Vatican's about
(44:15):
the size of Central Park and I'mgoing to be there for four days.
Wow. Well, uh, howare you gonna tell us staying to him?
Are you just gonna be just whatyou know, my traditionalist friends want
me to say, Oh, yourholiness, I am a big fan of
(44:35):
your immediate predecessor. But I thinkhe wants to hear that. Yeah.
Yeah, well maybe you can givehim my phone numbers we can call into
the show sometime. He does speakEnglish. That'd be great coming up next
to the pope. Wow, allright, buddy, my column scoped out
(44:59):
my breakfast with the Pope. Butwe'll see if it happens. Okay,
well that sounds great. All right, Judge to Politano judging freedom, I
appreciate you so much, and I'lltalk to you a little bit. My
friend you Jamie. All right,then, is Judge you hadda Poloitano?
Yeah? I mean, you know, for all of our bluster right about
the Pope, I don't know Isaw him, I would be like,
(45:20):
oh, hi, mister Pope,how are you? Oh lordy
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!