Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I am a little worried about what Kareem Abdul Jabbari
is going to do after share her tenure as press
secretary is up. I mean, what kind of a diversity
hire can she get? Oh well, I guess that's the
breaks of life. On to the next adventure for her.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
She could go to what they could add another chair
on the view, She could do that. How much you
want to bet she ends up sull enough? Maybe MSNBC.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
They all go to TV at some point.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Yeah, yeah, she'll up at MSNBC. That's where I think
she'll go. The current President of the United States, a
guy with the name of Joe Biden, is going to
hold a right I was gonna say something stupid, hold
a press conference. He's going to give a speech at
(00:52):
eleven Eastern time, nine hour time. I've been digging around
trying to find out what he's going to talk about.
I don't know. There could be a surprise of it.
I think we'll take it live at least dip into
it for a little bit to see if there's anything
earth shattering, to see if he's awake, to see to
see how his speech compares to Kamala Harris's speech, her
(01:15):
so called concession speech that she gave yesterday. And I'm
I'm mildly curious about what will be in the speech.
I think it's too soon, but I want to prepare
you for something that I think is going to happen. No,
(01:35):
he'll pardon Hunter Biden. You think yes, huh uh? If
I think to you, I think I think you I
made a bet and I think you owe me money.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
We never came to terms of the exact qualifications of
that debt. But yes, if you want to hold me
to it, I will pay you.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
But let's think. What wasn't the bet that I told
you we would have a winner, and we would have
a winner before Wednesday morning. But the essence of the
bat Tuesday night. Yes, so Tuesday night early in the morning,
like two am or whatever.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
We that's Wednesday morning.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
See, this is why I can't make bets with you
without having them written down.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
I who tried to put stipulations on it when I
asked him about.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
The bet without written you know, notarized. This is how
Unite have bets.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
And we have no witnesses.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Any anybody out there, any goober can confirm that this
bet was placed.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
But here here's you want to place this bet before
sometime on or before noon January twenty twenty twenty one
or twenty twenty twenty one. January twenty twenty twenty five,
Joe Biden will issue a complete presidential pardon to his
(02:50):
son Hunter Biden. You want to take that bet.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
He's already stated multiple times that he would not.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
I need to text missus Redbeard. I think did you
have an aneurysm?
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Even money would be that he would pardon Trump of anything,
and then Trump would then turn be as of a
deal that they would put together, saying that then Trump
would pardon.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
No, that's not gonna that's not gonna happen. Okay, And
here's why I think that's not well. Let's let's set
the tone for uh. I want to talk about Jack Smith,
law fair, the Marlago case, and the criminal case in
(03:40):
New York. But to set that tone, let's first go
to Letitia James, who is not dealing very well with
the results of the election. Here, she is holding a
press conference yesterday.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
We did not expect this result, but we are prepared
to respond to this result.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Wait a minute, respond you're prepared? Hold on you're the
attorney general of the state of New York. Fifty states
held a presidential election on Tuesday, November five. We knew
the results. Some of us felt like we knew the
results before midnight, but by two am on Wednesday morning,
(04:26):
we knew the results and Donald Trump got elected the
forty seventh president of the United States of America. Now,
what in God's name woman, are you prepared for? What
do you have to do as attorney general to get
prepared for a second Trump term?
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Huh?
Speaker 5 (04:47):
And my office has been preparing for several months because
we've been here before. We faced this challenge before.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
What challenge? What? I'm not trying to be funny here,
I'm dead serious. What what challenge did you face before
when Trump got elected and was inaugurated January twenty twenty one?
What January twenty twenty one of seventeen or what? What
(05:22):
were you prepared for?
Speaker 5 (05:24):
And we use the rule of law to fight back?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
We used the rule of law to fight back. What
does she mean by they used the rule of law,
not the fight back.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
It was for justice, not for fighting back.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yes, I could be a little No, in fact, you're you.
You put it in a slightly different way than I would,
but it's pretty much the same thing she means law fair.
For example, that woman had previously won a four hundred
and fifty four million dollar silver fraud judgment. Again the
incoming president, after doing what after accusing him of inflating
(06:05):
his net worth by billions of dollars so he could
get better loan in insurance terms, which the bank looked
at and said, thanks for your numbers. We think we'll
do our own numbers. And so Trump said, okay, well
you tell me what your numbers are. And they looked
at it, and they reached an agreement and said okay.
(06:25):
And the bank said we'll loan you this at this rate.
And the insurance company said, we'll offer you this term
for insurance on these properties at this rate. And they
all came to an agreement, and Trump paid everything, They
(06:46):
refinanced things, they paid everything. Nobody was harmed, nobody was fouled.
She targeted Westchester Golf Club. She targeted the Seven Springs
estate as properties that she thinks she could seize to
make the bond payment. Now, since then, Trump has appealed
(07:07):
the massive ruling, and the appellate court judges really had
seriously tough questions for the New York prosecutors back in September,
signaling they're probably going to side with Trump in that
case because the judges wanted to know why the penalties
were set at almost half a billion dollars and wanted
to know, Hey, who was harmed in a case where
(07:28):
neither side lost any money? You brought a consumer fraud
protection case in which nobody lost any money. How do
you justify that now? Meanwhile, as she abuses her power
to harass political opponents, she has effectively legalized minor crime,
even if she tries to dictate to the citizens of
(07:50):
every other state who they can vote for, whether they
can eat meat, whether they can defend their own lives.
And she's a George Sorels installation.
Speaker 5 (08:03):
And we are prepared to fight back once again because
as the attorney general of this great story, is my
job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers
and the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yes, what's he done to violate? Go back to the
to the to the appraisal case. What rights to New Yorkers?
What rights of the people were violated by banks and
borrowers and lenders, insured and insurers having disputes over values
(08:47):
and loan terms, and everybody comes to an agreement, makes
the payments, everybody walks away happy. The banks made money,
the insurance companies made money. Trump got what he wanted,
he got his insurance, he got his buildings built, wet
right for violated. And by the way, to Dragon's point,
(09:08):
are you supposed to seek justice, not fight back?
Speaker 5 (09:13):
And I will not shrink from that responsibility.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Oh tough woman. I will not shrink from that responsibility.
Now she likes to boast that she took nearly one
hundred legal actions against the Trump administration. Now the Marxists
will do everything they can to make it difficult for
(09:38):
him to govern. And the media, the cabal stands ready
to hype every single story that can be portrayed as
some sort of a failure. And if she continues to
bellow her intention to fight back against the will of
the voters who elected Trump, she should not be an
attorney general, let alone a prosecutor in general at all.
(10:02):
So what's going on here? Well, the chickens are coming
home to roost. Jake Tapper, CNN.
Speaker 6 (10:11):
A big question you have to be answered with donand
Trump's election. What happens to his criminal and civil cases.
Let's bring in CNN Chief Legal Fairsports by Paul Read Paul.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
In just twenty.
Speaker 6 (10:20):
Days, the president's elect is due to be sentenced for
those thirty four felonies he was convicted of in the
New York hush money cover up case. You have some
new reporting on that.
Speaker 7 (10:29):
That's right. I'm told that his legal team is going
to try to make sure that sentencing never happens. As
we know, their usual strategy is always to just try
to get things delayed. But here there are going.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Which is generally speaking, most defense lawyer strategies, because the
longer you can drag something out, I mean, you know,
I know you hear justice delayed is justice denied. But
if you're a criminal defendant, there are times when you
really want things to drag out because it gives you
a little stronger bargaining power with the prosecutor.
Speaker 7 (11:02):
Going to argue to the judge that the sentencing should
never happen because now that Trump is president elect, they
will say that he is entitled to the same constitutional
protections as a sitting president and should be protected from
state actors. And in this case of state prosecutors, now
the judge ever seeing that case, Judgewan Marshon, he's given
himself a deadline of November twelve to decide if the
(11:23):
conviction against Trump should be tossed based on the Supreme
Court recent ruling on immunity. If he tosses the conviction,
there'll be no sentencing. But if that sentencing continues to
go forward, this is the argument that the Trump team
is going to make.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
And I would add I think this gives the judge,
Judge Marshawn, the perfect out he's looking for, because he
does not want to be overturned on appeal, and he
does not want to sentence Trump and then have that
(11:56):
get slapped down by the US Supreme Court because you
are now having a state actor interfere with a president
and you can't do it. So that brings us to
Jack Smith. Multiple sources are now reporting that Special Counsel
Jack Smith is now in discussions with senior Department of
(12:19):
Justice officials about when and how to end his cases
against Donald Trump. Now why would he be doing that, Well,
now he's got an out. Now when I say he's
got an out, I don't think like Judge Murshon, that
(12:40):
Jack Smith was looking for an out. I think Judge
Murshon was and has been looking for a way out.
In fact, I think that's why sentencing was postponed until
November twelve. Actually I think it's November twenty six, but
I think he's having a hearing or something on November twelve,
next sometime next week. Mershaun wants to get out of this.
(13:03):
He knows he's way over his head legally. In that case,
Letitia James, she doesn't care because she's I think they're
both partisans. But Letitia James has political ambition. She wants
to be the next governor of New York. She wants
to succeed Kathy Holckel. So you got politics playing in that.
(13:24):
Jack Smith. Jack Smith's now run up against his employer,
the Department of Justice, because they have a longstanding policy
that prohibits prosecuting as sitting president for any reason. So
Smith's team is now evaluating how they're going to stop
(13:44):
the proceedings in both the federal elections subversion case in
d C. And remember in Florida, they've got the classified
documents case, which was dismissed by Judge Alan Cannon, saying
that the appointment of Jack Smith was unconstitutional because it
wasn't authorized by either President Biden, nor was his position
(14:08):
confirmed by the United States Senate, so it's an unconstitutional appointment.
I think that's a really good case. In fact, while
I understand and agree that these cases should be dismissed
now that Trump's been elected president, I kind of there's
a sick side of me that really wishes the court
could hear the appeal about the constitutionality of Jack Smith,
(14:33):
because I think that would put the nail in the
coffin of this lawfair. In June of last year, Trump
faced these charges of unlawfully keeping classified documents post presidency
and obstruction in their retrieval, to which he pled not
guilty in Florida's federal court. But by August of twenty
(14:53):
twenty three, they then filed additional charges against him for
allegedly trying to overturn the twenty twenty the election. Again
trump pled not guilty. But the Supreme Court's recent ruling
that granted partial immunity to presidents has severely impacted all
these cases, and as a result, the January sixth case,
(15:16):
the so called insurrection case, has now been returned to
a lower court. While Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case,
reasoning that Smith's appointment as Special counsel was unconstitutional. His
appointment did not receive either presidential or congressional approval. In
(15:40):
I would add this, not only did it not get
presidential or congressional approval, but he was given a blank check.
Congress sets budgets. Congress didn't set a budget for the
Special Council. They didn't say, hey, we the President has
asked us to He's nominated you as special counsel, and
(16:03):
we've not ratified. We've not confirmed that appointment. Nor has
the House or the Senate either one approved a budget
for your office. Now, Trump's publicly stated his intention to
fire Smith once he's inaugurated. Now, let me be clear,
(16:24):
Trump probably won't do it himself, or you know, I
take that back. I was giving to say Trump probably
won't do that himself, but I bet he does, because
it just dawned on me. Unless Congress, unless the Senate
acts to appoint an attorney general US attorney general prior
(16:46):
to the inauguration, then Trump could, upon being inaugurated, simply
fire him. There's no provision anywhere for his appoint but
in the first place, so he could just say two
career civil service people, or did Jack Smith direct it?
(17:09):
You're fired, You're out of here. The law fair against
Trump is coming to an end, as it should never
have begun in the first place.
Speaker 8 (17:27):
Hey, Michael, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but as
far as the bet goes, Dragon did win this one.
I do remember distinctly him talking about.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
The bet.
Speaker 8 (17:45):
Are you two talking about the bet?
Speaker 4 (17:47):
But so pay up?
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Well there you go.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Now you talk about a worthless talk back.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
I don't see anybody coming to your defense.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
But did he tell me what the bet was? No?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
He remembers it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
Well, you know what, I remember that I farted yesterday.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Congratulations.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
Do I know the time, the date, the manner. No, not,
but I'm pretty sure I did grief. I remember, I
remember the bet. Okay, Well, tell me what it was then.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That's all we need. It's fine, okay, yup?
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Uh, hang on, hang on. There are some text messages
fifty eight eleven Michael Biden. If I think means if
if Biden does pardon Hunter, I would wager it would
be in the context of a number of other pardons
(18:53):
or commutations that make the Hunter pardon more palatable, probably, So,
I mean that's this is when most presidents do issue
I mean they issue pardons throughout their terms, but the
great bulk of them are generally done at the end
of their terms. And I mean there's there's there are
(19:17):
two reasons for that. There is within the Department of
Justice is a pardon office, and they get requests all
the time. In fact, I had a person come to
me one time who I think I can generally tell
you this story without violating the attorney client privilege, but
(19:39):
they came to me because they were seeking a pardon,
and they described to me why the FBI was looking
for them. And I said, but were you ever captured
and convicted? No, did you ever turn yourself in? No?
(20:05):
Are you still on the lamb? Are you still are
you still on the run? I mean, if this is
someone that I that I it would be like Dragon
coming to me and saying, uh, you can't can can
we can we get go have lunch? Sure? Dragon, Let's
go have lunch. And then Dragon I sit down and
Dragon orders, you know, a blowney sandwich and says h
(20:25):
Fried and particularly the day like this, and I, Mike,
could you help me work a pardon through uh the
Trump d o J. Sure, Dragon, when were you convicted? Well,
I haven't been, but the FBI has been looking for
me for the past twenty years and I've been hiding
in plain sight. That that's how off, That's how I
(20:50):
was just I was dumbfounded by this lunch conversation, and
I said, well, considering that you're still wanted by the FBI,
I seriously doubt. I mean, you know, you can pay
me X number of dollars and I'll do the application
for you, and I'll work my connections and see you
know what can happen. But I'm telling you you're wasting
(21:11):
your money. You can pay me all you know, you
can pay me all this money to seek this pardon,
but you ain't gonna get it. Well, why I'm coming forward. Yes,
you're not even turning yourself in. You're wanting me to
apply for a pardon and you're still on the run.
(21:32):
FBI is going and the Department of Justice is going
to object to that because you're still a fugitive. So no,
I can't. I can't do that. So so back to so,
So the d o J has this office and there's
(21:53):
just everybody in their dog wants a pardon or a
commutation of their sentence, and DJ works them through, tries
to find places where you know, it's justified for health
reasons or age reasons, or you know, they they've they've
been really good in prison, or they've done their time
(22:13):
and now they're productive citizens and they'd like to, you know,
move on and do something else. And so there are
lots of different reasons, all these different factors that go
into granting a pardon, and those occur throughout I mean,
that's a day to day job within the DJ, and
a few of those will get passed on to the
White House, and the White House will dribble a few
(22:36):
out throughout a term of office. But then you get
up to the end, and that's where then everybody who
has any possible connection whatsoever or thinks that this is
my one last chance to get this guy before he
leaves office to feel sorry for me and grant me
a pardon, and so then boom. That's when presidents tend
to grant most of those pardons, and as we know,
(23:00):
like Bill Clinton did for some of his friends. And
whether you approve that or not doesn't make any difference,
because the president has that power to do that. So, yes,
Biden might do it in the context of other pardons.
But let's think about the last part of your text.
(23:24):
It would be in the context of a number of
other pardons that would make the Hunter Biden pardon more palatable.
To what degree do you think I do believe, I
sincerely believe that Joe Biden will pardon Hunter Biden. He
(23:45):
has the authority. Do you think he cares about his legacy?
Do you think he cares what people are going to think? No,
So if he does it, Let's say he's got a
stack of let's say fifty pardons on his desk, and
Hunter is number forty nine in that stack, and he
gets to it and he goes yep, signs that one
(24:06):
and puts it back in stack. Do you think the
media is going to ignore or say, well, the president today,
think about this newscast. So David Muir comes onto ABC
World News tonight. President Biden today is one of those
last official acts in office before the inauguration tomorrow, signed
(24:28):
fifty pardons, forty nine of which one of which was
Hunter Biden. Do you think that's all they're going to say? No,
that's going to be headline news for days on end.
So I don't think it helps or hurts. Whether Biden
does it independently of any others or tries to bury
(24:49):
it in a stack of fifty, it will make any difference.
That that's all the media will talk about. But now
here's the other point that I want to make. Biden
could pardon Trump. Trump probably, I don't know that you
(25:11):
can reject a pardon. I'd have to research that. But
Trump doesn't want to pardon.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
Real quick, Michael, can Can they either of them be
pardoned if they haven't been sentenced?
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Oh? Yeah, you can be pardoned for crimes that you
Richard Nixon was never found guilty of anything, and Nixon
was pardoned of anything he may have done. So yeah,
you can be pardoned for crimes that you know that
you've not yet committed, but for which there may be
some evidence that maybe you did. But Trump won't want that.
Trump's maintain his innocence, and there is While there is
(25:47):
not a legal implication of guilt, there's nonetheless a political implication.
There's a societal implication that if you get a pardon,
you must have been guilty of something. So Trump would
reject that. But here's the other thing why. Here's the
other reason why I don't think that Biden will do that.
(26:08):
Biden can't touch the state charges. It only applies to
federal charges. He cannot pardon him for the in the
Mershaan case or in the Marlogue financial fraud case. Those
are state charges and he can't do anything there. Here's
(26:31):
what I think is actually going on. I think that
when I said in the last segment that Jack Smith
was in consultation with Department of Justice officials about how
to unwind his case, there are several factors that Jack
(26:52):
Smith has to consider, and there are several factors that
I think the Department of Justice wants to consider Jack
Smith good. Just for the case that's not yet on appeal.
He could just dismiss the charges. He could just go
to the judges said I want to dismiss the charges.
(27:12):
Although technically in Florida, where that's happened, there are no
charges because the judge ruled his appointment unconstitutional, so those
charges went away. So in Florida there's nothing to do.
The problem is in DC in the January sixth case,
because there that case is now on appeal, So now
(27:37):
you'd have to go to the Supreme Court. Nobody wants
to go to the Supreme Court to ask your case
to be dismissed. You wanted to figure out a different
way for it to go away. And so I think
there are conversations going on between the Department of Justice
and Judge Mershawn and Letitia James. And I think that's why. Remember,
(28:00):
there are no coincidences in politics, and I think that's
why Letitia James came out and made this stupid statement
that she did.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
We did not expect this result, but we are prepared
to respond to this result.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Listen closely. We're prepared to respond to this result.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
What result the election, and my office has been preparing
for several months because we've been here before.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
I find we've been here before he's been elected before,
we've been preparing for his election. I think what she
is doing is she is signaling to two people, Jack
Smith and Kathy Hochel. I need a way out of
(28:57):
this away, to deal with this without having a New
York Appellate Court or the New York Supreme Court or
the New York Appellate Court, which is the higher court
in New York, of tossing this out of my ass
of tossing my ass out on the street, and I
(29:19):
got to toss my ass to a break.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
Michael, I think Jack Smith's gonna run away and resign
before that ever happens.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I don't think Trump will get the pleasure of firing him.
I agree, And I think that's why this whole Latitia
James thing is happening now or happened yesterday, because this
is all part of a coordinated effort of how do
we unwind all of the law fair because they know
that it can't go forward. Judge mchhawn is really stuck.
(29:49):
Do you think Judge Murchon really wants to haul the
president elect into a courtroom and sentence him, even if
it is to one hour of probation. No, he does
not want to do that. I don't care how diehard
of a partisan he is. He does not want to
be the judge that does that and then had that
(30:11):
overturned on appeal, particularly if it went to the Supreme
Court because of the immunity ruling. And Letitia James is
in the same position. She's already been slapped down by
the appellate court asking me her questions like where's the
crime here. Why did you use this statute? Why is
this bond so high? What the hell do you think
you're doing? So? I think now remember, just like Nathan
(30:35):
Wade in the Fulton County, Georgia case, that case is
essentially dead. Just like he traveled to d C to
meet with DOJ officials. Now Jack Smith, who is in
DC anyway, is conferring with the DOJ officials. And I'm
sure this is why Letitia James has come out and
said what she said, because they want to figure out
(30:56):
a way how do we unwind all of this and
quietly go away. Well, all of that's going on. Oh
and by someone asked me, what about the January sixth defendants.
I don't really know. There's probably a part of me
that Trump wants to come out of the gate on
(31:18):
policy matters, not to say that he won't ultimately pardon
the January sixth defendants, particularly, and he may be selective
some of those, like some of the grandmothers and some
of the ones that just kind of walked in and
walked out, Those are probably very appropriate for a pardon,
(31:38):
but he does not want that to be the first thing.
Trump wants to come right out of the chute, on
the border, on the economy, rescinding some of that spending
in the Inflation Reduction Act, stopping these stupid EV mandates,
getting rid of that zero twenty thirty, all that crap.
He wants to come out with a bang on the
(31:59):
that stuff, and then later on, as things settled down
and they're in a groove, he might then considered January sixth.
While all of this is going on, this is at CNN.
Speaker 6 (32:15):
First from the term was rife with scandals and controversies.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
You know, I'm not gonna have time to do this.
I'll do this when I get back. Bob Woodward has
now hit CNN and guess whose name comes up? Unbelievable
that well, it's the hoax all over again.
Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
I am a little worried about what Kareem Abdul Jabbari
is going to do after share her tenure as press
secretary is up. I mean, what kind of a diversity
hire can she get? Oh well, I guess that's the
breaks of life. On to the next adventure for her.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
She could go to what they could add another chair
on the view, She could do that. How much you
want to bet she ends up sull enough? Maybe MSNBC.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
They all go to TV at some point.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Yeah, yeah, she'll up at MSNBC. That's where I think
she'll go. The current President of the United States, a
guy with the name of Joe Biden, is going to
hold a right I was gonna say something stupid, hold
a press conference. He's going to give a speech at
(00:52):
eleven Eastern time, nine hour time. I've been digging around
trying to find out what he's going to talk about.
I don't know. There could be a surprise of it.
I think we'll take it live at least dip into
it for a little bit to see if there's anything
earth shattering, to see if he's awake, to see to
see how his speech compares to Kamala Harris's speech, her
(01:15):
so called concession speech that she gave yesterday. And I'm
I'm mildly curious about what will be in the speech.
I think it's too soon, but I want to prepare
you for something that I think is going to happen. No,
(01:35):
he'll pardon Hunter Biden. You think yes, huh uh? If
I think to you, I think I think you I
made a bet and I think you owe me money.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
We never came to terms of the exact qualifications of
that debt. But yes, if you want to hold me
to it, I will pay you.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
But let's think. What wasn't the bet that I told
you we would have a winner, and we would have
a winner before Wednesday morning. But the essence of the
bat Tuesday night. Yes, so Tuesday night early in the morning,
like two am or whatever.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
We that's Wednesday morning.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
See, this is why I can't make bets with you
without having them written down.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
I who tried to put stipulations on it when I
asked him about.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
The bet without written you know, notarized. This is how
Unite have bets.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
And we have no witnesses.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Any anybody out there, any goober can confirm that this
bet was placed.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
But here here's you want to place this bet before
sometime on or before noon January twenty twenty twenty one
or twenty twenty twenty one. January twenty twenty twenty five,
Joe Biden will issue a complete presidential pardon to his
(02:50):
son Hunter Biden. You want to take that bet.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
He's already stated multiple times that he would not.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
I need to text missus Redbeard. I think did you
have an aneurysm?
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Even money would be that he would pardon Trump of anything,
and then Trump would then turn be as of a
deal that they would put together, saying that then Trump
would pardon.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
No, that's not gonna that's not gonna happen. Okay, And
here's why I think that's not well. Let's let's set
the tone for uh. I want to talk about Jack Smith,
law fair, the Marlago case, and the criminal case in
(03:40):
New York. But to set that tone, let's first go
to Letitia James, who is not dealing very well with
the results of the election. Here, she is holding a
press conference yesterday.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
We did not expect this result, but we are prepared
to respond to this result.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Wait a minute, respond you're prepared? Hold on you're the
attorney general of the state of New York. Fifty states
held a presidential election on Tuesday, November five. We knew
the results. Some of us felt like we knew the
results before midnight, but by two am on Wednesday morning,
(04:26):
we knew the results and Donald Trump got elected the
forty seventh president of the United States of America. Now,
what in God's name woman, are you prepared for? What
do you have to do as attorney general to get
prepared for a second Trump term?
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Huh?
Speaker 5 (04:47):
And my office has been preparing for several months because
we've been here before. We faced this challenge before.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
What challenge? What? I'm not trying to be funny here,
I'm dead serious. What what challenge did you face before
when Trump got elected and was inaugurated January twenty twenty one?
What January twenty twenty one of seventeen or what? What
(05:22):
were you prepared for?
Speaker 5 (05:24):
And we use the rule of law to fight back?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
We used the rule of law to fight back. What
does she mean by they used the rule of law,
not the fight back.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
It was for justice, not for fighting back.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yes, I could be a little No, in fact, you're you.
You put it in a slightly different way than I would,
but it's pretty much the same thing she means law fair.
For example, that woman had previously won a four hundred
and fifty four million dollar silver fraud judgment. Again the
incoming president, after doing what after accusing him of inflating
(06:05):
his net worth by billions of dollars so he could
get better loan in insurance terms, which the bank looked
at and said, thanks for your numbers. We think we'll
do our own numbers. And so Trump said, okay, well
you tell me what your numbers are. And they looked
at it, and they reached an agreement and said okay.
(06:25):
And the bank said we'll loan you this at this rate.
And the insurance company said, we'll offer you this term
for insurance on these properties at this rate. And they
all came to an agreement, and Trump paid everything, They
(06:46):
refinanced things, they paid everything. Nobody was harmed, nobody was fouled.
She targeted Westchester Golf Club. She targeted the Seven Springs
estate as properties that she thinks she could seize to
make the bond payment. Now, since then, Trump has appealed
(07:07):
the massive ruling, and the appellate court judges really had
seriously tough questions for the New York prosecutors back in September,
signaling they're probably going to side with Trump in that
case because the judges wanted to know why the penalties
were set at almost half a billion dollars and wanted
to know, Hey, who was harmed in a case where
(07:28):
neither side lost any money? You brought a consumer fraud
protection case in which nobody lost any money. How do
you justify that now? Meanwhile, as she abuses her power
to harass political opponents, she has effectively legalized minor crime,
even if she tries to dictate to the citizens of
(07:50):
every other state who they can vote for, whether they
can eat meat, whether they can defend their own lives.
And she's a George Sorels installation.
Speaker 5 (08:03):
And we are prepared to fight back once again because
as the attorney general of this great story, is my
job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers
and the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yes, what's he done to violate? Go back to the
to the to the appraisal case. What rights to New Yorkers?
What rights of the people were violated by banks and
borrowers and lenders, insured and insurers having disputes over values
(08:47):
and loan terms, and everybody comes to an agreement, makes
the payments, everybody walks away happy. The banks made money,
the insurance companies made money. Trump got what he wanted,
he got his insurance, he got his buildings built, wet
right for violated. And by the way, to Dragon's point,
(09:08):
are you supposed to seek justice, not fight back?
Speaker 5 (09:13):
And I will not shrink from that responsibility.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Oh tough woman. I will not shrink from that responsibility.
Now she likes to boast that she took nearly one
hundred legal actions against the Trump administration. Now the Marxists
will do everything they can to make it difficult for
(09:38):
him to govern. And the media, the cabal stands ready
to hype every single story that can be portrayed as
some sort of a failure. And if she continues to
bellow her intention to fight back against the will of
the voters who elected Trump, she should not be an
attorney general, let alone a prosecutor in general at all.
(10:02):
So what's going on here? Well, the chickens are coming
home to roost. Jake Tapper, CNN.
Speaker 6 (10:11):
A big question you have to be answered with donand
Trump's election. What happens to his criminal and civil cases.
Let's bring in CNN Chief Legal Fairsports by Paul Read Paul.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
In just twenty.
Speaker 6 (10:20):
Days, the president's elect is due to be sentenced for
those thirty four felonies he was convicted of in the
New York hush money cover up case. You have some
new reporting on that.
Speaker 7 (10:29):
That's right. I'm told that his legal team is going
to try to make sure that sentencing never happens. As
we know, their usual strategy is always to just try
to get things delayed. But here there are going.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Which is generally speaking, most defense lawyer strategies, because the
longer you can drag something out, I mean, you know,
I know you hear justice delayed is justice denied. But
if you're a criminal defendant, there are times when you
really want things to drag out because it gives you
a little stronger bargaining power with the prosecutor.
Speaker 7 (11:02):
Going to argue to the judge that the sentencing should
never happen because now that Trump is president elect, they
will say that he is entitled to the same constitutional
protections as a sitting president and should be protected from
state actors. And in this case of state prosecutors, now
the judge ever seeing that case, Judgewan Marshon, he's given
himself a deadline of November twelve to decide if the
(11:23):
conviction against Trump should be tossed based on the Supreme
Court recent ruling on immunity. If he tosses the conviction,
there'll be no sentencing. But if that sentencing continues to
go forward, this is the argument that the Trump team
is going to make.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
And I would add I think this gives the judge,
Judge Marshawn, the perfect out he's looking for, because he
does not want to be overturned on appeal, and he
does not want to sentence Trump and then have that
(11:56):
get slapped down by the US Supreme Court because you
are now having a state actor interfere with a president
and you can't do it. So that brings us to
Jack Smith. Multiple sources are now reporting that Special Counsel
Jack Smith is now in discussions with senior Department of
(12:19):
Justice officials about when and how to end his cases
against Donald Trump. Now why would he be doing that, Well,
now he's got an out. Now when I say he's
got an out, I don't think like Judge Murshon, that
(12:40):
Jack Smith was looking for an out. I think Judge
Murshon was and has been looking for a way out.
In fact, I think that's why sentencing was postponed until
November twelve. Actually I think it's November twenty six, but
I think he's having a hearing or something on November twelve,
next sometime next week. Mershaun wants to get out of this.
(13:03):
He knows he's way over his head legally. In that case,
Letitia James, she doesn't care because she's I think they're
both partisans. But Letitia James has political ambition. She wants
to be the next governor of New York. She wants
to succeed Kathy Holckel. So you got politics playing in that.
(13:24):
Jack Smith. Jack Smith's now run up against his employer,
the Department of Justice, because they have a longstanding policy
that prohibits prosecuting as sitting president for any reason. So
Smith's team is now evaluating how they're going to stop
(13:44):
the proceedings in both the federal elections subversion case in
d C. And remember in Florida, they've got the classified
documents case, which was dismissed by Judge Alan Cannon, saying
that the appointment of Jack Smith was unconstitutional because it
wasn't authorized by either President Biden, nor was his position
(14:08):
confirmed by the United States Senate, so it's an unconstitutional appointment.
I think that's a really good case. In fact, while
I understand and agree that these cases should be dismissed
now that Trump's been elected president, I kind of there's
a sick side of me that really wishes the court
could hear the appeal about the constitutionality of Jack Smith,
(14:33):
because I think that would put the nail in the
coffin of this lawfair. In June of last year, Trump
faced these charges of unlawfully keeping classified documents post presidency
and obstruction in their retrieval, to which he pled not
guilty in Florida's federal court. But by August of twenty
(14:53):
twenty three, they then filed additional charges against him for
allegedly trying to overturn the twenty twenty the election. Again
trump pled not guilty. But the Supreme Court's recent ruling
that granted partial immunity to presidents has severely impacted all
these cases, and as a result, the January sixth case,
(15:16):
the so called insurrection case, has now been returned to
a lower court. While Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case,
reasoning that Smith's appointment as Special counsel was unconstitutional. His
appointment did not receive either presidential or congressional approval. In
(15:40):
I would add this, not only did it not get
presidential or congressional approval, but he was given a blank check.
Congress sets budgets. Congress didn't set a budget for the
Special Council. They didn't say, hey, we the President has
asked us to He's nominated you as special counsel, and
(16:03):
we've not ratified. We've not confirmed that appointment. Nor has
the House or the Senate either one approved a budget
for your office. Now, Trump's publicly stated his intention to
fire Smith once he's inaugurated. Now, let me be clear,
(16:24):
Trump probably won't do it himself, or you know, I
take that back. I was giving to say Trump probably
won't do that himself, but I bet he does, because
it just dawned on me. Unless Congress, unless the Senate
acts to appoint an attorney general US attorney general prior
(16:46):
to the inauguration, then Trump could, upon being inaugurated, simply
fire him. There's no provision anywhere for his appoint but
in the first place, so he could just say two
career civil service people, or did Jack Smith direct it?
(17:09):
You're fired, You're out of here. The law fair against
Trump is coming to an end, as it should never
have begun in the first place.
Speaker 8 (17:27):
Hey, Michael, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but as
far as the bet goes, Dragon did win this one.
I do remember distinctly him talking about.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
The bet.
Speaker 8 (17:45):
Are you two talking about the bet?
Speaker 4 (17:47):
But so pay up?
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Well there you go.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Now you talk about a worthless talk back.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
I don't see anybody coming to your defense.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
But did he tell me what the bet was? No?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
He remembers it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
Well, you know what, I remember that I farted yesterday.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Congratulations.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
Do I know the time, the date, the manner. No, not,
but I'm pretty sure I did grief. I remember, I
remember the bet. Okay, Well, tell me what it was then.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That's all we need. It's fine, okay, yup?
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Uh, hang on, hang on. There are some text messages
fifty eight eleven Michael Biden. If I think means if
if Biden does pardon Hunter, I would wager it would
be in the context of a number of other pardons
(18:53):
or commutations that make the Hunter pardon more palatable, probably, So,
I mean that's this is when most presidents do issue
I mean they issue pardons throughout their terms, but the
great bulk of them are generally done at the end
of their terms. And I mean there's there's there are
(19:17):
two reasons for that. There is within the Department of
Justice is a pardon office, and they get requests all
the time. In fact, I had a person come to
me one time who I think I can generally tell
you this story without violating the attorney client privilege, but
(19:39):
they came to me because they were seeking a pardon,
and they described to me why the FBI was looking
for them. And I said, but were you ever captured
and convicted? No, did you ever turn yourself in? No?
(20:05):
Are you still on the lamb? Are you still are
you still on the run? I mean, if this is
someone that I that I it would be like Dragon
coming to me and saying, uh, you can't can can
we can we get go have lunch? Sure? Dragon, Let's
go have lunch. And then Dragon I sit down and
Dragon orders, you know, a blowney sandwich and says h
(20:25):
Fried and particularly the day like this, and I, Mike,
could you help me work a pardon through uh the
Trump d o J. Sure, Dragon, when were you convicted? Well,
I haven't been, but the FBI has been looking for
me for the past twenty years and I've been hiding
in plain sight. That that's how off, That's how I
(20:50):
was just I was dumbfounded by this lunch conversation, and
I said, well, considering that you're still wanted by the FBI,
I seriously doubt. I mean, you know, you can pay
me X number of dollars and I'll do the application
for you, and I'll work my connections and see you
know what can happen. But I'm telling you you're wasting
(21:11):
your money. You can pay me all you know, you
can pay me all this money to seek this pardon,
but you ain't gonna get it. Well, why I'm coming forward. Yes,
you're not even turning yourself in. You're wanting me to
apply for a pardon and you're still on the run.
(21:32):
FBI is going and the Department of Justice is going
to object to that because you're still a fugitive. So no,
I can't. I can't do that. So so back to so,
So the d o J has this office and there's
(21:53):
just everybody in their dog wants a pardon or a
commutation of their sentence, and DJ works them through, tries
to find places where you know, it's justified for health
reasons or age reasons, or you know, they they've they've
been really good in prison, or they've done their time
(22:13):
and now they're productive citizens and they'd like to, you know,
move on and do something else. And so there are
lots of different reasons, all these different factors that go
into granting a pardon, and those occur throughout I mean,
that's a day to day job within the DJ, and
a few of those will get passed on to the
White House, and the White House will dribble a few
(22:36):
out throughout a term of office. But then you get
up to the end, and that's where then everybody who
has any possible connection whatsoever or thinks that this is
my one last chance to get this guy before he
leaves office to feel sorry for me and grant me
a pardon, and so then boom. That's when presidents tend
to grant most of those pardons, and as we know,
(23:00):
like Bill Clinton did for some of his friends. And
whether you approve that or not doesn't make any difference,
because the president has that power to do that. So, yes,
Biden might do it in the context of other pardons.
But let's think about the last part of your text.
(23:24):
It would be in the context of a number of
other pardons that would make the Hunter Biden pardon more palatable.
To what degree do you think I do believe, I
sincerely believe that Joe Biden will pardon Hunter Biden. He
(23:45):
has the authority. Do you think he cares about his legacy?
Do you think he cares what people are going to think? No,
So if he does it, Let's say he's got a
stack of let's say fifty pardons on his desk, and
Hunter is number forty nine in that stack, and he
gets to it and he goes yep, signs that one
(24:06):
and puts it back in stack. Do you think the
media is going to ignore or say, well, the president today,
think about this newscast. So David Muir comes onto ABC
World News tonight. President Biden today is one of those
last official acts in office before the inauguration tomorrow, signed
(24:28):
fifty pardons, forty nine of which one of which was
Hunter Biden. Do you think that's all they're going to say? No,
that's going to be headline news for days on end.
So I don't think it helps or hurts. Whether Biden
does it independently of any others or tries to bury
(24:49):
it in a stack of fifty, it will make any difference.
That that's all the media will talk about. But now
here's the other point that I want to make. Biden
could pardon Trump. Trump probably, I don't know that you
(25:11):
can reject a pardon. I'd have to research that. But
Trump doesn't want to pardon.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
Real quick, Michael, can Can they either of them be
pardoned if they haven't been sentenced?
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Oh? Yeah, you can be pardoned for crimes that you
Richard Nixon was never found guilty of anything, and Nixon
was pardoned of anything he may have done. So yeah,
you can be pardoned for crimes that you know that
you've not yet committed, but for which there may be
some evidence that maybe you did. But Trump won't want that.
Trump's maintain his innocence, and there is While there is
(25:47):
not a legal implication of guilt, there's nonetheless a political implication.
There's a societal implication that if you get a pardon,
you must have been guilty of something. So Trump would
reject that. But here's the other thing why. Here's the
other reason why I don't think that Biden will do that.
(26:08):
Biden can't touch the state charges. It only applies to
federal charges. He cannot pardon him for the in the
Mershaan case or in the Marlogue financial fraud case. Those
are state charges and he can't do anything there. Here's
(26:31):
what I think is actually going on. I think that
when I said in the last segment that Jack Smith
was in consultation with Department of Justice officials about how
to unwind his case, there are several factors that Jack
(26:52):
Smith has to consider, and there are several factors that
I think the Department of Justice wants to consider Jack
Smith good. Just for the case that's not yet on appeal.
He could just dismiss the charges. He could just go
to the judges said I want to dismiss the charges.
(27:12):
Although technically in Florida, where that's happened, there are no
charges because the judge ruled his appointment unconstitutional, so those
charges went away. So in Florida there's nothing to do.
The problem is in DC in the January sixth case,
because there that case is now on appeal, So now
(27:37):
you'd have to go to the Supreme Court. Nobody wants
to go to the Supreme Court to ask your case
to be dismissed. You wanted to figure out a different
way for it to go away. And so I think
there are conversations going on between the Department of Justice
and Judge Mershawn and Letitia James. And I think that's why. Remember,
(28:00):
there are no coincidences in politics, and I think that's
why Letitia James came out and made this stupid statement
that she did.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
We did not expect this result, but we are prepared
to respond to this result.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
Listen closely. We're prepared to respond to this result.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
What result the election, and my office has been preparing
for several months because we've been here before.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
I find we've been here before he's been elected before,
we've been preparing for his election. I think what she
is doing is she is signaling to two people, Jack
Smith and Kathy Hochel. I need a way out of
(28:57):
this away, to deal with this without having a New
York Appellate Court or the New York Supreme Court or
the New York Appellate Court, which is the higher court
in New York, of tossing this out of my ass
of tossing my ass out on the street, and I
(29:19):
got to toss my ass to a break.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
Michael, I think Jack Smith's gonna run away and resign
before that ever happens.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I don't think Trump will get the pleasure of firing him.
I agree, And I think that's why this whole Latitia
James thing is happening now or happened yesterday, because this
is all part of a coordinated effort of how do
we unwind all of the law fair because they know
that it can't go forward. Judge mchhawn is really stuck.
(29:49):
Do you think Judge Murchon really wants to haul the
president elect into a courtroom and sentence him, even if
it is to one hour of probation. No, he does
not want to do that. I don't care how diehard
of a partisan he is. He does not want to
be the judge that does that and then had that
(30:11):
overturned on appeal, particularly if it went to the Supreme
Court because of the immunity ruling. And Letitia James is
in the same position. She's already been slapped down by
the appellate court asking me her questions like where's the
crime here. Why did you use this statute? Why is
this bond so high? What the hell do you think
you're doing? So? I think now remember, just like Nathan
(30:35):
Wade in the Fulton County, Georgia case, that case is
essentially dead. Just like he traveled to d C to
meet with DOJ officials. Now Jack Smith, who is in
DC anyway, is conferring with the DOJ officials. And I'm
sure this is why Letitia James has come out and
said what she said, because they want to figure out
(30:56):
a way how do we unwind all of this and
quietly go away. Well, all of that's going on. Oh
and by someone asked me, what about the January sixth defendants.
I don't really know. There's probably a part of me
that Trump wants to come out of the gate on
(31:18):
policy matters, not to say that he won't ultimately pardon
the January sixth defendants, particularly, and he may be selective
some of those, like some of the grandmothers and some
of the ones that just kind of walked in and
walked out, Those are probably very appropriate for a pardon,
(31:38):
but he does not want that to be the first thing.
Trump wants to come right out of the chute, on
the border, on the economy, rescinding some of that spending
in the Inflation Reduction Act, stopping these stupid EV mandates,
getting rid of that zero twenty thirty, all that crap.
He wants to come out with a bang on the
(31:59):
that stuff, and then later on, as things settled down
and they're in a groove, he might then considered January sixth.
While all of this is going on, this is at CNN.
Speaker 6 (32:15):
First from the term was rife with scandals and controversies.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
You know, I'm not gonna have time to do this.
I'll do this when I get back. Bob Woodward has
now hit CNN and guess whose name comes up? Unbelievable
that well, it's the hoax all over again.
Popular Podcasts
Good Game with Sarah Spain
Good Game is your one-stop shop for the biggest stories in women’s sports. Every day, host Sarah Spain gives you the stories, stakes, stars and stats to keep up with your favorite women’s teams, leagues and athletes. Through thoughtful insight, witty banter, and an all around good time, Sarah and friends break down the latest news, talk about the games you can’t miss, and debate the issues of the day. Don’t miss interviews with the people of the moment, whether they be athletes, coaches, reporters, or celebrity fans.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.