May 30, 2024 • 16 mins
In this episode, Buck Sexton and Conn Carroll, the Commentary Editor at the Washington Examiner, delve into the latest updates on the Trump trial and the New York Times' controversial piece on Justice Alito.
Conn discusses the significance of Alito's wife's flag controversy and the broader implications for the Supreme Court's decisions related to the January 6th protesters and Trump's immunity case. The conversation shifts to the Trump trial, highlighting the potential outcomes and their impact on the judiciary system, the Manhattan DA's office, and the upcoming elections.
Conn discusses the significance of Alito's wife's flag controversy and the broader implications for the Supreme Court's decisions related to the January 6th protesters and Trump's immunity case. The conversation shifts to the Trump trial, highlighting the potential outcomes and their impact on the judiciary system, the Manhattan DA's office, and the upcoming elections.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, Welcome to the
Buck Brief. Con Carol back in the mix with us.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Here.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
He is commentary editor at the Washington Examiner. And I
see some very smart looking glasses on him. I like these,
by the way, Con, I haven't seen these before so.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
For a while.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Really, Oh, I don't know. I thought these looked new
to me. Were you always a glasses guy?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Or is this new since law school?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
So yeah, long time, long time. Ah, Gosh, I don't know.
I like them though. Nice frames. Anyway, we got big
news to talk about here. Uh, let's start with We
got the Trump trial. As people watch this, it could
even be at a verdict, so we don't know, disreverted
as we are talking, no verdict. I mean, it could happen,
and that would be quite a thing. We'll monitor this
(01:04):
as we are talking. But we'll talk Trump trial second, actually,
because I want to start with Alito and the New
York Times coming out with this in depth story on
Elito's wife putting a appeal to heaven flag up and
how that and then also an upside down American flag.
Therefore he should recuse himself from anything involving Trump. That's
(01:27):
quite a leap, and Alito has said, not so fast.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, I mean I'm looking this. I've seen like twelve
pages they did for the New York Times, the story.
It's very very pressing stuff. The stake of democracy clearly
clearly at stake here.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Yeah, but what do you think it's all about, Like,
why go through all this?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
No, I mean it's pretty clear. I mean, this is
it's just this time of year, so you have the
Supreme Court terms ending. They always get out of town
before July fourth. So what they're trying to do is
they're trying to influence the Court on their upcoming decisions.
And there are two such decisions that have relevance to Trump.
One is the case that decides whether or not all
the January six protesters that are up for this it's
(02:11):
actually a DoD Frank a law that they are alleged
to have broken by disrupting a government meeting, and so
that's been argued before the court to say, look, this
is not what Dodd Frank was meant to do, so
that would get off a lot of the January sixth
prosecutions that are going through. Now that's one case, and
then the other case is the immunity case on Trump
(02:34):
from his actions on January sixth itself. And so those
are two cases that are going to be coming down
before July fourth. And so this is basically just a
classic intimidation effort by the left to try to browbeat
the conservative members of the court into possibly citing with
the three liberal members to give maximum prosecutal power to
(02:58):
the government.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
So I need I need help with this one. If sure,
if the appeal to have in flag is a far
right hate symbol, why was the appeal to have flag
flying outside of San Francisco's Civic Center plaza for the
last few decades.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, up until apparently this week was that it was
finally taken down. They finally got the memo from the
New York Times that it was where do they put
a symbol of January sixth, which, of course is ridiculous.
This is a completely story. This is a flag that
has a long history going back to George Washington. It
was commissioned by George Washington. It is currently used by
(03:41):
I think the Massachusetts National Guard, as one of their symbols.
Symbols get co opted by different people, different movements all
the time. And you know, this is just an effort
to tar the reputation and intimidate a Supreme Court justice,
completely flimsy one by the New York And it's it's
more than just New York Times. It's the whole diaspora
(04:02):
of NGOs on the left funded by durting groups. I mean,
Pro Publica is big into this. They definitely helped fund
the upside down flag story, but this is part of
their and they also are the ones who funded all
those stories against Clarence Thomas, suggesting that he is corrupt
because he went on vacations with a wealthy individual. But
(04:25):
this is an organized effort effort by more than just
the Air Times, by nonprofit organizations like Pro Publica, to
intimidate and reshript, reshape the court in more importantly long term,
to build the foundation for packing of the court if
they are to narrowly win the White House and keep
the Senate. That's the eye and the prize goal here.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
And yet here we are looking at the destruction of
our judiciary system in New York City with the Trump trial,
and that we're supposed to think is somehow okay. Meanwhile,
they're worried there at times about flags that have been
flown in this country for a very long time, but
anything to it. See, I have a theory on this
(05:11):
one to put this Steve. I think that they just
hate Alito so much that they become irrational when it
comes to anything related to Alito. You know what I'm saying.
Like they might have been a little bit more, they
might have been a little slower to pull this maneuver
with someone else. But I think they hate Alito and
Thomas more than any other judges out there right now.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I would throw Kavanaugh into that mix. I think they
hate Alito and Thomas and Cavanaugh the most. I mean,
there's definitely less animosity towards Corsic or Barrett, but I
think I think those three, I think you do have
to put Kavanaugh in there because there is just so
much hate and anks left over from his confirmation that
(05:55):
he's in there, and unlike the other two, I mean,
Kavanaugh at least is a Trump judge, And that's kind
of the irony here is that Bush is supposed to
be one of the good Republicans, but the justice is
that the people on the left hate the most are
too Bush appointees. Thomas Alito.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
I want to come back and talk a little bit
about the New York City Trump trial situation here. CON's
going to keep me from thinking that the Republic is doomed?
I hope. I don't know. Maybe not. We'll see. But
first off, everybody, well, you can get smarter for free.
I think it's an opportunity you should definitely take. And
a good friend of mine, Porter Sansbury, who's one of
the smartest economists I've ever met. I've known him for
(06:33):
over a decade now. I've worked with Porter, had countless
dinners with Porter, just picking his brain and understanding where
he thinks the markets are going. He has a documentary
online that you have to see, America's Last Election. That's
America's Last Election. You can see it online free of charge.
It's really about your money and the economy, but it
(06:53):
also ties in politics too, to all of this thirty
four trillion dollars of debt inflation that the Fed has
been unable to tame. We've got big issues in this
as well as the impending political cataclysm that this documentary
gets into. Last election plot dot is the website where
you got to watch this last election plot dot com.
(07:15):
Go watch this documentary before you know, Google pulls it
down or something paid for it by Porter and company.
All Right, con back to the mix heere of New
York City. Do you want to make a prediction given
that it's going to be right or wrong within forty
eight hours, or do you want to just talk around
the issue a little bit and tell me whether you
think that this has made an irreparable farce of the
(07:37):
District Attorney's office in Manhattan.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, I mean that's an easy one. It has made
a complete far so the District Attorney's office. Absolutely, It's
hard to see how they crawl back from this. But
as far as the verdict itself, I go back and forth,
you know, I mean, I think it's the Ejan Carrol
verdict took so quickly to come back, but that that
wasn't a criminal matter. It only takes one to get
a hung jury. And this is such a weaker case
(08:03):
even than the Ejane Caroll one, much much higher standard
of evidence that needs to be crossed here, you know,
and we're talking about Kavanaugh. I keep coming back to
Kavanaugh and how you know, uh, the friend of the accuser,
she could have come up and totally corroborated her story,
but she she stuck to the truth and and really
(08:25):
in a way saved saved Kavanaugh's nomination. Like if she
had if she had turned and you know, verify her story,
you know, Kavanaugh might have been not Kavanaugh, but this
other senators might have caved. And so it only it
only takes one honest American to to fight back against
against the left and and stop their plans. Uh. And
there's twelve of them in that jury, so it's possible.
(08:46):
It's possible. I mean, this trial has been fixed by
this judge from the beginning, the decisions he's made from
the bench.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Well, what do you think is the most egregious thing
that Judge Mrschahn has done? I mean, most egregiously unfair.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Uh. There's so many, but I think the one that
is the easiest to explain is the one today where
he basically told the jury, you know it, choose your
own adventure on the crime here. So so you have
the bookkeeping crimes, but that's the underlying clime. Those are
the misdemeanors and the Statute of limitations ran out for
those years ago, and so in order to elevate those
into felonies, the prosecution has to prove some other crime.
(09:24):
But he Trump isn't even charged with the crime. And
so I Merchant told the jury today is basically, members
of the jury, you can make up choose whatever crime
you want that you think Trump committed. You don't have
to agree. He said, four of you could choose one crime,
for of you could choose another crime. For of you,
cou Chuo his third crime. But as long as you
all imagine some crime was intended to be committed, not
even committed, intended to be committed, then that's a unanimous verdict.
(09:48):
And most people, most Americans in totally recognize that this
is just a cough guest circus trial. This this is,
you know, law fair at its absolute worst.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
What do you think happens to the other trials if
there's a hung jury here, do you think it has
any effect on whether they tried it? No effect, not
at all, no effect.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
I mean the judges of each of those are on
their own schedules, They have their own timelines they're trying
to meet. The Canon trial, the Document trial in Florida,
it doesn't look like that's going to get done in time.
You have the Jack Smith trial before the Supreme Court,
and again we're waiting on that decision. That decision is
(10:29):
probably not going to come down for a while. And
then that decision could even kick it away even further
because they could remaind it to the back of the
District Court, which will put it even further down the calendar.
And neither of those considerations are going to be made
by judges that would care what this verdict is.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
So the political implications of this, as you see it,
Trump has found guilty. What do the polls do in response?
Trump has a hung jury? What do the polls do
in response? You know, up, down or stay the same?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
I mean, I think hung jury, it's just through the
roof he's able to say, Look, they failed, they failed
to get me. I got away. It's very clear that
they're trying to get me. Everyone knows this is a
total witch hunt. But I still prevailed anyways, And I
even think of conviction, you know, helps him a little bit,
(11:21):
but not as much. I mean, it all depends on
what what happens after that. You know, I think it
hurts if you know there are images him in jail
and the rest of it. But you know, on the
other hand, he becomes more of a martyr. I think
the just the facts this case and the way the
judge bent over backwards to help the prosecution and really
hamstering the defense, really makes the case, you know, for
(11:45):
Trump that this is law fright, that they're trying to
get him. So I think I think the Democrats at
the end of the day are damned if they do
Dan If they don't on this.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
I think that's the situation which they find themselves. So
what do you what do you if the Democrats have
a break the glass plan because they're convinced they're going
to lose to Trump, what do you think it is.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
I think it has to be the convention. That's the
only way to go here. You know. I think Biden
coming out and scheduling that debate in June, I think
that quieted a lot of the discussion about booting him
out for either Kamala or Michelle. But if this verdict
goes goes badly for the Democrats, and more importantly, if
(12:29):
Biden underperforms in that first debate, I do think you
could see a concerted effort to push him out at
the convention, which has been just then later. And this
is the first time we've ever had a debate before
the nomination was chosen. It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
And the early debate, to you, is it just clear
that's because Biden realizes he actually is losing. It's not
just some right wing talking point. He's got to try
to change the narrative around.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
I haven't seen another explanation on that. I mean, that
was you know, you remember Chuck Todd used to be
host Meet the Press, but you know, terrible case of
Trump arrangement syndrome. You know, he wrote a column the
week before that was like, Biden needs to do something,
anything to change it around because he's losing. And then
that very next week, Biden, you know, announced the early debate,
and Chuck was like, well, this is what it is,
(13:15):
this is how they changed they plan to change it.
You know, that's a pretty partisan Democrat. So I I
really don't see anyone who's denied the fact that the
early debate is a strategic, you know, tactic by buying
to try to change the direction of this campaign.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
All right, con you're ready for a quick lightning around
here to close us out.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Let's do it.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Best book you've read in the last year.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Oh, wow, I've read so many for for another project
I'm working on. Let me see. Oh you know, I'll
go ahead and give a shout out to Rob Henderson.
His book Troubled That was that was a good one.
It's a memoir of his time in foster homes and
then coming up as an adult through the Air Force,
and then finally now he's a grad student at Oxford.
(14:02):
A very very great story touching book. Uh.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Best war movie ever made?
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Wow? Ever made? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Hot Seat, my friend, Lightning round. Here we go.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
All right, I'll go with Apocalypse now, I just for
a number of it's part of darkness. I think. I
think it's a real emotional uh get her.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
And the the best advice you could give somebody going
to a barbecue of what they should bring, not knowing
anything under then they're a guests at a barbecue.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Oh, guests to the barbecue. Six pack twelve pack? You know,
just uh of what of?
Speaker 1 (14:42):
What beer? But what your bud light? What are we
talking about here, buddy?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Not bud light, anything but bud light twelve.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
A twelve pack of not bud Light. There we go.
That's his advice. I like it all right. I always
tell people to, you know, bring sweet, spicy. It doesn't
matter sausage because you can't. You know, it's basically like
pre cooked. You can't overcook it. Charlie, charlie, you know
what out of it doesn't matter. It still is gonna
taste good. And people are always like, oh, I don't know. Yeah,
(15:12):
you get a couple of drinks in you and all
of a sudden, that really really salty sausage is. It's
a crowd pleaser, It's all I can tell you.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
So not everyone has this, but my wife makes some
amazing deviled eggs, so we pretty much always bring that
tony barbecue. But not everyone has access to my wife's
doubled eggs.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
So that may be a bit like showing up with caviar.
I don't know. If you saw, they're killing four million
chickens in Iowa, so the price of eggs is about
to go way up. I think, yeah, already higher than
they are. It's kind of a it's kind of a
delicacy right now. If you see how expensive eggs are
in the store.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Well, I do love me some devil eggs.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Well, there we go. Devil eggs, and you can actually
put caviar on your devil eggs if you want to
be super fancy. But important tip for this one con
you have to wear a top hat and a monocle
if you do that, just so you know.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Okay, I'll stick to Paprika. How about that.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
There we go, We'll take it. Con Carol, everybody go
to the Washington Examiner read his latest there and con
always a pleasure, my friend.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Thanks for hanging out with us, absolutely anytime. But
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, Welcome to the
Buck Brief. Con Carol back in the mix with us.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Here.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
He is commentary editor at the Washington Examiner. And I
see some very smart looking glasses on him. I like these,
by the way, Con, I haven't seen these before so.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
For a while.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Really, Oh, I don't know. I thought these looked new
to me. Were you always a glasses guy?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Or is this new since law school?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
So yeah, long time, long time. Ah, Gosh, I don't know.
I like them though. Nice frames. Anyway, we got big
news to talk about here. Uh, let's start with We
got the Trump trial. As people watch this, it could
even be at a verdict, so we don't know, disreverted
as we are talking, no verdict. I mean, it could happen,
and that would be quite a thing. We'll monitor this
(01:04):
as we are talking. But we'll talk Trump trial second, actually,
because I want to start with Alito and the New
York Times coming out with this in depth story on
Elito's wife putting a appeal to heaven flag up and
how that and then also an upside down American flag.
Therefore he should recuse himself from anything involving Trump. That's
(01:27):
quite a leap, and Alito has said, not so fast.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, I mean I'm looking this. I've seen like twelve
pages they did for the New York Times, the story.
It's very very pressing stuff. The stake of democracy clearly
clearly at stake here.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Yeah, but what do you think it's all about, Like,
why go through all this?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
No, I mean it's pretty clear. I mean, this is
it's just this time of year, so you have the
Supreme Court terms ending. They always get out of town
before July fourth. So what they're trying to do is
they're trying to influence the Court on their upcoming decisions.
And there are two such decisions that have relevance to Trump.
One is the case that decides whether or not all
the January six protesters that are up for this it's
(02:11):
actually a DoD Frank a law that they are alleged
to have broken by disrupting a government meeting, and so
that's been argued before the court to say, look, this
is not what Dodd Frank was meant to do, so
that would get off a lot of the January sixth
prosecutions that are going through. Now that's one case, and
then the other case is the immunity case on Trump
(02:34):
from his actions on January sixth itself. And so those
are two cases that are going to be coming down
before July fourth. And so this is basically just a
classic intimidation effort by the left to try to browbeat
the conservative members of the court into possibly citing with
the three liberal members to give maximum prosecutal power to
(02:58):
the government.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
So I need I need help with this one. If sure,
if the appeal to have in flag is a far
right hate symbol, why was the appeal to have flag
flying outside of San Francisco's Civic Center plaza for the
last few decades.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, up until apparently this week was that it was
finally taken down. They finally got the memo from the
New York Times that it was where do they put
a symbol of January sixth, which, of course is ridiculous.
This is a completely story. This is a flag that
has a long history going back to George Washington. It
was commissioned by George Washington. It is currently used by
(03:41):
I think the Massachusetts National Guard, as one of their symbols.
Symbols get co opted by different people, different movements all
the time. And you know, this is just an effort
to tar the reputation and intimidate a Supreme Court justice,
completely flimsy one by the New York And it's it's
more than just New York Times. It's the whole diaspora
(04:02):
of NGOs on the left funded by durting groups. I mean,
Pro Publica is big into this. They definitely helped fund
the upside down flag story, but this is part of
their and they also are the ones who funded all
those stories against Clarence Thomas, suggesting that he is corrupt
because he went on vacations with a wealthy individual. But
(04:25):
this is an organized effort effort by more than just
the Air Times, by nonprofit organizations like Pro Publica, to
intimidate and reshript, reshape the court in more importantly long term,
to build the foundation for packing of the court if
they are to narrowly win the White House and keep
the Senate. That's the eye and the prize goal here.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
And yet here we are looking at the destruction of
our judiciary system in New York City with the Trump trial,
and that we're supposed to think is somehow okay. Meanwhile,
they're worried there at times about flags that have been
flown in this country for a very long time, but
anything to it. See, I have a theory on this
(05:11):
one to put this Steve. I think that they just
hate Alito so much that they become irrational when it
comes to anything related to Alito. You know what I'm saying.
Like they might have been a little bit more, they
might have been a little slower to pull this maneuver
with someone else. But I think they hate Alito and
Thomas more than any other judges out there right now.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I would throw Kavanaugh into that mix. I think they
hate Alito and Thomas and Cavanaugh the most. I mean,
there's definitely less animosity towards Corsic or Barrett, but I
think I think those three, I think you do have
to put Kavanaugh in there because there is just so
much hate and anks left over from his confirmation that
(05:55):
he's in there, and unlike the other two, I mean,
Kavanaugh at least is a Trump judge, And that's kind
of the irony here is that Bush is supposed to
be one of the good Republicans, but the justice is
that the people on the left hate the most are
too Bush appointees. Thomas Alito.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
I want to come back and talk a little bit
about the New York City Trump trial situation here. CON's
going to keep me from thinking that the Republic is doomed?
I hope. I don't know. Maybe not. We'll see. But
first off, everybody, well, you can get smarter for free.
I think it's an opportunity you should definitely take. And
a good friend of mine, Porter Sansbury, who's one of
the smartest economists I've ever met. I've known him for
(06:33):
over a decade now. I've worked with Porter, had countless
dinners with Porter, just picking his brain and understanding where
he thinks the markets are going. He has a documentary
online that you have to see, America's Last Election. That's
America's Last Election. You can see it online free of charge.
It's really about your money and the economy, but it
(06:53):
also ties in politics too, to all of this thirty
four trillion dollars of debt inflation that the Fed has
been unable to tame. We've got big issues in this
as well as the impending political cataclysm that this documentary
gets into. Last election plot dot is the website where
you got to watch this last election plot dot com.
(07:15):
Go watch this documentary before you know, Google pulls it
down or something paid for it by Porter and company.
All Right, con back to the mix heere of New
York City. Do you want to make a prediction given
that it's going to be right or wrong within forty
eight hours, or do you want to just talk around
the issue a little bit and tell me whether you
think that this has made an irreparable farce of the
(07:37):
District Attorney's office in Manhattan.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Well, I mean that's an easy one. It has made
a complete far so the District Attorney's office. Absolutely, It's
hard to see how they crawl back from this. But
as far as the verdict itself, I go back and forth,
you know, I mean, I think it's the Ejan Carrol
verdict took so quickly to come back, but that that
wasn't a criminal matter. It only takes one to get
a hung jury. And this is such a weaker case
(08:03):
even than the Ejane Caroll one, much much higher standard
of evidence that needs to be crossed here, you know,
and we're talking about Kavanaugh. I keep coming back to
Kavanaugh and how you know, uh, the friend of the accuser,
she could have come up and totally corroborated her story,
but she she stuck to the truth and and really
(08:25):
in a way saved saved Kavanaugh's nomination. Like if she
had if she had turned and you know, verify her story,
you know, Kavanaugh might have been not Kavanaugh, but this
other senators might have caved. And so it only it
only takes one honest American to to fight back against
against the left and and stop their plans. Uh. And
there's twelve of them in that jury, so it's possible.
(08:46):
It's possible. I mean, this trial has been fixed by
this judge from the beginning, the decisions he's made from
the bench.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Well, what do you think is the most egregious thing
that Judge Mrschahn has done? I mean, most egregiously unfair.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Uh. There's so many, but I think the one that
is the easiest to explain is the one today where
he basically told the jury, you know it, choose your
own adventure on the crime here. So so you have
the bookkeeping crimes, but that's the underlying clime. Those are
the misdemeanors and the Statute of limitations ran out for
those years ago, and so in order to elevate those
into felonies, the prosecution has to prove some other crime.
(09:24):
But he Trump isn't even charged with the crime. And
so I Merchant told the jury today is basically, members
of the jury, you can make up choose whatever crime
you want that you think Trump committed. You don't have
to agree. He said, four of you could choose one crime,
for of you could choose another crime. For of you,
cou Chuo his third crime. But as long as you
all imagine some crime was intended to be committed, not
even committed, intended to be committed, then that's a unanimous verdict.
(09:48):
And most people, most Americans in totally recognize that this
is just a cough guest circus trial. This this is,
you know, law fair at its absolute worst.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
What do you think happens to the other trials if
there's a hung jury here, do you think it has
any effect on whether they tried it? No effect, not
at all, no effect.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
I mean the judges of each of those are on
their own schedules, They have their own timelines they're trying
to meet. The Canon trial, the Document trial in Florida,
it doesn't look like that's going to get done in time.
You have the Jack Smith trial before the Supreme Court,
and again we're waiting on that decision. That decision is
(10:29):
probably not going to come down for a while. And
then that decision could even kick it away even further
because they could remaind it to the back of the
District Court, which will put it even further down the calendar.
And neither of those considerations are going to be made
by judges that would care what this verdict is.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
So the political implications of this, as you see it,
Trump has found guilty. What do the polls do in response?
Trump has a hung jury? What do the polls do
in response? You know, up, down or stay the same?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
I mean, I think hung jury, it's just through the
roof he's able to say, Look, they failed, they failed
to get me. I got away. It's very clear that
they're trying to get me. Everyone knows this is a
total witch hunt. But I still prevailed anyways, And I
even think of conviction, you know, helps him a little bit,
(11:21):
but not as much. I mean, it all depends on
what what happens after that. You know, I think it
hurts if you know there are images him in jail
and the rest of it. But you know, on the
other hand, he becomes more of a martyr. I think
the just the facts this case and the way the
judge bent over backwards to help the prosecution and really
hamstering the defense, really makes the case, you know, for
(11:45):
Trump that this is law fright, that they're trying to
get him. So I think I think the Democrats at
the end of the day are damned if they do
Dan If they don't on this.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
I think that's the situation which they find themselves. So
what do you what do you if the Democrats have
a break the glass plan because they're convinced they're going
to lose to Trump, what do you think it is.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
I think it has to be the convention. That's the
only way to go here. You know. I think Biden
coming out and scheduling that debate in June, I think
that quieted a lot of the discussion about booting him
out for either Kamala or Michelle. But if this verdict
goes goes badly for the Democrats, and more importantly, if
(12:29):
Biden underperforms in that first debate, I do think you
could see a concerted effort to push him out at
the convention, which has been just then later. And this
is the first time we've ever had a debate before
the nomination was chosen. It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
And the early debate, to you, is it just clear
that's because Biden realizes he actually is losing. It's not
just some right wing talking point. He's got to try
to change the narrative around.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
I haven't seen another explanation on that. I mean, that
was you know, you remember Chuck Todd used to be
host Meet the Press, but you know, terrible case of
Trump arrangement syndrome. You know, he wrote a column the
week before that was like, Biden needs to do something,
anything to change it around because he's losing. And then
that very next week, Biden, you know, announced the early debate,
and Chuck was like, well, this is what it is,
(13:15):
this is how they changed they plan to change it.
You know, that's a pretty partisan Democrat. So I I
really don't see anyone who's denied the fact that the
early debate is a strategic, you know, tactic by buying
to try to change the direction of this campaign.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
All right, con you're ready for a quick lightning around
here to close us out.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Let's do it.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Best book you've read in the last year.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Oh, wow, I've read so many for for another project
I'm working on. Let me see. Oh you know, I'll
go ahead and give a shout out to Rob Henderson.
His book Troubled That was that was a good one.
It's a memoir of his time in foster homes and
then coming up as an adult through the Air Force,
and then finally now he's a grad student at Oxford.
(14:02):
A very very great story touching book. Uh.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Best war movie ever made?
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Wow? Ever made? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Hot Seat, my friend, Lightning round. Here we go.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
All right, I'll go with Apocalypse now, I just for
a number of it's part of darkness. I think. I
think it's a real emotional uh get her.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
And the the best advice you could give somebody going
to a barbecue of what they should bring, not knowing
anything under then they're a guests at a barbecue.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Oh, guests to the barbecue. Six pack twelve pack? You know,
just uh of what of?
Speaker 1 (14:42):
What beer? But what your bud light? What are we
talking about here, buddy?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Not bud light, anything but bud light twelve.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
A twelve pack of not bud Light. There we go.
That's his advice. I like it all right. I always
tell people to, you know, bring sweet, spicy. It doesn't
matter sausage because you can't. You know, it's basically like
pre cooked. You can't overcook it. Charlie, charlie, you know
what out of it doesn't matter. It still is gonna
taste good. And people are always like, oh, I don't know. Yeah,
(15:12):
you get a couple of drinks in you and all
of a sudden, that really really salty sausage is. It's
a crowd pleaser, It's all I can tell you.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
So not everyone has this, but my wife makes some
amazing deviled eggs, so we pretty much always bring that
tony barbecue. But not everyone has access to my wife's
doubled eggs.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
So that may be a bit like showing up with caviar.
I don't know. If you saw, they're killing four million
chickens in Iowa, so the price of eggs is about
to go way up. I think, yeah, already higher than
they are. It's kind of a it's kind of a
delicacy right now. If you see how expensive eggs are
in the store.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Well, I do love me some devil eggs.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Well, there we go. Devil eggs, and you can actually
put caviar on your devil eggs if you want to
be super fancy. But important tip for this one con
you have to wear a top hat and a monocle
if you do that, just so you know.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Okay, I'll stick to Paprika. How about that.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
There we go, We'll take it. Con Carol, everybody go
to the Washington Examiner read his latest there and con
always a pleasure, my friend.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Thanks for hanging out with us, absolutely anytime. But
Host
Buck Sexton
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.