Smith Drops Trump Charges

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning, cooner country. As Trump would say, winning, winning, winning, huge,
huge victory for President elect Donald J. Trump. Here is
exactly I'm sure most of you know the news it

(00:20):
broke yesterday, but I cannot overstate the significance of what
this means for Trump, for his incoming presidency, for the
Department of Justice, and a massive victory for MAGA and
a huge defeat for the Democrats. Liberal what you're hearing now,

(00:41):
you're hearing all these sounds, you know, like things blowing up. No,
we're not at war with Russia, at least not yet.
Those are the sounds of liberal heads exploding all across
the country in the wake of yesterday's news in which
Special Counsel Jack Smith. And remember Jack Smith was the hatchetman.

(01:08):
He was the legal assassin hired by Merrick Garland, appointed
to be special counsel to take out President Trump. He
was their main guy in their law fair campaign against
President Trump, who was going to bag the president, was

(01:29):
going to jail the president, was going to knock him
out of the presidential race and put him behind bars
for five hundred years. I'm not kidding. That's exactly what
Jack Smith was asking for in his two federal criminal
indictments against Trump. So Smith was the one who first

(01:53):
led the raid on mar A Lago over the stolen
the alleged class of documents case where the FBI went
in guns blazing. We now know more information has come out.
They had shoot to kill orders for President Trump, for Milanya,
and for his son Baron. Now yesterday Jack Smith requested

(02:21):
on both the classified documents case in Florida and the
January sixth, so called election interference case in Washington, DC
under Judge Tania Chutkin, that both of these indictments both
cases be dismissed, and they were dismissed without prejudice. Tania Chutkin,

(02:51):
the judge, staunch liberal, was itching to get Trump, couldn't
do it, and so she dismissed the entire case against Trump.
Trump won. The Democrats lost. Democrat law fair lost. Trump
is an innocent man, and I cannot overstate to all

(03:15):
of you what a massive a relief it is to
President Trump, but more importantly, what a victory it is
for the rule of law and equal justice under the
law for the United States of America. This is one
of the biggest defeats the liberals have suffered in a
very long time. That and obviously Trump's victory on November fifth,

(03:39):
and so Jack Smith now threw in the towel. He
doesn't have a case against Trump and what it shows,
and there's no sugarcoating this. He tried to give his
reasons why he tried to put on as much of
a brave, glossy face as possible. But you can dress

(04:02):
up surrender however you want. Surrender is surrender is surrender.
And Jack Smith is now going to leave Washington, d C.
With his tail between his legs. And so, according to
Jack Smith, the reason why he had to dismiss both cases,
the classified documents case and of course the January sixth

(04:26):
election interference case is because Trump now will be inaugurated
on January twentieth. And he cited longstanding Justice Department policy
prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting American president, and he said, well,
with that immunity now that the president has while he's

(04:48):
in power for four years, there's no point in continuing
the prosecution and investigation of Donald J. Trump. We are
dismissing all charging. But he insisted in his motion when
he filed that it's not because the case wasn't rock solid.

Speaker 2 (05:08):
No, no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
According to Jackie Jackie Boy. Jackie said, no, the government's
case was overwhelming. The government's case was full of merit.
The gravity of the crimes were so serious. But what
can you do? My hands are tied by DJ policy.

(05:31):
To show you how far Jack Smith has fallen. This
is Jack Smith back in August of twenty twenty three,
announcing his sensational indictment. Remember unprecedented going after a former
president of the United States, indicting him on criminal charges

(05:56):
regarding January sixth, and what Smith did DOJ and the
Biden regime said were Trump's attempts to overturn a so
called election. Roll the cut three a Mike.

Speaker 3 (06:13):
Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with
conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters,
and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The
attack on our nation's capital on January sixth, twenty twenty one,

(06:33):
was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
Bull crap. You know what I really want to say,
I can't say it. Holcom okay bs nonsense, And that's
what yesterday, surrender signific signifies the dismissal of both indictments
against both cases against Trump. Okay, the two indictments against
Trump now shows as Trump rightly said that it was empty,

(07:02):
it was lawless, it was made up. It was pure lawfare.
Because and this is the proof in the as they say,
the proof of the eating is in the pudding. If
he meant any word that he said, and I just
played you the clip, if this was an unprecedented assault
on our democracy, if this was a mortal threat to

(07:25):
our republic and to the rule of law, he wouldn't
have asked for the case to be dismissed. Why would he?
I wouldn't. I wouldn't if this man is the second
coming of Adolf Hitler, If this man is the second
coming of an authoritarian dictator of King George the Third,
who tried to overturn everything this country stands for. I say,

(07:47):
wait four years. I'll take him out in I'll take
him out in January twenty twenty nine, when he serves
his four years in office, and we'll continue pick it
up right there. I mean, am I missing something? So
it's obvious the fact that he is that he asked

(08:08):
for the dismissal and that it was granted, and that
he waived a white flag of surrender. Not only now
vindicates Trump, he clearly he didn't just win. He's now innocent,
but it is now a damning admission that this was
law fair from the beginning. This was a political judicial,

(08:32):
legal witch hunt from the beginning against Donald Trump, all
of these charges, and now this surrender is a confession
of this. As I said, it's an admission is that
their goal was to use this to weaponize the legal
system to prevent him from winning in twenty twenty four,

(08:54):
to prevent him from coming back to the White House
and coming back to power. And it was also as
a way to punish him, punish him. How dare you
challenge the Biden regime? How dare you challenge the establishment,
the ruling class, the UNI Party. You think you're gonna

(09:15):
lead a political insurgency, You think you're gonna you think
the people rule in this country? No, no, no, no,
we the elites rule, and we're gonna send you a
message loud and clear. Well, now that all blew up
in their face, and now it is obvious for everyone

(09:37):
to see. They never believed their witch hunt against Trump.
They never believed in these bogus charges against them, and
that's why, faced with the defeat on November five, he
folded like a cheap suit. Now, as I said on
X and I want to repeat it, what Jack Smith

(09:59):
dead did was unspeakable. What Merrick Garland did was unspeakable.
What Fanny Willis and Alvin Bragg and Letitia James did
was unspeakable. And now it is time. When Trump comes
to office in less than two months, he now needs

(10:21):
to unleash the hounds of legal war. It's time for
Jack Smith to go to jail. This is the This
was direct election interference and prosecutorial misconduct. Fanny Willis, Alvin Bragg,
Letitia James, they need to pay for what they've done.

(10:44):
The two federal cases are now gone. The Georgia state
case against Trump on January sixth, so called election interference
is on life support. Six point twenty on the Great
WRKO Jeff Gunner, Boston's vote a cleaning up the liberal bull.
The liberal bull, Jack Smith goes down, you know, whereas

(11:08):
Howard Cosell would have put it down, goes Jack Smith down,
goes Jack Smith down, goes Jack Smith. I mean holy shimoli.
You know, down goes Fraser, Down goes Fraser. So let
me just ask all of you, what do you make

(11:29):
now of the huge news yesterday? Jack Smith has now
asked for all of the charges, the federal charges against Trump,
whether it be the Document's case or the big one
they thought they were going to get him, which was
the January sixth election interference case, to be dismissed. They
have been dismissed without prejudice. They the case. The two

(11:54):
cases now are over and Smith is now expected to
resign before Trump is inaugurated. Democrat law Fair has been
decisively defeated. So is this a triumph for Trump over Jacksmith?
Is this a big victory for Trump, not just over Smith,

(12:15):
but over Merrick Garland, over the Biden doj and over
the entire Democrat law Fair waged against him? Or do
you fear like some do, that they're going to come
back after Trump when he ends up filling out his

(12:37):
term and they will do this in twenty twenty nine,
that some other Democrat hack will try to prosecute Trump
again after he leaves office four years after he's done
serving as president. I'm just does it open the door,
or leave the door open enough for the Democrats to

(12:59):
continue to try to go after Trump my personal view,
and then I want to open it up to the
phone lines. The point of the lawfair was to prevent
Trump from winning. The point of the lawfair was to
deny him the presidency. The point of the lawfair was
to so punish him that he would not be able

(13:21):
to enter the White House. I mean, anything is possible,
but I think this could be over. I think the
Democrat lawfair strategy so backfired on them. It's so raised
Trump to the status of a martyr that they would
frankly be insane to try to revive these charges against them.

(13:44):
But then again, you're dealing with Democrats. Six one seven
two six six sixty eight sixty eight lines are loaded.
Dave in Virginia, Thanks for holding Dave, you're gonna kick
us off and welcome and Jeff.

Speaker 4 (14:00):
Before I get to my point, I'm just going to
give you something when you feel like dropping that word.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
Bravo, Sierra, Okay, thank you, and the next one would be, uh,
Michael Foxtrot, what's in your wallet?

Speaker 4 (14:17):
Okay. So here's the thing. Jack Smith was not constitutionally appointed. Okay,
Merrick Dollan made that office out of thin air. They
spent about fifty million dollars on those on the case Floord.
In the case of DC, we need to have the
CBO Professional Budget Office to a full accounting, a full

(14:43):
accounting of that office and how it was funded. Because
Congress never approved him as Council prosecutor or whatever. They
never created that office, so therefore it can never be
funded with how did.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
Merrick Dollan fund Jacksmith? This position should be a.

Speaker 4 (15:02):
Full accountability of not only what he was paid, but
any outside law firms, investigators, things like that that needs
to be taken into account.

Speaker 1 (15:13):
Do you agree with Oh, that's a brilliant point, really, Dave.
I gotta tell you talk about hitting the nail on
the head. Look, you know, I remember Clarence Thomas made
that point in one of one of these decisions. I
forget which one, and but he wrote in there this
was an unlawful, an unconstitutional, unlawful appointment. And the judge

(15:34):
in Florida agreed, and that's she that's you know. This
was before the DC case, the the January sixth election
interference case. This is the documents case, the the classified
documents case, and the judge in Florida, and she's an
excellent judge, said well, no, I'm not even going to
look at your case on the merits. Why because you're

(15:56):
you've been unlawfully appointed. You've been unconstitutionally appointed. And Smith
was in the process of trying to appeal her decision
that he was unconstitutionally appointed. So he announced yesterday, well
I'm going to drop the appeal because I'm dropping the
entire case. So he was defeated on all fronts. But no,

(16:16):
you're right, he was unconstitutionally appointed. Only Congress can create
a special Counsel's office. You can't just really nearly create
it from the Department of Justice. So it was illegal
and unconstitutional and unethical from its very big It was
illegitimate from its very beginning. And Dave the reason why,

(16:40):
and you know this, and I know this, and this
great audience knows this because this wasn't about justice, and
this wasn't about prosecuting real crimes. This was about harassing, silencing,
and destroying President Trump so he couldn't defeat Biden. In
twenty twenty four, am I wrong?

Speaker 4 (17:05):
Goland was questioned before committee on this of course he's stonewalled,
but they confronted him with those with those same statements.
How did you create the position? Why did you pick
Jack Smith? Remember Jack Smith was the hatchetman in the
Virginia elections, which he lost in.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
Sorry, battling a bit of a cold. It's almost like
I have a frog in my throat. Anyways, Coonerman is fine.
Just if you notice my voice sounds a bit strange,
it's a cold. Listen now to Jonathan Turley on Fox
News regarding Jack Smith's decision to dismiss all cases and

(17:47):
Judge Tanya Chutkin's decision to accept it. The law fair
against Trump has now collapsed. Roll cut three.

Speaker 5 (17:57):
Mike Smith had a sort of gratuitous end his term.
You know, he pushed not only for a trial before
the election, and he pushed it for months for that,
but he also released damaging information before the election, something
that many people saw as an effort to influence the election.

(18:20):
Smith knew that if Trump won, he was out of
a job, and this release of the information was entirely unnecessary.
The judge admitted that it was procedurally irregular, but she
went along with it, and I think that that did
tarnish his position and certainly in history because he didn't

(18:41):
have to do that. He had become so absolutely fixated
on trying Trump before the election that he lost credibility.
I think with the courts he went up to the
Supreme Court, they didn't accept that that was the overwriting
consideration and looking at these legal issues.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
I mean, it's a little bit of legal ease. But
Turley's dead on. I mean, he's dead on. Look if
you remember it, kind of remember the campaign was so
furious and the media was throwing everything they had at Trump.
So I mean, you know, you can be forgiven for forgetting.
You know, a key aspect of this whole law fair
was Jack Smith, which is something that's never been done.

(19:25):
When he says it's irregular, yeah, it's highly irregular. Talk
about an understatement. So what Jack Smith dead did was
just before the election. You know, remember when you go
to court and let's say the prosecution has evidence, the
evidence is prevented, you know, presented to the lawyers, the

(19:45):
defense counsel, you know, the prosecution and the judge. Now
why because then the judge decides, along with the lawyers,
what is credible, what is not credible? What is permissible,
what is not permit miscible? What is allowable, what is
not allowable? You know, what's prejudicial, what's not prejudicial. In

(20:06):
other words, there's a process of determining what evidence is appropriate,
what evidence is not appropriate, right, I mean they judges
make rulings all the time on what you know, what
can you admit in a court, what can't you admit
in a court. What Jack Smith did was he literally
took all of his notes, all of his witness testimony,

(20:31):
all everything that he had, and he just threw it
into the public domain. He just released it into the public.
Now there's no chance for the defense to cross examine.
There's no chance for the defense to say, blow the credibility,
you know, refute the credibility of many witnesses, or provide

(20:52):
counter arguments or counter facts to some of the claims
that he's making. No, he just threw it all out there. Now,
A I think that would have jeopardized it had Trump lost.
It would have jeopardized this case because you want to
talk about you know, politicizing your politicizing the courtroom and

(21:13):
politicizing your indictments against the president. But my point is
he didn't behave as a responsible prosecutor in any sense
of the word. He was a headhunter. His job was
to get Trump by hook or by crook, even if
it meant behaving in the most unethical, frankly despicable manner imaginable.

(21:39):
You don't try the case in public. You try the
case in a courtroom. So he did everything he could,
and that's he showed his hand. You're not interested in justice.
You were there to bring Trump down to lose the election.
You were there to make sure he didn't win. In no,

(22:01):
that was his job. He was a political hatchetman. Now
this is why you can agree to disagree. I'm just
giving you my honest opinion. Not only is this a
massive victory for Trump, I think it's a massive victory
for the rule of law. I think it's a massive
victory for equal justice under the law. I think it's

(22:22):
a massive victory for a constitutional republic. And I think
it is a devastating blow to Democrat law. Fair and
what Jack Smith did wasn't just sleazy and dirty and
immoral and unethical all that. Yes, it was illegal. I'm sorry.

(22:43):
What he did was illegal, and that's why you've got
to turn the tables on him. And someone needs to
tell him, yeah, you better resign because on day one,
my friend, you're going to now be held accountable for
your direct election interference. This was not a prosecution. It

(23:04):
was a persecution. And that's the funda that's the abuse
of the law, and that's prosecutorial misconduct. And I think
Jack Smith now needs to pay a price and go
behind bars. He needs to go to jail. I'm sorry
Fanny Willis, as her case is now literally unraveling and collapsing.

(23:25):
She needs to go to jail. Alvin Bragg, Letitia James,
they need to go to jail. And Merrick Garland needs
to go to jail because all of this was orchestrated
from the Department of Justice. Now we know what Joe
Biden did. And that's why I want to squeeze Merrick

(23:46):
Garland and squeeze him hard, because I want Garland to
answer this fundamental question when you unleash Jack Smith to
take your the president's leading opponent down on bogus charges
and you knew they were bogus charges, you knew these
were lies. What did the president know and when did

(24:11):
he know it? Six one seven two six six sixty
eight sixty eight agree, disagree Tony in Gloucester. Thanks for holding, Tony, and.

Speaker 6 (24:24):
Welcome great days, great days, Jeff, good morning, amazing.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
Honestly, Tony, I'm going to be so thankful. I'm going
to eat so much freaking turkey. Tony. I am so
grateful Trump winning and now this holy mackerel.

Speaker 6 (24:44):
I'm telling you on a couple of points. I don't
know if you saw it. The Democrat appointed attorney general
the Southern District of New York has said he's going
to resign. Of course, he was responsible. He let these
cases go forward in New York. So he's resigning, all right.
Now here's the big Did you see the Polish official
who came out and said that half the money that

(25:06):
the United States gave to Ukraine was money laundered and
sent back to American politicians. Of course that must be
to a lobbyist. I want to see that man come
in and testified. I want to see these lobbyists brought
into court, forced to testify. Who do they give money to,

(25:26):
where does it come from? And I want to see
I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat.
I want to see these people either forced to resign.
These are high crimes taking the money. You know, they've
made it legal with lobbyists or when you're taking money
laundered money. It's been the same thing with planned parenthood.
It's the only way you're going to clean these things up.

(25:47):
And whoever it is that gets arrested, Jack Smith, Letitia James.
I have one request. Brought them on a plane and
send them to Gitmo and let them stay there while
they're cases are being I think that would be a
wonderful thing to do.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
I love it, Tony, I love it, Tony. Have a happy,
blessed Thanksgiving. We've got a lot to be thankful for
this year. Tony, God bless you, and thank you for
that call. Look, I don't want to get sidetracked because
I want to stick to this because look, we've been
living under Democrat law fair for the last four years.
So this is such a momentous story. So we've talked

(26:27):
a lot about Ukraine. But just you know, indulge me.
This is for you. Really you need to know this, Okay,
indulge me twenty seconds. Tony is completely right. This is
an absolute bombshell story. It is all over Europe. The
European media is reporting this. The American media is desperately
trying to suppress it, but they can't stop it. A
senior Polish official. And the reason why you stress senior

(26:52):
someone with access to Poland's intelligence agencies. So remember Poland
borders Ukraine. They're the bulwark frontline state in this war,
so they know exactly what's going on in their neighboring country.
And they've been taken in so many Ukrainian refugees and
helping Ukraine out in so many ways. Came out and

(27:12):
said that the Ukrainian regime of Zelenski is so freaking
corrupt that the Ukrainians have laundered half half of all
of the American aid that has been sent to Ukraine.
Half We're talking about, what is it, two hundred and
fifty billion we've sent them, so, in other words, over

(27:35):
one hundred billion dollars. He also said much of that
has also been returned to Democrat politicians and some Republican politicians.
That the money has been laundered in Ukraine, and there
are kickbacks to very powerful American politicians up on Capitol Hill.

(27:56):
That's why they don't want this war to end. That's
why they're willing to risk World War three and now
to tie it into Jack Smith. That's why they couldn't
let Donald Trump win the election. That's why he had
to be stopped at all costs. And so what they
did was they leashed a campaign of legal terror where

(28:20):
they tried to get Trump bankrupt his businesses, take him
off the ballot, put him behind bars, They tried to
assassinate him, they indicted him in four separate cases. They
threw everything but the kitchen sink at him. And now
it is collapsing on every single front. So my question

(28:43):
to you, Jack Smith, surrenders six one seven two, six, six,
sixty eight, sixty eight is the number. A couple lines
are open if you want to jump on. I promise
I'm going to get to the calls very quickly. I
just I want to play two cuts and ask the
pole question of the day, because this is unbelievable in

(29:05):
the face of this humiliating collapse, and that's what it is.
It's a collapse. This is a surrender. I mean, if
really of politically historic proportions. I mean, we're kind of like,
you know, we're celebrating, We're in a good mood. It's
you know, it's almost like our own v Day. Right,
Trump is won, and and now you know Smith has

(29:26):
now said he's dropping these two big cases against him.
And as I said, Fanny willis now she may even
be disbarred. I mean she's literally fighting for her professional
life right now in Georgia. So it looked like that
Georgia case is gonna it's gonna collapse. It's it's it's
gonna unravel. And you've got Alvin Bragg and Letitia James

(29:47):
and Judge Murchahn and that that's on its last legs
as well. So it's a route okay on every front.
But think about the last three years, the pressure they
put the country under in Trump bragging about him being
in a mug shot in Georgia, going on about how
they wanted to put him in jail for a thousand years,

(30:10):
how they were going to come after his supporters, how
the FBI was going after Catholics, how they were going
after parents at school board meetings, how they're going after
people like Tulsi Gabbard putting her on a TSA terrorist
watch list. I mean, they they were getting ready to

(30:30):
really go after not just Trump but his supporters. And
this law fair was the tip of the spear. Now
it's all blown up in their face. But what's incredible
is the diehards are like, well, we can just come
back in four years. Who'll just revive these charges? In

(30:51):
four years, You're going to revive the January sixth, twenty
twenty one charges, you know, the charges regarding what happened
on January sixth, twenty twenty one. In twenty twenty nine.
Look are you people that insane? So first, this is Shenn.

(31:12):
Here's Evan Perez announcing the breaking news that broke yesterday.
Jack Smith has dropped all the charges, all the cases,
the indictments, and the judges accepted basically, Trump won. We
lost roll cut three B Mike, Okay, yeah, we have

(31:35):
technical issues, basically. I mean you can see on their
faces everything they've been leading their listeners and their viewers.
The very few that are left into believing that Trump
was going to be put behind bars. It was inevitable
that he was guilty of all of these crimes. Remember

(31:57):
that he Okay, you got it, Mike, all right, go ahead,
go Mike.

Speaker 7 (32:03):
This has nothing to do with the strength of the case.
This simply has to do with the verdict essentially that
voters gave on the Justice Department policy long standing Justice
Department policy, the Department is not allowed to prosecute a
president a sitting president, that shield essentially also applies to
him as an elected president, as the president elect.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
So basically, oh no, no, we have the evidence. Oh no, no, no,
we're serious. There's oh my god, these were such massive crimes.
But we just we just can't. We just can't. Our
hands are tied. We just he's going to be president.
We just can't do it. Well, no, I'm sorry. If
everything was as serious as you claimed and you believe it,

(32:50):
Jack Smith, wouldn't be dismissing the case or asking for
the requesting that the charges and the indictments be dismissed.
Why wouldn't would you say, hey, buddy, here I am
and I'm waiting for you the day you leave office
on twenty twenty nine, and you want to get rid
of me, you gotta fire me. But he's not doing that.

(33:12):
He's unilaterally surrendering. Why because that wasn't the point. It
was never about justice or actual crimes, because there were none.
It was about get Donald Trump at all costs. Now,
listen to the panel on CNN because there are a
few diehards roll cut three c MIC.

Speaker 5 (33:34):
These cases could be revived after Trump serves this next term, right.

Speaker 1 (33:39):
That's right.

Speaker 7 (33:39):
I mean, look, if you look at the language that
the Special Council used and that the judge uses in
deciding this without prejudice, means that when Donald Trump is
no longer president of the United States, these cases could
be revived.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
Okay, right, so look at it. Yeah, hope spring's eternal,
well four years from now, by the way, and that
involves a future prosecutor, not Jack Smith, So it's got
to be somebody else who they say, yeah, you know, in.

Speaker 8 (34:14):
January twenty one, twenty twenty nine, we're gonna continue to
go after Trump over what happened on January sixth, twenty
twenty one, even though the country said move on, even
though again they.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
Have suffered defeat after defeat after defeat after defeat. I mean,
come on, this is honestly, it's pathetic. But anyway, it
leads to my the Coner Country Pole Question of the
Day sponsored by Mario's Mario's Quality Roofing, Siding and Windows.

(34:51):
Now that Jack Smith has dismissed both indictments and that
Judge Chuckkin has accepted and dismissed all the cases without prejudice.
Do you believe the Democrats will still try to revive
the January six cases against Trump when he leaves office?

(35:18):
In other words, is this victory permanent for Trump? Or
is it only a four year temporary victory? Will the
Democrats try to revive the January six cases against Trump
when he leaves office in twenty twenty nine? A? Yes,

(35:42):
B no. You can vote on our web page WRKO
dot com slash cooner wrko dot com slash cooner kuh
and is a national Er. You can also vote via
x very active again. Like last night, my handle there
at the Kooner Report all one word k u h

(36:06):
Ennis in national Er lines are jammed Patrick in the
Great State of Connecticut. Thanks for holding Patrick and welcome.

Speaker 9 (36:16):
Hey, Jeff, I want to tell you I really love
the long call format of your show, but I want
to dive into I want to revisit the Hegstaff nomination
one more time with you. The last time we spoke
to you and I agreed that this case in California
needs to be thoroughly investigated, and on Friday I sent
a note to the Trump administer the transition team that

(36:38):
said they needed to broaden the scope of the head
of his background. I'd like to go through a couple
of key dates in his career, if if that's okay.
We know that in two thousand and three, Pete graduated
college and accepted a commission in the United States Army.

(36:59):
In two thousand and four, he went on active duty,
and then he went on active for about a year,
and then he went on active duty again mid mid
July of two thousand and five through some point in
two thousand and six or two thousand and seven. Contemporaneously,
he was married in two thousand and four, and that

(37:22):
marriage ended as a result of adultery. So I know,
you know, it sounds like an old, stodgy, you know,
concept of marriage fidelity. But the problem, I think, the
sexual problem that Pete may face is not the rape allegation,
because I think that her case is relatively weak, but

(37:44):
the case that the problem he has as adultery, because
adultery is illegal in the military, and knowing that he has,
you know, he's cheated on every wife, and more than
likely he's cheated more than once on every wife. In fact,
in the twenty seventeen case, he effectively cheated on two

(38:05):
women at the same time because he was not yet divorced,
but he was living with another woman with an illegitimate
child or a love child. It was effectively an adulterous
double play. But getting back to the main point, if
he committed adultery, because he committed adultery, and adultery is
illegal in the military, he would have tremendous moral problems

(38:28):
leading the uniformed personnel of the Defense Department.

Speaker 1 (38:33):
Patrick, Look, I mean you're making your case. I don't
want to get too sidetracked, really, because we're going to
be discussing hegseeth. I guarantee you when I come back
from Thanksgiving break, because you're right. The Democrats. Look, the
Democrats have become emboldened. They took out Matt Gates, and
now they believe they can take out Hegsath until SA
Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Junior. So they think they

(38:57):
can knock off a lot of many of Trump's nominees,
especially those that are promising a lot of change and
disruption in some of these key cabinet positions. Look, Patrick,
let me stake my case on adultery. And I'm not
saying this to be sanctimonious or self righteous. I just
want people to know literally where I'm coming from. I
am a devout Catholic. I'm a devout Christian. I married

(39:20):
my wife. When I married her, I took a vow
that I would never ever betray her. I've never betrayed her.
I've never slept with another woman. I don't want to
sleep with another woman. She's the only woman for me.
I'll be very candid with you, so I don't fool around.
So just so that you know where I'm coming from. Yes,

(39:40):
in theory, I agree with you. In an older America,
in a better America, in a more religious Christian or
Judeo Christian America, affairs would sink people's candidacies. That I
know because I remember John Tower in the nineteen eighties
and he had had a couple of affairs and it ruined.
I think it was for SECRETI defense correct me if

(40:01):
I'm wrong, but I know it's for a top level
cabinet position, and that was under Reagan and the infidelity's
got him. So I understand that. But we now live
in a very different age, and I'm sorry, but look,
what sauce for the goose? Now is sauce for the gander?
After Bill Clinton, the commander in chief, got serviced in

(40:22):
the White House by a twenty one year old intern,
or you know, raped, literally raped women in the White House,
and that's what he did to several of these women,
like Kathleen Willie to me, I don't you know whether
he had affairs or didn't have affairs, especially when you
look at so many others in the Biden administration or

(40:45):
people in the Biden military who have been promoted, and
all they did was sleep around and sleep around and
sleep around. So if all they've got on Pete Hagsath
is that the guy is a horn dog, Okay, you know,
if that's what it is, and I'm not saying it is,
I don't know. You're claiming he's had all these adulterous affairs.

(41:06):
I don't know if that's true or not. But let's
just assume for the sake of argument it is in
the military, big deal. And I'm telling you, I know
a lot of people in the military, and there's a
lot of adultery. When they go overseas, their spouses commit adultery,
they commit adultery. It's quite rampant. And I'm not saying

(41:27):
everyone does it, far from it, but it's quite rampant.
And as for how he Set's going to be seen
by the men and the women in the military, Look,
they love him because he wants to dewocify the military
and they can't stand wocism. They can't stand what's been
done to the coast Guard, to the Navy, to the Army,
to the Marines. So look, really, I think this is

(41:50):
pathetic on the part of his enemies to go after
heg Seth. They can't get him on anything substantial, so
now they're going to play the adultery car in Washington, DC. Look,
I'm with Marjorie Taylor Green on this. They have a
slush fund, taxpayer funded. We pay for this. How many senators,

(42:13):
how many members of Congress have been caught in adulterous
extramarital relationships, and we have to pay for their non
disclosure agreements. So if they're gonna go after Pete on this,
I'm telling you we're gonna unleash a holy war. Pete
Hegseeth is competent, He's a military man, he served multiple tours.

(42:36):
He's written several best selling books. He's the guy to
disrupt the Pentagon. He's not from the military industrial complex,
he's not from the swamp. And ultimately, I think that's
the big sin against him. They can't control him. That's
why they want to destroy him. So honestly, Patrick, look
in theory, I don't fool around. I never have hope

(43:00):
to God, I never do. And yes, in Jeff Coooner's
Ideal America, you know, forty fifty sixty years ago, yes,
I think we should uphold very high social moral standards.
But we live in a very different age and I'm
sorry the Democrats have gotten away with this sort of
stuff for forty years. Heg Seth should be the next

(43:22):
Secretary of Defense, and I will back him all the way. Patrick,
thank you for that call. Six one seven two six
six sixty eight sixty eight is the number. And look
to bring it back to our discussion, because I don't
want to get sidetracked. Look compare here, heg Seth. Let's
just say, for the sake of argument that he was cheating. Hey,

(43:44):
just for the sake of argument, Okay, he's a bit
of a ladies man. Okay, just for the sake of
you know, for the sake of our for the sake
of argument. Compare that to what Merrick Garland has done.
I'm just talking about these law fair cases. Compare that
to Jack Smith, Compare that to Fanny Willis, to Alvin Bragg,

(44:07):
to Letitia James. So I mean, look again, I love
my wife. My marital vow to her is sacred. Okay,
please don't get me wrong, but you know, cheating on
my wife, or putting an innocent man in jail for
the rest of his life, going after his family, telling

(44:29):
the FBI to go in with you know, guns blazing,
shoot the kill, shoot the wife, shoot the sun, shoot
the president, go after political opponents and throw them in
gulags and throw them behind bars for ten, fifteen, twenty years,
where people are literally committing suicide because they're breaking under

(44:54):
that kind of pressure. I mean, I'm sorry, Look, you know, Cooner.
I look, I don't fool around. I don't want to
fool around. I you know, I'm just trying to I
don't please misunderstand me. But I'm telling you what they've
done is infinitely worse than whether Pete Hegseth, you know,
took a role in the Hey with this woman or
that woman. And by the way, from my understanding, it's

(45:16):
all consensual. So again, you know, morally I don't approve
you should never cheat on your spouse, but if it's
between two consensual adults, it's not illegal. It's not a crime.
Six one seven two six six sixty eight sixty eight.
But going after an innocent man, targeting him and saying

(45:38):
we're gonna get him and we're going to destroy his business,
and we're gonna put him behind bars for five hundred years,
we're going to destroy his family, and we're gonna target
his supporters. No, that to me is a much much
more serious crime. And that's why I think Jack Smith

(45:58):
needs to pay, and that's why he's getting out of
Dodge while he can. And if I'm Trump, don't let him.
Don't let him say no, no, no no. Now, as Pam
Bondi said, now the prosecutors will be prosecuted. Now, the
investigators will be investigated. Agree disagree? Six one seven two

(46:22):
six six sixty eight sixty eight is the number. Bruce
in Woburn. Thanks for holding Bruce, and welcome.

Speaker 10 (46:40):
Than Jeff. He looked on the big pot. Besides going up,
I mean Eric Island, Jeff, jack Off Smith, all these
Lucretia mcgabels, all these people. They didn't just want to
put him in jail, Jeff, they wanted him dead. He

(47:02):
needs to start do what they did with uh Stillo
Cletton and just kicked the can down the road and
let her off the book.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
Well, Bruce, you're right as usual. I mean, you always
get to the point very quickly, and you're right. Look
the two assassination attempts, and I'm telling you that came
directly from this Democrat law fair strategy against Trump. They
vilified him as a threat to democracy. Remember what Jack
Smith said? Okay, and what they Merrick Garland doj This

(47:37):
is what they were trying to frame Trump with. And
I promise I'll give you the last word, Bruce. They
first claimed you remember that he was keeping not just
classified sensitive documents at Marralago. You remember that, But these
were no clear secrets. Do you remember that militaris secrets?
Oh my god, took gonna gonna're gonna find out our

(48:00):
nuclear arsenal. They're gonna find out all our nuclear secrets.
And it turned out to be a pacalize. It was
all one big, fat lie. So they tried to portray
him as a trader, as someone who is willing to
sell our intelligence and nuke secrets, nuclear secrets to the

(48:21):
highest bidder. Well, that didn't work, so then he wanted
to overturn an election. January sixth, the insurrection. He's a
domestic terrorist, an insurrectionist, a dictator. That all stemmed from
the Democrats law fair, straight from the DOJ and the
Biden regime. So they built up this myth, this made

(48:48):
up fabrication, this propaganda, as the Russians would put it
of this wanna be tyrant, this wanna be dictator, this
wanna be hitler. Now, this is what Jack Smith was
going to prove in court, if you want to play
the cut again where he announces these ridiculous charges. This
was a threat to our democracy. This was a threat

(49:10):
to our republic. Never in our history or something like this.
This was an assault on America. Well, if you believe
even half of what you just said, why are you
asking for your cases now to be dismissed after he won?

Speaker 10 (49:26):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (49:27):
Justice Department policy says we can't prosecute a sitting president.
All w I'd wait four years? Who wouldn't wait four years.
I'd wait four years. God is my witness. I swear
to you, Okay, I swear to you. I'm a prosecutor,
and I'm convinced that a man is exactly what Jack
Smith said about Trump. Hey, buddy, January twenty twenty January

(49:51):
twenty one, twenty twenty nine, I'm waiting for you right
outside the White House. I'm waiting for you. He's not anybody.
He's gonna resign and he's off into private practice to
make more money. So with that completely now revealed, he
didn't believe a word. It was all bull you know,

(50:14):
Bravo Sierra. Okay, as they would say, it was all
Bravo Sierra. Remember they admitted we lied about Trump being hitler.
We lied, We made it up. We just did it
to scare people. Now you watch, this is pretty much

(50:36):
close to an admission as you're gonna get. But someone's
gonna say the quiet part out loud. Nah. We never
thought he was a threat to democracy. We just want
to go after the guy over something. So we got him.
He'd tried to get him on January sixth. We made
up crimes and we tried to get him. We had
to get him. Now, you can't do that. That's what

(50:58):
they do in third world literally in third world socialist
banana republics. Well, like I said, what is this an
Eastern European dictatorship, you're running a republic here? Or is
this something as is Belarus? Final word to you, uh, Bruce, I.

Speaker 10 (51:16):
Hold that whoever gets in the AG and it clowes
after the FBI, well not the FBI, but Merrick Island
is particular. And all these people that are live and
live and live but fabricated stuff across the American people,

(51:36):
all kinds of millions of dollars. Yet it's worth a
given money to you. Pray there's for on our own people.

Speaker 1 (51:45):
Oh that's a great point. That's a great point. Fifty
million dollars taxpayer dollars flushed right down a rat hole,
Right down a rat hole. That's what it costs all
these investigations, prosecutions. That's just federal I'm not talking about
the States, the Georgia case, of the New York case.

(52:06):
Fifty million. That's a lot of salaries. By the way,
I was shocked