Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty eight.
Six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty eight
is a number here. This is Sandy Shack sitting in
for Jeff Cooner here on the Kooner Report. The text
number seven zero four seven zero on the text line
six one seven says, the Trump effect has smoked out
these bad actors and defamers. I think we should punish
(00:21):
them all lawfully, go get them. Well, I think the
keyword there is lawfully, don't you know, as long as
it's done lawfully. Five o eight says Sandy. The moonbats
and the media are afraid Trump will do to them
what they did to him. Well, I think that's exactly right.
I completely agree with that. It's so funny that you
say that, because when the Democrats started going on about
(00:44):
how if Trump wins, we're you know, we're going to
be uh, we're going to be arrested. We're going to
go to put us into camps. You know, they're going
to it's just that we won't be able to get jobs.
You know, I thought, what the hell are they talking about?
That's bizarre, And then I remembered, you know, when Biden
won remember the lib talking heads, you know that that
(01:09):
people who had supported Trump Trump Republicans a GP that
you know, they needed to be fired and we need
to make sure they never work again. That was actually
one talking had I remember. And they need we need
to make sure that we need to stomp them out,
we need to take them out completely. And Hillary, Hillary
Clinton thought we need to be in re education camps.
(01:30):
So that's what the so so now they're projecting, they
were projecting at the end of that election, what they
wanted to do to us, on us you know where
where you know, it's ridiculous, you know, should there be
some Nobody wants to put anybody in camps, nobody's looking
for re education, nobody's looking to establish a fascist state.
(01:53):
But the question is should there be some kind of
penalty pennants paid by those who didn't just disagree with Trump. No,
I'm not talking about people who didn't vote for him,
didn't don't disagree with them, don't like him, no problem
with any of that. But those who broke the law
to go after him in the past few years, those
(02:15):
who did unethical, immoral, lied, slandered, defamed, it's paid no
attention to the truth and physically tried to hurt him
as well. Should there be some kind of punishment legally,
lawfully that can be exacted against them, not this wholesale
fascist response that the Democrats wanted to do to the
(02:37):
Republicans when President Bien went That is my question that
I put out there in our first caller of the day.
Wardell's like, no, no, no, everybody, just move on. Okay, Well,
you can forgive and move on, or you can exact
some kind of retribution from those people that you lawfully
(02:57):
can who were particularly damaging and who are lawbreakers or
unethical or during when they went after Donald Trump? Is
that better? And then we can move on? Because moving
on can either be you forgive and forget or you
feel a sense of justice and that something has been
made whole and then you move on. Which is it
(03:19):
that you think we need to do here? I guess
that's one of the big questions. Mark from Pembroke, Welcome
to WRKO. How are you, Mark?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Pretty good?
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Sandy, Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you to
you too. Yeah, hey, listen, I personally voted for retribution, okay,
and everyone I know, everyone I know voted for Trump.
For retribution, and in my opinion, retribution is necessary. There's
been a lot of talk about slander, and to me,
slander is.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
It's only the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Okay, there was a broad conspiracy to commit a coup
in this country and it's probably the worst thing that's
ever happened in the United States. And you know, the conspirators,
they all conspired to undermine and sabotage Trump's first administration.
They stole the twenty twenty election, and they may have
(04:13):
actually ginned up a pandemic to do this, and that's
a crime against humanity if that's true. And you know,
they politically persecuted this guy over the last four years,
you know, to prevent him from running again, and to
undermine the you know, the last election. And you know,
these are things that are unforgivable and the perpetrators have
(04:33):
got to be brought to justice and they have to
be punished.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
And justice demands it for a number.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Of reasons, not the least of which is you want
to make sure that this never happens again. The folks
that did these things, they can't be allowed to get
away with it.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Well, you know, I don't I don't disagree that there
are some people that need to have some kind of reckoning,
and I think you know, ABC has started that process
in the media, and Georgia has started that process with
Fannie Willis, so we have we've seen it start. But
the question is, I guess, Mark, how far does it go?
Where do you stop?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
It needs to go as far as it needs to go.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Well, but that doesn't say no offense, Sunshine, but that's
not saying anything. It needs to go as far as
it goes. How far does it need to go? Is
the question?
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Again?
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Everyone who is involved in this coup needs to be
brought to justice. So as far as it goes in
order to meet that objective, that's as far as it goes. Yeah,
how far do you punish people who you know who
who undermine democracy, who stole an election, who committed acts
of personal of political persecution.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Well, I think the key though to all of this,
Mark is it whatever you do, if you if you
think that some kind of consequences need to be met
at out is you have to do it lawfully and
there's standards that have to be met. If you do that,
you have to there's burdens of proof, there's all sorts
of pesky things like that that you know that protect
(06:06):
us all. Those rights protect us all. And just because
you think somebody threatened democracy doesn't mean they lose their
rights in the process. Otherwise you're guilty of threatening democracy
if you do that. So you have to do this
on a legal level. And in some cases, these people
who I know you believe would be egregious have or
(06:28):
have done egregious things, aren't going to meet You can't
punish them because you're not going to meet a burden
of proof. Mike, do you have White Christmas? Because that
apparently is the number one Christmas carol of all time.
There's that, which I prefer to rocking around the Christmas tree.
There's also my mother used to play Earth a Kit
(06:51):
Santa Baby, apparently, according to my grandfather, over and over
and over again until he was ready to jump out
the window. I did not know until my mother passed
that that was in fact one of her, you know,
favorite Christmas carols. It's not on my top ten, but
you know, for mom, maybe six one, seven, two, sixty six,
sixty eight, sixty eight is the number.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Here.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I'm Sandy Shack filling in for Jeff Coooner. The text
number is seven zero for seven zero On the text
line sixty one seven says Sandy. I'm all for accountability. However,
most of the liberals I know don't understand the legal
wrangling the Dems created to get Trump. So I say expose, prosecute,
(07:34):
and punish. Okay. Nine seven eight says forgiveness doesn't mean
no consequences. That is so true. You can forgive and
still let out consequences, like like your parents do when
you're a kid. You know, yes, honey, I forgive you.
You know, I know you're sorry. I forgive you, but
you still need to stand in the corner so that
you learn not to do it again. So I completely
(07:55):
understand what you're talking about, and I think that's accurate
and maybe a comp nation of what those two texts
are suggesting is the appropriate approach, Missus, you do need
to expose, and where it's a breaking of the law
and you can lawfully do it, prosecute. I think that's
not inappropriate. To be honest with you, then you can
(08:18):
forgive and move on, but you have meted out consequences
for bad actions. I think that's not an unreasonable approach
to all of this. What do you think. Do you
think that Donald Trump should turn the other cheek and
move on or should he do what the Texter is suggesting, expose, prosecute,
and punish. Salin Wakefield, Welcome to w RKO. How are you, Sal,
(08:42):
I'm good.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
Good morning, Sandy. My opinion is that these people have
to be held accountable because going forward, they'll just do
it again. This is no longer the Democrat Party. They're
behaving like communists for the last you know, since Trump's
first administration. There's so many examples. The Russian collusion hoapes,
(09:03):
we know it's it's actually there's evidence now that it
was an actual, made up yolks. Yeah, nobody paid the
price for that. Nobody, nobody has paid the price for that,
and there's actual evidence. I mean, there's so many examples.
Steve Bannon just did jail time for contempt to Congress.
Eric Holder was found in contempt to Congress. Obama's wingman.
(09:26):
Nothing happened to him. Okay, here's another thing, Sandy, people
probably might not know about. General Milly during Trump's first administration,
was in contact with the Chinese I believe a Chinese
general and said I will warn you if this president
takes any military action against you China.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Now, yeah, he actually wrote that in his book. General
Milly did did write that in his book. It told
everybody that he had done that.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
Yeah, Ugane, if it came out that a general did
that against Obama o'biden, they'd be in jail, they'd be
court martialed and sent to prison. It's almost on the
lines or level of treason. So it's just these people.
It's no longer our parents Democrat Party, I guess, is
(10:14):
my point. These people are there Marxists.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
It is not the Democrat part. I was a Democrat
for many years and then I'm just like with my
parents that was brought up in a Democrat household. And
then as I got older and begin to realize this
was not the party that my parents were part of,
this is completely different. I left. I'm like, yeah, no,
this is not for me, and I walked away from it.
And I've since then, I've seen the evolution and the
(10:40):
downward slide even more so to the point where I
agree with you it's the progressive wing of the Democratic
Party has taken it over, and I personally think so
that they have brought the Democratic Party to it's ruined.
I think this last election has ruined the Democratic Party.
They need a complete rebuild, and those who recognize it
will be part of a party in the future that
(11:03):
might do them credit. But if they don't recognize where
the problems are, then you know they're going to go
the way the Whigs. You know, there aren't any So
that's I think that's their future, and I think this
is their threshold now to decide what to do about it.
It all depends on what their response to Donald or
a lot of it will depend on what their response
to Donald Trump is. If you dig in and help
(11:24):
with the rest of America who wanted him in there
and for the rebuild, then good. I think you've got
a future. If you continue the bad acting, the walking
on the cliff edge of morality and ethics and periodically
stepping over to do something illegal, then no, I don't
think you have a future. So you think the only
(11:46):
way to really you need to force them into it
by prosecuting people who broke the law in regard to
their persecution of Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
So absolutely, that's I think the only way we could
get any change. And if you think about it, Donald
Trump has got to be the most investigated human being
my lifetime, if not the world. And think about it
this way, if he actually had committed any crimes going
all the way back to his first administration, do you
(12:14):
think they would have actually allowed him to make three
conservative justices picks or picks for the court.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
He wouldn't have made the first election. If they'd been
able to expose criminals. He wouldn't have won in twenty sixteen, Soul,
that would never have occurred. So yeah, no, if he
actually had broken the law, he would have been he
never would have survived in twenty sixteen. So yeah, no,
there's nothing there otherwise. And for that point, sal in
(12:43):
New York, Letitia James had to create a crime. They
had to put together crimes that weren't crimes, and mac
pushed them together and then prosecute him under something that
actually didn't exist and that nobody'd ever been prosecuted before
because it didn't exist until Donald Trump. And so that's
(13:03):
that's an exact example of what you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
I mean, up the phone, called it, peached him on
turns out and we know this was was it. Biden
in front of the Foreign Relations said that he had
a prosecutor fired, he was holding back money.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
He was in front of Foreign relations, he was vice president,
he was he was actually at a forum. He admits
that he went to Ukraine and he and he was
He was actually joking, not joking as in, Haha, this
is not true, Joe. He was laughing and thinking this
was funny to show everybody how powerful he was, getting
this Ukraine prosecutor who was prosecuting Barisma, his son's company,
(13:42):
and said he got him fired by holding up American
funds until they fired the prosecutor. Yes, he admitted it,
thinking it was really funny and showed how powerful he was.
He thought that was He's sitting up there with his
legs crossed, laughing and smiling and joking with a big
cheshure cat grin. And you know, I think that's one
of the reason people first started to realize that the
(14:03):
wheels were going to come off the bus, and they did.
They didn't short en it. Did you see South, Speaking
of of President Biden, did you see the report that
just came out that it's in the Daily Mail that says, uh,
President Biden was basically had severe cognitive issues from day
one of his presidency and that in fact, it was
(14:27):
his staff that basically ran the country for the past
four years. No wonder it's in such bad shape.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
Huh, Well, we all saw that. I mean, if you
remember his whatever you want to call them, interviews when
he was in his basement. Yes, during ding you could,
well you could tell back then that he was having
major issues. But people still voted and they.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Bought the lie. They bought the lie that everything was fine.
And you know that's that they bought the lie. They believed.
They they only believed they wanted to believe, and so
therefore they you know, the emperor had no clothes and
they didn't want to see that. So that's that's what
happened with him. Thank you so much for the for
the call, sell I appreciate it very much. Let's go
(15:10):
to Sue in Maine. Sue, welcome to w RKO. How
are you.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
You're taking my call? I'm great.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
How are you so far?
Speaker 1 (15:18):
So good? Merry Christmas to you, Oh.
Speaker 5 (15:21):
Merry Christmas to you. And you have a big fan
base up here.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Oh, thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
Yes, so I do want to agree with the people
that have been saying, yes, we need to hold their
feet at the fire, because this kind of behavior will
not stop until they start to understand there will be
consequences for their actions. And you know, I mean like
the big stuff. I mean, look at Tucker Carlson. He
got fired for telling the truth, Yeah he did. And
(15:48):
George Stephanopolis still has a job, right.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Yep, he does. They've re upped his contract, but they
cut his pay.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Oh did they be what from thirty five million to
twenty five?
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
With Rachel Maddows went from twenty five to twenty I
think yeah. And I think there are a couple of
others over there that have been told like Jen Saki
and I'm trying remember the other one over there, that
have been told they can come back, but it greatly
reduced pay. So I think I think MSNBC is hanging
on by its fingernails.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
So starting to understand this because look at the groveling
that Joe and Miko went through right after Trump was elected.
They went down to mar A Lago and just you know, basically,
you know, with their little heads bowed, and you know,
so slowly but surely as long as we can get Now.
I have some very intelligent liberal friends, but they just
(16:42):
believe in the craft that they've been told. But if
we constantly just keep putting out there the actual truth,
I believe that a lot of these people who don't
like Trump but voted for him, or just wouldn't vote
for Trump anyway, we'll start to understand, you know, the
way they've been fooled, Because I was. I was a
(17:03):
Democrat too, until somebody turned to me one time and
told me.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
To grow a brain.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
And I was terrified, and I had no idea what
she was talking about. This was a complete stranger in
a restaurant at a table next to me, and it's
just one of those things. And I kept hearing in
the news all kinds of great things about Democrats and
bad things about Republicans. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty
eight six one seven two sixty six six eight six
eight is the number here. This is Sandy Shack filling
in for Jeff Kooner, and retribution is the topic under discussion. Specifically,
should President Trump forgive those who prosecute who prosecuted him
(17:47):
with consequences for their activities, or should he just forgive,
forgive them and and uh move on, you know, ignoring
their bad acts on the tech Slane, which is seven
zero four seven zero number one says I'm sorry. Five
O eight says, Look how they're indicting and prosecuting Eric
(18:09):
Adams just for going up against Biden on illegal immigration
and for treating Trump as a normal incoming president not
as Hitler. Well, yeah, so that is the argument for
prosecuting and for holding people accountable on a legal level
for what they have done. And no matter what response
(18:29):
you have to the people who went after Trump, it
has to be legal. You cannot do extra legal or
I think social social punishments. I think that is falling
into the same trap the progressives did. That's what they
wanted to do to Republicans, and that you cannot do.
I don't believe that's my opinion, but I think legal
(18:52):
redress is something completely different. Let's talk to Mark in Milton. Mark,
Welcome to WRKO. How are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Hi, Thanks for taking my call. Happy Hanukah and Merry
Christmas to everybody out there. My only comment, my only comment,
short and sweet. I think we are misusing the language.
We cannot mistake justice for retribution. Okay, I don't think
this is retribution at all.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Do you think it's justice.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
I think it is. I think it is one justice. Okay,
and that's my only comment.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
We'll explain why.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Well, as virtually every caller has said, if somebody does
something wrong, they need to be held accountable. Is that
retribution or is it justice?
Speaker 7 (19:42):
Mere?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Retribution is like, I don't think Donald Trump can really
go after Smoky Smoky Daniels.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Was that was that her name, Dormy Daniels, Dormy Daniels.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
I don't think he can really go after her at
this point. And if he did, that would be retribution.
What he has said in the past, like about Rosy O'Donnell,
that kind of stuff is retribution.
Speaker 8 (20:07):
I think we've.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Moved past that. But if people lied to get de
Pisa warrants, they need to be held accountable and brought
to justice. That is not retribution. That is justice. I
think retribution is more personal without strong and you've said it,
(20:29):
you know ten times at least, that you need to
have a legal foundation for doing what we're doing to me.
That's not retribution, that's justice. And I think we should
get rid of this term retribution because we know the
other side is going to hijack that word.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Well, that's a good point. I mean, retribution actually means
punishment inflicted on somebody for a wrong or criminal act.
That's what retribution actually is. And it doesn't denote that
you're doing something wrong, and it doesn't note that it
denotes that you're in the right. Retribution does. But I
think you're absolutely right that it will be hijacked, as
(21:08):
they hijack things that are meant that are completely innocent.
For instance, I gave you an example mark that completely
supports your point. When Donald Trump, remember on the campaign trail,
was talking about the economic effect of Mexico's building these
giant car factories on the other side of the border,
and he said it's going to create basically a blood bath.
(21:29):
And he was talking about an economic blood bath, and
they took that word and they tried to make it
seem as if he was calling for violence against Democrats
or against Biden supporters. After the election, they completely hijacked
the term, twisted it and put it out there as
some kind of call to violence. So that supports actually
what you just said, don't you think so?
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yeah? And I mean think of all of the terms
that the left and progressive have the agressives have hijacked
over the years. You know, let's take it back to
Christmas carols. What's that what's that song? The one about
she's staying late at night?
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Oh baby it's cold outside.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
They take everything and they just they just twist it
into a version that always supports a I'm gonna say,
they turn it around to be to meaning date rape,
and it's like it was written by a husband and wife.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Team and it was supposed to be a cute, sweet
song about seduction, not about rape. And that's what they
turned it into, which I always thought was horrible because
it's a sweet song. I thought, I thought it was
a very nice song. But that's that's me, Mark. But
I see, but I completely understand your meaning and that
they take something innocent and turn it and turn it
into something nefarious basically.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
You know. And that's why I don't like using that
term retribution. I wanted to be said as justice, because
justice does need to be done. I think justice needs
to be found, not just for the thirteen Americans that
died in Afghanistan. Weren't there over one hundred innocent Afghanis
that died in that bomb blast? Weren't there? Didn't Biden
(23:18):
target a family about a week later that was completely
innocent and killed the family in a targeted drone strike.
Speaker 7 (23:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Yeah, children too, there were children in that car.
Speaker 6 (23:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
And justice does need I mean justice is crying out
in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
The only problem I have with that, Mark, and I
do agree with you that their justice is crying out.
You got to be careful with the word, I suppose
with both words, either retribution or justice, because people take
justice into their own hands, you know, and they will
met out punishments in the name of justice that they
(24:05):
have no business doing. And that's something that I find intolerable.
You know, I don't believe in vigilantism. I don't believe
in I believe in using the system. So for me,
retribution meant using the system and as it's supposed to
be used. Justice can be anything. Justice can be somebody
(24:25):
going up. And what that whack job killer did in
killing the United Healthcare guy, he thought that was justice
for bad health insurance policies. That to me is you know, no, no, no, no, no,
that's psychotic. Whereas retribution means you're working within the system,
(24:46):
retribution actually means using the law, bringing punishment within the law.
And that's why I use that word because I think
whatever has to be done, or whatever should be done
to create a fair playing field, move forward, and an
environment in which Donald Trump can promote his platform that
(25:07):
he won on. I think that that needs to be
done through legal means and not through vigilantism. That's why
I picked that word. But you may disagree with me.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Oh, I think You've given a very good explanation. I'm
just concerned that. Yeah, you know, can I make one
last comment about that whack job ahead? I thought Obamacare
fixed all the problems in the health care and does
that whack job who does he not realize that everything,
(25:43):
everything has been delayed. We all know health insurance needs
an overhaul and Obamacare was not the answer, and they
won't come out and once again admit it. Government is
rarely the answer to problems.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
M What is it? Those those feared words. I'm from
the government and I'm here to help. Yes, yeah, indeed,
I yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Merry Christmas, Happy Honkah, and all of whatever traditions I'm
missing out on would have a great season.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Thank you so much, Mark, I appreciate it. I know
everybody in the audience does too, and I hope you
have a happy holiday too, and am Merry Christmas and
a happy Honakh and whatever it is that you like
to do this time of year. Thank you for your call.
Six one seven two six sixty eight sixty eight is
the number here six one seven two sixty six sixty
eight sixty eight. When you hear a caller drop off,
(26:40):
it means a line has opened up for you. Mike,
I think it's that time of the week, is it not.
So every week we play Coooner's call logue. It's our
favorite caller of the week this week. And this, by
the way, is Michael's thing to do. It's Mike's Mike
picks the call every week. Mike produces what you hear
(27:03):
every week. Mike does the editing, picks the sounder at
the end, does everything, and so it is completely Mike's creation.
And this week, because starting Monday, both Jeff and I
are gone and Mike has gone for a good time
and you know we're all taking vacation at the same time,
this is our last Cooner's call log for the year.
(27:26):
And so this Cooner's collogue is not the best caller
of the week, it's the best caller of the year.
And this is Mike's entry in that category.
Speaker 9 (27:36):
Go ahead, Mike, It's time for Cooner's call Log, where
we showcase our favorite color from the week.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
I can hear you? Can you hear me? I love you,
Jeff that I love you in a non sexual way.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
I love you, that's.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Only in a non sexual way.
Speaker 7 (27:58):
I'm feeling great, and I feel that we're going to
have a hopefully a really unifying win. And if you
look at the whole world is.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
Falling apart, but the world is blowing up. We could
end up in World War three.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Right now.
Speaker 7 (28:10):
Our country is just being decimated by millions of people
coming in, pouring in, and now we have the worst border,
I believe in the history of the world.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
I don't think there's ever been anything like this.
Speaker 7 (28:21):
You can't win elections with open voters, high taxes, high
interest rates, to all the things. They cheat. They have
to cheat because their policies are so bad. And we
have the best security, the best attorneys. We're going to
stop it. It used to be that I will start wars,
but oh, he's a warmonger. Look at him, look at
the way he speaks. He's going to start worse.
Speaker 6 (28:39):
I'm the only one.
Speaker 7 (28:40):
That didn't start the war. But now their line is
that I'm a fascist, I'm a dictator. But they are
the greatest misinformation and disinformation.
Speaker 8 (28:49):
People ever that ever lived.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
Maggie is the greatest thing.
Speaker 8 (28:52):
It's the greatest movement in history. I will tell you that. Jeff,
you understand that. I mean, you understand it better than anybody.
Speaker 7 (28:57):
You're a total pro and I really appreciate it because
you are a total.
Speaker 10 (29:00):
Bro be here every weekday on the Cooner Report between
six and ten am, and next week it could be
you on Cooner's call log.
Speaker 4 (29:17):
Please don't be a stranger. Call again.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
That was a very appropriate call for this morning, given
our topic, Mike, and I think a very appropriate call
for the year, given the year's events. When President Trump
was on with Jeff, I think that was I think
that was a very good choice. It was a fun call.
It was a very fun interview and I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mike, and we thank President Trump too for
coming on the show. We appreciate that as well. I
(29:41):
want to do it just two seconds for an aside.
I'm just getting I'm getting criticized on the on the
text line for not talking about the continuing Resolution this morning.
I just want to say, first of all, we talked
about it for four hours yesterday, and then yesterday afternoon
President Trump got his debt ceiling wish and they changed
(30:02):
that in the CR, but it still didn't pass last
night because there was still stuff that bothered some of
the Republicans. And just to keep you up to date,
the House is going to vote this morning at ten
am on a temporary fix for the CR. So it
looks like they have some kind of deal a foot
that will keep the lights on before the deadline tonight
(30:23):
at midnight. But I saw no reason to talk about
it again when there hadn't been a you know when
when the vote last night failed and we were still
in the same position that we were yesterday when we
did it for four hours, So I wanted to do
this instead. I hope that you agree. The number here
is six one seven two, six sixty eight, sixty eight.
We're talking about justice, retribution, vengeance. I don't know what
(30:44):
you want to call it. But should President Trump forgive
the people who persecuted him for the past four years,
or forgive and forget move on without consequences, or should
he in fact met out some consequences to those people
who who went after him, and not just people who
(31:05):
disagreed with him. We're not talking about that. I am
talking about people who lied about him, who's slandered him,
who actually committed crimes in the in their zeal to
keep him from being elected. Because that happened. It happened
on more than one occasion. We've seen the civil lawsuits
now against media outlets for slander. ABC just settled a
(31:27):
big one. Another one's been brought against Gannett. I don't
know if there's more coming, but those are the two
that are currently out there, and then we've seen some responses.
Jack Smith resigned from the Department of Justice and at
his investigations. Fannie Willis has been withdrawn from the Georgia case.
She's fighting that, but she has been and she's got
fraud issues that have been brought up against her as well.
(31:50):
And that leaves Letitia James and Alvin Bragg in New
York to be dealt with on whatever level. I'm not
saying what they did was illegal, but it was certainly
unethical and a part of Letitia ja so I'm thinking
there must be some consequences, like removal from office. I
don't know, but my question is to you, is that
appropriate or should the president just move on? Let's go
(32:11):
to Morris in Boston. Morris, Welcome to WRKO. How are you, Morris?
Speaker 6 (32:17):
Hey, good morning, Sandy, Happy holidays.
Speaker 8 (32:21):
Yeah, thank you. So, you know, I figured what the
fellow's name was they called in.
Speaker 6 (32:26):
Earlier, but he was talking about oh, we shouldn't have retribution,
this and that, and you know, in my mind, okay,
Donald Trump, Yeah, he President Trump has his.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
Battles to fight with these people. But the way I.
Speaker 6 (32:40):
See it is from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty, we
were cheated out of getting everything we could have gotten
out of Donald Trump. As I saw in an interview
with him, he had said, you know, I spend you know,
twelve hours a day doing my job as president, and
then at night I spend another twelve hours fighting these
ridiculous lies, fake scandals like Russia collusion. And for four
(33:03):
years straight, all we saw on the news was Russia, Russia, Russia.
The doors are closing in any day now he's going
to jail. Then we had two fake impeachments, and then
we had the Hunter Biden laptop lie that in turn
affected that election, and we were stuck with a schlep
for four years that affected all of us. We had
(33:25):
the COVID lies, we had the vaccine lies, we had
the lockdowns, we had a mass we had the social
distancing with what I do for a living. That absolutely
destroyed my industry. Trying to pack, you know, one hundred
and fifty guys on a construction site and keep them
six feet apart from each other and constantly sanitizing their hands.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
It was mayhem.
Speaker 6 (33:44):
Yeah, and it cost us tons of money. It costs
a lot of people money. So it's not just about
Donald Trump getting revenge. And I'm using the word revenge.
I want to see these people locked up. I want
to see the media, you know, the way the left
would go after people on the right, whether it was
a Supreme Court justice or whoever it be. They'd get
outside their houses and they'd make their lives hell and
(34:06):
go after them really based on lives. But we have
truth and facts on our side, and honestly, part of
me wants to take a leave of absence and go
torture these people in the media and just follow them
around and just harass them and make them pay. These
people they don't they destroyed lives. There are people that
I know that are still looking for a job because
(34:29):
they were vocal about saying they voted for Donald Trump
in twenty twenty and he was a pariah in twenty twenty.
Myself and very few others were ones that were willing
to admit openly that January sixth or a sham and
that we voted for Donald Trump. And I tell you,
I lost a lot of friends, family members that you know,
(34:50):
kind of stopped talking and.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Yeah, it happened in my it happened in my husband's
family too. And I'm like, yeah, okay, here's the rule.
No disgusting politics on social media. Yeah any of you,
and I refuse to allow it in my home on holidays. No, no, no, no,
I stop any converts. Just why? Because it was on
a reasonable response an unreasonable response. It was bizarre, frothing
(35:12):
at the mouth, and it was like, what the hell
is there something?
Speaker 8 (35:14):
You know?
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Somebody take a pill before they come in here. But
it's I agree with you. I was appalled by it too.
But here's the thing. You were appalled by the actions themselves.
It was not just that it was a lie that
they were promoting it was their aggressive behavior. I do
think that if you condone that kind of aggressive behavior
(35:39):
by repeating it, you are just as bad as they are.
And you may have truth on your side, but it's
just as bad. I understand the emotional response to want
to show them what they did to people by doing
it to them, but I think that that's just a
snowball to hell basically is what's going to happen. I
think what you do is you make behave like that illegal.
(36:01):
I mean, not the words, but you can't follow somebody
around and yell at them. You can't, you know, you
make it. Maybe you add you know, politics as a
suspect class, you know, in for hiring people. You know,
if you can show that, because people do in lawsuits
all the time when they they show that they haven't
been hired because they're too old, or they're of a
(36:21):
of a different race or a different you know, sexual
persuasion or any of the above. And maybe you add
you know, political to that, which sounds bizarre, but maybe
that's what this past four years has brought us to.
I think you need to do something on the legal
scope to protect people moving forward, but I don't think
you repeat the bad behavior, do you.
Speaker 6 (36:42):
Morris, No, And I don't mean to repeat the bad behavior.
I mean the bad behavior needs to be dealt with,
like yeah, the work.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
But how do you do that? How do you do
that retroactively? I think you make it. I think you
make it a problem going forward, but there's not much
I think you can do going backwards.
Speaker 6 (37:01):
So you know, I do think you know, you have
to make examples. You know, in the workplace. If somebody
does something unethical and they are you know, brought up
in front of whether it's hr whoever it may be,
and they lose their job, that reverberates through the company
and people see that and they say, oh, okay, I'm
(37:23):
not doing that. Like with what I do for them,
we have certain rules. You don't use contractors who.
Speaker 8 (37:27):
Are doing work for you, you.
Speaker 6 (37:28):
Don't take kickbacks, you don't there are a lot of
things that you don't do that and they're clearly written in.
Speaker 8 (37:34):
Company policy in this and that.
Speaker 6 (37:37):
But obviously that stuff wasn't there at some point, and
it was written in those in response to them, because
in response to something, so they have to be held accountable.
Speaker 8 (37:48):
I mean, we are held you know. It's it's no
different than one.
Speaker 6 (37:51):
You know, I love the police, a big fan. However,
you know there are certain above the law mentalities that
bother me.
Speaker 8 (37:59):
You know, if you are paid to.
Speaker 6 (38:01):
Enforce the law, you need to be held to a
higher standard of the law. It shouldn't be Hey, you
get caught doing a hundred on the highway.
Speaker 8 (38:08):
Oh your buddy pulls you over. All right, you know
you're free to go or whatever. It may be.
Speaker 6 (38:13):
Kind of like what we saw with the Karen Reid case.
That is the type of abuse of power that we
have to get rid of. Doctor Fauci. That man needs
to go to jail. He has destroyed people's lives.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Well, I think there's actually legal actions that can be
brought against doctor Fauci. And as I said before the
that's my whole thing is Okay, I'm all for consequences,
but it has to be done legally. It can't be
done you know social like you were talking about you
had friends who didn't get jobs because of their political views. Okay,
that's you know, how do you how do you how
(38:48):
do you control that
Six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty eight.
Six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty eight
is a number here. This is Sandy Shack sitting in
for Jeff Cooner here on the Kooner Report. The text
number seven zero four seven zero on the text line
six one seven says, the Trump effect has smoked out
these bad actors and defamers. I think we should punish
(00:21):
them all lawfully, go get them. Well, I think the
keyword there is lawfully, don't you know, as long as
it's done lawfully. Five o eight says Sandy. The moonbats
and the media are afraid Trump will do to them
what they did to him. Well, I think that's exactly right.
I completely agree with that. It's so funny that you
say that, because when the Democrats started going on about
(00:44):
how if Trump wins, we're you know, we're going to
be uh, we're going to be arrested. We're going to
go to put us into camps. You know, they're going
to it's just that we won't be able to get jobs.
You know, I thought, what the hell are they talking about?
That's bizarre, And then I remembered, you know, when Biden
won remember the lib talking heads, you know that that
(01:09):
people who had supported Trump Trump Republicans a GP that
you know, they needed to be fired and we need
to make sure they never work again. That was actually
one talking had I remember. And they need we need
to make sure that we need to stomp them out,
we need to take them out completely. And Hillary, Hillary
Clinton thought we need to be in re education camps.
(01:30):
So that's what the so so now they're projecting, they
were projecting at the end of that election, what they
wanted to do to us, on us you know where
where you know, it's ridiculous, you know, should there be
some Nobody wants to put anybody in camps, nobody's looking
for re education, nobody's looking to establish a fascist state.
(01:53):
But the question is should there be some kind of
penalty pennants paid by those who didn't just disagree with Trump. No,
I'm not talking about people who didn't vote for him,
didn't don't disagree with them, don't like him, no problem
with any of that. But those who broke the law
to go after him in the past few years, those
(02:15):
who did unethical, immoral, lied, slandered, defamed, it's paid no
attention to the truth and physically tried to hurt him
as well. Should there be some kind of punishment legally,
lawfully that can be exacted against them, not this wholesale
fascist response that the Democrats wanted to do to the
(02:37):
Republicans when President Bien went That is my question that
I put out there in our first caller of the day.
Wardell's like, no, no, no, everybody, just move on. Okay, Well,
you can forgive and move on, or you can exact
some kind of retribution from those people that you lawfully
(02:57):
can who were particularly damaging and who are lawbreakers or
unethical or during when they went after Donald Trump? Is
that better? And then we can move on? Because moving
on can either be you forgive and forget or you
feel a sense of justice and that something has been
made whole and then you move on. Which is it
(03:19):
that you think we need to do here? I guess
that's one of the big questions. Mark from Pembroke, Welcome
to WRKO. How are you, Mark?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Pretty good?
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Sandy, Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you to
you too. Yeah, hey, listen, I personally voted for retribution, okay,
and everyone I know, everyone I know voted for Trump.
For retribution, and in my opinion, retribution is necessary. There's
been a lot of talk about slander, and to me,
slander is.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
It's only the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Okay, there was a broad conspiracy to commit a coup
in this country and it's probably the worst thing that's
ever happened in the United States. And you know, the conspirators,
they all conspired to undermine and sabotage Trump's first administration.
They stole the twenty twenty election, and they may have
(04:13):
actually ginned up a pandemic to do this, and that's
a crime against humanity if that's true. And you know,
they politically persecuted this guy over the last four years,
you know, to prevent him from running again, and to
undermine the you know, the last election. And you know,
these are things that are unforgivable and the perpetrators have
(04:33):
got to be brought to justice and they have to
be punished.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
And justice demands it for a number.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Of reasons, not the least of which is you want
to make sure that this never happens again. The folks
that did these things, they can't be allowed to get
away with it.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Well, you know, I don't I don't disagree that there
are some people that need to have some kind of reckoning,
and I think you know, ABC has started that process
in the media, and Georgia has started that process with
Fannie Willis, so we have we've seen it start. But
the question is, I guess, Mark, how far does it go?
Where do you stop?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
It needs to go as far as it needs to go.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Well, but that doesn't say no offense, Sunshine, but that's
not saying anything. It needs to go as far as
it goes. How far does it need to go? Is
the question?
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Again?
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Everyone who is involved in this coup needs to be
brought to justice. So as far as it goes in
order to meet that objective, that's as far as it goes. Yeah,
how far do you punish people who you know who
who undermine democracy, who stole an election, who committed acts
of personal of political persecution.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Well, I think the key though to all of this,
Mark is it whatever you do, if you if you
think that some kind of consequences need to be met
at out is you have to do it lawfully and
there's standards that have to be met. If you do that,
you have to there's burdens of proof, there's all sorts
of pesky things like that that you know that protect
(06:06):
us all. Those rights protect us all. And just because
you think somebody threatened democracy doesn't mean they lose their
rights in the process. Otherwise you're guilty of threatening democracy
if you do that. So you have to do this
on a legal level. And in some cases, these people
who I know you believe would be egregious have or
(06:28):
have done egregious things, aren't going to meet You can't
punish them because you're not going to meet a burden
of proof. Mike, do you have White Christmas? Because that
apparently is the number one Christmas carol of all time.
There's that, which I prefer to rocking around the Christmas tree.
There's also my mother used to play Earth a Kit
(06:51):
Santa Baby, apparently, according to my grandfather, over and over
and over again until he was ready to jump out
the window. I did not know until my mother passed
that that was in fact one of her, you know,
favorite Christmas carols. It's not on my top ten, but
you know, for mom, maybe six one, seven, two, sixty six,
sixty eight, sixty eight is the number.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Here.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I'm Sandy Shack filling in for Jeff Coooner. The text
number is seven zero for seven zero On the text
line sixty one seven says Sandy. I'm all for accountability. However,
most of the liberals I know don't understand the legal
wrangling the Dems created to get Trump. So I say expose, prosecute,
(07:34):
and punish. Okay. Nine seven eight says forgiveness doesn't mean
no consequences. That is so true. You can forgive and
still let out consequences, like like your parents do when
you're a kid. You know, yes, honey, I forgive you.
You know, I know you're sorry. I forgive you, but
you still need to stand in the corner so that
you learn not to do it again. So I completely
(07:55):
understand what you're talking about, and I think that's accurate
and maybe a comp nation of what those two texts
are suggesting is the appropriate approach, Missus, you do need
to expose, and where it's a breaking of the law
and you can lawfully do it, prosecute. I think that's
not inappropriate. To be honest with you, then you can
(08:18):
forgive and move on, but you have meted out consequences
for bad actions. I think that's not an unreasonable approach
to all of this. What do you think. Do you
think that Donald Trump should turn the other cheek and
move on or should he do what the Texter is suggesting, expose, prosecute,
and punish. Salin Wakefield, Welcome to w RKO. How are you, Sal,
(08:42):
I'm good.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
Good morning, Sandy. My opinion is that these people have
to be held accountable because going forward, they'll just do
it again. This is no longer the Democrat Party. They're
behaving like communists for the last you know, since Trump's
first administration. There's so many examples. The Russian collusion hoapes,
(09:03):
we know it's it's actually there's evidence now that it
was an actual, made up yolks. Yeah, nobody paid the
price for that. Nobody, nobody has paid the price for that,
and there's actual evidence. I mean, there's so many examples.
Steve Bannon just did jail time for contempt to Congress.
Eric Holder was found in contempt to Congress. Obama's wingman.
(09:26):
Nothing happened to him. Okay, here's another thing, Sandy, people
probably might not know about. General Milly during Trump's first administration,
was in contact with the Chinese I believe a Chinese
general and said I will warn you if this president
takes any military action against you China.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Now, yeah, he actually wrote that in his book. General
Milly did did write that in his book. It told
everybody that he had done that.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
Yeah, Ugane, if it came out that a general did
that against Obama o'biden, they'd be in jail, they'd be
court martialed and sent to prison. It's almost on the
lines or level of treason. So it's just these people.
It's no longer our parents Democrat Party, I guess, is
(10:14):
my point. These people are there Marxists.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
It is not the Democrat part. I was a Democrat
for many years and then I'm just like with my
parents that was brought up in a Democrat household. And
then as I got older and begin to realize this
was not the party that my parents were part of,
this is completely different. I left. I'm like, yeah, no,
this is not for me, and I walked away from it.
And I've since then, I've seen the evolution and the
(10:40):
downward slide even more so to the point where I
agree with you it's the progressive wing of the Democratic
Party has taken it over, and I personally think so
that they have brought the Democratic Party to it's ruined.
I think this last election has ruined the Democratic Party.
They need a complete rebuild, and those who recognize it
will be part of a party in the future that
(11:03):
might do them credit. But if they don't recognize where
the problems are, then you know they're going to go
the way the Whigs. You know, there aren't any So
that's I think that's their future, and I think this
is their threshold now to decide what to do about it.
It all depends on what their response to Donald or
a lot of it will depend on what their response
to Donald Trump is. If you dig in and help
(11:24):
with the rest of America who wanted him in there
and for the rebuild, then good. I think you've got
a future. If you continue the bad acting, the walking
on the cliff edge of morality and ethics and periodically
stepping over to do something illegal, then no, I don't
think you have a future. So you think the only
(11:46):
way to really you need to force them into it
by prosecuting people who broke the law in regard to
their persecution of Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
So absolutely, that's I think the only way we could
get any change. And if you think about it, Donald
Trump has got to be the most investigated human being
my lifetime, if not the world. And think about it
this way, if he actually had committed any crimes going
all the way back to his first administration, do you
(12:14):
think they would have actually allowed him to make three
conservative justices picks or picks for the court.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
He wouldn't have made the first election. If they'd been
able to expose criminals. He wouldn't have won in twenty sixteen, Soul,
that would never have occurred. So yeah, no, if he
actually had broken the law, he would have been he
never would have survived in twenty sixteen. So yeah, no,
there's nothing there otherwise. And for that point, sal in
(12:43):
New York, Letitia James had to create a crime. They
had to put together crimes that weren't crimes, and mac
pushed them together and then prosecute him under something that
actually didn't exist and that nobody'd ever been prosecuted before
because it didn't exist until Donald Trump. And so that's
(13:03):
that's an exact example of what you're talking about.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
I mean, up the phone, called it, peached him on
turns out and we know this was was it. Biden
in front of the Foreign Relations said that he had
a prosecutor fired, he was holding back money.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
He was in front of Foreign relations, he was vice president,
he was he was actually at a forum. He admits
that he went to Ukraine and he and he was
He was actually joking, not joking as in, Haha, this
is not true, Joe. He was laughing and thinking this
was funny to show everybody how powerful he was, getting
this Ukraine prosecutor who was prosecuting Barisma, his son's company,
(13:42):
and said he got him fired by holding up American
funds until they fired the prosecutor. Yes, he admitted it,
thinking it was really funny and showed how powerful he was.
He thought that was He's sitting up there with his
legs crossed, laughing and smiling and joking with a big
cheshure cat grin. And you know, I think that's one
of the reason people first started to realize that the
(14:03):
wheels were going to come off the bus, and they did.
They didn't short en it. Did you see South, Speaking
of of President Biden, did you see the report that
just came out that it's in the Daily Mail that says, uh,
President Biden was basically had severe cognitive issues from day
one of his presidency and that in fact, it was
(14:27):
his staff that basically ran the country for the past
four years. No wonder it's in such bad shape.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
Huh, Well, we all saw that. I mean, if you
remember his whatever you want to call them, interviews when
he was in his basement. Yes, during ding you could,
well you could tell back then that he was having
major issues. But people still voted and they.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Bought the lie. They bought the lie that everything was fine.
And you know that's that they bought the lie. They believed.
They they only believed they wanted to believe, and so
therefore they you know, the emperor had no clothes and
they didn't want to see that. So that's that's what
happened with him. Thank you so much for the for
the call, sell I appreciate it very much. Let's go
(15:10):
to Sue in Maine. Sue, welcome to w RKO. How
are you.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
You're taking my call? I'm great.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
How are you so far?
Speaker 1 (15:18):
So good? Merry Christmas to you, Oh.
Speaker 5 (15:21):
Merry Christmas to you. And you have a big fan
base up here.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Oh, thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
Yes, so I do want to agree with the people
that have been saying, yes, we need to hold their
feet at the fire, because this kind of behavior will
not stop until they start to understand there will be
consequences for their actions. And you know, I mean like
the big stuff. I mean, look at Tucker Carlson. He
got fired for telling the truth, Yeah he did. And
(15:48):
George Stephanopolis still has a job, right.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Yep, he does. They've re upped his contract, but they
cut his pay.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Oh did they be what from thirty five million to
twenty five?
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (16:02):
With Rachel Maddows went from twenty five to twenty I
think yeah. And I think there are a couple of
others over there that have been told like Jen Saki
and I'm trying remember the other one over there, that
have been told they can come back, but it greatly
reduced pay. So I think I think MSNBC is hanging
on by its fingernails.
Speaker 5 (16:21):
So starting to understand this because look at the groveling
that Joe and Miko went through right after Trump was elected.
They went down to mar A Lago and just you know, basically,
you know, with their little heads bowed, and you know,
so slowly but surely as long as we can get Now.
I have some very intelligent liberal friends, but they just
(16:42):
believe in the craft that they've been told. But if
we constantly just keep putting out there the actual truth,
I believe that a lot of these people who don't
like Trump but voted for him, or just wouldn't vote
for Trump anyway, we'll start to understand, you know, the
way they've been fooled, Because I was. I was a
(17:03):
Democrat too, until somebody turned to me one time and
told me.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
To grow a brain.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
And I was terrified, and I had no idea what
she was talking about. This was a complete stranger in
a restaurant at a table next to me, and it's
just one of those things. And I kept hearing in
the news all kinds of great things about Democrats and
bad things about Republicans. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty
eight six one seven two sixty six six eight six
eight is the number here. This is Sandy Shack filling
in for Jeff Kooner, and retribution is the topic under discussion. Specifically,
should President Trump forgive those who prosecute who prosecuted him
(17:47):
with consequences for their activities, or should he just forgive,
forgive them and and uh move on, you know, ignoring
their bad acts on the tech Slane, which is seven
zero four seven zero number one says I'm sorry. Five
O eight says, Look how they're indicting and prosecuting Eric
(18:09):
Adams just for going up against Biden on illegal immigration
and for treating Trump as a normal incoming president not
as Hitler. Well, yeah, so that is the argument for
prosecuting and for holding people accountable on a legal level
for what they have done. And no matter what response
(18:29):
you have to the people who went after Trump, it
has to be legal. You cannot do extra legal or
I think social social punishments. I think that is falling
into the same trap the progressives did. That's what they
wanted to do to Republicans, and that you cannot do.
I don't believe that's my opinion, but I think legal
(18:52):
redress is something completely different. Let's talk to Mark in Milton. Mark,
Welcome to WRKO. How are you, sir?
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Hi, Thanks for taking my call. Happy Hanukah and Merry
Christmas to everybody out there. My only comment, my only comment,
short and sweet. I think we are misusing the language.
We cannot mistake justice for retribution. Okay, I don't think
this is retribution at all.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Do you think it's justice.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
I think it is. I think it is one justice. Okay,
and that's my only comment.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
We'll explain why.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Well, as virtually every caller has said, if somebody does
something wrong, they need to be held accountable. Is that
retribution or is it justice?
Speaker 7 (19:42):
Mere?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Retribution is like, I don't think Donald Trump can really
go after Smoky Smoky Daniels.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Was that was that her name, Dormy Daniels, Dormy Daniels.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
I don't think he can really go after her at
this point. And if he did, that would be retribution.
What he has said in the past, like about Rosy O'Donnell,
that kind of stuff is retribution.
Speaker 8 (20:07):
I think we've.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Moved past that. But if people lied to get de
Pisa warrants, they need to be held accountable and brought
to justice. That is not retribution. That is justice. I
think retribution is more personal without strong and you've said it,
(20:29):
you know ten times at least, that you need to
have a legal foundation for doing what we're doing to me.
That's not retribution, that's justice. And I think we should
get rid of this term retribution because we know the
other side is going to hijack that word.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Well, that's a good point. I mean, retribution actually means
punishment inflicted on somebody for a wrong or criminal act.
That's what retribution actually is. And it doesn't denote that
you're doing something wrong, and it doesn't note that it
denotes that you're in the right. Retribution does. But I
think you're absolutely right that it will be hijacked, as
(21:08):
they hijack things that are meant that are completely innocent.
For instance, I gave you an example mark that completely
supports your point. When Donald Trump, remember on the campaign trail,
was talking about the economic effect of Mexico's building these
giant car factories on the other side of the border,
and he said it's going to create basically a blood bath.
(21:29):
And he was talking about an economic blood bath, and
they took that word and they tried to make it
seem as if he was calling for violence against Democrats
or against Biden supporters. After the election, they completely hijacked
the term, twisted it and put it out there as
some kind of call to violence. So that supports actually
what you just said, don't you think so?
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yeah? And I mean think of all of the terms
that the left and progressive have the agressives have hijacked
over the years. You know, let's take it back to
Christmas carols. What's that what's that song? The one about
she's staying late at night?
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Oh baby it's cold outside.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
They take everything and they just they just twist it
into a version that always supports a I'm gonna say,
they turn it around to be to meaning date rape,
and it's like it was written by a husband and wife.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Team and it was supposed to be a cute, sweet
song about seduction, not about rape. And that's what they
turned it into, which I always thought was horrible because
it's a sweet song. I thought, I thought it was
a very nice song. But that's that's me, Mark. But
I see, but I completely understand your meaning and that
they take something innocent and turn it and turn it
into something nefarious basically.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
You know. And that's why I don't like using that
term retribution. I wanted to be said as justice, because
justice does need to be done. I think justice needs
to be found, not just for the thirteen Americans that
died in Afghanistan. Weren't there over one hundred innocent Afghanis
that died in that bomb blast? Weren't there? Didn't Biden
(23:18):
target a family about a week later that was completely
innocent and killed the family in a targeted drone strike.
Speaker 7 (23:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Yeah, children too, there were children in that car.
Speaker 6 (23:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
And justice does need I mean justice is crying out
in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
The only problem I have with that, Mark, and I
do agree with you that their justice is crying out.
You got to be careful with the word, I suppose
with both words, either retribution or justice, because people take
justice into their own hands, you know, and they will
met out punishments in the name of justice that they
(24:05):
have no business doing. And that's something that I find intolerable.
You know, I don't believe in vigilantism. I don't believe
in I believe in using the system. So for me,
retribution meant using the system and as it's supposed to
be used. Justice can be anything. Justice can be somebody
(24:25):
going up. And what that whack job killer did in
killing the United Healthcare guy, he thought that was justice
for bad health insurance policies. That to me is you know, no, no, no, no, no,
that's psychotic. Whereas retribution means you're working within the system,
(24:46):
retribution actually means using the law, bringing punishment within the law.
And that's why I use that word because I think
whatever has to be done, or whatever should be done
to create a fair playing field, move forward, and an
environment in which Donald Trump can promote his platform that
(25:07):
he won on. I think that that needs to be
done through legal means and not through vigilantism. That's why
I picked that word. But you may disagree with me.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Oh, I think You've given a very good explanation. I'm
just concerned that. Yeah, you know, can I make one
last comment about that whack job ahead? I thought Obamacare
fixed all the problems in the health care and does
that whack job who does he not realize that everything,
(25:43):
everything has been delayed. We all know health insurance needs
an overhaul and Obamacare was not the answer, and they
won't come out and once again admit it. Government is
rarely the answer to problems.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
M What is it? Those those feared words. I'm from
the government and I'm here to help. Yes, yeah, indeed,
I yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Merry Christmas, Happy Honkah, and all of whatever traditions I'm
missing out on would have a great season.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Thank you so much, Mark, I appreciate it. I know
everybody in the audience does too, and I hope you
have a happy holiday too, and am Merry Christmas and
a happy Honakh and whatever it is that you like
to do this time of year. Thank you for your call.
Six one seven two six sixty eight sixty eight is
the number here six one seven two sixty six sixty
eight sixty eight. When you hear a caller drop off,
(26:40):
it means a line has opened up for you. Mike,
I think it's that time of the week, is it not.
So every week we play Coooner's call logue. It's our
favorite caller of the week this week. And this, by
the way, is Michael's thing to do. It's Mike's Mike
picks the call every week. Mike produces what you hear
(27:03):
every week. Mike does the editing, picks the sounder at
the end, does everything, and so it is completely Mike's creation.
And this week, because starting Monday, both Jeff and I
are gone and Mike has gone for a good time
and you know we're all taking vacation at the same time,
this is our last Cooner's call log for the year.
(27:26):
And so this Cooner's collogue is not the best caller
of the week, it's the best caller of the year.
And this is Mike's entry in that category.
Speaker 9 (27:36):
Go ahead, Mike, It's time for Cooner's call Log, where
we showcase our favorite color from the week.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
I can hear you? Can you hear me? I love you,
Jeff that I love you in a non sexual way.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
I love you, that's.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Only in a non sexual way.
Speaker 7 (27:58):
I'm feeling great, and I feel that we're going to
have a hopefully a really unifying win. And if you
look at the whole world is.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
Falling apart, but the world is blowing up. We could
end up in World War three.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Right now.
Speaker 7 (28:10):
Our country is just being decimated by millions of people
coming in, pouring in, and now we have the worst border,
I believe in the history of the world.
Speaker 4 (28:19):
I don't think there's ever been anything like this.
Speaker 7 (28:21):
You can't win elections with open voters, high taxes, high
interest rates, to all the things. They cheat. They have
to cheat because their policies are so bad. And we
have the best security, the best attorneys. We're going to
stop it. It used to be that I will start wars,
but oh, he's a warmonger. Look at him, look at
the way he speaks. He's going to start worse.
Speaker 6 (28:39):
I'm the only one.
Speaker 7 (28:40):
That didn't start the war. But now their line is
that I'm a fascist, I'm a dictator. But they are
the greatest misinformation and disinformation.
Speaker 8 (28:49):
People ever that ever lived.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
Maggie is the greatest thing.
Speaker 8 (28:52):
It's the greatest movement in history. I will tell you that. Jeff,
you understand that. I mean, you understand it better than anybody.
Speaker 7 (28:57):
You're a total pro and I really appreciate it because
you are a total.
Speaker 10 (29:00):
Bro be here every weekday on the Cooner Report between
six and ten am, and next week it could be
you on Cooner's call log.
Speaker 4 (29:17):
Please don't be a stranger. Call again.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
That was a very appropriate call for this morning, given
our topic, Mike, and I think a very appropriate call
for the year, given the year's events. When President Trump
was on with Jeff, I think that was I think
that was a very good choice. It was a fun call.
It was a very fun interview and I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mike, and we thank President Trump too for
coming on the show. We appreciate that as well. I
(29:41):
want to do it just two seconds for an aside.
I'm just getting I'm getting criticized on the on the
text line for not talking about the continuing Resolution this morning.
I just want to say, first of all, we talked
about it for four hours yesterday, and then yesterday afternoon
President Trump got his debt ceiling wish and they changed
(30:02):
that in the CR, but it still didn't pass last
night because there was still stuff that bothered some of
the Republicans. And just to keep you up to date,
the House is going to vote this morning at ten
am on a temporary fix for the CR. So it
looks like they have some kind of deal a foot
that will keep the lights on before the deadline tonight
(30:23):
at midnight. But I saw no reason to talk about
it again when there hadn't been a you know when
when the vote last night failed and we were still
in the same position that we were yesterday when we
did it for four hours, So I wanted to do
this instead. I hope that you agree. The number here
is six one seven two, six sixty eight, sixty eight.
We're talking about justice, retribution, vengeance. I don't know what
(30:44):
you want to call it. But should President Trump forgive
the people who persecuted him for the past four years,
or forgive and forget move on without consequences, or should
he in fact met out some consequences to those people
who who went after him, and not just people who
(31:05):
disagreed with him. We're not talking about that. I am
talking about people who lied about him, who's slandered him,
who actually committed crimes in the in their zeal to
keep him from being elected. Because that happened. It happened
on more than one occasion. We've seen the civil lawsuits
now against media outlets for slander. ABC just settled a
(31:27):
big one. Another one's been brought against Gannett. I don't
know if there's more coming, but those are the two
that are currently out there, and then we've seen some responses.
Jack Smith resigned from the Department of Justice and at
his investigations. Fannie Willis has been withdrawn from the Georgia case.
She's fighting that, but she has been and she's got
fraud issues that have been brought up against her as well.
(31:50):
And that leaves Letitia James and Alvin Bragg in New
York to be dealt with on whatever level. I'm not
saying what they did was illegal, but it was certainly
unethical and a part of Letitia ja so I'm thinking
there must be some consequences, like removal from office. I
don't know, but my question is to you, is that
appropriate or should the president just move on? Let's go
(32:11):
to Morris in Boston. Morris, Welcome to WRKO. How are you, Morris?
Speaker 6 (32:17):
Hey, good morning, Sandy, Happy holidays.
Speaker 8 (32:21):
Yeah, thank you. So, you know, I figured what the
fellow's name was they called in.
Speaker 6 (32:26):
Earlier, but he was talking about oh, we shouldn't have retribution,
this and that, and you know, in my mind, okay,
Donald Trump, Yeah, he President Trump has his.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
Battles to fight with these people. But the way I.
Speaker 6 (32:40):
See it is from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty, we
were cheated out of getting everything we could have gotten
out of Donald Trump. As I saw in an interview
with him, he had said, you know, I spend you know,
twelve hours a day doing my job as president, and
then at night I spend another twelve hours fighting these
ridiculous lies, fake scandals like Russia collusion. And for four
(33:03):
years straight, all we saw on the news was Russia, Russia, Russia.
The doors are closing in any day now he's going
to jail. Then we had two fake impeachments, and then
we had the Hunter Biden laptop lie that in turn
affected that election, and we were stuck with a schlep
for four years that affected all of us. We had
(33:25):
the COVID lies, we had the vaccine lies, we had
the lockdowns, we had a mass we had the social
distancing with what I do for a living. That absolutely
destroyed my industry. Trying to pack, you know, one hundred
and fifty guys on a construction site and keep them
six feet apart from each other and constantly sanitizing their hands.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
It was mayhem.
Speaker 6 (33:44):
Yeah, and it cost us tons of money. It costs
a lot of people money. So it's not just about
Donald Trump getting revenge. And I'm using the word revenge.
I want to see these people locked up. I want
to see the media, you know, the way the left
would go after people on the right, whether it was
a Supreme Court justice or whoever it be. They'd get
outside their houses and they'd make their lives hell and
(34:06):
go after them really based on lives. But we have
truth and facts on our side, and honestly, part of
me wants to take a leave of absence and go
torture these people in the media and just follow them
around and just harass them and make them pay. These
people they don't they destroyed lives. There are people that
I know that are still looking for a job because
(34:29):
they were vocal about saying they voted for Donald Trump
in twenty twenty and he was a pariah in twenty twenty.
Myself and very few others were ones that were willing
to admit openly that January sixth or a sham and
that we voted for Donald Trump. And I tell you,
I lost a lot of friends, family members that you know,
(34:50):
kind of stopped talking and.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Yeah, it happened in my it happened in my husband's
family too. And I'm like, yeah, okay, here's the rule.
No disgusting politics on social media. Yeah any of you,
and I refuse to allow it in my home on holidays. No, no, no, no,
I stop any converts. Just why? Because it was on
a reasonable response an unreasonable response. It was bizarre, frothing
(35:12):
at the mouth, and it was like, what the hell
is there something?
Speaker 8 (35:14):
You know?
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Somebody take a pill before they come in here. But
it's I agree with you. I was appalled by it too.
But here's the thing. You were appalled by the actions themselves.
It was not just that it was a lie that
they were promoting it was their aggressive behavior. I do
think that if you condone that kind of aggressive behavior
(35:39):
by repeating it, you are just as bad as they are.
And you may have truth on your side, but it's
just as bad. I understand the emotional response to want
to show them what they did to people by doing
it to them, but I think that that's just a
snowball to hell basically is what's going to happen. I
think what you do is you make behave like that illegal.
(36:01):
I mean, not the words, but you can't follow somebody
around and yell at them. You can't, you know, you
make it. Maybe you add you know, politics as a
suspect class, you know, in for hiring people. You know,
if you can show that, because people do in lawsuits
all the time when they they show that they haven't
been hired because they're too old, or they're of a
(36:21):
of a different race or a different you know, sexual
persuasion or any of the above. And maybe you add
you know, political to that, which sounds bizarre, but maybe
that's what this past four years has brought us to.
I think you need to do something on the legal
scope to protect people moving forward, but I don't think
you repeat the bad behavior, do you.
Speaker 6 (36:42):
Morris, No, And I don't mean to repeat the bad behavior.
I mean the bad behavior needs to be dealt with,
like yeah, the work.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
But how do you do that? How do you do
that retroactively? I think you make it. I think you
make it a problem going forward, but there's not much
I think you can do going backwards.
Speaker 6 (37:01):
So you know, I do think you know, you have
to make examples. You know, in the workplace. If somebody
does something unethical and they are you know, brought up
in front of whether it's hr whoever it may be,
and they lose their job, that reverberates through the company
and people see that and they say, oh, okay, I'm
(37:23):
not doing that. Like with what I do for them,
we have certain rules. You don't use contractors who.
Speaker 8 (37:27):
Are doing work for you, you.
Speaker 6 (37:28):
Don't take kickbacks, you don't there are a lot of
things that you don't do that and they're clearly written in.
Speaker 8 (37:34):
Company policy in this and that.
Speaker 6 (37:37):
But obviously that stuff wasn't there at some point, and
it was written in those in response to them, because
in response to something, so they have to be held accountable.
Speaker 8 (37:48):
I mean, we are held you know. It's it's no
different than one.
Speaker 6 (37:51):
You know, I love the police, a big fan. However,
you know there are certain above the law mentalities that
bother me.
Speaker 8 (37:59):
You know, if you are paid to.
Speaker 6 (38:01):
Enforce the law, you need to be held to a
higher standard of the law. It shouldn't be Hey, you
get caught doing a hundred on the highway.
Speaker 8 (38:08):
Oh your buddy pulls you over. All right, you know
you're free to go or whatever. It may be.
Speaker 6 (38:13):
Kind of like what we saw with the Karen Reid case.
That is the type of abuse of power that we
have to get rid of. Doctor Fauci. That man needs
to go to jail. He has destroyed people's lives.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Well, I think there's actually legal actions that can be
brought against doctor Fauci. And as I said before the
that's my whole thing is Okay, I'm all for consequences,
but it has to be done legally. It can't be
done you know social like you were talking about you
had friends who didn't get jobs because of their political views. Okay,
that's you know, how do you how do you how
(38:48):
do you control that
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.