Retribution

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Is it time now to take the high road, forgive
and forget, or is it time for retribution?

Speaker 2 (00:06):
What say you? I'm Sandy shack In for Jeff Kooner.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
The number here is six one seven two sixty six
six eight six eight six one seven two six six
sixty eight sixty eight. The text number seven zero four
seven zero. This was a vicious, vicious campaign, with Democrats
and mainstream media and rhinos hitting as low as they

(00:30):
could possibly punch against President Trump. I mean, you remember
the comparisons to Hill, right, And if you don't, I
have a few just to remind you. This is Jake
Tapper over in CNN cut forty, please, Mike.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
The dehumanizing rhetoric of Adolph Hitler is once again alive
and well on a national political stage, this time, of course,
in the United States, this time given life by Formdent
and current Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (01:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
That's nice touch, don't you. This is Hitler is alive
and well again. Hillary Clinton on the View compared Trump
to Hitler, saying Hitler didn't tell people what he was
going to do. Trump, Actually he's giving us a heads
up and telling us, so he's a little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Smarter than Hitler. But he's Hitler, is what she's saying.
Cut forty two.

Speaker 5 (01:30):
People would get legitimately elected, and then they would try
to do away with elections, and do away with opposition,
and do away with a free press. And you could
see it in countries where well Hitler was duly elected, right,
and so all of a sudden, somebody with those tendencies,
though dictatorial authoritarian tendencies, would be like, Okay, we're gonna

(01:55):
shut this down.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
We're going to throw these people in jail.

Speaker 5 (01:58):
And they didn't usually telegraph that. Trump is telling us
what he tends to do.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
That's so, is he smart? Is he more stupid than Hitler?
But he's Hitler. Nonetheless, then Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri,
said Trump is even more dangerous than Hitler cut forty one.

Speaker 6 (02:20):
Let me even bring in what I think is also
a very dangerous thread to this conversation. A lot of
people have tried to draw similarities between Mussolini and Hitler
and the use of the terminology like vermin and the
drive that those men had towards autocracy and dictatorship. The difference, though,

(02:44):
I think McDonald Trump even more dangerous, and that is
he has no philosophy he believes in. He is not
trying to expand the boundaries in the United States of America.
He's not trying to overcome a neighboring country like Putin
is in Ukraine. He is not going for some grandy
scheme of international dominance.

Speaker 2 (03:02):
All he wants is to look.

Speaker 6 (03:04):
In the mirror and see a guy who's president, you know.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. These these
people who are trying to thwack him, you know networks,
you know, the networks basically standardizing their approach against him,
with their cries of fascism and and Hitlerism and comments
that compared him to Mussolini and Hitler.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
That's just the tip. You also had the.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Das bringing spurious charges, you know, made up crimes against him.
You had judges allowing specious civil suits, and you had
you know, members of Congress on the j sixth Committee
essentially colluding with witnesses to to bring in false testimony.

(03:54):
And this is all in zeal to brand Donald Trump
a trader and to stop him from ever being elected again.
That was all that that everything was about the past
four years of persecution. How did that work out for them?
You know, given the fact that all their efforts basically
had the same effect as spitting into the wind. Should

(04:17):
Donald Trump forgive his enemies and essentially turn the other cheek?
Should or you know, is retribution more the order of
the day. That's my question for you, And actually I'm
going to make that the the Cooner Report poll question,
which is sponsored by Mario's Roofing, Siding and Windows.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
You can take it.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
On our at X at the Cooner Report or on
our website w RKO dot com slash Cooner. Should Donald
Trump exact retribution from those who persecute persecuted him for
the past four years?

Speaker 2 (04:53):
Or should he turn the other cheek?

Speaker 7 (04:55):
You know?

Speaker 1 (04:56):
Is it time for forgiveness and let's and let's move on.
And if in fact, vengeance is the name of the game,
and you think it's appropriate right now, should it be
across the board? Should it be raise and burn, get
everybody or just the egregious offenders? For instance, I'm going
to give you an example in the media, ABC has

(05:20):
already had their comeuppance in the form of a sixteen
million dollar settlement for slander that came about because of
an interview George Stefanopolis did with Nancy Mayce, Congressman Nancy
Mays of South Carolina. And I want you to hear

(05:40):
exactly what happened Stephanopolis, who had been warned by his
executive producers not to mention the word rape in conjunction
with the E. Gene Carroll trial for defamation, and he

(06:00):
couldn't help himself. And he's trying to shame Nancy Mace,
Congress froman Nancy Mayce for supporting Donald Trump as a woman.
He's saying, you're a woman, how can you possibly support
a man who's raped or who's found libel for rape?
Is what he said of another woman. And Nancy Mace
exploded on him. It was a thing to behold. She's like,

(06:22):
first of all, you know, I am a rape victim,
so don't try to shame me for my political beliefs.

Speaker 2 (06:28):
And this is not.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
Accurate what happened. I want you to hear the whole thing.
Cut forty three.

Speaker 8 (06:36):
Endorse Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries
have found him liable for rape and for defaming the
victim of that rape. How do you scare your endorsement
of Donald Trump with a testimony we just saw.

Speaker 9 (06:48):
Well, I will tell you I was raped at the
age of sixteen, and any rate victorm will tell you
I've lived for thirty years with an incredible amount of
shame over being raped. I didn't come forward because of
that judgment and shame that I felt. And it's a
shame that you will never feel, George. And I'm not
going to sit here on your show and be asked

(07:09):
a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim.
I'm going to I'm not going to do that.

Speaker 8 (07:15):
It's actually not about shaming you. It's a question, But no,
you are shaming.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
I think he was trying to shame her.

Speaker 1 (07:20):
How else do you say you know you're supporting a
man found libel for rape, but it continued Cup forty
three A.

Speaker 9 (07:31):
It's sort of longing to come forward with they It
makes it harder when other women joke about it, and
she's joked about it. I find it offensive, and I
also find it offensive that you're trying to shame me
with this question.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
I'm not trying to shame you. In fact, I had
dealt with this for thirty years.

Speaker 9 (07:44):
You know how hard it was to tell my story
five years ago when they were doing a fetal heartbeat
bill and there were no exceptions for rape incest or
or rape or incest in there. I had to tell
my story because no other woman was coming up for
no rape victims were represented.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
And you're trying to shame me.

Speaker 9 (08:00):
I'm just and I find it offensive, and this is
why women won't come forward.

Speaker 2 (08:04):
I agree with her, that's one of the reasons why
we'll come forward. But he wasn't done yet. Forty three b.

Speaker 8 (08:10):
Doris Donald Trump for President. Donald Trump has been found
liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been
found liable for defaming the victim of that rape by
a jury. It's been affirmed by a judge.

Speaker 9 (08:22):
It was not a criminal court case. Number one.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Number two. I live with shame, and.

Speaker 9 (08:29):
You're asking me a question about my political choices, trying
to shame me as a rape victim, and I find
it disgusting and quite frankly, Egene Carroll's comments when she
did get the judgment, joking about what she was going
to buy, it doesn't it makes it harder for women
to come forward when they make a mockery out of rape,
when they joke about it.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
I agree with everything Nancy May said. But notice that twice,
three times, four times George Stephanoppolos used the word rape
after his executive producer said, don't under any story and
text it him and I mean it's in writing too.
Don't ever mention rape. Don't mention rape. And there he goes. Now,
just to set the record straight. In May of twenty
twenty three, a Manhattan jerry ordered Trump to pay five

(09:10):
million to eg and Carol after finding him libel for
sexually abusing her at the Barney's in nineteen ninety six
and then defaming her in his statements when he denied
those allegations. It's a bad it was a bad trial,
and it's going to appeal as it should. However, the
point is he was never found lible for rape. Rape

(09:34):
was not part of that trial. That's not what happened.
So George completely and utterly disregarded what he was told
to do and did what he wanted to do, which
was called Donald Trump a rapist. And for that, I
mean it was.

Speaker 4 (09:51):
That.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
It's just an appalling thing to do, and for that.
Now ABC has agreed to pay sixteen million dollars to
settle that defamation and lawsuit.

Speaker 2 (10:01):
It's and and.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
By the way, that money is going to the Presidential
Foundation and museum to be established for Donald Trump as
President of the United States.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
In other words, it's to his library.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
And a million dollars went to Donald Trump for his
attorneys and filing the you know, they paid, They had
to pay for the for Donald Trump' attorneys to file
the lawsuit. So and they have to apologize. They have
to in writing and on the air apologize, all of
which they've done. You'd think that Stephanoppolis will be fired

(10:34):
for this, right, he hasn't been.

Speaker 2 (10:36):
He's contract is renewed.

Speaker 1 (10:38):
However, it's renewed for a much decreased salary. Should Donald
Trump exact retribution from those that have persecuted him or forgive?
Maybe not forget, but forgive. Some are already feeling the
pain of their misdeeds. And I just mentioned George Stefanopolis and.

Speaker 2 (10:55):
ABC before the break.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
Basically Georgeanopolis apoplectic and it's said to be humiliated by
staffers there by the network's decision to pay the sixteen
million dollars to settle the defamation lawsuit brought by President
Trump for him calling him basically a rapist on the air,
and for he may be humiliating. He's not fired, but

(11:19):
he may be humiliated. And he's not the only person
or member of the press I should say, this's apoplectic
about the settlement. It's reverberating throughout the press. They are
terrified and they are furious. Here is Chuck Todd at
NBC calling the settlement a gut punch cut sixteen.

Speaker 10 (11:46):
This was stunning to me and absolutely a gut punch
to anybody that works at a major media company, because
I think it does set a it sets a precedent
that is going to be very difficult. It's gonna be
very difficult to get from get out from under potentially.

(12:09):
I just you know, I think the risk of losing
this suit was right for ABC, ABC, So you know,
this was a decision to buy off a bad PR.

Speaker 1 (12:28):
I think it was more than buying sixteen million just
for buying off bad PR. I think more along the
lines of it's called defamation. He slandered President Trump and
was and they knew it, and they knew it. Chuck
Todd is running scared. So is Jim Acosta over at CNN,

(12:49):
and he's calling on media outlets to stand firm against
President Trump's effort to use this legal system to hold
the press accountable.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Well, the press doesn't hold themselves accountable.

Speaker 1 (12:59):
They think it's a k to lie, So why shouldn't
the courts do it. That's basically what President Trump is
doing here. He's using the courts. He's not weaponizing the
DOJ the way other administrations have done to go after them.
He is, in fact using the courts. That is his remedy.
That's your remedy, that's my remedy. All of us are

(13:21):
allowed to do that.

Speaker 4 (13:22):
Now.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
Over at MSNBC, Simone Sanders appears to have gotten her
network into.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
A little more hot water by basically.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
Talking about this settlement with Stephanopolis and saying doubling down
on it, saying that his statement was true Cut number twelve.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
The press is in a difficult position. Everyone understands that that.

Speaker 9 (13:49):
Doesn't change the obligation to be straightforward and objective when
it comes to Donald Trump.

Speaker 11 (13:54):
I will just say, I mean, this feels like it
has a real chilling effect. Like I mean, shout out
to the Standards Department, man, Okay, Standards is always making
sure that we are keeping the bar high and substantive, inaccurate.
But what George Stephanopolis said in that interview, I mean.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
It seems to hold up.

Speaker 11 (14:11):
And what the judge said after the back and now
he's a news organization and himself, Georgepanopolis himself is paying
a million dollars of his own money to the lawyers,
and ABC at fifty million dollars, it's insane.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, Okay, So she just basically said, she reiterated that,
she said that what Stephanopolos said was true. I think
MSNB seems to get their checkbook out because she just
reiterated slander essentially. And ABC is not the only media
outlet that Trump has filed a lawsuit against. He also

(14:46):
filed a lawsuit against polster J. N. Seltzer due to
her polls in the days before the election, which had
absurdly showed him trailing Vice President Harris by three points
in Iowa. So his attorneys have filed this twenty nine
page lawsuit this week in the Iowa District Court for
Polk County, seeking a jury trial. They say that the defendants,

(15:09):
including Seltzer and her employer there the Des Moines Register,
who sponsored the pole, and its parent company Gannet Company
and Tribune Company engaged in election interference to benefit Harris.
The poll was conducted at the end of October, just
you know, days before the election, was an extreme out liar.

(15:31):
It found that Harris had forty to forty four percent
edge on Trump in the you know, in the state
that he formerly won. Every other poll regarding Trump versus Harris.
Recognized that Trump was ahead every other pole. So it
was obviously intended to create a false narrative of inevitability

(15:52):
for Harris in the final weeks of the election. And
because you had they had such a huge readership, they said.
The suit says that she had a significant and impactful
opportunity to deceive voters. And she's not the only pollster
to engage in this corrupt practice. She had a huge
platform and following a significant impact, and she knows that

(16:14):
this type of manipulation creates a narrative that they're fighting against.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
So that's what's going on.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
We're talking about President Trump's options for dealing with those
who persecuted him and may have bliede cheated, defamed, threatened,
and committed illegal acts to do so, is retribution the
order of the day.

Speaker 2 (16:37):
So far, he has.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
Utilized the courts for defamation and a couple of instances,
is that appropriate? Scott Jennings over at CNN says, go
for it, mister President cut fifteen.

Speaker 11 (16:49):
Please, we worried at all about this, Scott, just where
it could go, not just the Donald Trump of it all.

Speaker 12 (16:59):
But I mean, if he's creating, it's for everyone. Well,
when you introduced Michael U's word narratives, you know, and
I think one of the reasons Republicans are cheering on
this muscular attitude from Trump and pushing back against some
of this is because Republicans feel like constantly media organizations,
especially in the throes of campaigns, work over time to
create false narratives that may shape the contours of the election.

(17:21):
Look what happened when this poll came out in Iowa.
The entire English speaking world was talking about the gold
standard Polster and Harris has this momentum, and ultimately what
we were told was complete garbage. And if you talk
to Polsters at the time, they would have told you
this is not real. This methodology is not good anymore.
But that's not what people chose to run with because

(17:42):
it fit what most people in the press wanted. The
narrative to be so he's pushing back on that. I don't,
frankly have a problem with it. And if they caulpitulate,
it's because they don't want to go through the discovery
and what that might show.

Speaker 1 (17:53):
I agree with him completely. I think he has it.
I think Donald Trump currently is utilizing what he's supposed
to utilize, which is the court. That's how I'm supposed
to deal with stuff. If somebody goes after me, that's
how you're supposed to deal with it. So why should
it be any different for him that he should also
be able to deal with it? Wardell in West Roxbury,
Welcome to WRKL.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
Wardell. How are you, Sandy?

Speaker 7 (18:17):
Sandy Sandy? Happy holidays.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
Happy holidays to you two, sir. Merry Christmas.

Speaker 7 (18:22):
I'm just supposed to give me a second. You know,
I just turned sixty this year, so I'm trying to
get used to it. So here is my scenario. How
do you vote to president in and then all of
a sudden, it's let's get even. I don't care what

(18:43):
you did. Trump is triumph. How do you do that?
Just explain it to me, Give me a couple of words.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
I don't understand what your question is.

Speaker 7 (18:55):
My question is you're saying, how do how does Trump
get even with people who lashed out at him that
didn't want him to become the president.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
No, that's not what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (19:10):
But Wardell, you just asked me to respond to you,
and I'm telling you that's not what I said. I
didn't say he's lashing out of people who didn't like him.
I'm saying he's lashing out at people who lied about him,
who cheated about him, who slandered him, who may have
broken the law to hurt him. That's what I'm saying,
not people who disagreed with him. That's a completely different thing.

Speaker 7 (19:32):
Well, let me just finish and you can cut me
off whatever you wanted to do.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
Okay, Wardell, stop right there, because we're just going to
get something straight.

Speaker 2 (19:40):
I did.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
Let you finish. I asked you to clarify you did,
I responded, and then I gave the mic back to you.
So don't try to play the victim that I'm going
to try to cut you off, because we both know
that's not what I did. Now I'm turning the mic
back to you. Go ahead and explain to me what
your question is. If I did not just answer it.

Speaker 7 (19:59):
Okay, My thing is what you don't understand, and I'm
saying you and other people step a office. Whoever said
Donald Trump is president? I used to call the station
all the time and I wanted them to know that
Obama was president. Don't call them Obama, call them president Obama,

(20:25):
just like we call President Donald Trump. We want to
make sure that we get that established. See when you
say things like president, it's a sign of respect.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
Okay, Werdell. I have always called President Obama president Obama.
I have always called President Biden president Biden. I've always
called President Trump president Trump. What does that have to
do with our current conversation.

Speaker 7 (20:51):
I'm about to tell you. I just want to get
all that out of the way so you can put
it in the part and understand what I'm saying. President Trump,
he doesn't have to go after anybody. His job is done.
I'm a military man, his job is done. There is
no need to go after anybody. What we need to

(21:12):
do is fix America. That's all we have to do.
All of getting even get let me.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
Say, your for forgiveness is what you're saying.

Speaker 7 (21:22):
No, No, that's not what I'm saying. Okay, let mean,
let me just finish what I'm saying, is all this
rhetoric about getting even doing this, doing that. Let's stay
focused on what needs to be done. There is no
more Biden. Biden's term is over.

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Now, yet he's still there till January twentieth Waridel, He's
hasn't gone anywhere. And here's the thing. You can, you know,
walk and chew gum at the same time. President Trump
is perfectly capable of filing having his lawyers file civil
suits against people and still run the country. I don't
think that that's really going to be a big problem.

(22:02):
So it's not The option isn't you know, do wreak
havoc on people or retribution or do the country or
focus on the country.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
You can do both. So the question actually is.

Speaker 1 (22:16):
Do you forgive these people and just move on or
do you exact some kind of retribution, try to teach
some kind of lesson. That's what the options are, Ordell.
Let's not ignore everything and not make any decision at all.
So he can do both. So given that he can,
which do you say, are you saying forgiveness, forgive them

(22:37):
and move on, or are you saying no, you've got
to teach him a.

Speaker 7 (22:40):
Lesson standing what I'm trying. My point is this, and
I'm not trying to interrupt you. I'm not trying to
be rude, Sandy, because you've been around for a minute.
You know what I'm saying. I've been listening to you
for a while. I've been listening proudly before you even
started coming on. My point is we need to stop this. Okay,

(23:01):
we need to stop this. Let me just finish. We
need to stop this rhetoric. We need to stop trying
to turn people on people. We need to stop this
because if it's done, it's done. Let's move on. Let's
do what we have to do. We don't have to
if that's the only thing you guys have to talk about.

(23:23):
Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about inflation. Let's
talk about how grocery is, Let's talk about how the
housing is, Let's talk about how you know, just anything else.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
We do, Mordell, we talk about all of those things.
Those are all things that we talk about and we
deal with every single day. So but just because we
want to talk about what would be the appropriate thing
for Donald Trump to do today, doesn't mean we ignore
all those other things, and I appreciate your perspective, and
I do think a certain amount of move on is

(23:58):
required in order for us to all to move forward.
But some people feel that retribution is necessary in order
to for others to move on. And I'll give you
an example of why I'm saying that on the text line.
Somebody brought it up and I was going to mention it.
The text line, by the way, is seven zero four

(24:19):
seven zero.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
They say.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
Yesterday, Whoopy Goldberg, also of ABC on Air Live, said
that somebody needs to kill Trump. She suggested tripping him
down a flight of stairs, and her producer forced her
to clean up her statement. Later in the show, she
excused calling for his assassination try, saying it was Chris.
It was a Christmas joke, and I have it. I
have the cut just so that you know exactly what

(24:45):
she said. And you don't think I'm paraphrasing something. Cut
sixty seven. Please Mike.

Speaker 2 (24:51):
Who is in charge?

Speaker 11 (24:53):
Because I've been saying it for a while. I've been
saying that I think Eli must belliasay is president.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
I call I've called him vice president. I called him
president because I don't know what JD is doing.

Speaker 4 (25:09):
I hardly, I don't.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
I don't remember last time we even talked about JD. Right,
he's planning the president say when he gonna get rid
of Trump? So you think it's musk and must advance.

Speaker 11 (25:22):
Hey, you know who stay away from the stairways.

Speaker 2 (25:29):
You know people put the leg out.

Speaker 4 (25:30):
To Trippy bowing down the stairs.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Watch out. So that's Whoopy Goldberg.

Speaker 1 (25:35):
And so I think the point of bringing the people
who want retribution and who prove it, like Scott Jennings
on the on the CNN, who say that retribution is positive,
is that Whoopy Goldberg has not learned a lesson. Don't
threaten assassination on a president. You know, she's she's still
making nasty and as a president who's had two assassination

(25:59):
attempts already, and she thinks it's she thinks it's funny.
A quote Christmas joke. A civil lawsuit brought against ABC
and George Stephanopoulos has their right a chilling effect. But
it's not a chilling effect as in don't tell the truth.
It's a chilling effect as in do tell the truth,

(26:20):
don't defame people, don't make jokes about killing a man
when people will take you up on it. That's what
a civil suit does, and that's what Donald Trump has brought.
So I think that it some people need that to
move on. To your point, people needing to move on.
I don't disagree that people need to move on, forgive

(26:42):
and move on, or exact some kind of retribution and
move on.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Which should President Trump do?

Speaker 1 (26:48):
Our text number is seven zero for seven zero On
the text line six one seven says Wardell is right
about moving on and forgiveness, but Trump needs to defend
himself from the people who are saying untrue things about him.
They have not stopped since June twenty fifteen when Trump
came down the escalator. I wish for Dell could advise
the communists and the media and Congress to stop.

Speaker 2 (27:09):
Them on as well. Well, yeah, I agree with you.
And then Merry Christmas Tall. I appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
And then six oh three says there must be consequences
for lying and for physical threats.

Speaker 2 (27:21):
I don't disagree with that either.

Speaker 1 (27:23):
I think there has to be consequences at some point
for things you're doing, and I think we have built
in methods of dealing with this, one of which is
the courts and civil suits. On that's what President Trump
is doing so far. So if he's doing that, I
think that that is appropriate. That's not, for instance, weaponizing

(27:44):
the DOJ into law there like some other administrations have done.

Speaker 2 (27:49):
This is using the.

Speaker 1 (27:50):
Civil courts to say, hey, these people lied, and ABC
chose to back down because I think they knew they
had a real problem on their hands. And we'll see
if Gannett that Polster in Iowa do the same thing, because.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
It looks pretty clear cut there too.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
But only time will tell, and only time will tell
if he brings more lawsuits, and the question is are
they appropriate?

Speaker 2 (28:12):
Should he go further?

Speaker 1 (28:13):
Is retribution at all, revenge at all appropriate? Or should
he just turn the other cheek?

Speaker 2 (28:20):
You know?

Speaker 1 (28:20):
That's that's the big issue, because as Wardell said, he
has one, so he's one. That's the best revenge that
you could possibly have. Doesn't need to take it further.
Let's talk to Scott in Maine. Scott, welcome to w RKO.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
How are you.

Speaker 4 (28:39):
I'm good, Merry Christmas and good morning.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
To you too, Scott.

Speaker 13 (28:45):
Yes, I.

Speaker 4 (28:49):
Personally don't like the way you framed it. Forgiveness or
revenge or retribution. That sounds like somebody trying to get
back at somebody because they were they were given some
kind of negative fashion on them.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Well, retribution, actually, Scott, is not that. Retribution is righteousness. Righteousness.
Punishment dealt with righteousness. So I mean, you are right
and they did hurt you, and you are in the right.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
That's what retribution is.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
So it's not it's not just because I don't like
you or you know, that's that's we're not talking about,
you know, penny any stuff or or childish type of thing.
We're talking about righteous indignation and retribution.

Speaker 4 (29:44):
All right. So, for so long people have and I'm
sure you've heard this by many people, for so long
people have been getting away with everything. It just there's
no repercussions, it seems. So President Trump said he was

(30:04):
going to bring back the rule of law, and if
somebody has broken the law, well it's not retribution, it's
it's breaking the law and they're being held accountable and
justice should be served. I just don't see anyway around it.

(30:25):
I don't I don't see any problem with him going
through the court process and writing the crimes and lawlessness
that's gone on. I mean, because if you don't hold
somebody accountable. They're going to keep doing it. And if

(30:46):
they're gonna keep breaking the law, then what's to stop them.
They're just they're just gonna run rampant. So I think
more examples have to be made so people take back
give it a second thought to even thinking about breaking

(31:06):
the law again.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Yeah, well, I think that that's a very valid approach
to this, and I think one which Donald Trump shares.
I think that's why you see these civil lawsuits coming up.
But there are a lot of other issues besides the
media civil suits. That is the reason why I brought
this topic up, and the media is only the beginning.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
What about you know, the das who.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
Brought tortured criminal charges against Donald Trump, you know you
Havel Alvin Bragg and Letitia James in New York, And
just this week, in regard to those particular charges, Judge
Mrchon rejected the Trump paternity request to dismiss the charges

(31:53):
brought by brag on the basis of presidential immunity. So
that lawsuit maybe stayed, but it's still going on. So
that's a weaponization of this same system that Donald Trump
is using in a legitimate fashion to bring to deal
with the defamation lawsuits. Then you've got Leticia James. You know,

(32:18):
he's tried to walk away from this four hundred and
eighty six million dollars silver fraud against him, but her
office will not stipulate to vacate the final judgment. I
mean that crime was literally created just for Trump. It
did not exist before the Trump It is absolutely positively

(32:40):
law there. They designed it. They had to torture federal
and state law together which never existed before they did that,
which is really and most likely this is this is
going to disappear on an appellate level, but they're going
to have to go through the appeal. And meanwhile, there's
this huge judge overhead that's looming. And then let's not

(33:03):
forget about Fawnie Willis in Georgia. Now, Fawnie is now
dealing with a huge other issues. I mean, she was
colluding with the Department of Justice in order to bring
the case for election fraud against Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
So this has gone up.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
To the Georgia Appeals Court, who has decided that she
needs to be removed from the situation because this was
a political witch hunt. God bless the Georgia Supreme Court.
That's exactly what should have happened in this case. And
so it looks like because she was refusing court orders
to show documents, she was doing all sorts of things
like that. These are prosecutors, these are people in the

(33:43):
justice system that is supposed to be righteous, that are
supposed to bring and they instead created law fare, the
new term we have for a misuse of the justice system.
So the question is, you know, how far does Donald
Trump going this? Does it become tit for tat is
law fair used against people who went after him?

Speaker 2 (34:07):
Or do you.

Speaker 1 (34:08):
Say enough this has to stop somewhere. Let it stop
with me. I will I will do civil suits for defamation,
but the rest of it, firing is enough. Let's just
get Alvin Bragg out, Let's get Letitia James out, fire
Fannie will Willis.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
I mean, he can't fire anybody who's not who's not federal.

Speaker 1 (34:29):
But you know, the states can certainly take care of
it and and move on. I mean, which is the
better approach there?

Speaker 4 (34:35):
Scott Well, I don't. I don't think they should move on.
I think what happened and that's and that's why Donald
Trump was elected, and that's why the people across the
country has spoken. They've said that we have to get
in and clean up the system. We have to get
in and drain the swamp, and and all his appointees,

(34:58):
hopefully he'll get them all in and that is the
start to clean up this mess. And its prosecutors have
broken the law, and uh, they'll have to go through
the court system and be punished for it. And only
when they're punished for it, only when there is justice
for creating somebody who did something wrong and criminal that

(35:24):
people will say, you know, I gotta I gotter. I've
better pay attention to what I'm doing because you know,
I maybe I may be punished for this, for breaking
the law. I mean, it's just it. It's just that simple.

Speaker 2 (35:39):
I wish it were that simple, Scott, you know. But
here's another question for you.

Speaker 1 (35:43):
You mentioned the electorate and they voted for cleanup, which
I agree. They voted to clean up, and that's that's
the wave that moved Donald.

Speaker 2 (35:51):
Trump in now.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
But here's here's my question. Did they respond, do they
need to clean up? Because they recognize law fair and
the law fair has to stop and so they're not
going to like it when either side they just want
an end to this is that what they voted for,
an end to this weaponization of the courts and the
justice system and end to this persecuting your political opponent.

(36:14):
Do they want an end to that or do they
want these people punished? Because there was no referendum on
that in them when Donald Trump was elected. Basically the
man was elected to use his best judgment, and I
trust that that's exactly what he's going to do. But
I'm just positing the question. If you were Donald Trump,
would you say enough, none of these people. I'm not

(36:36):
going to go after them except for the civil slander
suits everybody else.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
Just ignore them and then let them go away.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Now, the other side of the coin is, but if
you do that, then they're just going to do it
again to the next person that they can do it to,
who doesn't have the stamina that Donald Trump has in
withstanding all that they threw at him. I mean, he
was remarkable. He and his family were remarkable, and how
they dealt with all of this. So do we, you know,

(37:06):
do we walk away because it's been a bad precedent
set by the Democrats to attack your opponent this way,
or do we try to teach a lesson and punish
But does that also teach the lesson that punishing.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
Is good, that you always need to punish. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
It's a big it's a conundrum to me what the
best way out of this is. I have faith that
Donald Trump will find that because I think he's no
matter what you say about him, and I say a
lot of positive things about him, he's a very fair man.
He's extremely fair, and I think he'll find a solution.
I'm just wondering in my own mind, you know, what
is the best solution. It's kind of like Solomon's choice

(37:43):
to me, what do you think, Scott?

Speaker 4 (37:46):
I don't think people should get away with breaking the law.
I mean, when you melt it all down, that's it.
And if you break the law, I don't care if
it's on a you know, a judicial way, lawyers, whatever.
If you break the law, you should be held accountable.

(38:07):
And it doesn't matter whether it's on a high level
or a small level. If people see that they can
get away with breaking the law, they're just going to
continue to do it, and they're going to and it's
a bad precedent and it's going to teach people the
wrong thing right and wrong. It just well, no I
don't think they should.

Speaker 2 (38:27):
With the prosecutors.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
I think the issue is, Scott, to be honest with you,
it's more of ethical violations than anything else. And Fannie
Willis's case, it might actually be legal problems, but I
think everybody else that's an ethical issue and so you know,
that's not a criminal violation. And I think you have
to look at each one to determine that whether it

(38:49):
was lawfair or not. And I think the test would
be if you remove these particular prosecutors, would this case
still have been brought? And if the answer is no,
then I think you have you know, a law fair
you perhaps staring you in the face, but how did
But those aren't that's not criminal. Those are ethical issues,
except for Fannie Willis, who I think there's some fraud

(39:11):
going on there. Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate
the call very much. Let's go to Heather and Rockland. Heather,
good morning, welcome to w RKO.

Speaker 4 (39:19):
Hey, how are you.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
I am fine? How are you doing?

Speaker 4 (39:23):
I am good?

Speaker 13 (39:24):
Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to comment
on Wardell's call, and uh, I totally disagree with him.
I think Trump should go after all these people that
defamed him. And and here's why, because I think he

(39:45):
needs to show that it's not I don't even think
it has anything. I mean, they obviously have something to
do with him, but he has to show that this
is just not okay. And if he sat sets this
president and then the next per and they're not going
to be able to do this. So don't think he's
the only one that this is going to happen to
if he doesn't set some sort of president.

Speaker 4 (40:07):
Do you know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (40:08):
Like I do?

Speaker 13 (40:09):
Yeah, And excuse me, what do.

Speaker 1 (40:12):
You say hither to the precedent of going after your opponents?
Because some people will perceive it as politically motivated to
punish his political opponents. That's what I think the Democrats
did in the past four years. They were punishing their
political opponents, and Donald Trump responding even though he is
righteous and it is and they actually in the case

(40:35):
of there were people who broke the law to go
after him. Aren't you just continuing that cycle? And won't
that always start to pop up? Then let's punish the
political opponents. And isn't that how we become a banana republic?

Speaker 13 (40:50):
Well, it's interesting to say that because that's exactly what
the lit I know, that's what these stupid libs are
gonna think.

Speaker 2 (40:56):
That's why I bring it up. How do you respond
to that? Is basically the.

Speaker 13 (41:00):
Well, first of all, I agree, I think the lives
are gonna I know the lives. I know the lives
are gonna say that.

Speaker 4 (41:07):
I know that.

Speaker 13 (41:08):
But I really think, you know, and it's kind of
what's that word I'm trying to think it's it's not.
It's not kind of like, well, I'm going to show you.
It's it's you got to do what's right. First of all,
these these these DA's what's the name, Panny Willis and
the other guy, Alvin Bragg and all those guys, they
should lose their law license as far as I'm concerned.

(41:31):
But yeah, if if he just goes to fire, you know,
have these people fight, that's not enough. I mean what
you know, whether he sues those you know, those those
those das or whatever, that that's one thing. But I
mean he can't just have them fight. They can go
get another job, and you know what I mean, it's
not like they can't find another job and do the
same thing. No, they have to lose their law license

(41:53):
or that he has to sue them financially too. But
I I don't think it's a tit for tat. I
really don't, because I think this man has suffered so much.
And I know people say, well, this guy's billionaire and
he has all the money, but that's not the point, Like,
you know, why should he have to pay millions and
millions and millions? I mean I can I can't. I

(42:13):
would love to know what his legal bill is. I mean,
I can't imagine what his legal bill is.

Speaker 4 (42:17):
Do you know what I mean?

Speaker 13 (42:22):
Probably funding a law firms, whole law firms business. I
mean I work for a law firm, So I mean,
but do you know you know what I'm saying, like
millions of dollars even though he had it, technically has
the money, that's why should he have to pay that?
Like just because he's rich. So so you're telling me
somebody who works hard earns money, earns them money like

(42:44):
it's not like you know, and somebody will say, oh,
well his father gave him money when he was doing.

Speaker 4 (42:49):
In a million dollars.

Speaker 13 (42:49):
Well, his father, you know, invested in him, and he
invested the money and made what he had like into
an empire. It's not like his father just gave him money.
I know that's going to be an argument too.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
He had money, he had money's money, bother just a
little bit of money, and he turned that into what
he has today.

Speaker 13 (43:07):
Yeah exactly, so yeah, so I mean look what he
turned so but he built that. That is his He
built that, and that is what that is. He has
a right to that just because he has money. It's
like these people that think, oh, well, you know, like
like look at Ilius. The same thing has happened to Ilamus. Yeah,
he's one of the richest guys in the world. But
he earned that money. He built that money.

Speaker 4 (43:29):
Do you know what I mean?

Speaker 13 (43:30):
Just because he has that money doesn't mean that you
could it's fair to go after all, you know, these people.
I just don't think it's right, and I think that
something has to be done, and I think Trump needs
to set that president. It's not okay, it's not okay.
I'm sorry. I mean, look at all the stuff that
they puts on it. I mean, in a way, I'm
in a sick way, I'm kind of glad because he's

(43:53):
that president today. And I don't think if any of
that didn't happen, he would have he would be the president.
So in a way, I'm kind of glad it happened
and we had. You know, you're looking for.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
The silver lining way, and that's the silver lining that
you found.

Speaker 13 (44:06):
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, So that's just my I think what
Ell is totally wrong. Oh and I think it's so
funny these liberals. They're like, oh, now that Trump's Trump won,
it's like, oh, well, let's everything be peace and oh
peace and love and let's just forget about everything. No, no,
you guys put all this you know, angst and and chaos.

(44:28):
The last four years we suffered, you know, us, you know,
Republicans and you know conservatives, I should say, because not
every you know, not every every conservative is necessarily Republican,
but you know, the last four years have been like
insane for us. And then now all of a sudden,

(44:50):
you know, I guess you could say we won. We
did win, but now we won, so we're supposed to
like just be like, Okay, everything's fine and dandy now
because we won, and now we can just forget about everything. No,
absolutely not.

Speaker 1 (45:03):
No, I'm finding I'm finding more and more people agree
with you, Heather, and on the text line and the
people that i've you know, in the emails and so forth,
and that agree with you, and that you know, they're
not looking for revenge. They're looking to stop bad behavior.
They just want and the only way to stop bad behavior.
According in one and one Dumb Texter, this is on

(45:26):
text line six o three says there will be no
change in behavior without consequences.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
And that's what I hear you saying.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
It's it's that's basically you're just looking, you know, to
not not exact vengeance on somebody, which I think some
people think when I say retribution, I mean exacting vengeance.

Speaker 2 (45:45):
I'm not.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
Retribution is not about vengeance. Retribution is about is about
being in the right and correcting something and making it
right again. That is retribution. And so that's or that's
my definition of retribution. In case anybody misunderstood it as vengeance,
it isn't. That's something different. Thank you so much for

(46:07):
the call, Heather. I appreciate it very much. Yeah, these
these particular das and law enforcement people who have who
have gone above and beyond. At least Jack Smith resigned
in the DJ. He knew that the writing was on
the wall. But you know, you see Donald Trump bringing
these civil suits against the defamers in the media, but

(46:30):
he hasn't done anything regarding the das who haven't broken
the law, or the prosecutor. They haven't broken the law.
But I think there's some ethical violations there