Is John Bolton Just the Beginning?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Democrats held accountable or targeted John Bolton, Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton,
Letitia James? Who else has held themselves above the law?
Who is now facing a reckoning? The text number seven
zero four seven zero Let's see two five three, says Sandy,
how many US ags are above the law? Recently, the

(00:22):
age of Washington State is led to have colluded with
Perkins Coal to aid in their suit and has threatened suspension.
I did not know that. I'll have to look that up.
But yeah, there's there's you know, there are there are
lawless elected law officials out there. And the one that
springs to my mind besides Letitia James who weaponized her office,

(00:45):
is Fawnie Willis of Georgia. You know, Fannie Willis indicted
President Trump and eighteen of his allies for election fraud.
In August of twenty three. She made global headlines. I
was heaped with praise by her fellow Democrats. And I

(01:05):
want to know if you remember this cut from Fannie
will from Fannie Willis cut number three. Please, Mike, no
run above the law in his country, nor anyone. No
one is above the law. Where have I heard that?

Speaker 2 (01:24):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:25):
My gosh, who else has said that just over a
year after that, she was forcibly removed from the case
by an appeal court. Her chief prosecutor is removed by
a lower court, and the indictment against President Trump is
essentially you know over. In August of twenty twenty three,

(01:47):
as District attorney for Fulton County, which is most of Atlanta,
she indicted Trump and eighteen others for seeking to illegally
overturn the result of the twenty twenty election. This was
under the George's Racketeer, Influenced and Corrupt an Organization Act RICO,

(02:07):
which allowed Wills to tie together various acts which she
called criminal acts, to show a pattern of misdeeds. And
of course he pleaded not guilty to that, and at
a packed press conference, she issued the ultimatum to President Trump,
former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and I think seventeen
others they were accused, and she gave She said she

(02:31):
was giving them an opportunity to voluntarily surrender no later
than you know, I think, like a week later. And
Trump did surrender, and he had his mugshot taken at
the Fulk County jail, and those photos were on the
front page of newspapers around the world. And I don't
know if you remember the T shirts that they made
with that on it that I think actually his campaigns

(02:53):
sold after a fact, but they were pretty popular. I
was seeing them all over the place for a while,
I have to say so. But fast forward to January
of twenty twenty four and there's this bombshell revelation. Ashley Merchant,
the lawyer for Trump co accues Mike Roman. This is

(03:17):
Mike Roman's attorney. Ashley Merchant filed a complaint to the
trial judge Scott mccafee alleging that Willis had been in
a relationship with the chief prosecutor in the case, Nathan Wade.
And Merchant suggested that Wade, who had no prosecution experience whatsoever,
was only chosen to prosecute this very complex election case

(03:42):
because of that relationship with Fawnie Willis and e leaked
court record is about a you know. A couple weeks later,
elaked court record from Wade's divorce revealed that Wade's credit
card transactions showed that he and Willis went on a
real ruby and cruise together the year before, two years before,

(04:03):
and he paid for at least two flights months after
her office had hired him. Merchant later filed documents showing
that they booked a double bed in a hotel in
Aruba and a photograph of a very luxurious room when
the same hotel was attached to that and then later
documents subpoenaed by her showed that Willis and Wade went

(04:25):
on a wine tasting holiday in California together. So Judge
McAfee had this special hearing with Willis and Wade called
to give evidence about their relationship, and Willis went on
the offensive that it was high drama. I have to
say it was one of the most entertaining hearings I've
ever watched, because she was out of control. She was
literally out of control, and she was attacking Merchant, Trump

(04:49):
and the other accused, and the judge kept saying, you know,
you got to be professional here, but it didn't work.
She was just attacking everybody in the room and the
judge was not buying any of it. So Trump seized
on the opportunity at to rally in Rome, Georgia, to
talk about what was going on with Fannie Willis, and

(05:11):
I personally found it funny. You may not cut three,
A please.

Speaker 3 (05:19):
So corrupt, Fannie Willis hired her lover, Nathan Wade so
they could fraudularly make money together. Let's make money, darling.
Let's see who can we go after. Well, if we
go after somebody that nobody ever heard of, we can't
make much. I got an idea, Let's do what Joe
Biden and everybody else want.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
Let's go after Trump. Yeah. So, and I think that's
pretty accurate. A lot of times he gets very hyperbolic,
but I think that's pretty accurate. And the judge came
back and delivered a blistering ruling in which he said
that either Willis or Wade had to leave the case.
He admonished Willis for her lack of professionalism and said,
you know, in both in the case and in her testimony,

(06:00):
and that a taint of mouthfeasance was hanging over everything.
Wade resigned that day. So then we moved into the
election November and twenty twenty four, President Trump won. But
to be honest with the same night, Willis was re
elected as a DA in the same time. But the
thing is this, no sitting president can be put on trial.

(06:22):
So Trump was free of the Georgia case until at
least after he got out of office, but then last December,
on a petition from Trump and several other co accues,
the Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the Trump case,
stating that she had undermined public confidence in the legal system.
So that was to be honest with you, good news

(06:43):
for everybody who is concerned for the reputation of the
justice system. And a judge Is also ordered Fulton County
DA Fannie Willis to pay more than fifty four thousand
attorneys fees and to turn over documents after finding office
violated George's Open Records Act because Merchant sued a legend

(07:05):
that DA was not turning over public records that were requested,
and the judge found that that was correct. Fawnie Willis
was hiding stuff from opposing council, which is a huge,
huge no no in the legal word world. The judge
found that Fawnie Willis's failures to comply with the records

(07:25):
law were intentional, not done in good faith, and were
substantially groundless and vexatious. Because Willison her office lacks substantial
justification for not complying, and some merchant was entitled to
attorney's fee and litigation expenses, which was apparently about fifty
four thousand dollars. Democrats being held accountable, they say they

(07:45):
are being persecuted, not prosecuted. What do you think. Let's
go to Lorenzo in Boston. Lorenzo, welcome to WRKO.

Speaker 4 (07:54):
Hey, thank you Sandy. The way you handled the janine
that was really good. It was brilliant. You didn't uh,
you didn't beat her up bad, but you're exposed the
syndrome something. But go good job. But the reason why
I'm calling is, uh, you know, with the James and

(08:15):
Adam shift, you know, I kind of think what they
were doing was like sabotage because there's there's sabotage and
the president trying to you know, you get, uh, there's
a ender out to work for the American people, and
then he's got to go fight this Eugene Carol. I
think it's serious stuff. I think they're in trouble and
I think, you know, you have to you have to

(08:37):
expose their crimes too. So uh, you know, I don't
think it's revenge. I think he's showing us that. You
know again, you know, these people, they did bad things
and and they went after him for nothing and they
try to hinder him, and they did hinder him with
Russia Gate, you know, uh, I mean Brennan's involved in
that and you know call me and Clapper and all that.

(09:00):
You know, So no, I think that has to be
done what they're doing, because they have to be held
respondible Fawnie Millis or whatever and to go. You know,
I have to hear your opinion on this too, because Bolton,
you know, I kind of see where dam from the
Hanshiter is going name and all those names. I think this,
you know, I think there's going to be more people

(09:21):
that are going to come out of this. You know,
boone Is was a big warmonger. You know who else
was he talking to? You know, a lot of stuff called.
I think it's going to lead to, you know, maybe
some more stuff coming out on Monaco and Burns and
who you know he was. He talked to Kyle rob
and Yari Fleischer.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Law.

Speaker 4 (09:40):
I looked at them guys and lately in the media,
and they look like scressed, They look like they look
like they age really, so you know, I think I
think a lot of stuff is going to come out
of it. I think Christopher Ray is sweating too.

Speaker 1 (09:54):
Is there somebody that you would like to see that
you haven't seen so far?

Speaker 4 (09:59):
You haven't seen anything about Christopher Ray?

Speaker 2 (10:01):
Really?

Speaker 4 (10:01):
Uh? You know, he he bothers me, he bothered. I
haven't really seen anything about uh Jake Sullivan as Dan
would saying, or or even uh McLain. You know, Uh
I heard that Dan mentioned their name. Yeah, I'd like

(10:23):
to see some stuff there. I you know, I just
you know, we we have to expose this because of
what they did. If we don't, they're just going to
keep doing it the next time around, you know. And uh,
maybe this opens up the media's eyes even more because
the media is run in cover for this, you know what.

(10:45):
You know what I'd like to see, Sandy, I'd like
to see somehow the media be even held more responsible.
Legacy media, mainstream media, because as Jeffer said, they'd like
this gestapo. They they wean't cover for all they help,
they help with this. Don't you think they are?

Speaker 1 (11:02):
Don't you think they are?

Speaker 5 (11:03):
Now?

Speaker 1 (11:03):
I mean you have you have the ratings that have
dropped out of CNN, MSNBC. Yeah, MSNBC is so bad
they're renaming it. They're calling it now MS now, which
I think is still a bad name. But I mean,
that's how bad it is. They can't even call it
MSNBC anymore.

Speaker 4 (11:19):
Is that enough?

Speaker 1 (11:20):
I mean, well that's the question. Yeah, Well it shows
that they're on the ropes. I mean the fact that
they're so bad they have to rebrand. That's desperate measures.
I mean, rebranding usually hurts you badly on some level.
I mean, look at Cracker Barrel. I mean, Cracker Barrel
just tried to change their logo and rebrand and they

(11:40):
they're stock one into a free fall. So you don't
necessarily rebrand anything that is successful. You only rebrand things
that need some help. And because you're taking a huge
risk whenever you do. And so they're cutting the peacock
off and they're cutting NBC out and they're calling it

(12:01):
MS now. I think it's a bad name. I think
that they I think they if they were going to rebrand,
they should get rid of MS completely and just do
a complete rebranding somehow call it something else. But because
MS is too reminiscent for me of MSNBC. But nothing's
going to help them if they don't. If they don't
get a handle on who their anchors are and how

(12:23):
they they skew their reports. If they would, they don't
have to become right wing, they just have to move
closer to the center and start focusing on credibility and
truth instead of you know, slant giving out the uh,
the DNC talking points. Because you know, it drove me crazy,
Lorenzo is the when you would cause I watch all news.

(12:44):
I watch both outlets that are conservative, outlets that are
center of the road they're not that many, and outlets
that are left wing because I just want to see
what everybody's saying, and then I usually try to figure
out what the truth is for myself. But the thing
that drove me crazy is if you listen to CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC,
any of those ABC, they would use the same phrase,

(13:07):
and usually it was an odd phrase, you know, and
they would so it's obviously handed to them by most
likely the Democrat Party or or Nancy Pelosi's office, or
Chuck Schumer's office or the White House when Biden was
in control. So you they all use the same phrase,
which shows they have the same talking points. To me,
that's just wrong. It's if you you know, you can

(13:30):
certainly report the same story, but to use the exact
same language is to me very suspicious of collusion.

Speaker 5 (13:39):
What do you think, Oh, I agree on And this
is what makes you very smart when you know when
you fill in for Jeff, Jeff does a great job,
but you're.

Speaker 4 (13:51):
A phenomenon when you fill in because you do that homework.
You just said, and when I talk to people all
the time, I said, I said, it's same thing. You
have to look at all sides because if you just
get it from one side, you get tunnel division. If
you look at it at all sides, like out of
the war the book, right, you get the you you

(14:13):
see where people are coming from, and then it makes
it easier to go do your homework and see what
is right and what is wrong. If you get it
from one side, which I mean, we see it all
the time, but somebody's Trump Trump the rain syndrome. They
get it from one side and they they they they
have nothing. Once you, you know, expose them, then they

(14:37):
call your names or they swear you know, and you know,
the people that have the best arguments are the people
that can see like you, like you, like you said,
see what the other side is saying, and then go
find the facts for yourself, and when you find it yourself,
you know that's the best way, because that's the way
you retain it the most. You know, That's what I think.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I think that's I
think that's accurate. Thank you so much, Lorenzo for the call.
I appreciate it very much. Let's go to John in Kentucky. John,
do you think that that the Democrats are being persecuted
or prosecuted?

Speaker 6 (15:13):
I think I think just will happened. I think that
the most offs I'm not really democrats like communists the most.
I think that Jobo he go to jail. That's why
I think he'll do.

Speaker 4 (15:25):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (15:25):
Win is some hands to be run away from the
way on down the line. That's what I think because
jeral Ford was first person that was about the law. Yeah,
like nineteen seventy four.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, yeah, John, I don't I don't necessarily disagree that
that part of the problem is the perception of the law.
And that's a that's a big problem with what is
going on right now with uh the raid on John

(15:56):
Bolton's house. I think that John Bolton deserves to be investigated,
but I think it's going to be perceived to be
to be payback as opposed to what it is, which
is a prosecution. In fact, on the text line, which
is seven zero four seven zero six one seven says,
do you think the Democrats and the propaganda press will
dismiss the allegations of impropriety as old news? The typical

(16:18):
time to move on? Refrain, Let's move on the country
forward and not cover old ground further. Any prosecutions will
be portrayed as retaliation Republicans getting back at Democrats. You
know how lazy the media is. Their job is to regurgitate. Well,
their job is to I don't disagree. I just talked
about that regurgitating, But I also think that you're promise

(16:43):
that they're going to say it's time to move on.
We need to move the country forward, we need to heal.
That only seems to come out of the Democrats when
they're in power. It never you know, when they're in power,
they don't do that. But when the Republicans are in powered,
now it's time to move on. And Joe Biden gave
lip service to moving on, but he never did it.

(17:04):
He became you know, his administration was pretty vicious and vindictive,
and now that's coming back to haunt them on the
text line seven zero four seven zero six one seven
says Kamala Harris hid Joe Biden's decline, let's investigate her. Well,
that could happen, after all, you know, she did say

(17:26):
these fateful words cut number five. I believe the American
people are right to say there should be consequence and
accountability for everyone, and no one is above the law,
including the president of the United States. So every time
somebody Democrat says that, it seems that something bad happens

(17:49):
on the other side. So that's a possibility. And by
the way, excuse me, I don't know if you're aware
of this, but there's been some looking into her campaign financing.
She may not have got much done, but she you know,
as a campaign, but she did manage to get one
point five billion in three months out the door. She
has this new book out out called one hundred and

(18:12):
seven Days, which frames her campaign as an accomplishment, and
she prepares it looks to me like probably a soft
launch for twenty twenty eight for a presidential campaign, and
she is suggesting to supporters that she could have gotten
a whole lot more done in more days, but you know,
I think that's unlikely. There are two things that she
did get done. She raised and spent record amounts of

(18:35):
cash while at the same time suffering the worst Democrat
defeat in twenty years. Where did that money go. It
didn't go to field offices or to local campaign operations,
which were bad neglected in her campaign. Where the money
went was to Kamala's friends and allies. Twenty million dollars

(18:57):
more went to the Kamala Harris Fund for me to
underprivileged celebrities. That's a tongue in cheek and that's not mine.
By the way, just so you know, I was reading
an article that's Dan Greenfield who wrote that, which I
think is extremely funny. While the campaign screwed up on
a big on a big level, like you know, they
had no platform, they they really could not ever point

(19:21):
to what she stood for, how she could differentiate herself
from Biden. What she did do was spend two point
five million dollars on an event with Oprah, including a
million dollar payment to Oprah's production company. She also did
the same similar things to Beyonce Brings Spruit Springsteen, Katie Perry,
John Bon, Jovie, Lady Gaga. They all came out for her,

(19:44):
and she may not have paid them directly as she
did with Oprah, Lady Gaga, and Beyonce. Her campaign sometimes
made payments to their production companies as how they got
around that, and as a matter of fact, she gave
one hundred thousand dollars to Renegade forty four, which is
an Obama company, to supposedly cover their expenses. Al Sharpton

(20:06):
got five hundred thousand from the campaign through his organization.
Areva Martin, a Los Angeles lawyer, and Kamala pal who
had threatened that black women would blow the party if
they didn't vote for her, got a two hundred thousand
dollars pay day as a consultant. Millions of dollars went
out the door to consultants. Some were qualified, some weren't,

(20:27):
And Kamala and her people want to try to blame
some of those dubious payments on the fact that they
were rushed because she only had one hundreds of days
to get her presidential campaign moving. The problem is her
Senate campaign had the same kind of spending habits, so
it seems to me to be something that she did

(20:47):
all the time, not just because she was running for president,
not just because she was rushed running for president. In
this particular case, let's go to Polly on the north Shore. Paul,
I'm sorry, Paul on the north Shore.

Speaker 4 (21:00):
Paul.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Do you think they're being prosecuted or persecuted?

Speaker 2 (21:05):
I think they should be prosecuted. But this is the
this is the whole thing. How many January six people
are still in jail for rioting?

Speaker 1 (21:13):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (21:15):
There's definitely enough of them.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Right, yeah, Okay, So the main cause of the writing
is because most people on the right felt that it
was collusion, and now we'd be im proven, right, Okay,
this shouldn't be anybody. If they prove that it was
collusion like they're doing, all of these people shifted, all
of them. If they don't go to jail, then they

(21:36):
should get all the all the January sixth people should
be let go because they were only there because they
knew back then.

Speaker 4 (21:44):
What we knew.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
Now, Okay, there weren't geniuses to figure out what happened.
Anybody could connect dots knows that that it was collusion,
and it was it was all falsehoods about Republicans about
swamp and that's why you riot. Okay, they lighted only
for that, But now that they're proven right, shouldn't they
be let go?

Speaker 1 (22:06):
Well, I think they should be let go unless they
unless they committed an act of violence. I mean, not
everybody who was arrested was wrongfully jailed. Some people were
a lot were There were a lot of people wrongfully
jail without a doubt, But there are some people who
actually deserve to go to jail for what they did
on that day, and those people know they shouldn't be
let out. Just because a riot is justified doesn't mean

(22:28):
your behavior is justified. Meaning just because you understand why
they were upset doesn't mean that if you do something criminal,
if you hurt somebody, if you if you you know,
physically abuse somebody or some or cause damage, you got
to pay for it. Whether whether people agree that you
had the right to be upset or not. All so well,
I agree that a lot of people are now taking

(22:50):
comfort from the fact that the collusion is exposed and
a lot of people have been freed. In fact, President
Trump has pardoned a lot of people who were jailed
on January sixth. It doesn't mean everybody gets to go free.