The WOR Saturday Morning Show with Larry Mendte - - 03 - 16 - 2024

.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
This is a podcast from wor Nowthe wr Saturday Morning Show. Here's Larry
Minty. Good morning, and welcometo Saturday Morning. Coming up on today's
show, the Democrats and the USSenate want to pass a bill to control
state elections. We'll talk with Hansvon Spokowski, former federal election commissioner,

(00:24):
who testified in the US Senate againstthe bill this week, and statistics show
half of all marriages end in divorce, and when that reality hits most couples,
they don't know what to do.Next, we'll talk with family law
attorney Michael Albert. But first tolook back at the week that was.

(00:46):
It started with the Academy Awards andit was an Oppenheimer Knight. The movie
took seven Oscars, including Best Movieand Best Lead Male Actor for Killian Murphy.
We made a film about the moniccreated the atomic bomb, and for
better or for worse, we're allliving in Oppenheimer's world. So I would
really like to dedicate this to thepeacemakers everywhere. The Oscars ratings were up,

(01:10):
and it was a pretty good show. Even Jimmy Kimmel was stomachable.
Special Counsel Robert Hurr was in thespotlight, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee
to explain why, after a lengthyinvestigation, he chose to write that the
president is a well meaning, elderlyman with a failing memory. My assessment
in the report about the relevance ofthe President's memory was necessary and accurate and

(01:37):
fair. Most importantly, what Iwrote is what I believe the evidence shows
and what I expect jurors would perceiveand believe. After hearing hers testimony,
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson announcedthat the impeachment inquiry of President Biden will
continue. This inquiry, the impeachmentinquiry, and the investigation that accompanies that

(01:57):
will continue. There is still bitsof information that have been requested that have
not yet been turned over, andour committees will continue to do that work.
We'll have Hans von Spakowski to talkabout the Robert Hurr report and Hans's
appearance before Congress to testify about electionintegrity. That's in about ten minutes.
This week, police were called toa migrant center because of a report that

(02:20):
an intoxicated illegal was threatening the staff. The cops were criticized for using a
stun gun when the man refused torelease a child he was holding. Mayor
Adams defended the police. This personwas undern influence of alcohol holding a child.
Those officers had to get that childfrom him so that child was not

(02:43):
going to be in danger. AndGovernor Hochel is just now discovering that New
York City has a crime problem.After sending the National Guard to the subway
system, now she's cracking down onretail crime. These individuals are very exposed,
especially small shop with just one worker. They don't have any way to
protect themselves. They're literally on thefront line. This is just maddening.

(03:07):
The best way to make the citysafer is to put the criminals in jail
and get rid of this ludicrous,failed experiment of bail reform. It's the
same people committing the crimes over andover again until the governor stops tying the
hands of police and judges. Everythingelse she does is just window dressing to

(03:30):
hide the state's great mistake. TheHouse this week also voted to ban TikTok
unless China sells the social media platform. It was a landslide bipartisan vote,
with Democrats like Nancy Pelosi voting forit. This is not an attempt to
ban TikTok. It's an attempt tomake TikTok better. Ticktac toe A winner.

(03:55):
A winner voting against the TikTok banwas Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green.
This bill can cause future problems.It's opening Pandora's box, and I'm opposed
to this bill exactly. We cannothold America up as a bastion of free
speech if we ban media companies.If they can do it to TikTok,

(04:18):
Who's next? Speaking of dumb ideas, Governor Hokel was on the View where
the host slammed her for supporting congestionpricing. I can walk backwards and heals
faster than most trucks can get downthe streets. Right now, the governor
is pro congestion pricing, pro illegalimmigration, and soft on crime. And

(04:40):
know the National Guard in the subwaysdidn't work this week a gun fight on
the A train and a victim shotin the head. When you bring a
gun on the train and you starta fight, it's just it's not right,
and it's it is absolutely outrageous.MTA chair Geno liber Stop putting criminals

(05:01):
back on the streets. That's theonly solution repeal bail reform now and finally,
an embarrassing moment for New York Senatorand Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. I
also believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has losthis way by allowing his political survival to

(05:21):
take the precedence over the best interestsof Israel from the Senate floor. He
just meddled in the politics of anally who was at war. And he
did it when President Biden was campaigningin Michigan, where Democrats have to try
and get back one hundred and twentythousand Arab Americans to win that important swing

(05:44):
state and have any chance at theelection. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called
the speech by Schumer grotesque, andI agree he sold out Israel for politics.
Up next, senior legal fellow Hansvan Lkovski from the Heritage Foundation.
We'll ask him about Robert Hurr's report, and he just testified on Capitol Hill

(06:06):
this week about election integrity. Hansvon Spakovski. Next, Now, more
of the WOR Saturday Morning Show andLarry Minty welcome back Special counsel Robert Hurr,
whose final report on an investigation intothe thousands of classified documents taken by
President Biden hit Washington like a bombshellwhen he said he couldn't bring charges because

(06:32):
a jury would likely see the Presidentas a well meaning elderly man with a
poor memory. This week, herappeared before the House Judiciary Committee and was
attacked by committee members from both sidesof the aisle. Joining us now is
Hans von Spakowski, senior legal fellowat the Heritage Foundation. Hans, as

(06:55):
always, thanks for joining us today, Thanks for talking to us. Before
we get to the Robert he Herhearing, I just want to tell our
listeners that you are a former memberof the Federal Election Commission, and this
week I saw you on television testifyingabout voting rights in front of a Senate
Judiciary committee. Just in general,what are your takeaways from that hearing?

(07:16):
Well, the hearing was called upby Dick Durbin from Illinois, and it
was about a bill that Democrats arepushing. This really terrible bill that would,
if pass give the US Justice Departmentvirtual veto authority over any bill affecting
elections passed by any state legislature.I mean, can you imagine that?

(07:39):
And makes all kinds of other justterrible provisions. It basically says that if
your state puts in a outer IDlaw, that is a potentially discriminatory practice
that needs to be reviewed by theJustice Department. I mean, it's it's
just filled with things like that,and it's just a terrible bill. But
look, the biggest thing I gotout of this hearing was that Democrats and

(08:01):
liberals they think it's nineteen sixty five. I mean, they're talking about that
there's massive voter suppression going on allacross the country. The minority voters are
kept out of the polls. Andif you want to know their logic or
their illogic, when I mentioned thefact that according to US Census Bureau,

(08:22):
we had the highest turnout, highestturnout in a presidential election in twenty twenty
that we've had since the early nineteennineties, do you know what their answer
to that was, Well, thefact that we have high turnout doesn't mean
that voter suppression isn't going on.Well, let me get back to this
bill for a second, because thatit sounds draconian, that would never pass

(08:43):
muster with the Supreme courtuld it.I think, yeah, I think there's
all kinds of constitutional problems with it. But as you know, that doesn't
prevent Democrats from trying to get somethingpushed, pushed through and passed because they
figure, well, maybe court willfind it unconstitutional, maybe they won't.
But that's what we want, isthe ability to reject anything we don't like,

(09:07):
like voter ID, without actually havingto go to court and prove it
somehow discriminatory. Now there are Republicanson the Judiciary Committee. Did we talk
about the security? Can the publicfeel confident about the safety and security of
the twenty twenty four presidential election?Well, we didn't really get into that.
We did get into the Republicans sayingthat trying to improve the security the

(09:31):
elect of elections doesn't suppress anybody's vote. I'd say what the most interesting question
was That was as was by MikeLee of Utah. I don't know if
you saw this, but he wentdown the line of the five witnesses,
there were two folks on my sideof rationality and three on the other,
and he said, do you believethat only US citizens should be able to

(09:54):
vote in US elections? And thethree liberal witnesses they answer the question,
Oh, that's unbelievable. It tellsyou a lot about that. Oh,
it does. It absolutely does.That's pretty amazing. There are still states
that don't require a voter ID.It just to me makes absolutely no sense,
Ken, And will that ever changeunless politics turns upside down in places

(10:20):
like California and the state of NewYork. No, I mean, those
are two states don't require an IDto vote. And by the way,
according to the witnesses and the Democraticsenators of that hearing on Tuesday, you
are an unrepentant racist because you thinkpeople should have to show an ID to
vote. That's incredible. It's Pennsylvania. I vote in Pennsylvania, and if

(10:43):
I take an idea out, theyact like I just they're the Dracula and
I took out a cross. Nowto the Robert Hurr hearing, let me
just get a general thing. Whatwere your takeaway from the hearing? What
did you think was important? Well, the most important thing was Democrats just
kept attacking her, wanting to ignorewhat he actually found in his report,

(11:03):
which is that Joe Bide willfully,knowingly intentionally broke the law by taking classified
documents with him, not just whenhe left the vice presidency, but heck
when he was in the US Senate, he was taking things home, and
he did this for many, manyyears. Instead, they kept going after

(11:26):
her for what he put in thereport of what his investigators encountered. When
they actually interviewed Joe Biden and triedto paint him as some partisan politico,
but no, what he was doingwas saying, look, my agents interviewed
the president who was the person responsiblefor this, to try to get information

(11:48):
from him, facts from him,and he couldn't remember very basic information.
How could you not report that whenyou're doing an entire report on your investigation.
We are talking with Hans von Spakowsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage
Foundation. One of the congressmen,and I can't remember which one, but

(12:09):
it was very early on in thehearing, asked a really interesting question.
He said, what prevents other peoplewho committed crimes that there's evidence they committed
a crime in a federal investigation ofgetting in front of investigators or prosecutors during
a deposition and just saying I don'tremember, constantly just saying I don't remember.

(12:33):
That wouldn't work in most cases,right, Why does it work here?
Because they're giving too much deference toPresident Biden. I mean, think
about this fact, and this isstraightforward the very same intentional knowing behavior that
this report said Biden committed of takingclassified documents to which he wasn't entitled with

(12:56):
him when he left office. That'sexactly the behavior that Donald Trump is being
prosecuted for, criminally prosecuted for.And yet the end of this report says,
well, yeah, he did this, but we shouldn't prosecute because a
jury would look at him as anelderly man with memory problems, so they

(13:16):
think a jury would be sympathetic forhim. But boy, what a double
standard. No, And as thecongressman said, he hopes this doesn't set
any kind of legal precedent for thefuture. It can't, right ken It
Well, it's certainly setting a standardin the minds of the American public,
who are seeing a dual system inwhich apparently, if you're a Democrat and

(13:43):
an ally of the current administration,you're not going to get criminally prosecuted,
whereas if you're a Republican or someonethat the Left just doesn't like, you
are going to get criminally prosecuted forexactly the same behavior. On that point,

(14:03):
is the Donald Trump defense. Arethey able to use the her Report
in his defense, Well, Ihave no doubt they will because they're going
to argue selective prosecution. Judges.Judges don't usually they they kind of have
a dismissive eye towards the idea ofselective prosecution. So I don't know if

(14:28):
that will get him anywhere. Iwill say he's got plenty of other issues
that can I think. I thinkthese prosecutions, including the one that's now
before the US Supreme Court, whichis the issue of presidential immunity, whether
or not a president is immune fromcriminal prosecution for acts that he commits.

(14:54):
Well, he's the president, allright, Hans, as always were at
a time, You're always You're alwaysfascinating and great when we interview you.
Thank you so much for your time. Sure, thanks for having me.
Hans von Spakowski, Senior legal fellowand manager of the Election Reform Initiative at
the Heritage Foundation. Still to come, we'll talk with Attorney Michael Albert,

(15:16):
managing partner at the law firm ofAlbert Slavos, about some difficult topics divorce,
child custody and protection orders. AndI'll have some final thoughts on the
double standard of Trump and Biden's classifieddocument cases that's still to come. Here

(15:37):
again is Larry Menti with the woorSaturday Morning Show. The statistics are startling.
Half of marriages and in divorce,but that's just the first marriages.
Two thirds of second marriages and indivorce, and seventy three percent of third
marriages and in divorce. Nobody thinksit's going to happen, but you should

(16:00):
know what to do if it does. With that in mind, let's talk
with Michael Albert, managing partner ofAlbert Slavos. He's considered one of the
best divorce attorneys in New York.Hey, Michael, thank you so much
for joining us today. Let's walkthrough the divorce process for a second.
When a marriage is obviously going sour, a couple's even thinking about divorce,

(16:23):
maybe it comes up in conversation,maybe in an argument. When should a
person say, uh oh, Ibetter talk to an attorney after marriage castling
has failed, after attempts of havingconversations have failed. When it's really impacting
children, the dynamics of how childrenare acting in the house as well as

(16:45):
how they're behaving, what's going onat school, Having a joint marital relationship
that has had discord could be areal issue and impact on kids. So
the second that starts to happen andthere's been a lot, a lot of
attempts at repair, that's probably thetime to start to consult with a forced
lawyer on what options there are.Studies show the children that are growing up

(17:10):
in high conflict environments will not havethe best time potentially moving forward. That
imposes more obstacles. So it's betterto have a separate household for each parent
when those situations occur. Let's talkmore about when children are involved. Custody
battles can be emotionally devastating. Whatdo you counsel to clients to do.

(17:34):
Accept responsibility for their parenting faults.Communicate with the other parent, even if
it's tough to do, attempt atco parenting with another parent. Do not
engage in parental interference so the childrenself inters above that of the hate that
you have potentially for your soon tobe ex spouse. R your children more

(18:00):
than you hate your spouse. Oh, that's great advice. When we're talking.
We're talking now to Michael Albert,managing partner of the law firm Albert
Sclavos Michael. When friends of minehave divorced, it always seems, and
I'm sure this isn't always the case, but there at least is often one
person in the marriage who is devastatedand has a hard time dealing with the
divorce, doesn't really want to dealwith it. That person seems to be

(18:23):
the most vulnerable. I would imagine, Michael, that is the person who
may be reluctant to get a lawyer, but that's the person who really needs
one, right, Yes, that'sthe person. A person that's emotionally struggling
potentially with the aspect of divorce mayhave clouded judgment and decision making, and
for that that person should definitely beseeking some type of guidance. Just a

(18:47):
couple of more questions, Michael,I would imagine that you would advise every
person in a marriage that they shouldknow exactly how much assets there are in
a marriage. I would assume that'sa good idea, even if it's healthy
marriage, but especially when and ifthey are headed for a divorce or in
a divorce. Yes, transparency andassets during a marriage is something that should

(19:11):
happen if there is going to bean aspect a marriage where assets are going
to be concealed or hidden, orone spouse is blocking another spouse from potentially
knowing what's in accounts. How manyaccounts exist, whether or not there's investment
or retirement accounts, that's a redflag. Under the concept of collequal partnership

(19:33):
that we have in New York,there's a presumption of collequal partnership the longer
a marriage goes. If there's thatpresumption that exists under the law, then
both spouses should be entitled to understandwhat's happening in the marriage. Yeah,
now you brought up that that's ared flag, but I would assume people
don't even know if that if theassets are being hidden, they trust their
spouse. But I guess it's yourjob. It's an attorney job to find

(19:56):
those assets. Right. Yes,through sup Ino's background checks, deposition practice,
third party depositions, which are peopleoutside of the litigation that come into
contact with a spouse, an attorneycan uncover resources. And I was involved
in a divorce where a hedge fundmanager was claiming that he was completely unemployed

(20:19):
and had no income, and thenwe found out that he had purchased a
Manhattan apartment and also during the processhad disclosed that he was making quite significant
income at the same time that hewas swearing to a divorce court Supreme Court
judge that he was unemployed with noincome. Finally, protection orders. I
watched one of your videos on yourFacebook page, and by the way,

(20:42):
people should go to your Facebook page, Michael Alberts, because those videos are
really informative and you warned that theycan often be used as a weapon.
Is it criminal to use a protectionorder illegally? So in order protection is
directed from the court for somebody thatframed from doing something or to stay away

(21:03):
with various conditions from somebody else andthe family court context, we often see
that it's a way for people touse it to gain leverage in that if
they get a protective order from thecourt, an order of protection under what's
called an Article eight proceeding either fromthe family courts or from the Supreme Court.
When they get that order of protection, they then try to get somebody

(21:27):
arrested and try to get them expulsedfrom the house, weaken them in the
divorce proceedings, or because it's justuncomfortable going through divorce in the house,
they fabricate and make something up forthe purposes of having interference for the purposes
of getting that person out of thehouse. Using it in that attack orientation
way is not what it's meant todo. It's meant really to shield for

(21:49):
the scenarios under the law that callfor it. We often see it used
in custody battles where somebody makes afalse accusation of domestic line once sort the
sole purpose of gaining leverage and custody, because the courts have to consider if
there's domestic violence in front of thechildren as to the impact that it has.

(22:11):
Using an order of protection can bedeemed malicious. In gatekeeping and parental
interference. It's an act of alienationif it's wrongfully used to interfere with the
parent child relationships. That's another avenuewhere it can be misused. Is it
illegal if you're caught using it illegally? It is, and you can be

(22:32):
held accountable if you swear to afalse written report or you file something.
You can also subject yourself to civiliability. But those are all things that should
be considered. It's not often thatpeople will hold someone accountable for filing a
false order of protection case. It'snot common, but it can happen,

(22:55):
and people should be cautious and howthey go about filing it. Basically,
if you're going to say something andwriting, make sure it's truthful and accurate
and not disordered or exaggerated. Michael, one last question, how can people
get a hold of you if theyneed your services? Call us sixty three
one three three three sixteen, twentyfour hours a day, and if it's
an emergency, say so. Wehave an intake team that works incessantly.

(23:19):
We have an answering service that backsup that also works incessantly. We have
lawyers and supports, assistants, legalassistance, clerical staff that are working very
long hours just to serve the community. Michael, Albert managing partner of the
law firm Albert Sclavos, Thank youso much for your time. Thank you
very much. When we come back, some final thoughts about classified documents.

(23:45):
Back now to the wor Saturday MorningShow with Larry Minti. Welcome back now,
some final thoughts. This week,Donald Trump and his attorneys were in
a Florida courtroom asking the judge tothrow out a criminal case against the former
president for taking and keeping classified documents. Also this week, special counsel Robert

(24:07):
Hurr appeared before the House Judiciary Committeeto explain why he didn't charge President Joe
Biden for taking and keeping classified documents. President Biden was not charged because her
wrote that he couldn't get a convictionbecause a jury would see Biden as a
sympathetic elderly man with a failing memory, a weak and mind blowing reason for

(24:33):
not charging someone with a crime.As Congressman Tom McClintock pointed out when questioning
her, all I have to dowhen I'm taking home classified materials to say,
I'm sorry, mister Herbert, butI'm getting old. My memory is
not so great. Congressman. Thisis the doctrine that you've established in our
laws now, and it's frightening.It is frightening because Biden, being a

(24:56):
sympathetic figure, shouldn't have anything todo do with whether he broke the law
or not. The evidence is theevidence, and the evidence shows he knew
the law and he willfully took classifieddocuments anyway and then shared them on tape
with a ghost writer who was writinga book with him. That was his

(25:18):
motive. He knew the rules,he broke them because he was writing a
book, and you further say,and he began meeting with the ghostwriter while
he was still vice president. There'sthe motive, mister her. How much
did President Biden get paid for hisbook? Off the top of my head,
I'm not sure if that information appearsin the report. So it does.
There's a dollar a mount in there, you remember, I don't it?

(25:42):
Maybe eight million? If eight milliondollars, Joe Biden had eight million
reasons to break the rules. JudiciaryCommittee Chair Jim Jordan brilliantly exposing the motive
for the crime. So why wasn'tBiden charged and Trump was? The answer
has to be politics, because whatBiden did was much worse. First,

(26:06):
he had thousands of classified documents unsecurelyscattered around several locations. Mister her.
Classified documents were found at the PenBiden Center, That's correct. They were
found in President Biden's garage in Wilmington, Delaware. Yes, And in his
basement den. Also in the samehome, yes, in the major in
his main floor office, correct,and his third floor den correct. At

(26:32):
the University of Delaware, correct,And at the Biden Institute correct. Trump
kept his documents in the same storageroom with security cameras and guards. At
Mar A Lago. Biden kept thousandsof documents unsecured. Trump kept dozens of
documents secured. But the most compellingdifference is that Trump was president when he

(26:55):
took his documents. If you're thepresident of the United States, you can
declassify just by saying stick less,let even by thinking about it. And
if the Presidential Archives disagree with thatestimation, they have the right to file
suit to get the documents back.But it's not criminal. It wasn't criminal
when Bill Clinton took documents and hidthem in a sock drawer. In that

(27:18):
case, the Department of Justice defendedthe former president. The DOJ argued the
nex president can keep whatever he wantsin a federal judge agree with that.
But here, because it's Trump.Biden's attorney general in the Special Council,
reverse course, they were announced theirlong standing position and they went after Trump
criminally, legal analyst Greg Jarrett.So the DOJ that once defended a president's

(27:45):
right to keep classified documents is nowcharging a president for keeping classified documents.
And before you say, well,Trump obstructed justice by trying to hide the
documents. But wait, if there'sno crime, there's no obstruction of Justice.
This evil double standard of the applicationof law should frighten everyone. It's

(28:11):
why the case should be dismissed.If the Justice Department can be used as
a weapon to try and defeat apolitical opponent, just imagine what they can
do to you and me. Thatwraps up this Saturday morning. Thanks so
much for spending part of your morningwith me. I'll be back Monday morning

(28:32):
from six to ten with Len Bermanand Michael Riedo in the morning. Enjoy
the rest of your weekend. Thishas been a podcast from Doubor