Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, do you think Congress has the balls to actually
go and invest in Jack Smith's spending habits.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I mean, Mike.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Johnson did do nothing for two years with the Biden
crime family.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, I think they will. There's a new sheriff in town.
The whole politics inside the Beltway has changed. Uh. It's
it's different when you're playing offense than when you're playing defense.
And now they're going to be playing offense. You know,
(00:33):
I don't care what people think about Mike Johnson. I
think he's okay. I don't think he's great. I don't
think he's awful. Uh. Just speakers are just speakers. They're
very rare speakers that I would say belong on a pedestal,
and none of the current ones really belong on a pedestal.
(00:57):
But neither they neither do they deserve all of the
derision that they get, simply because remember, you're governing from
a say in most cases for Republicans, it's been from
the minority side of the aisle. In Johnson's case and
for that matter, Kevin McCarthy's case, trying to govern with
(01:19):
a very narrow margin that you can't keep all of
the cats in the same cage. So it's I'm not
trying at all to defend any of them. I'm just
saying to people who are quick to criticize, that you
(01:39):
don't understand how difficult it is politically to get things
done inside the Beltway. Everybody thinks that. It's why I
talked about in the very first hour about how everyone
needs to temper their expectations. Now. I do expect a
(02:00):
lot of changes, but they're not all going to happen
at twelve oh one pm on January twentieth of twenty
twenty five. It's going to be a slow, methodical process.
Some things will happen faster than others, things will happen slower,
and some things that you don't care about will happen
real quickly, and some things that you do care about
(02:20):
are going to take a long time. And so people,
this is why I say people are going to be
it's unless you've been there, and unless you understand that
if you if your goal is to get one hundred
yards down the football field, you know that rarely does
(02:43):
anybody do you know? Do they? And I don't know
if the rules allow this anymore, dragon, But if you
if you catch, if you catch the ball in the
end zone on kickoff? Is that an automatic touch back?
And you've got to know you can still run you
still run it out? Correct? Okay, so you can still
run it out and rarely how many times do you
(03:04):
see them run one hundred plus yards for a complete
return for a touchdown. But for some reason, that's what
everybody expects in DC and it's not happening. Oh, it
will happen, just like it happens in the NFL. But
for some reason people expecting dcs it just happen all
the time, and it doesn't. It takes a slow, methodical process. Now,
(03:26):
Americans want change, Don't get me wrong. Americans want change
and they're going to get change. But again people are
going to be like bah. What's going to be interesting
is if, particularly among you goobers, every one of you
have certain things that you think are more important than
other things. If I put you all in a room
(03:47):
and said, okay, what do you want to be the
number one priority? I bet you couldn't. I bet you
could not reach a consensus on what the number one
priority is. Maybe immigration, But even with immigration, is it
deportation or is it sealing the border? And some people say, well,
(04:07):
let's do both at the same time. I'm sure Trump's
going to try to do both at the same time.
Sealing the border is going to take time to do.
You can't just buy I don't know what day of
the week January twentyth is on book. Let's say it's
on a Wednesday. It's not going to be sealed off
by Friday. It's going to take time. I'm also looking
(04:31):
to see if I can find audio because the judge
has even ABC doesn't have anything yet. Let me look
over in our clipping service and see if we have
any clips yet of anything. Nothing there, Hey, Dragon, can
(04:53):
you tap into Fox newsualquickie? They got Jonathan Turley on
or is the Trump campaign? And I think they were
eager to.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Appeal this, to get a final decision and to at
least appeal aspects of this. So there's going to be
some maneuvering going on as to what can be still
reviewed in terms of leaving a case suspended.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
For four years.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
It's just a very odd way of addressing this. You know,
the sensing only created a conflict with the president's presidential duties.
If the judge sends limitations upon the president, I mean
He could have simply said I'm not going to impose
(05:35):
jail time or home confinement. He could even say that
being president is equivalent to community service.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
So there's a.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Lot of ways that he could have handled this. So
I think as we play this out a bit, we're
gonna have to see what the Trump lawyers do. I
don't know if they will necessarily welcome the idea that
they're just going to keep this thing is as a
zombie case for four years.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Professors, standby, and we're going to get to this whole
issue that Andy raised about this political quid pro quo,
which would be the ultimate right, the ultimate pinch me
moment here, So standby for that.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
We got more deatry Er Bonn.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
You're in the cour room for all of this that
happened in New York City. Tell us what you think
about the decision to delay.
Speaker 5 (06:23):
I think the Trump lawyers had to expect this to
some extent, because you know, they did file just a
few days ago saying that because Donald Trump is now
president elect, it raises all kinds of new constitutional questions
that the court has to consider as far as both
you know, on one hand, the immunity issue from the
Supreme Court, but also sencing given that he obviously if
he were to be sentenced to anything, wouldn't be able
(06:45):
to execute that sentence because he will be at sixteen
hundred Pennsylvania Avenue. But a couple of thoughts come to mind. One,
I've been wondering what Governor Hochle is thinking. She has
the power to pardon him in this and it could
be an interesting decision on her end. I've wondered if
Donald Trump is having and his people are having conversations
with her right now, because as we know the state
(07:05):
of New York, it's a bit of a mess as
far as how they run law enforcement there. So I've
wondered about that. But you know, look in the big
picture here. The thing that has always tremendously bothered me
about this case is that I think a huge point
of this was to get was for the Democrats to
get the talking point convicted felon. And the reason and
(07:26):
the way they were able to make him a convicted
felon was to say that he committed this, you know,
these misdemeanors, to he was covering up some underlying crime.
And the real travesty in all of this is that
we and he still don't know what those underlying crimes
are because we weren't told. So Donald Trump became the
so called convicted felon, and we still don't even know
(07:47):
why or how exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
You came on the air repeatedly you were taken back
by the absurdity of the curse, the case itself, and
obviously your opinion.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Has not changed.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
No, it hasn't changed at all. I still think it's
a disgrace, and I wonder what this means as far
as the delay and what will play out in the
coming weeks, especially with the politicking, so to speak, between
Donald Trump and maybe the leadership of the state of
New York.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Okay, Noah Rothman is writing Shotgun with us today.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
What do all this.
Speaker 6 (08:21):
Conversation, It's really fascinating the proposition that Andy and Cary
both bring up that it would be in the Democratic
Party's interests at large to wipe the slate clean, to
pardon him, to get rid of these cases, and just
resign their voters to the fact that this fantasy that
he's going to get his come up in from someplace
somewhere and we're going to be the authors of it.
(08:43):
That it's over to really just give them that kind
of closure on the psychologically captivating notion that has animated
Democratic opposition to Donald Trump at the last eight years.
Now they to say that that's off the table. The
voters will be the authors of his either incrimination or
his you know, storied future as an American president with
(09:04):
a great legacy. That is them for them to decide
and not you.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
That would be psychologically valuable.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
I think that's smart. That doesn't mean that they call
the same way right And also who in the Demo
Party would stand up and say that. Now Biden himself
might be able to, but right now there's no Democratic
leader that could make that case convincingly. If they did,
it would be bold and smart. But we'll see if
(09:29):
anyone does that. I have a question for Jonathan Turley,
if you're still there, is there a Supreme Court angle
here where can you appeal a decision about a delay
and say, like, I don't want this hanging over my
head for four years? Can we get this movie.
Speaker 5 (09:44):
Now?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
That's what makes this a bit of a passive aggressive
move is that it will freeze the president in this
uncertain state. And I think that his attorneys are eager
to appeal not just any sentence, but the underlying trial.
And so I don't feel that this is necessarily welcome
news by the Trump team. I also note, with regard
(10:07):
to that pardon, a pardon by the Biden administration, I
should not be welcomed by the Trump people because these
cases are gone. I mean, Smith has started to close
up shop, and so there's no need for a pardon here.
He hasn't been convicted of anything, and by pardoning Trump,
(10:30):
you make it look like he was guilty to the public.
I think Trump would prefer for these cases the collapse
on their own weight. They are effectively as dead as Dillinger.
So the question is why I a pardon him? And
I think that by partying him you sort of poison
the water even more that as you give him a
(10:50):
pardon and then you hope that the New York Manhattan
case can just linger for four years and you can
continue to call him a convicted felon. I think what
the Trump team would like is to let these cases
collapse because they're already effectively dead, and for him to
be able to appeal that Manhattan case. Many of us
(11:11):
have been saying for many months now that the judge
really messed up that case. That there are serious reversible
problems in the Manhattan prosecution.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Don't want to get too far in front of this.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
It's really interesting parlor talk, but we're a long way
from the point.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
It sounds to me, I think what Turley was saying
at the end, so to let you know where we are. So,
Judge Marshawn has just definitely postponed any further proceedings in
the New York hush money case. Just it's in limbo
and he's done that ostensibly because of the immunity ruling.
(11:53):
But US Supreme Court and now that Trump's going to
be president, uh, Mashawn's hands are tied and he can't
really do anything. He could have dismissed the case. The
question I have, and I think they can do this,
and I think that's what Turley was saying, is they
can still appeal the verdict. They don't have sentencing, so
(12:18):
they're not appealing a sentence or you know, the length
of the sentence or the appropriate and us. They're appealing
just the verdict and the errors that the judge made
during the course of the trial. I think they can
proceed with that because that's Trump making the decision not
(12:39):
to waive immunity but to proceed with the case on appeal,
and quite frankly, I hope that's what they do, because
I do believe that the appellate court, the Supreme Court,
and then ultimately the Appellate Court in New York, which
is kind of backwards, but that's how they're named, would
(13:00):
overturn the verdict because the judge made so many errors
and the underlying prosecution where there is, you know, you
have to finding guilty of something, to finding guilty of that,
but we don't know what it was that they found
Hi guilty of, is just a complete total bacheardization of
(13:21):
due process. There was just no due process in this
case whatsoever, other than just his ability to be in
the courtroom and to cross examine the witnesses. But in
terms of the rulings, it was totally unfair. It was
totally outside I think the scope of the judge's discretion,
and I think those rulings were just wrong on many cases,
(13:41):
and I think that the court would would the appellate,
the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Court in New York
would eventually find that insofar as Biden. Biden can only
pardon for the federal cases. Remember the two New York
cases Biden can't do anything about, and they're already unwinding
(14:06):
the Document's case and the JA sixth case, which are
the two cases we were talking about before the break.
That's those are the two that we were talking about
where Jack Smith is already unwinding those cases. So just
let that unwinding occur, and then let Congress bring Jack
Smith and whoever the new Attorney general is before them
(14:27):
before the Judiciary Committee to find out exactly what it was.
You know, how did this start, How how did the
appointment get made? What was the budget? What did you
spend money on? Answer all of those questions. Separate and
apart from that are the two New York cases. Marshaun
took the lazy way out, which I guess I shouldn't
(14:49):
be surprised about. I really did truly believe he would
dismiss the case, but now leaving it in limbo shows
just how partisan he is. Is just dismiss it case
Kate and dismissing it, maybe he's just rolling the dice,
but dismissing it removes the possibility that he will be
(15:13):
slapped down by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court
in New York. When the Trump lawyers take the cases
up on appeal. Judges don't like to get slapped down.
They don't like to get reversed, particularly in a case
like this. Now that's the hush money case. Now let's
go over to the valuation case. I don't know what
(15:37):
Letitia James is going to do. I have no idea.
She doesn't really have to do anything. It's already on appeal,
and they can continue to appeal. I don't think there's
anything that would prevent that from happening. So she now
runs the risk that she could be overturned on appeal. Also,
you still have the problem that we're she going to
(15:59):
be in four years. There's no guarantee that in four
years she's going to be still be the Attorney General
of New York. She may decide to run for governor,
and a subsequent Attorney General both could and probably would
decide I'm not going to touch this case. I'm going
to walk away from I'm going to dismiss it. So
they're all running a stupid political gambit here that I
(16:24):
think is in the disinterest of the country, and I
would say the exact same thing if this was a
Democrat president, if they were, in fact, I would be
I would have been yelling at Republicans for going after
a Democrat that was running for president using these kinds
of cases. Now, if you had true corruption, that's a
different story. But this was not corruption. All of these people,
(16:48):
all of them were nothing other than Nancy Pelosi's admonition
to keep them away from the over office.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Michael, with all the financial questioning we're doing today, we
talked about Harris and all those who have all this
big money and all the things that are going on.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
I must talk about the little person. What about Marshon's daughter?
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Did she make a whole bunch of money off all this?
And don't you think there should be some questions about that?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Well, interestingly, I mentioned that last hour hour before about
when we were talking about all of the money laundering
that went on, that somebody ought to be asking questions
about how much money does she make? I mean, we're
all curious about how much money did the big ol make,
how much money to bey once they make? How much
money did one Marshaan's daughter make. I forget the name
(17:42):
of her outfit. But whatever it is, you know, is
probably active, So yeah, we ought to be asking that too.
I want to go back though.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
To.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
My little diatribe about expectations and you know, whether it's
Mike Johnson or whoever the Senate Majority leader is going
to be, who should be, you know, the Secretary of
State or Homeland Security or anything else. Because I also
have some text messages about like Christine No without going
(18:13):
back and looking specifically for the text message, one of you,
goober said something to the effect that while I admire
Christine Nome and she's a good governor, she doesn't have
the trial by fire that you really need to be
the Secretary of Home Land Security. And I kind of
might have agreed with that, But I'm also leaving it
(18:35):
to the transition team to kind of figure out who
is best, in their collective opinion, to go implement Trump's agenda,
because that's what a cabinet's about. That's really the sole
purpose of a cabinet is to fulfill the boss's agenda.
(18:57):
So it's beginning to take some shape, and it's and
I'm going to use the term Catholic in its approach.
What I mean is it's representing Trump's dominance of the
Republican coalition and his capacity to do two things. And
I think this is something new for Trump. It's his
(19:20):
capacity to ignore the worst instincts some of his more
vocal supporters in this new Republican Party who kind of,
in my opinion, see governance through a naive lens. It's governing.
(19:42):
In our system of government, in our system of federalism,
and in our constitutional framework, governing is expected to be slow,
in methodical, and sometimes cumbersome. You know, if you you
want ram bam, thank you, ma'am governing, then you want
(20:05):
Vladimir Putin, Nicholas Maduro Shi Jing Ping because boom, they
just edict it and that's it, no questions asked. Whereas
in our system of government you got to build coalitions,
get You've got to build you know, you really have
to market your ideas, to put it very coarsely, you
(20:25):
have to market your ideas. Now you have a built
in audience because you can generally assume, generally assume that
the people in your party generally support your agenda. And
I think that's even more so in this upcoming at
least next two years. Remember we have midterms. Holy cow
(20:50):
is that going to be wild? So we have midterms,
so you really have two years to get as much
done initially before where you find out what you can
do in these second two years. So one of the
questions that we have heading into this term of four years,
(21:14):
which is really the next two years, one of the
questions heading is who Trump would disappoint by him being
insufficiently strong on something or not as strong on something else,
or even weak on something, by being too radical in
(21:34):
some areas or being too modest in other areas. Because
again going back to expectations, you have an electoral landslide.
You look at it and I think I now have proof.
Remember I've always maintained that we are a center right country.
I think I have proof of that. You look at
(21:56):
the whether it's the statewise results, state by state, and
you look at that sea of red, or if you
really want to see an even wider sea of red,
look at the county by county returns, and then you'll
see those pockets, and almost all of those pockets are
(22:19):
urban pockets. You look at Colorado, Colorado is and a
sea of red, except well you even Pueblo went red.
But then you've got the front range, and of course
in the Pipton County, in a few places spread around.
(22:40):
So there are Trump's faced with. And I think this
is why he's being so sober, and I think this
is why his very first appointment was Susie Wilds. He
saw what she did in terms of discipline, and he
has her confidence and she has his confidence. So that's
(23:06):
why his first pick was her. She's acting as the
de facto chief of staff today even though he's not
in the Oval office because now I've not heard that
she's head of the transition team. But whoever, even if
he has a head of the transition team, Susie Wiles
is guiding that transition. And so I think we can
(23:30):
learn a lot. I don't think there are many people,
even in this audience that are disappointed in the names
that he's chosen out that he's chosen so far. Now
there are, and I look during the break, there there
are and there always will be. It's like me and radio.
(23:51):
Do you think I please one hundred percent of you
every time I open this microphone?
Speaker 6 (23:55):
No?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
And I never try to, and neither is Trump. Trump's
going to look at who he can get that he
can trust to implement his agenda, and that will do
so in the most aggressive way possible that can still
get it done. To aggressive, you may not get it
done because remember you still have a separate branch of
(24:18):
government over there called the legislative branch, the Article one branch.
But you look on X and yeah, there are still
some loud voices out there about who should be what. Well,
that's the way it's going to be. Well, let's think
about what he's done so far, because I think there's
a lot to learn from that, at least stefaning for you,
(24:41):
an ambassador, Mike Waltz for National Security Advisor, and if true,
if true, Marco Rubio for Secretary of State. You take
those three, that is an immediate United Front signal that
Trump intends to get tough on China and Iran and
(25:04):
sees probably South America Latin America as being a potential
trouble spot. Aus you've got Marco Rubio. Plus Marco Rubio
is very tough on China and Iranan, so he's already
projecting strength instead of the meandering and accommodationist attitudes of
(25:28):
what we're just trying, what we just kicked out, the
appeasement attitude of the Biden Harrison administration, and again in
the White House itself, Susie Wilds, the Chief of Staff,
Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief for Policy, particular immigration Tom Homan,
as the borders are. That goes directly to the importance
(25:50):
of immigration for Trump, going from Michael Reagan to Lee
Zelden at EPA. And if true Christinome, let's just say
it is Christinome going from Alejandro Majorcis to christin Home
at DHS. That's one hundred and eighty degree turn. And
(26:12):
at the same time it rewards those who were loyal
to Trump, but also with at least a strong capacity
for communication. Whether Christinome has the managerial skills to manage DHS,
which I can just tell you as a former insider,
it is a monstrous management problem, horrifically problem. You've got
(26:37):
twenty different cultures within DHS. You've got all these legacy
systems that even after twenty years, still have not been consolidated.
It is just a freaking disaster. But Christinome has an
incredible skill of communication. Those are solid choices, and they
(27:01):
they're designed to please those at the center of the
Republican coalition, not you know, raging enthusiasts from you know,
over here on one side, or the fringe characters on
another side. But trying to address this broad coalition, you see,
(27:23):
that's a challenge in and of itself. You've now built
a broad coalition that probably agrees on just two or
three things, and even within those two or three things,
there's probably a lot of disagreement. One of the two
or three things inflation, the economy, and immigration, and beyond that,
(27:44):
probably foreign international affairs need to be tough on China.
We need to cut off our dependence on China. We
got to cut off Iran. We've got to support the Israelis.
We've got to support Israel. I mean, I think there's
probably broad agreement on that, but even within the areas
of broad agreement, they're going to be the naysayers. And
(28:06):
Trump's trying to balance all of that. I would add this,
and I bet this pisses off some of this audience,
but I think that his appointments so far show a
bias toward experience in government. I think Trump learned in
(28:27):
his first term by making the outside era of assuming
that just because you are smart outside of government, that
you can navigate DC you can be. And I think
Elon Musk is going to find this to be true.
He might be the smartest man on the face of
(28:48):
the earth, and he might indeed be the first trillionaire,
you know, the richest man on earth. But he's accustomed
to just saying go do this, go do that, at
getting done or being told to go take a break.
Elon Musk is going to find that saving that two
(29:09):
trillion dollars he thinks that he can save just with
the snap of a finger, It's going to be a
lot more difficult than even he realizes. Isn't delaying sentencing
for four years actually cool and unusual punishment? You might
be able to make. No, I don't think it's cruel
unusual punishment because swift, speedy trial. Well, but it could
(29:32):
be a violation of the right to a speedy trial,
except that the reason for the delay is actually because
of the fault of the defendant who got elected president.
So you know, and I'm fascinated, I mean, just this
kind of inside baseball stuff, but I'm kind of fascinated.
(29:52):
Let me check again, so in our clipping service, let
me refresh the page. Still nothing about that decision. Let
me go over to the ABC News clipping service. Let
me refresh the page. Uh Thanksgiving lowering costs Texas Austin
(30:14):
City Council artificial voice, Uh tease Marco Rubio Trump White
House meeting. There's there's nothing. I just find that. To me,
this is like a huge news story and so far
we're now almost an hour after it's been announced and
nothing from the cabal, including Fox News. I just find
(30:39):
it interesting. I don't know why I just find it,
because maybe it's just because I think it's big news.
But then what I think is the right thing to think.
So back, So I want to finish, and we'll carry
this over to the next hour too. Let's go back
to the idea about who he's picking, because again, I
(31:01):
know people always say, oh, I want a businessman in
the White House. Well, you got a business guy in
the White House. And in my conversation with David Harris
Junior last night, he said something that I've thought but
have never articulated. He said Trump losing in twenty twenty
(31:23):
was a blessing in disguise. David Harris Junior made, and
I'm paraphrasing here, he said something to the effect that
that loss humbled Donald Trump to the extent that Donald
Trump can be humbled. And then you had two assassination attempts,
and he saw just how bad progressivism and Marxism were
(31:48):
for the country. So he doubled down his efforts and
got really serious up to an including selection of his
campaign chairs, including Susie Wilde. And so it was a
blessing in disguise because it gave him the chance to
come back and win this sweeping you know, I mean,
he got the trifecta. He won the electoral college, he
(32:11):
got the legislative branch, and he won the popular vote.
That's a mandate not seen since Ronald Reagan. And I
think that David Harris Junior was right about that, and
I think that's why we're seeing this impressive so far
group of people now are there? Will he appoint somebody
(32:34):
that somebody in this audience, including yours, truly may go No.
I don't know about that. People talk about wanting a
businessman to run the government. Well, Rex Tillerson, the chairman
of excellent secretary of State, an abject failure, A brilliant businessman,
(32:58):
horrible secretary of state. We have to understand that in
government management is While principles may be the same, style
difference makes a huge difference.
Michael, do you think Congress has the balls to actually
go and invest in Jack Smith's spending habits.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I mean, Mike.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Johnson did do nothing for two years with the Biden
crime family.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, I think they will. There's a new sheriff in town.
The whole politics inside the Beltway has changed. Uh. It's
it's different when you're playing offense than when you're playing defense.
And now they're going to be playing offense. You know,
(00:33):
I don't care what people think about Mike Johnson. I
think he's okay. I don't think he's great. I don't
think he's awful. Uh. Just speakers are just speakers. They're
very rare speakers that I would say belong on a pedestal,
and none of the current ones really belong on a pedestal.
(00:57):
But neither they neither do they deserve all of the
derision that they get, simply because remember, you're governing from
a say in most cases for Republicans, it's been from
the minority side of the aisle. In Johnson's case and
for that matter, Kevin McCarthy's case, trying to govern with
(01:19):
a very narrow margin that you can't keep all of
the cats in the same cage. So it's I'm not
trying at all to defend any of them. I'm just
saying to people who are quick to criticize, that you
(01:39):
don't understand how difficult it is politically to get things
done inside the Beltway. Everybody thinks that. It's why I
talked about in the very first hour about how everyone
needs to temper their expectations. Now. I do expect a
(02:00):
lot of changes, but they're not all going to happen
at twelve oh one pm on January twentieth of twenty
twenty five. It's going to be a slow, methodical process.
Some things will happen faster than others, things will happen slower,
and some things that you don't care about will happen
real quickly, and some things that you do care about
(02:20):
are going to take a long time. And so people,
this is why I say people are going to be
it's unless you've been there, and unless you understand that
if you if your goal is to get one hundred
yards down the football field, you know that rarely does
(02:43):
anybody do you know? Do they? And I don't know
if the rules allow this anymore, dragon, But if you
if you catch, if you catch the ball in the
end zone on kickoff? Is that an automatic touch back?
And you've got to know you can still run you
still run it out? Correct? Okay, so you can still
run it out and rarely how many times do you
(03:04):
see them run one hundred plus yards for a complete
return for a touchdown. But for some reason, that's what
everybody expects in DC and it's not happening. Oh, it
will happen, just like it happens in the NFL. But
for some reason people expecting dcs it just happen all
the time, and it doesn't. It takes a slow, methodical process. Now,
(03:26):
Americans want change, Don't get me wrong. Americans want change
and they're going to get change. But again people are
going to be like bah. What's going to be interesting
is if, particularly among you goobers, every one of you
have certain things that you think are more important than
other things. If I put you all in a room
(03:47):
and said, okay, what do you want to be the
number one priority? I bet you couldn't. I bet you
could not reach a consensus on what the number one
priority is. Maybe immigration, But even with immigration, is it
deportation or is it sealing the border? And some people say, well,
(04:07):
let's do both at the same time. I'm sure Trump's
going to try to do both at the same time.
Sealing the border is going to take time to do.
You can't just buy I don't know what day of
the week January twentyth is on book. Let's say it's
on a Wednesday. It's not going to be sealed off
by Friday. It's going to take time. I'm also looking
(04:31):
to see if I can find audio because the judge
has even ABC doesn't have anything yet. Let me look
over in our clipping service and see if we have
any clips yet of anything. Nothing there, Hey, Dragon, can
(04:53):
you tap into Fox newsualquickie? They got Jonathan Turley on
or is the Trump campaign? And I think they were
eager to.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Appeal this, to get a final decision and to at
least appeal aspects of this. So there's going to be
some maneuvering going on as to what can be still
reviewed in terms of leaving a case suspended.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
For four years.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
It's just a very odd way of addressing this. You know,
the sensing only created a conflict with the president's presidential duties.
If the judge sends limitations upon the president, I mean
He could have simply said I'm not going to impose
(05:35):
jail time or home confinement. He could even say that
being president is equivalent to community service.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
So there's a.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Lot of ways that he could have handled this. So
I think as we play this out a bit, we're
gonna have to see what the Trump lawyers do. I
don't know if they will necessarily welcome the idea that
they're just going to keep this thing is as a
zombie case for four years.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Professors, standby, and we're going to get to this whole
issue that Andy raised about this political quid pro quo,
which would be the ultimate right, the ultimate pinch me
moment here, So standby for that.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
We got more deatry Er Bonn.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
You're in the cour room for all of this that
happened in New York City. Tell us what you think
about the decision to delay.
Speaker 5 (06:23):
I think the Trump lawyers had to expect this to
some extent, because you know, they did file just a
few days ago saying that because Donald Trump is now
president elect, it raises all kinds of new constitutional questions
that the court has to consider as far as both
you know, on one hand, the immunity issue from the
Supreme Court, but also sencing given that he obviously if
he were to be sentenced to anything, wouldn't be able
(06:45):
to execute that sentence because he will be at sixteen
hundred Pennsylvania Avenue. But a couple of thoughts come to mind. One,
I've been wondering what Governor Hochle is thinking. She has
the power to pardon him in this and it could
be an interesting decision on her end. I've wondered if
Donald Trump is having and his people are having conversations
with her right now, because as we know the state
(07:05):
of New York, it's a bit of a mess as
far as how they run law enforcement there. So I've
wondered about that. But you know, look in the big
picture here. The thing that has always tremendously bothered me
about this case is that I think a huge point
of this was to get was for the Democrats to
get the talking point convicted felon. And the reason and
(07:26):
the way they were able to make him a convicted
felon was to say that he committed this, you know,
these misdemeanors, to he was covering up some underlying crime.
And the real travesty in all of this is that
we and he still don't know what those underlying crimes
are because we weren't told. So Donald Trump became the
so called convicted felon, and we still don't even know
(07:47):
why or how exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
You came on the air repeatedly you were taken back
by the absurdity of the curse, the case itself, and
obviously your opinion.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Has not changed.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
No, it hasn't changed at all. I still think it's
a disgrace, and I wonder what this means as far
as the delay and what will play out in the
coming weeks, especially with the politicking, so to speak, between
Donald Trump and maybe the leadership of the state of
New York.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Okay, Noah Rothman is writing Shotgun with us today.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
What do all this.
Speaker 6 (08:21):
Conversation, It's really fascinating the proposition that Andy and Cary
both bring up that it would be in the Democratic
Party's interests at large to wipe the slate clean, to
pardon him, to get rid of these cases, and just
resign their voters to the fact that this fantasy that
he's going to get his come up in from someplace
somewhere and we're going to be the authors of it.
(08:43):
That it's over to really just give them that kind
of closure on the psychologically captivating notion that has animated
Democratic opposition to Donald Trump at the last eight years.
Now they to say that that's off the table. The
voters will be the authors of his either incrimination or
his you know, storied future as an American president with
(09:04):
a great legacy. That is them for them to decide
and not you.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
That would be psychologically valuable.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
I think that's smart. That doesn't mean that they call
the same way right And also who in the Demo
Party would stand up and say that. Now Biden himself
might be able to, but right now there's no Democratic
leader that could make that case convincingly. If they did,
it would be bold and smart. But we'll see if
(09:29):
anyone does that. I have a question for Jonathan Turley,
if you're still there, is there a Supreme Court angle
here where can you appeal a decision about a delay
and say, like, I don't want this hanging over my
head for four years? Can we get this movie.
Speaker 5 (09:44):
Now?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
That's what makes this a bit of a passive aggressive
move is that it will freeze the president in this
uncertain state. And I think that his attorneys are eager
to appeal not just any sentence, but the underlying trial.
And so I don't feel that this is necessarily welcome
news by the Trump team. I also note, with regard
(10:07):
to that pardon, a pardon by the Biden administration, I
should not be welcomed by the Trump people because these
cases are gone. I mean, Smith has started to close
up shop, and so there's no need for a pardon here.
He hasn't been convicted of anything, and by pardoning Trump,
(10:30):
you make it look like he was guilty to the public.
I think Trump would prefer for these cases the collapse
on their own weight. They are effectively as dead as Dillinger.
So the question is why I a pardon him? And
I think that by partying him you sort of poison
the water even more that as you give him a
(10:50):
pardon and then you hope that the New York Manhattan
case can just linger for four years and you can
continue to call him a convicted felon. I think what
the Trump team would like is to let these cases
collapse because they're already effectively dead, and for him to
be able to appeal that Manhattan case. Many of us
(11:11):
have been saying for many months now that the judge
really messed up that case. That there are serious reversible
problems in the Manhattan prosecution.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Don't want to get too far in front of this.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
It's really interesting parlor talk, but we're a long way
from the point.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
It sounds to me, I think what Turley was saying
at the end, so to let you know where we are. So,
Judge Marshawn has just definitely postponed any further proceedings in
the New York hush money case. Just it's in limbo
and he's done that ostensibly because of the immunity ruling.
(11:53):
But US Supreme Court and now that Trump's going to
be president, uh, Mashawn's hands are tied and he can't
really do anything. He could have dismissed the case. The
question I have, and I think they can do this,
and I think that's what Turley was saying, is they
can still appeal the verdict. They don't have sentencing, so
(12:18):
they're not appealing a sentence or you know, the length
of the sentence or the appropriate and us. They're appealing
just the verdict and the errors that the judge made
during the course of the trial. I think they can
proceed with that because that's Trump making the decision not
(12:39):
to waive immunity but to proceed with the case on appeal,
and quite frankly, I hope that's what they do, because
I do believe that the appellate court, the Supreme Court,
and then ultimately the Appellate Court in New York, which
is kind of backwards, but that's how they're named, would
(13:00):
overturn the verdict because the judge made so many errors
and the underlying prosecution where there is, you know, you
have to finding guilty of something, to finding guilty of that,
but we don't know what it was that they found
Hi guilty of, is just a complete total bacheardization of
(13:21):
due process. There was just no due process in this
case whatsoever, other than just his ability to be in
the courtroom and to cross examine the witnesses. But in
terms of the rulings, it was totally unfair. It was
totally outside I think the scope of the judge's discretion,
and I think those rulings were just wrong on many cases,
(13:41):
and I think that the court would would the appellate,
the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Court in New York
would eventually find that insofar as Biden. Biden can only
pardon for the federal cases. Remember the two New York
cases Biden can't do anything about, and they're already unwinding
(14:06):
the Document's case and the JA sixth case, which are
the two cases we were talking about before the break.
That's those are the two that we were talking about
where Jack Smith is already unwinding those cases. So just
let that unwinding occur, and then let Congress bring Jack
Smith and whoever the new Attorney general is before them
(14:27):
before the Judiciary Committee to find out exactly what it was.
You know, how did this start, How how did the
appointment get made? What was the budget? What did you
spend money on? Answer all of those questions. Separate and
apart from that are the two New York cases. Marshaun
took the lazy way out, which I guess I shouldn't
(14:49):
be surprised about. I really did truly believe he would
dismiss the case, but now leaving it in limbo shows
just how partisan he is. Is just dismiss it case
Kate and dismissing it, maybe he's just rolling the dice,
but dismissing it removes the possibility that he will be
(15:13):
slapped down by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court
in New York. When the Trump lawyers take the cases
up on appeal. Judges don't like to get slapped down.
They don't like to get reversed, particularly in a case
like this. Now that's the hush money case. Now let's
go over to the valuation case. I don't know what
(15:37):
Letitia James is going to do. I have no idea.
She doesn't really have to do anything. It's already on appeal,
and they can continue to appeal. I don't think there's
anything that would prevent that from happening. So she now
runs the risk that she could be overturned on appeal. Also,
you still have the problem that we're she going to
(15:59):
be in four years. There's no guarantee that in four
years she's going to be still be the Attorney General
of New York. She may decide to run for governor,
and a subsequent Attorney General both could and probably would
decide I'm not going to touch this case. I'm going
to walk away from I'm going to dismiss it. So
they're all running a stupid political gambit here that I
(16:24):
think is in the disinterest of the country, and I
would say the exact same thing if this was a
Democrat president, if they were, in fact, I would be
I would have been yelling at Republicans for going after
a Democrat that was running for president using these kinds
of cases. Now, if you had true corruption, that's a
different story. But this was not corruption. All of these people,
(16:48):
all of them were nothing other than Nancy Pelosi's admonition
to keep them away from the over office.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Michael, with all the financial questioning we're doing today, we
talked about Harris and all those who have all this
big money and all the things that are going on.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
I must talk about the little person. What about Marshon's daughter?
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Did she make a whole bunch of money off all this?
And don't you think there should be some questions about that?
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Well, interestingly, I mentioned that last hour hour before about
when we were talking about all of the money laundering
that went on, that somebody ought to be asking questions
about how much money does she make? I mean, we're
all curious about how much money did the big ol make,
how much money to bey once they make? How much
money did one Marshaan's daughter make. I forget the name
(17:42):
of her outfit. But whatever it is, you know, is
probably active, So yeah, we ought to be asking that too.
I want to go back though.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
To.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
My little diatribe about expectations and you know, whether it's
Mike Johnson or whoever the Senate Majority leader is going
to be, who should be, you know, the Secretary of
State or Homeland Security or anything else. Because I also
have some text messages about like Christine No without going
(18:13):
back and looking specifically for the text message, one of you,
goober said something to the effect that while I admire
Christine Nome and she's a good governor, she doesn't have
the trial by fire that you really need to be
the Secretary of Home Land Security. And I kind of
might have agreed with that, But I'm also leaving it
(18:35):
to the transition team to kind of figure out who
is best, in their collective opinion, to go implement Trump's agenda,
because that's what a cabinet's about. That's really the sole
purpose of a cabinet is to fulfill the boss's agenda.
(18:57):
So it's beginning to take some shape, and it's and
I'm going to use the term Catholic in its approach.
What I mean is it's representing Trump's dominance of the
Republican coalition and his capacity to do two things. And
I think this is something new for Trump. It's his
(19:20):
capacity to ignore the worst instincts some of his more
vocal supporters in this new Republican Party who kind of,
in my opinion, see governance through a naive lens. It's governing.
(19:42):
In our system of government, in our system of federalism,
and in our constitutional framework, governing is expected to be slow,
in methodical, and sometimes cumbersome. You know, if you you
want ram bam, thank you, ma'am governing, then you want
(20:05):
Vladimir Putin, Nicholas Maduro Shi Jing Ping because boom, they
just edict it and that's it, no questions asked. Whereas
in our system of government you got to build coalitions,
get You've got to build you know, you really have
to market your ideas, to put it very coarsely, you
(20:25):
have to market your ideas. Now you have a built
in audience because you can generally assume, generally assume that
the people in your party generally support your agenda. And
I think that's even more so in this upcoming at
least next two years. Remember we have midterms. Holy cow
(20:50):
is that going to be wild? So we have midterms,
so you really have two years to get as much
done initially before where you find out what you can
do in these second two years. So one of the
questions that we have heading into this term of four years,
(21:14):
which is really the next two years, one of the
questions heading is who Trump would disappoint by him being
insufficiently strong on something or not as strong on something else,
or even weak on something, by being too radical in
(21:34):
some areas or being too modest in other areas. Because
again going back to expectations, you have an electoral landslide.
You look at it and I think I now have proof.
Remember I've always maintained that we are a center right country.
I think I have proof of that. You look at
(21:56):
the whether it's the statewise results, state by state, and
you look at that sea of red, or if you
really want to see an even wider sea of red,
look at the county by county returns, and then you'll
see those pockets, and almost all of those pockets are
(22:19):
urban pockets. You look at Colorado, Colorado is and a
sea of red, except well you even Pueblo went red.
But then you've got the front range, and of course
in the Pipton County, in a few places spread around.
(22:40):
So there are Trump's faced with. And I think this
is why he's being so sober, and I think this
is why his very first appointment was Susie Wilds. He
saw what she did in terms of discipline, and he
has her confidence and she has his confidence. So that's
(23:06):
why his first pick was her. She's acting as the
de facto chief of staff today even though he's not
in the Oval office because now I've not heard that
she's head of the transition team. But whoever, even if
he has a head of the transition team, Susie Wiles
is guiding that transition. And so I think we can
(23:30):
learn a lot. I don't think there are many people,
even in this audience that are disappointed in the names
that he's chosen out that he's chosen so far. Now
there are, and I look during the break, there there
are and there always will be. It's like me and radio.
(23:51):
Do you think I please one hundred percent of you
every time I open this microphone?
Speaker 6 (23:55):
No?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
And I never try to, and neither is Trump. Trump's
going to look at who he can get that he
can trust to implement his agenda, and that will do
so in the most aggressive way possible that can still
get it done. To aggressive, you may not get it
done because remember you still have a separate branch of
(24:18):
government over there called the legislative branch, the Article one branch.
But you look on X and yeah, there are still
some loud voices out there about who should be what. Well,
that's the way it's going to be. Well, let's think
about what he's done so far, because I think there's
a lot to learn from that, at least stefaning for you,
(24:41):
an ambassador, Mike Waltz for National Security Advisor, and if true,
if true, Marco Rubio for Secretary of State. You take
those three, that is an immediate United Front signal that
Trump intends to get tough on China and Iran and
(25:04):
sees probably South America Latin America as being a potential
trouble spot. Aus you've got Marco Rubio. Plus Marco Rubio
is very tough on China and Iranan, so he's already
projecting strength instead of the meandering and accommodationist attitudes of
(25:28):
what we're just trying, what we just kicked out, the
appeasement attitude of the Biden Harrison administration, and again in
the White House itself, Susie Wilds, the Chief of Staff,
Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief for Policy, particular immigration Tom Homan,
as the borders are. That goes directly to the importance
(25:50):
of immigration for Trump, going from Michael Reagan to Lee
Zelden at EPA. And if true Christinome, let's just say
it is Christinome going from Alejandro Majorcis to christin Home
at DHS. That's one hundred and eighty degree turn. And
(26:12):
at the same time it rewards those who were loyal
to Trump, but also with at least a strong capacity
for communication. Whether Christinome has the managerial skills to manage DHS,
which I can just tell you as a former insider,
it is a monstrous management problem, horrifically problem. You've got
(26:37):
twenty different cultures within DHS. You've got all these legacy
systems that even after twenty years, still have not been consolidated.
It is just a freaking disaster. But Christinome has an
incredible skill of communication. Those are solid choices, and they
(27:01):
they're designed to please those at the center of the
Republican coalition, not you know, raging enthusiasts from you know,
over here on one side, or the fringe characters on
another side. But trying to address this broad coalition, you see,
(27:23):
that's a challenge in and of itself. You've now built
a broad coalition that probably agrees on just two or
three things, and even within those two or three things,
there's probably a lot of disagreement. One of the two
or three things inflation, the economy, and immigration, and beyond that,
(27:44):
probably foreign international affairs need to be tough on China.
We need to cut off our dependence on China. We
got to cut off Iran. We've got to support the Israelis.
We've got to support Israel. I mean, I think there's
probably broad agreement on that, but even within the areas
of broad agreement, they're going to be the naysayers. And
(28:06):
Trump's trying to balance all of that. I would add this,
and I bet this pisses off some of this audience,
but I think that his appointments so far show a
bias toward experience in government. I think Trump learned in
(28:27):
his first term by making the outside era of assuming
that just because you are smart outside of government, that
you can navigate DC you can be. And I think
Elon Musk is going to find this to be true.
He might be the smartest man on the face of
(28:48):
the earth, and he might indeed be the first trillionaire,
you know, the richest man on earth. But he's accustomed
to just saying go do this, go do that, at
getting done or being told to go take a break.
Elon Musk is going to find that saving that two
(29:09):
trillion dollars he thinks that he can save just with
the snap of a finger, It's going to be a
lot more difficult than even he realizes. Isn't delaying sentencing
for four years actually cool and unusual punishment? You might
be able to make. No, I don't think it's cruel
unusual punishment because swift, speedy trial. Well, but it could
(29:32):
be a violation of the right to a speedy trial,
except that the reason for the delay is actually because
of the fault of the defendant who got elected president.
So you know, and I'm fascinated, I mean, just this
kind of inside baseball stuff, but I'm kind of fascinated.
(29:52):
Let me check again, so in our clipping service, let
me refresh the page. Still nothing about that decision. Let
me go over to the ABC News clipping service. Let
me refresh the page. Uh Thanksgiving lowering costs Texas Austin
(30:14):
City Council artificial voice, Uh tease Marco Rubio Trump White
House meeting. There's there's nothing. I just find that. To me,
this is like a huge news story and so far
we're now almost an hour after it's been announced and
nothing from the cabal, including Fox News. I just find
(30:39):
it interesting. I don't know why I just find it,
because maybe it's just because I think it's big news.
But then what I think is the right thing to think.
So back, So I want to finish, and we'll carry
this over to the next hour too. Let's go back
to the idea about who he's picking, because again, I
(31:01):
know people always say, oh, I want a businessman in
the White House. Well, you got a business guy in
the White House. And in my conversation with David Harris
Junior last night, he said something that I've thought but
have never articulated. He said Trump losing in twenty twenty
(31:23):
was a blessing in disguise. David Harris Junior made, and
I'm paraphrasing here, he said something to the effect that
that loss humbled Donald Trump to the extent that Donald
Trump can be humbled. And then you had two assassination attempts,
and he saw just how bad progressivism and Marxism were
(31:48):
for the country. So he doubled down his efforts and
got really serious up to an including selection of his
campaign chairs, including Susie Wilde. And so it was a
blessing in disguise because it gave him the chance to
come back and win this sweeping you know, I mean,
he got the trifecta. He won the electoral college, he
(32:11):
got the legislative branch, and he won the popular vote.
That's a mandate not seen since Ronald Reagan. And I
think that David Harris Junior was right about that, and
I think that's why we're seeing this impressive so far
group of people now are there? Will he appoint somebody
(32:34):
that somebody in this audience, including yours, truly may go No.
I don't know about that. People talk about wanting a
businessman to run the government. Well, Rex Tillerson, the chairman
of excellent secretary of State, an abject failure, A brilliant businessman,
(32:58):
horrible secretary of state. We have to understand that in
government management is While principles may be the same, style
difference makes a huge difference.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.