January 10, 2025 • 31 mins
Adam Carolla, Comedian and Media Personality and is here to talk about losing his home and what’s next for people like him after this tragedy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, thanks Scott Shan an hour two Sean Hannedy's
show Toll Free, It is eight hundred and nine to
four one, Shawn, if you want to be a part
of the program. A couple of nights ago, when I
had comedian Adam Carolla on my TV show, it was
up in the air. He didn't know whether his house
would survive the wildfires. Thank God, for his sake, he
(00:22):
was not one of the thousands and thousands of victims
that lost their homes that have had their entire lives
not a pun.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Intend to go up and smoke.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
A lot of this, if not most of it completely preventable,
and anyway, he talked at it on his own show
at length about you know, there will be more people
in winne Bagos that will be on the Pacific Coast
Highway before Hollywood elites ever returned to their homes because
of the permitting process, which is formidable. Jillian Michaels brought
(00:55):
this up on TV and on radio yesterday in California.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Listen already on.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
A happy note, I guess all the win of bagos
that were parked up and down pch where they're cooking
out of those things surely are gone. They'll be the
first ones back. The comedy is the guys who lost
their twenty million dollar homes on the ocean side of
PCH will be knee deep in the permit process. They
(01:25):
will be trying to pull permits when the guys in
the Winnebagos will have been back for months, months before
those guys ever get a permit. As a matter of fact,
Alan Hamill and Suzanne Summers moved because they could not
get a permit to rebuild their home of forty years
on the ocean on PCH. You know how Bill Maher
(01:47):
seems real conservative now when he's like arguing with Jane
Fonda about regulations, too many regulations, like strangling everything. Because
remember when Bill Maher tried to put solar in his
house in Beverly Hills. That's when he turned against the
government because he saw what the government and the overreach
of government and overregulation does.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Now he's not wrong.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
By the way, if you don't live in California, you
may not know PCH is the Pacific Coast Highway if
you've never driven it from northern California all the way
down to southern California. It is one of the most spectacular, picturesque,
beautiful drives you'll ever go on in your life. It's
unbelievably stunning. Then he predicted that these wildfires will convert Democrats,
(02:32):
and he's going to join us in a minute after
evacuating their homes. I'm not sure I agree with them
on this part.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
But listen, you guys all voted for Karen Bass, the
mayor of Los Angeles.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
You all voted for Gavenusom, and.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Now you get what you get. Oh, now that your
house is on fire, well, now you're thinking about something else.
Now you want to know what's going on, what's going
on around here. You didn't give a shit about what
was going on when other people's houses were on fire,
but now you can. So here's what's gonna happen. All
these people who were deep blue Democrats are now going
(03:08):
to have to pull a permit to rebuild, and they're
gonna get the twenty eight year old from the Coastal
Commission telling them to go fifth off, and then they're
going to vote for Trump or whoever's Trump being next.
You see, they're gonna.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Get turned all right. So Adam Carroll joins us.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Now when I last spoke to you, you aren't sure
if your house is gonna survive. I mean, I assume
a lot of homes around where you live burned to
the ground like so many others. And what you were saying,
by the way, about the permit process is dead on accurate.
Jillian Michaels, I think it was. Back in twenty eighteen,
lost a home and it took well over a year
(03:46):
to begin to get the permits needed to rebuild. It's insane.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Yeah, like I said, Alan ham On Suzanne Summer's Alan
and Suzanne Summer's husband, a good friends loved Alan told
me at dinner, took him seven years. It was a
seven year process. They finally they finally popped it in
and they moved to Palm Springs because the Coastal Commission
would not let them rebuild where their home formally stood.
(04:16):
So it's a big deal. I was a builder, Sean,
you know, a contractor. I've been dealing with these people
since my early twenties, so I've been screaming about this
for a million years. But these folks, like Jane Konda especially,
they have no idea. They've never pulled a permit, they've
never dealt with this city. They've never dealt with the
(04:36):
Coastal Commission. So when they do, that's when they start
turning the corner and they start thinking like us. Now,
obviously they're not all going to vote Republican the next
time around, which you can bet that they're going to
take a real good look at the next Gavin Newsome
(04:57):
character who comes down the pike.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Well, we already know who that is. That's going to
be Kamala Harris, right right, Yes.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
That's true, that's true. And and look, this is no
different than a sanctuary city. Remember all the blue cities
New York City, they all loved the sanctuary city that
patted themselves on the back and they celebrated the fact
that they were heroes because they were sanctuary city. But
when the first bustloads of migrants started getting dropped off
(05:28):
in their slanky neighborhoods, what did they do? They started screaming,
where's the government? What's going on? We didn't sign up
for this. That's what's going to happen with the rebuilding process.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
I really have got a wonder And if you look
at everything that we've learned since you know this, this
tragedy happened and it is a tragedy. And I honestly,
with all my heart, and I don't care what your
politics are, I really feel awful for the people of
la I mean, they're now going to have to try
and rebuild their lives. But when you learn that the
(06:02):
science of forestry and you can get degrees from big universities.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I've actually listed them on this program.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Auburn, University of Florida, NC State University at Georgia. I
can go on for you know, twenty minutes here and
talk about it. You can get it out at the
University of California. I think Davis has a forestry program
and you can get a degree in that. And there
are legitimate criticisms here. You know, why weren't the hydrants working?
(06:30):
Let's start with that. You know, we learned also this
morning that in fact, in the Pacific Palisades that the
reservoir was freaking empty. I mean, how is that possible?
Avin Newsom doesn't like criticism, but his answer that this
is a local issue. Why these hydrants weren't designed for
wildfires in a state that's known for wildfires and Santa
(06:53):
Ana wins. How does that make any sense to you?
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Well, first, just the notion.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
By the way, he's just sipping on Vodkas. Not a
big deal of It's a little early in California, but
it's fine.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I'm kidding anything to take the ad job. Sehan come on,
by the.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Way, at this point in dime, I think anybody in
LA has every right to do whatever they want.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Oh my god, well I'm in Vegas, so I just
took off. I can't get back to my place in Malibu.
I just found out it was at a one piece. The
restaurant in front of it is gone. In the entire
Pacific Coast Highway, every house on it in front of
me is gone, and I mean for a mile. The
(07:37):
devastation is beyond the script. We're talking about multimillion dollar
homes and not three million dollar homes. Twenty five million
dollar homes all gone for far.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Why do you think your house survived?
Speaker 1 (07:50):
We had Caitlin Jenner call on the other day and
Caitlin fireproof the outside of her home, which I thought
was brilliant on her part. And when Malibu burn the
last time, her house didn't burn.
Speaker 4 (08:03):
You know, the only theme, as an X contractor I
can see is the more modern homes with the stucco
and the cement facades with the steel and aluminum windows
and steel roofs, those fared much better than anything traditional
with wood eves, you know, shake roof, you know, wood
(08:26):
trim and molding. All the traditional type homes, the ranch
style homes one up immediately. The more contemporary modern homes
stood a much better chance. But still we're going to
burn to the ground if everything was on file. So
you will see weird pockets just like you do in
(08:47):
every fire, just like you do in tornadoes, where you
see the house to the right is gone, the house
to the left is gone, and the one in the
middle seems completely untouched. That's what just happened to my home.
And I'm happy. But I have obviously survivor's guilt now
because of so many friends, and I know a.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Guy who had I don't think you need to have
survivor Why would you have survivors guilt? I mean, if
you know it gives you an opportunity with your platform,
I mean, if you want to help people out that
are really desperate and maybe fight for regulations and Sacramento
to move the process so these people can rebuild their
lives in a reasonable period of time, by the way,
(09:29):
if they even have insurance, and a lot of the
insurance companies pulled out because they knew that this was
a likely a likelihood. State Farm pulled out. They pulled
out big time in the last year and a half.
And they did so because they knew that this would happen.
They knew that California wasn't prepared and that should have
been the Canary and the coal mine.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Yeah, I mean, look, I would liken it to this.
You know, Gavin knew some once to talk about, you know,
climate change and all that lefs and all the Blues
want to blame climate change. Okay, it's here. We're not
going to get rid of it by having electric leaf
blowers and converting to electric cars by two thousand and thirty.
(10:14):
As long as China is, as long as India is
crapping out coal mines, then we're not going to be
able to move the needle on this. But what are
you going to do about it? Remember? New Orleans is
under sea level, so you have to build sea walls.
And if the Army Corp of Engineers builds a good seawall,
then the people in New Orleans will not flood. So
(10:36):
we need to take our technology and steer it toward
these problems. Instead of sit around and point fingers and
complain about climate change, how about you do something. Let's
just say it is climate change. Good. Now, what are
we going to do?
Speaker 2 (10:51):
All right?
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Quick break, We'll have more with Adam Corolo than your
calls on the other side. Eight hundred and nine to
four one sewn our number as we continue this Friday, Right,
we continue now with Adam Corolla. His house did survive,
pretty much every house around him did not survive. You know,
the LAFD Fire Apartment, their budget is slashed, but they
(11:13):
have six hundred and fifty million allocated for the LA
port to Go green federal state dollars, eight hundred thousand
dollars green street sweepers.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Whatever the hell that is.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Why would you pay that amount of money for that
but not pay firefighters. Then they have, you know, billions
of dollars allocated for wind turbines. And meanwhile, I bet
how much do you pay for a gallon of gasoline
where you are? Because I guarantee you I pay.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
About half fifty five to seventy five.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I mean I pay.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
About three dollars a gallon now in the free state
of Florida three dollars a gallon. Can you explain that
there's no income tax in my state?
Speaker 2 (11:48):
None?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Well, according to Gavin Newsome, all the major oil companies
only gouge California. They don't gouge any other state. So
this is all because of greed oil companies who.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Just they're suing the oil companies and guess what they're
going to hire very expensive attorneys and guess what these
companies will do. They'll raise the price of a gallon
of gasoline to offset that.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
Well, there's another price height coming soon because he already
agreed to that a couple of months ago. So we're
going to get above six dollars a gallon. Yes, it's
gross and confidence. I mean, of course you know it, Sean,
and you brought it up. But we have our bullet
train to nowhere. That's eighty billion dollars over budget. That's
(12:33):
from Bakersfield to mercet Your audience doesn't know where Bakersfield
and Mercet is. I live in California. I don't know
where Bakersfield in Mercet is.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
I've been to Bakersfield in the business conference I used
to have out there. I spoke there many times, but
I do know where Bakersfield is. But you're right, what's
the point.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Said from Bakersfield?
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Not really? No, I mean you could drive.
Speaker 4 (12:59):
What's the point pointed toward mercaid?
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, to get an auto drive and you're on your way.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Look, I don't mean to laugh at all about this,
because there's nothing funny about it. But you know, if
you look at it and you stand back big picture,
there is this sort of intersection between environmental radicalism and
radical socialism, status and Marxism, whatever you want to call it.
And it's kind of summed up in the Green New Deal,
(13:28):
and it's kind of being implemented and test run out
where you live in California. And while you stay out there,
I don't know. And this is exactly what was on
the line I think in this past election, and America
thankfully rejected it. But you know, there's still a fairly
healthy percentage of the American people that bought into this crop.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Well, I don't think what they don't know what the
people that bought into it, They bought into windmills and
solar and clean renewables and blue skies and clean water.
People are nielis I think they want it all to go.
I don't think, you know, it's not that they want
clean air. They don't want you to have a car.
(14:08):
It's not that you need to have an electric car.
They don't want you to have any car. Like, what
they don't realize is the endgame. The Coastal Commission is
not interested in protecting the coast. They're interested in getting
human beings off the coade. What is the endgame? Like,
we have road dives in Los Angeles, right. They take
two highway lanes and they shrink them down to one
(14:31):
and they make the other one for cyclists, for bicycles.
But nobody has a bicycle. You can't use a bicycle
to get anywhere. You can't cycle to work in Los Angeles.
So what are they doing? Do they love the environment,
do they love cyclists? Or are they trying to get
you out of your car. They won't say what they're
trying to do, but that's what they're trying to do.
(14:51):
That's what the endgame is. And I think the Green
New Deal people the endgame is to get rid of you,
not to clean up the environm.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
But of course we're the ones, you know, we're pillaging
the Earth for profit and they do want you know,
equality as kammalis as an equal justice and diversity, equity
and inclusion. Anyway, my prayers do go out to the
people of California. I don't know why you stay out there.
I would imagine that you're going to make the move
within the next five years. There's my prediction.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
I mean know, if I'm right, I got laying in Nevada.
I'm looking at it right now.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
I don't blame you anyway, Adam Corolla. Prayers for your
friends don't have survivors guilt. You can help people out
in ways that you can't imagine. Do a big comedy show.
I'll come out there and say Hi, thank you, my friend.
Hi twenty five now to the top of the hour.
Toll free are number if you want to be a
part of the program. Eight hundred ninety four one, Shawn
on this Friday. So, I mean sort of anti climatic.
(15:51):
I believe that with all my heart. I think it's
a certainty I'm ninety nine point nine percent that this
case will be overthrown on appeal. But regardless, I mean
to get there the little pound of flesh and to
be able to you know, tattoo the name convicted Felon
onto Donald Trump's forehead, which it has no impact on people.
(16:14):
If it was going to have an impact, it would
have had an impact on the election. So it's somewhat
meaningless anti climatic in so many ways. And as Judge
Juan Mershawn sentenced President elect Donald Trump to this unconditional
discharge for his conviction for the quote falsification of business records.
And you know, it really is remarkable that, you know,
(16:39):
as Donald Trump said, he actually said, I'm being I'm
getting indicted for calling a legal expense illegal expense.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
And that's what it was.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
An NDA is a perfectly legal maneuver that happens all
the time. I'd bet everything I had that the DA's
office of Alvin Bragg probably if you went through the records,
has hundreds of them over the years, even before his tenure. Anyway,
here's what Donald Trump said about it.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
They're saying, I just noticed where he said I was
falsifying business records. Well, the falsification of business records, as
they said, was calling a legal expense in the books
where everybody could see them, a legal expense, in other words,
a legal fees or a legal expense. Were put down
as legal expense by accountants, and they weren't put down
(17:28):
by me. They were put down by accountants. I didn't
call them construction, concrete work. I didn't call them electrical work.
I didn't call them any They called a legal fee
or a legal expense, a legal expense. And for this
I got indicting.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
It's incredible, and he's absolutely right.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
I mean, in the saddest part of all of this,
it was a novel legal theory. The statute of limitations
had run out in this case. They did, you know,
they stacked the charges to make it in one charge,
basically thirty four charges.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
You know, claim this to be justice.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
It really was a federal matter, and I think at
the end of the day that they never got to
the issue at hand in terms of the appeal. We'll
ask our attorneys on our legal panel in just a
second here, But I think it was very very obvious
that they in my view, that they could have argued
something very differently when they went to the Supreme Court.
(18:24):
But that's a different issue for a different day. But
you know, I think the supremacy clause would have been
more applicable myself rather than the process that they went through.
Here's Donald Trump saying that this was a political witch hunt.
This was to damage his reputation so he wouldn't run
for president. They didn't do this until after he announced
(18:46):
he was running for president and then claimed his innocence.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
It's been a political witch hunt. It was done to
damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And
obviously that didn't work. People of our country got to
see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom.
They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted,
and I won and got the largest number of votes
by far, of any Republican candidate in history, and one,
(19:15):
as you know, all seven swing states, one conclusively, all
seven swing states, and one the popularity the popular vote
by millions and millions of votes. And they've been watching
you trial, so they understood it. But the fact is
that I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talked
(19:37):
about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted.
I had nothing to do with them. Any of that
was done by an accountant or a bookkeeper who I
think a very credible testimony, and was corroborated by everybody
that was asked. And with all that's happening in our
country today, with a city that's burning to the around
(20:00):
one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground,
with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of
the problems of inflation and attacks on countries, and all
of the horrible things that are going on. I got
indicted over calling a legal expense. I llegal expense. It
(20:20):
was called a legal expense. I just want to say,
I think it's an embarrassment to New York, and New
York has a lot of problems, but this is a
great embarrassment.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
And the president is one thousand percent right. Here's Jan
Mershawn talking about the hush money case. Both extraordinary and ordinary.
Speaker 6 (20:39):
Never before has this court been presented with such a
unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it could be
viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case.
There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security
involving various agencies. And yet the trial was a bit
(21:03):
of a paradox because once the courtroom doors were closed,
the trial itself was no more special unique or extraordinary
than the other thirty two criminal trials that took place
in this courthouse at the same exact time. Jury selection
was conducted. The same rules of evidence were followed, opening
(21:25):
statements were made, witnesses called and cross examined, evidence presented,
some nations delivered, the same burden of proof was applied,
and the jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict.
And it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of
procedure and guided.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
By the law.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Ordinary citizens in a part of the country where Democrats
outnumber Republicans and Trump hatred is that the probably the
pinnacle in the entire country anyway. To analyze all of this,
our legal panel, Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal analyst, best
selling author, David Shoon, civil rights attorney. Welcome both of
(22:08):
you back to the program, and Greg start with you.
This is a case that never should have been tried
before a very biased jury with a novel legal theory,
after the statute of limitations had run out.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
And then you have the added burden of.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
An immunity decision by the US Supreme Court that just
didn't move, a judge that was abusively biased towards Trump.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
The whole way.
Speaker 7 (22:31):
Yeah, there's a veritable Morgas board of reversible errors made
by the judge, a principle among them. As you just
pointed out, the teenage evidence that's prohibited by the presidential
immunity standard enunciated by the Supreme Court on July first,
testimony from White House officials, numerous presidential records should never
(22:56):
have been introduced. But Judge one Sean just you know,
disregarded all of it, insisting that, oh well, that evidence
was really quite trifling, even though prosecutors emphasized it during
closing arguments to the jury, it was certainly important to them.
(23:17):
You know. Overall, Braggs convoluted incoherent legal theory was really
theater of the absurd. And I had to laugh today.
You know, the prosecutor Stenglass condemning Donald Trump, and you know,
using the kind of descriptive language that's normally reserved for
(23:38):
serial killers, not somebody convicted of a book keeping error.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
By the way, this is not a city that takes
crime seriously. Look at the Daniel Penny case. Look at
the case of this guy that stabbed two people, but
a couple of weekend ago on a subway that had
eighty seven prior arrest.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
That was still all the street. So this is a joke.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
This was a legal nondisclosure agreement put together by an
attorney identified as such in their bookkeeping, and the statute
of limitations had run out. Anyway, how did this become
a federal crime to begin with.
Speaker 7 (24:15):
Well, it's impossible. A state or local official is not
allowed to bring a campaign finance prosecution. That's the exclusive
authority of the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission,
both of which looked at this case and said there's
no there there, No crimes were committed, mostly because the
(24:40):
money given to Stormy Daniels did not constitute a campaign contribution. So,
you know, case over. But this DA decided to resurrect
from the dead, you know, expired misdemeanors and morphed them
into these phantom felonies. And as I said, hey, this
(25:00):
was theater of the absurd.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
It really was, David Shan let's get your take on
all of us.
Speaker 8 (25:06):
Well, while jose Mara Shawn has said that the same
thing happened in thirty two other trials at the same
time this was going on, God help us, that's true.
If they had anything like him as a judge and
any of the other trials, we're in big trouble. And
if he made as those other judges made many mistakes,
we're in worse trouble. The idea that you know this
didn't impact the election, I think it did impact the election.
(25:28):
I think the American people are fair minded and they
saw this for what it was, and I think that
boosted President Trump in the election. You're right about the
federal crime issue, but I don't even think you get there.
I think that's a secondary argument, because the fundamental problem
with this case is the jury was the defendant was
never told what he was charged with, and the jury
was never told what he was charged with. You have
(25:49):
no idea what they found he did is the purpose
for a falsified so called falsifying business records. Remember quickly,
one seventy five point oh five makes it a misdemeanor
to falsify business records. One seventy five to ten could
a felony if you did it to commit or conceal
another crime they never identify with that other crime is
violates the New York Constitution, the Federal Constitution. New York
Statute two hundred point fifty. In the penal law, you
(26:11):
can't defend against the case if you don't know what
you did. So the prosecution gave the judge three or
four choices in a letter they wrote, and the judge said, well,
that's fine, we don't have to identify the crime. So
it could have been falsifying business records for tax purposes,
for election fraud, purposes to boost an election, purposes otherwise
affect it, and so on. We have no idea. And
he refused to charge the jury on any express crime.
(26:33):
He couldn't have at that point. It would have been
too late. It has to be reversed on those grams alone.
But besides that, you have evid entry problems from the
Weinstein case alone. You know that the when President Trump
wanted to testify, the judge said he would open up
the door to all kinds of extraneous things that the
court in the Weinstein case when they reversed Harvey Weinstein's conviction,
said you can't possibly do and they move from Trump
(26:55):
moved from mistrial the time, and that's preserved. So there's
so many issues in this case. It will be reversed.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Well, the is there a silver lighting here? Greg Jarrett
and as much as now Marshawn is off the case
and this will be brought all these issues will be
brought up on appeal. And had he not been sentenced,
maybe that appeal process would have installed until he got
out of office.
Speaker 7 (27:18):
Yeah, that's the real benefit for Trump. He can now
in earnest appeal all of the mistakes and reversible errors
that were made at trial. And I agree with David
that this is you know, this is a conviction that
will not last. I guarantee at one hundred percent it'll
(27:41):
be overturned on appeal because of all of the prejudicial,
inadmissible evidence that the jurors were allowed to listen to
in a legal theory that is so utterly incoherent and
incomprehensible that you know, in my forty five yours as
a lawyer, I can't make sense of it. I don't
(28:03):
understand it. I don't know what Trump was convicted of.
Such an egregious mistake by the judge to tell the
Jersey you don't have to identify the underlying crime, and
you don't even have to agree unanimously, So nobody knows
what a violation of a bedrock constitutional principle repeatedly reiterated
(28:27):
by the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
All Right, quick break more with our legal panel on
this anti climatic sentencing of Donald Trump today. I'm certain
it will be overturned by a higher court. At least
it's finally out of Juan Mershan's abusively biased, corrupt courtroom.
We continue with David Joan and Greg Jarrett on the
other side.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
Straight ahead, the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show
was up next.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Hang on for Sean's conservative solution.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
All right, we continue the anti climatic ruling and sentencing,
which is a non sentence by Juan Mershan, with our
legal panel, Greg Jarrett and David Shona with us. I'm
sure this will be overturned on appeal. Mark Levin was
was a big advocate that the argument should have been
brought to the Supreme Court a lot sooner, David shown,
(29:28):
and it should have been brought on the supremacy clause,
and how this was a federal issue and this novel
legal theory didn't you know, had no standing at all whatsoever,
and in Alvin Bragg's jurisdiction, and more importantly, you know
that this was a case about election interference and had
nothing to do with the rule of law. Would there
(29:48):
have been a better argument before the Supreme Court because
I would assume at some point it may be back there.
Speaker 8 (29:54):
Yes, he is right, and you know, there's a principle
also that this immunity issue that we're talking about here
is a very special kind of immunity and it's a
federal question. It's a constitutional issue. It's a federal question.
There is a principle of law that New York has
recognized and many states have recognized that when there's a
federal immunity type issue there, we apply federal rules, and
federal rules would have required a state to be imposed
(30:17):
here the invocation of a Supreme Court called Johnson versus
Shan Kelvin says state's not required to do that, but
New York State has sat in an opinion or two
that that's an appropriate way to handle the case. I
also think they made a mistake in the Supreme Court
by focusing on this presidential transition period. There's very little
or no authority about what the rights are during that period.
(30:37):
The problem here is by entering the conviction, they've done
exactly what the OLC opinion in two thousand said, as
the basis for giving immunity, that is, this creates a
stigma hanging over the head of the president, and it's
a distraction while he's in office, not just the transition period.
But you're right, John, you asked a good question. We
always ask good questions, but one you asked earlier was
(30:58):
is there a silver lining? That's right, he had a
choice to make it. The president was right to try
to litigate the immunity issue. First. It's a narrow issue,
but to me, it's a huge bonus. Now he gets
to finally appeal, put all of this thing to bed,
throw it out, and get it overturned on the real
issues in the case.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
I appreciate both of you, thanks for being one of us.
Eight hundred and nine to four one. Shawn is on number.
If you want to be a part of the program,
we'll see what happens. I do think that the silver
lining will come into play a lot sooner than many
people think. David Showing, Greg Jarrett, we always appreciate you
being one of us.
All right, thanks Scott Shan an hour two Sean Hannedy's
show Toll Free, It is eight hundred and nine to
four one, Shawn, if you want to be a part
of the program. A couple of nights ago, when I
had comedian Adam Carolla on my TV show, it was
up in the air. He didn't know whether his house
would survive the wildfires. Thank God, for his sake, he
(00:22):
was not one of the thousands and thousands of victims
that lost their homes that have had their entire lives
not a pun.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Intend to go up and smoke.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
A lot of this, if not most of it completely preventable,
and anyway, he talked at it on his own show
at length about you know, there will be more people
in winne Bagos that will be on the Pacific Coast
Highway before Hollywood elites ever returned to their homes because
of the permitting process, which is formidable. Jillian Michaels brought
(00:55):
this up on TV and on radio yesterday in California.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Listen already on.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
A happy note, I guess all the win of bagos
that were parked up and down pch where they're cooking
out of those things surely are gone. They'll be the
first ones back. The comedy is the guys who lost
their twenty million dollar homes on the ocean side of
PCH will be knee deep in the permit process. They
(01:25):
will be trying to pull permits when the guys in
the Winnebagos will have been back for months, months before
those guys ever get a permit. As a matter of fact,
Alan Hamill and Suzanne Summers moved because they could not
get a permit to rebuild their home of forty years
on the ocean on PCH. You know how Bill Maher
(01:47):
seems real conservative now when he's like arguing with Jane
Fonda about regulations, too many regulations, like strangling everything. Because
remember when Bill Maher tried to put solar in his
house in Beverly Hills. That's when he turned against the
government because he saw what the government and the overreach
of government and overregulation does.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Now he's not wrong.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
By the way, if you don't live in California, you
may not know PCH is the Pacific Coast Highway if
you've never driven it from northern California all the way
down to southern California. It is one of the most spectacular, picturesque,
beautiful drives you'll ever go on in your life. It's
unbelievably stunning. Then he predicted that these wildfires will convert Democrats,
(02:32):
and he's going to join us in a minute after
evacuating their homes. I'm not sure I agree with them
on this part.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
But listen, you guys all voted for Karen Bass, the
mayor of Los Angeles.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
You all voted for Gavenusom, and.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Now you get what you get. Oh, now that your
house is on fire, well, now you're thinking about something else.
Now you want to know what's going on, what's going
on around here. You didn't give a shit about what
was going on when other people's houses were on fire,
but now you can. So here's what's gonna happen. All
these people who were deep blue Democrats are now going
(03:08):
to have to pull a permit to rebuild, and they're
gonna get the twenty eight year old from the Coastal
Commission telling them to go fifth off, and then they're
going to vote for Trump or whoever's Trump being next.
You see, they're gonna.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Get turned all right. So Adam Carroll joins us.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Now when I last spoke to you, you aren't sure
if your house is gonna survive. I mean, I assume
a lot of homes around where you live burned to
the ground like so many others. And what you were saying,
by the way, about the permit process is dead on accurate.
Jillian Michaels, I think it was. Back in twenty eighteen,
lost a home and it took well over a year
(03:46):
to begin to get the permits needed to rebuild. It's insane.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Yeah, like I said, Alan ham On Suzanne Summer's Alan
and Suzanne Summer's husband, a good friends loved Alan told
me at dinner, took him seven years. It was a
seven year process. They finally they finally popped it in
and they moved to Palm Springs because the Coastal Commission
would not let them rebuild where their home formally stood.
(04:16):
So it's a big deal. I was a builder, Sean,
you know, a contractor. I've been dealing with these people
since my early twenties, so I've been screaming about this
for a million years. But these folks, like Jane Konda especially,
they have no idea. They've never pulled a permit, they've
never dealt with this city. They've never dealt with the
(04:36):
Coastal Commission. So when they do, that's when they start
turning the corner and they start thinking like us. Now,
obviously they're not all going to vote Republican the next
time around, which you can bet that they're going to
take a real good look at the next Gavin Newsome
(04:57):
character who comes down the pike.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Well, we already know who that is. That's going to
be Kamala Harris, right right, Yes.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
That's true, that's true. And and look, this is no
different than a sanctuary city. Remember all the blue cities
New York City, they all loved the sanctuary city that
patted themselves on the back and they celebrated the fact
that they were heroes because they were sanctuary city. But
when the first bustloads of migrants started getting dropped off
(05:28):
in their slanky neighborhoods, what did they do? They started screaming,
where's the government? What's going on? We didn't sign up
for this. That's what's going to happen with the rebuilding process.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
I really have got a wonder And if you look
at everything that we've learned since you know this, this
tragedy happened and it is a tragedy. And I honestly,
with all my heart, and I don't care what your
politics are, I really feel awful for the people of
la I mean, they're now going to have to try
and rebuild their lives. But when you learn that the
(06:02):
science of forestry and you can get degrees from big universities.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
I've actually listed them on this program.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Auburn, University of Florida, NC State University at Georgia. I
can go on for you know, twenty minutes here and
talk about it. You can get it out at the
University of California. I think Davis has a forestry program
and you can get a degree in that. And there
are legitimate criticisms here. You know, why weren't the hydrants working?
(06:30):
Let's start with that. You know, we learned also this
morning that in fact, in the Pacific Palisades that the
reservoir was freaking empty. I mean, how is that possible?
Avin Newsom doesn't like criticism, but his answer that this
is a local issue. Why these hydrants weren't designed for
wildfires in a state that's known for wildfires and Santa
(06:53):
Ana wins. How does that make any sense to you?
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Well, first, just the notion.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
By the way, he's just sipping on Vodkas. Not a
big deal of It's a little early in California, but
it's fine.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I'm kidding anything to take the ad job. Sehan come on,
by the.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Way, at this point in dime, I think anybody in
LA has every right to do whatever they want.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
Oh my god, well I'm in Vegas, so I just
took off. I can't get back to my place in Malibu.
I just found out it was at a one piece. The
restaurant in front of it is gone. In the entire
Pacific Coast Highway, every house on it in front of
me is gone, and I mean for a mile. The
(07:37):
devastation is beyond the script. We're talking about multimillion dollar
homes and not three million dollar homes. Twenty five million
dollar homes all gone for far.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Why do you think your house survived?
Speaker 1 (07:50):
We had Caitlin Jenner call on the other day and
Caitlin fireproof the outside of her home, which I thought
was brilliant on her part. And when Malibu burn the
last time, her house didn't burn.
Speaker 4 (08:03):
You know, the only theme, as an X contractor I
can see is the more modern homes with the stucco
and the cement facades with the steel and aluminum windows
and steel roofs, those fared much better than anything traditional
with wood eves, you know, shake roof, you know, wood
(08:26):
trim and molding. All the traditional type homes, the ranch
style homes one up immediately. The more contemporary modern homes
stood a much better chance. But still we're going to
burn to the ground if everything was on file. So
you will see weird pockets just like you do in
(08:47):
every fire, just like you do in tornadoes, where you
see the house to the right is gone, the house
to the left is gone, and the one in the
middle seems completely untouched. That's what just happened to my home.
And I'm happy. But I have obviously survivor's guilt now
because of so many friends, and I know a.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Guy who had I don't think you need to have
survivor Why would you have survivors guilt? I mean, if
you know it gives you an opportunity with your platform,
I mean, if you want to help people out that
are really desperate and maybe fight for regulations and Sacramento
to move the process so these people can rebuild their
lives in a reasonable period of time, by the way,
(09:29):
if they even have insurance, and a lot of the
insurance companies pulled out because they knew that this was
a likely a likelihood. State Farm pulled out. They pulled
out big time in the last year and a half.
And they did so because they knew that this would happen.
They knew that California wasn't prepared and that should have
been the Canary and the coal mine.
Speaker 4 (09:50):
Yeah, I mean, look, I would liken it to this.
You know, Gavin knew some once to talk about, you know,
climate change and all that lefs and all the Blues
want to blame climate change. Okay, it's here. We're not
going to get rid of it by having electric leaf
blowers and converting to electric cars by two thousand and thirty.
(10:14):
As long as China is, as long as India is
crapping out coal mines, then we're not going to be
able to move the needle on this. But what are
you going to do about it? Remember? New Orleans is
under sea level, so you have to build sea walls.
And if the Army Corp of Engineers builds a good seawall,
then the people in New Orleans will not flood. So
(10:36):
we need to take our technology and steer it toward
these problems. Instead of sit around and point fingers and
complain about climate change, how about you do something. Let's
just say it is climate change. Good. Now, what are
we going to do?
Speaker 2 (10:51):
All right?
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Quick break, We'll have more with Adam Corolo than your
calls on the other side. Eight hundred and nine to
four one sewn our number as we continue this Friday, Right,
we continue now with Adam Corolla. His house did survive,
pretty much every house around him did not survive. You know,
the LAFD Fire Apartment, their budget is slashed, but they
(11:13):
have six hundred and fifty million allocated for the LA
port to Go green federal state dollars, eight hundred thousand
dollars green street sweepers.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Whatever the hell that is.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Why would you pay that amount of money for that
but not pay firefighters. Then they have, you know, billions
of dollars allocated for wind turbines. And meanwhile, I bet
how much do you pay for a gallon of gasoline
where you are? Because I guarantee you I pay.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
About half fifty five to seventy five.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I mean I pay.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
About three dollars a gallon now in the free state
of Florida three dollars a gallon. Can you explain that
there's no income tax in my state?
Speaker 2 (11:48):
None?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Well, according to Gavin Newsome, all the major oil companies
only gouge California. They don't gouge any other state. So
this is all because of greed oil companies who.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Just they're suing the oil companies and guess what they're
going to hire very expensive attorneys and guess what these
companies will do. They'll raise the price of a gallon
of gasoline to offset that.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
Well, there's another price height coming soon because he already
agreed to that a couple of months ago. So we're
going to get above six dollars a gallon. Yes, it's
gross and confidence. I mean, of course you know it, Sean,
and you brought it up. But we have our bullet
train to nowhere. That's eighty billion dollars over budget. That's
(12:33):
from Bakersfield to mercet Your audience doesn't know where Bakersfield
and Mercet is. I live in California. I don't know
where Bakersfield in Mercet is.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
I've been to Bakersfield in the business conference I used
to have out there. I spoke there many times, but
I do know where Bakersfield is. But you're right, what's
the point.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Said from Bakersfield?
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Not really? No, I mean you could drive.
Speaker 4 (12:59):
What's the point pointed toward mercaid?
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, to get an auto drive and you're on your way.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Look, I don't mean to laugh at all about this,
because there's nothing funny about it. But you know, if
you look at it and you stand back big picture,
there is this sort of intersection between environmental radicalism and
radical socialism, status and Marxism, whatever you want to call it.
And it's kind of summed up in the Green New Deal,
(13:28):
and it's kind of being implemented and test run out
where you live in California. And while you stay out there,
I don't know. And this is exactly what was on
the line I think in this past election, and America
thankfully rejected it. But you know, there's still a fairly
healthy percentage of the American people that bought into this crop.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Well, I don't think what they don't know what the
people that bought into it, They bought into windmills and
solar and clean renewables and blue skies and clean water.
People are nielis I think they want it all to go.
I don't think, you know, it's not that they want
clean air. They don't want you to have a car.
(14:08):
It's not that you need to have an electric car.
They don't want you to have any car. Like, what
they don't realize is the endgame. The Coastal Commission is
not interested in protecting the coast. They're interested in getting
human beings off the coade. What is the endgame? Like,
we have road dives in Los Angeles, right. They take
two highway lanes and they shrink them down to one
(14:31):
and they make the other one for cyclists, for bicycles.
But nobody has a bicycle. You can't use a bicycle
to get anywhere. You can't cycle to work in Los Angeles.
So what are they doing? Do they love the environment,
do they love cyclists? Or are they trying to get
you out of your car. They won't say what they're
trying to do, but that's what they're trying to do.
(14:51):
That's what the endgame is. And I think the Green
New Deal people the endgame is to get rid of you,
not to clean up the environm.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
But of course we're the ones, you know, we're pillaging
the Earth for profit and they do want you know,
equality as kammalis as an equal justice and diversity, equity
and inclusion. Anyway, my prayers do go out to the
people of California. I don't know why you stay out there.
I would imagine that you're going to make the move
within the next five years. There's my prediction.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
I mean know, if I'm right, I got laying in Nevada.
I'm looking at it right now.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
I don't blame you anyway, Adam Corolla. Prayers for your
friends don't have survivors guilt. You can help people out
in ways that you can't imagine. Do a big comedy show.
I'll come out there and say Hi, thank you, my friend.
Hi twenty five now to the top of the hour.
Toll free are number if you want to be a
part of the program. Eight hundred ninety four one, Shawn
on this Friday. So, I mean sort of anti climatic.
(15:51):
I believe that with all my heart. I think it's
a certainty I'm ninety nine point nine percent that this
case will be overthrown on appeal. But regardless, I mean
to get there the little pound of flesh and to
be able to you know, tattoo the name convicted Felon
onto Donald Trump's forehead, which it has no impact on people.
(16:14):
If it was going to have an impact, it would
have had an impact on the election. So it's somewhat
meaningless anti climatic in so many ways. And as Judge
Juan Mershawn sentenced President elect Donald Trump to this unconditional
discharge for his conviction for the quote falsification of business records.
And you know, it really is remarkable that, you know,
(16:39):
as Donald Trump said, he actually said, I'm being I'm
getting indicted for calling a legal expense illegal expense.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
And that's what it was.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
An NDA is a perfectly legal maneuver that happens all
the time. I'd bet everything I had that the DA's
office of Alvin Bragg probably if you went through the records,
has hundreds of them over the years, even before his tenure. Anyway,
here's what Donald Trump said about it.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
They're saying, I just noticed where he said I was
falsifying business records. Well, the falsification of business records, as
they said, was calling a legal expense in the books
where everybody could see them, a legal expense, in other words,
a legal fees or a legal expense. Were put down
as legal expense by accountants, and they weren't put down
(17:28):
by me. They were put down by accountants. I didn't
call them construction, concrete work. I didn't call them electrical work.
I didn't call them any They called a legal fee
or a legal expense, a legal expense. And for this
I got indicting.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
It's incredible, and he's absolutely right.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
I mean, in the saddest part of all of this,
it was a novel legal theory. The statute of limitations
had run out in this case. They did, you know,
they stacked the charges to make it in one charge,
basically thirty four charges.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
You know, claim this to be justice.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
It really was a federal matter, and I think at
the end of the day that they never got to
the issue at hand in terms of the appeal. We'll
ask our attorneys on our legal panel in just a
second here, But I think it was very very obvious
that they in my view, that they could have argued
something very differently when they went to the Supreme Court.
(18:24):
But that's a different issue for a different day. But
you know, I think the supremacy clause would have been
more applicable myself rather than the process that they went through.
Here's Donald Trump saying that this was a political witch hunt.
This was to damage his reputation so he wouldn't run
for president. They didn't do this until after he announced
(18:46):
he was running for president and then claimed his innocence.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
It's been a political witch hunt. It was done to
damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And
obviously that didn't work. People of our country got to
see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom.
They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted,
and I won and got the largest number of votes
by far, of any Republican candidate in history, and one,
(19:15):
as you know, all seven swing states, one conclusively, all
seven swing states, and one the popularity the popular vote
by millions and millions of votes. And they've been watching
you trial, so they understood it. But the fact is
that I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talked
(19:37):
about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted.
I had nothing to do with them. Any of that
was done by an accountant or a bookkeeper who I
think a very credible testimony, and was corroborated by everybody
that was asked. And with all that's happening in our
country today, with a city that's burning to the around
(20:00):
one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground,
with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of
the problems of inflation and attacks on countries, and all
of the horrible things that are going on. I got
indicted over calling a legal expense. I llegal expense. It
(20:20):
was called a legal expense. I just want to say,
I think it's an embarrassment to New York, and New
York has a lot of problems, but this is a
great embarrassment.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
And the president is one thousand percent right. Here's Jan
Mershawn talking about the hush money case. Both extraordinary and ordinary.
Speaker 6 (20:39):
Never before has this court been presented with such a
unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it could be
viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case.
There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security
involving various agencies. And yet the trial was a bit
(21:03):
of a paradox because once the courtroom doors were closed,
the trial itself was no more special unique or extraordinary
than the other thirty two criminal trials that took place
in this courthouse at the same exact time. Jury selection
was conducted. The same rules of evidence were followed, opening
(21:25):
statements were made, witnesses called and cross examined, evidence presented,
some nations delivered, the same burden of proof was applied,
and the jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict.
And it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of
procedure and guided.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
By the law.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Ordinary citizens in a part of the country where Democrats
outnumber Republicans and Trump hatred is that the probably the
pinnacle in the entire country anyway. To analyze all of this,
our legal panel, Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal analyst, best
selling author, David Shoon, civil rights attorney. Welcome both of
(22:08):
you back to the program, and Greg start with you.
This is a case that never should have been tried
before a very biased jury with a novel legal theory,
after the statute of limitations had run out.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
And then you have the added burden of.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
An immunity decision by the US Supreme Court that just
didn't move, a judge that was abusively biased towards Trump.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
The whole way.
Speaker 7 (22:31):
Yeah, there's a veritable Morgas board of reversible errors made
by the judge, a principle among them. As you just
pointed out, the teenage evidence that's prohibited by the presidential
immunity standard enunciated by the Supreme Court on July first,
testimony from White House officials, numerous presidential records should never
(22:56):
have been introduced. But Judge one Sean just you know,
disregarded all of it, insisting that, oh well, that evidence
was really quite trifling, even though prosecutors emphasized it during
closing arguments to the jury, it was certainly important to them.
(23:17):
You know. Overall, Braggs convoluted incoherent legal theory was really
theater of the absurd. And I had to laugh today.
You know, the prosecutor Stenglass condemning Donald Trump, and you know,
using the kind of descriptive language that's normally reserved for
(23:38):
serial killers, not somebody convicted of a book keeping error.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
By the way, this is not a city that takes
crime seriously. Look at the Daniel Penny case. Look at
the case of this guy that stabbed two people, but
a couple of weekend ago on a subway that had
eighty seven prior arrest.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
That was still all the street. So this is a joke.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
This was a legal nondisclosure agreement put together by an
attorney identified as such in their bookkeeping, and the statute
of limitations had run out. Anyway, how did this become
a federal crime to begin with.
Speaker 7 (24:15):
Well, it's impossible. A state or local official is not
allowed to bring a campaign finance prosecution. That's the exclusive
authority of the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission,
both of which looked at this case and said there's
no there there, No crimes were committed, mostly because the
(24:40):
money given to Stormy Daniels did not constitute a campaign contribution. So,
you know, case over. But this DA decided to resurrect
from the dead, you know, expired misdemeanors and morphed them
into these phantom felonies. And as I said, hey, this
(25:00):
was theater of the absurd.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
It really was, David Shan let's get your take on
all of us.
Speaker 8 (25:06):
Well, while jose Mara Shawn has said that the same
thing happened in thirty two other trials at the same
time this was going on, God help us, that's true.
If they had anything like him as a judge and
any of the other trials, we're in big trouble. And
if he made as those other judges made many mistakes,
we're in worse trouble. The idea that you know this
didn't impact the election, I think it did impact the election.
(25:28):
I think the American people are fair minded and they
saw this for what it was, and I think that
boosted President Trump in the election. You're right about the
federal crime issue, but I don't even think you get there.
I think that's a secondary argument, because the fundamental problem
with this case is the jury was the defendant was
never told what he was charged with, and the jury
was never told what he was charged with. You have
(25:49):
no idea what they found he did is the purpose
for a falsified so called falsifying business records. Remember quickly,
one seventy five point oh five makes it a misdemeanor
to falsify business records. One seventy five to ten could
a felony if you did it to commit or conceal
another crime they never identify with that other crime is
violates the New York Constitution, the Federal Constitution. New York
Statute two hundred point fifty. In the penal law, you
(26:11):
can't defend against the case if you don't know what
you did. So the prosecution gave the judge three or
four choices in a letter they wrote, and the judge said, well,
that's fine, we don't have to identify the crime. So
it could have been falsifying business records for tax purposes,
for election fraud, purposes to boost an election, purposes otherwise
affect it, and so on. We have no idea. And
he refused to charge the jury on any express crime.
(26:33):
He couldn't have at that point. It would have been
too late. It has to be reversed on those grams alone.
But besides that, you have evid entry problems from the
Weinstein case alone. You know that the when President Trump
wanted to testify, the judge said he would open up
the door to all kinds of extraneous things that the
court in the Weinstein case when they reversed Harvey Weinstein's conviction,
said you can't possibly do and they move from Trump
(26:55):
moved from mistrial the time, and that's preserved. So there's
so many issues in this case. It will be reversed.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Well, the is there a silver lighting here? Greg Jarrett
and as much as now Marshawn is off the case
and this will be brought all these issues will be
brought up on appeal. And had he not been sentenced,
maybe that appeal process would have installed until he got
out of office.
Speaker 7 (27:18):
Yeah, that's the real benefit for Trump. He can now
in earnest appeal all of the mistakes and reversible errors
that were made at trial. And I agree with David
that this is you know, this is a conviction that
will not last. I guarantee at one hundred percent it'll
(27:41):
be overturned on appeal because of all of the prejudicial,
inadmissible evidence that the jurors were allowed to listen to
in a legal theory that is so utterly incoherent and
incomprehensible that you know, in my forty five yours as
a lawyer, I can't make sense of it. I don't
(28:03):
understand it. I don't know what Trump was convicted of.
Such an egregious mistake by the judge to tell the
Jersey you don't have to identify the underlying crime, and
you don't even have to agree unanimously, So nobody knows
what a violation of a bedrock constitutional principle repeatedly reiterated
(28:27):
by the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
All Right, quick break more with our legal panel on
this anti climatic sentencing of Donald Trump today. I'm certain
it will be overturned by a higher court. At least
it's finally out of Juan Mershan's abusively biased, corrupt courtroom.
We continue with David Joan and Greg Jarrett on the
other side.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
Straight ahead, the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show
was up next.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Hang on for Sean's conservative solution.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
All right, we continue the anti climatic ruling and sentencing,
which is a non sentence by Juan Mershan, with our
legal panel, Greg Jarrett and David Shona with us. I'm
sure this will be overturned on appeal. Mark Levin was
was a big advocate that the argument should have been
brought to the Supreme Court a lot sooner, David shown,
(29:28):
and it should have been brought on the supremacy clause,
and how this was a federal issue and this novel
legal theory didn't you know, had no standing at all whatsoever,
and in Alvin Bragg's jurisdiction, and more importantly, you know
that this was a case about election interference and had
nothing to do with the rule of law. Would there
(29:48):
have been a better argument before the Supreme Court because
I would assume at some point it may be back there.
Speaker 8 (29:54):
Yes, he is right, and you know, there's a principle
also that this immunity issue that we're talking about here
is a very special kind of immunity and it's a
federal question. It's a constitutional issue. It's a federal question.
There is a principle of law that New York has
recognized and many states have recognized that when there's a
federal immunity type issue there, we apply federal rules, and
federal rules would have required a state to be imposed
(30:17):
here the invocation of a Supreme Court called Johnson versus
Shan Kelvin says state's not required to do that, but
New York State has sat in an opinion or two
that that's an appropriate way to handle the case. I
also think they made a mistake in the Supreme Court
by focusing on this presidential transition period. There's very little
or no authority about what the rights are during that period.
(30:37):
The problem here is by entering the conviction, they've done
exactly what the OLC opinion in two thousand said, as
the basis for giving immunity, that is, this creates a
stigma hanging over the head of the president, and it's
a distraction while he's in office, not just the transition period.
But you're right, John, you asked a good question. We
always ask good questions, but one you asked earlier was
(30:58):
is there a silver lining? That's right, he had a
choice to make it. The president was right to try
to litigate the immunity issue. First. It's a narrow issue,
but to me, it's a huge bonus. Now he gets
to finally appeal, put all of this thing to bed,
throw it out, and get it overturned on the real
issues in the case.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
I appreciate both of you, thanks for being one of us.
Eight hundred and nine to four one. Shawn is on number.
If you want to be a part of the program,
we'll see what happens. I do think that the silver
lining will come into play a lot sooner than many
people think. David Showing, Greg Jarrett, we always appreciate you
being one of us.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Monster: BTK
'Monster: BTK', the newest installment in the 'Monster' franchise, reveals the true story of the Wichita, Kansas serial killer who murdered at least 10 people between 1974 and 1991. Known by the moniker, BTK – Bind Torture Kill, his notoriety was bolstered by the taunting letters he sent to police, and the chilling phone calls he made to media outlets. BTK's identity was finally revealed in 2005 to the shock of his family, his community, and the world. He was the serial killer next door. From Tenderfoot TV & iHeartPodcasts, this is 'Monster: BTK'.
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.