May 15, 2024 • 30 mins
Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, of NY’s 11th district which covers Staten Island and Southern Brooklyn, was in the courthouse yesterday during Cohen’s first day of testimony and discusses with us just how outrageous the entire hearing was from start to finish.
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):
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information overload. All right New's round up Information overload. Our
our toll free telephone number. You'll get to your calls later.
It's eight hundred and ninety four one Sean if you
want to be a part of the program. It's amazing
to even watch Fake News CNN Eli Hoenig saying the
entire prosecution witness team has been lied to by Michael Kohne.
(00:25):
And as you know, we've had cross examination this afternoon.
It's it's pretty interesting, you know, to watch. I think
they the prosecution purposely delayed the beginning of cross examination
to see at least get a preview of coming attractions
and just wanted to get an appetizer or taste of
what was going to probably be all day tomorrow. And
(00:46):
that's you know, heavy cross examination going right to the
heart of the credibility of of course Michael Cohne, who
really doesn't have much credibility. But anyway, here's what fake
News CNN even said about.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Here's what makes special Cohen so unusual, so unique. I've
never seen a witness with bigger credibility problems than Michael Cohen.
I've definitely seen witnesses. I've definitely used witnesses who've done
way worse things than Michael Cohen. But I've never seen
a witness who's lied to Congress, who's lied in court,
who's lied to the irs, who's lied to the Southern
District of New York, who lied to his banker. You know,
(01:20):
the entire prosecution witness team has been lied to by
Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Now Nicole mall o'takas commenting on this case, actually you know,
said the New York's Hush Bunny trial is a sham trial.
She's a congresswoman New York's eleventh district. She'll join us
in a minute, and she called the whole thing a sham.
Here's what she said.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
This is a sham trial. The people of America know
that it is a sham trial and is based on
a star witness that is a convicted, disbarred perjurer who
lied to Congress multiple times, has admitted to lying before Congress,
and has been convicted of lyne. What I'll say is
the people of the state of New York would wish
(02:03):
that Alvin Bragg, the district attorney who brought this case,
would focus on the actual crime that is taking place
in plaguing our city.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
All right.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
We have drug smugglers that are poisoning our children. We
have illegal immigrant gang members wreaking havoc in our city.
We see career criminals being released over and over again,
and we see a district attorney that reduces or drops
charges against the criminals who are plaguing New York. And
yet here you have a made up charge for something
(02:36):
that's not even within his jurisdiction. That the FEC has
said that there is no crime, that the DOJ has said.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
There is no crime, all right. Joining us now, she
is Congresswoman Nicole mali Otakas is with us, and she
has been following this case very closely. Congress Woman, this
is where we now find ourselves. You can beat the
hell out of police officers on but don't worry. You'll
be out of jail in an hour or two. You
can flip the bird to the people in New York
and then head off to the sanctuary state of California,
(03:08):
and I'm sure never to be seen or heard from
again in New York State.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
That's right, Sean. And the New Yorkers that I talked
to are angry. They are upset. They are furious that
they feel unsafe in their city. Many of my constituents
commute to Manhattan to work and they don't feel safe
riding the subway. They're concerned about illegal immigrant gang members
that have taken over the streets. They even had illegal
immigrants that murdered each other in New York City. And
(03:35):
we are trying to figure out watching this trial, what
is the evidence, what is the crime? Because I was
there yesterday with the star witness who is a convicted
disbarred perjurer who lied to Congress multiple times, is guilty
of that, convicted of that, and yet there was no
evidence that came out. There was no connection that Donald
(03:56):
Trump committed a crime. And so my constituents want to
know why we're wasting taxpayer money and resources to have
this case. Not to mention NYPD that has to be
at the courthouse for protection when they can be out
there making arrest of people who are actually committing crimes.
The revolving door that is New York City.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
All right, So, but that's the reality of where we
are now. Now. You represent, for example, part of southern
Brooklyn and Staten Island, and I think it would have
been a far more fair venue, at least a change
of venue to maybe Long Island, upstate New York or
Staten Island. I mean, it might have might have given
Trump a fighting chance. I just stand by my belief
(04:39):
that I don't believe in New York City, with the
demographics as they are, where you know, Democrats outnumber Republicans
nine to one, that he can get a fair jury
in New York City. I stand by that. I wish
I was wrong. I wish you weren't true. If you
look at this case, there's been no crime that has
been and you know, not even a crime fully identified,
(05:03):
to be honest. But if you're looking at, okay, a
book keeping error, Okay, well, if it's booked as a
legal fee, that seems appropriate considering. Michael Cohen admitted he
did the deal. He was Trump's quote fixer attorney, and
he paid the money. I know because I paid it.
He said, And meanwhile, you got a guy with zero
(05:23):
credibility on the stand, and yet here we find ourselves
and Trump's probably looking at a very abusively biased New
York liberal jury, you.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
Know, and looking at the jurors, I was thinking the
same thing. I mean, it's mostly young people, many women.
And this is a borough where eighty percent or so
voted against Donald Trump for president, So how can he
get a.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Fair It was way more than eighty percent. Go ahead, well,
I mean, and so.
Speaker 5 (05:50):
The question that becomes is there going to be a
direct avert from the judge?
Speaker 6 (05:54):
Is it?
Speaker 5 (05:54):
Is it going to have to go to Well?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Why would you expect a direct verdict from the judge
when the judge and the case donated to Biden. The
judges seemed hostile towards Donald Trump from day one with
his gag order for Trump. But Michael Cohne can go
on TikTok and ask for gifts and wear Donald Trump
in prison t shirts and pitch a reality show The Fixer,
(06:18):
and so on and so forth, I mean, obviously for
his own benefit. And by the way, if anybody probably
would benefit the most for Donald Trump not winning the election,
it might be him in light of the fact that
he's now facing new allegations of lying to Congress that
were referred to the Biden's weaponized DJ. But that DOJ
(06:39):
could change come January next year. But you got a guy,
disbarred lawyer Trump Peter released from prison multi year sentence,
tax evasion, bank fraud, convicted of lying to Congress after
lying under oath. More allegations pending, and I'm like, okay,
why would anybody believe a word he says, this is
(07:00):
their star witness. But he'll be calm as he's being
calm on the stand. Is they point out you're a liar,
You're a liar, you're lying. Now you're lying, then well.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
I think you're right. The star witness is a disaster.
But I think the case is so flawed that even CNN,
when you watch your legal experts are saying that there
is no crime here. This is a guy that's not trustworthy.
And so I have to believe, you know, in the courtroom,
when you're sitting there all day in this cold, dreary courtroom,
and you see on the wall it says in God
(07:29):
we trust, and part of me says, you know what,
sometimes you do need to turn over your battles. You
need to turn over your fights. And I do believe
that something's going to happen here with Donald Trump will
come out stronger and he will be vindicated in this.
And I have to believe that at my core, because
this is such an injustice showing my mother fled a
communist country. This is the type of stuff that my
(07:51):
mother fled. And you know, when I was speaking with
constituents that are Chinese Americans, they are immigrants from Albania,
from Egypt, and all of them are telling me the
same thing, that this is the stuff that they fled,
and they don't want to see it happening here, and
therefore they are supporting some Trump more than ever. And
(08:14):
I really believe that you're going to see the immigrant
communities come out strong for this president, strong for President
Trump because they don't want what their country's turned into
to happen here. And I just have that type of
faith at this moment. I will let you know that changes.
But I do believe that Something's going to happen here
where Trump will be vindicated and he will win this
(08:36):
president state.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
And I think, well, how is he going to be vindicated?
Let's assume a guilty verdict. Let's assume that my cynicism
is correct, that he can't get a fair trial in
New York and he's convicted, Okay, is he going to
get an expedited appeal hearing? And light of an uppending
election and light of a judge that was a Biden donor,
and light of this being a misdemeanor, who's statuted a
(08:59):
limits have passed, in light of the recused the issue
involving the judges family, in light of the fact that
they're using this novel application of the law to you know,
somehow turn this into a federal issue involving you know,
an election crime that's a felony, and yet that has
yet even to be outlined or explained to the jurors
(09:22):
at this late date.
Speaker 5 (09:23):
Well, look, we saw what happened with the Weinstein case, right,
it got overturned. I mean, and this is the interesting thing.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
About Yeah, but it's going to get overturned after the election,
is my point. I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
It may it may take into the election. But I
think again, I still believe that even with the conviction,
if it's unfair and people see it for what it is,
that he can still prevail. But if you believe that
at some point, look remember what happened to us New
York members in New York Court, right, they tried to
redraw all our lines the way that they tried to Jerrymander,
(09:54):
and we went and fought and we won in the
end of the day. And so I think in New
York it's interesting because you do have some of these
lower level judges that are corrupts, that are are totally politicized.
But when you reach the secondary court, I think you
have a much better shot of having a fair hearing.
And I think there's enough outrage from the public. And even,
(10:14):
like I said, these people who you would never think
legal experts for CNN siding with US, Alan Dershowitz, who
is voted for Biden siding with US. Every legal expert
is saying that there's no case here, and so I
think the judge really has got a So you want
to put his reputation on the line here, and just
(10:35):
for this.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Political I think the already crossed that threshold. Don't you
the fact that he was Usually they are chosen randomly. No,
he was selected for this case. Is that the usual practice, Congresswoman, Well, no.
Speaker 5 (10:53):
It's not. And that's why I say we have probably
a better shot when we get to the appellate court.
But I do believe that there's just no Look, he
would be ludicrous for this judge to convict. It would
be Now I can actually get more concerned about the
jury because the jury really I don't know how independent
these people could be talking about the makeup of the
political electorate in New York County. But I think that
(11:17):
if this judge wants to be an international laughing stock,
then he may move forward. But I think the support
that we've been showing him in court, the support that
the people have been showing for the president at the rallies,
the fact that the CNN legal experts are saying there's
nothing going on here. I think that gives the judge
some pause there. If he cares at all about his reputation,
(11:39):
he may have taken it this far. Let's see what happens.
Let's see what happens, because they just finished the star
witness and no evidence, no evidence came out, and that
has to give the judge some type of pause there
to say, am I really gonna put my reputation on
the line here and actually go forward with some type
of a conviction.
Speaker 7 (12:01):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (12:01):
I don't think. And let's see what jury instructions are.
I mean, in reality, I have no faith at all. Anyway,
we really appreciate you being here. Congresswoman Nicole Malia Takis,
thank you so much for being with us. She is
in New York's eleventh district. Thank you, congresswoman, appreciate you
being with us. All Right, we have our friend Liberal
(12:22):
Rob from the great state of Ohio. What's going on?
Liberal Rob? How are you? What's on your mind today?
Speaker 8 (12:28):
Taking my call? Listen. I wanted to talk about a
few different things, but obviously I'll keep it short. You
guys got to stop pretending that Donald is always an
innocent victim with every single thing that comes.
Speaker 9 (12:39):
Out negative about him.
Speaker 8 (12:40):
It just it sounds exhausting like the troal im.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Sorry, you're exhausted. Let me ask you a question. Tell
me what crime he's committed here.
Speaker 8 (12:50):
He's for falsifying business records. If you and I were
to falsify.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Slow down, is tell me the evidence that shows that
Donald Trump falsified any business record? So it was marked.
The bookkeeping was marked as a legal expense. Is paying
your lawyer Michael Cohene a legal expense or not?
Speaker 8 (13:09):
It is not when you're using it to reimburse something else.
It wasn't his salary.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Well whoa whoa, whoa whoa whoa. No, it's a legal expense.
I'm just asking you. Is is tell me what the
crime is.
Speaker 8 (13:20):
The crime is falsifying the legal expense. It wasn't a
legal expense. It was to pay off a porn star.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
So it was it was his lawyer coming into a
legal agreement with another party, which you do know is
not illegal. Right. You understand that that's not illegal.
Speaker 8 (13:36):
Right, And you understand though that the premise behind it, though,
is illegal. Is that he's information that No.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
No, no, You've got to be very clear here with
our audience. When you pay, when one law one person's
lawyer pays a amount of money for his services in costs,
including an NBA payment, that is a legal expense, and
it was entered in a ledger as a as a
(14:04):
legal business expense.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
That's not correct. That's not how you have to do
those things. If he's going to all.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Right, so then okay, let's say you're right, and that
would be under New York law a misdemeanor. How do
we get to a felony?
Speaker 8 (14:17):
Tell me that if you falsified business?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
No, no, no, Well, how come the Feds didn't try this?
And how come it's being tried in a New York
City courtroom in a district like New York? Why did
the Feds pass on charging Donald Trump on this? They
chose not to charge him with this. They looked at it,
and they didn't charge him.
Speaker 8 (14:37):
They charged Michael Cohen and then Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
No, no, no, no, no, no. Nice try. The New
York DA in this case has come up with a
novel application of law, which, by the way, you need
to show intent that Donald Trump intended to falsify records.
Where is the evidence that he intended to falsify records
when it's actually on tape. If you listen to the
(15:01):
tape played in court yesterday, it was very clear and
he said payment for what. You just want Donald Trump
in jail, and you want them off the campaign trail,
and you want them defeated, and you don't care how.
But I'm going to give you a few more minutes
on the other side, not very long, because there's only
so much patience I have. I'm going to be very
patient anyway, more with Liberal rob We'll get to your calls.
(15:22):
Eight hundred ninety four one Shawn. As we continue, I'm
twenty five to the top of the hour. Eight hundred
nine foot one Sean. If you want to join us,
more horrific economic news today, and these are tough economic
times for so many of you. One way you can
save a lot of money and not sacrifice service is
with my friends at pure talk. And once again they
invest in their customers out of their own pocket. They
(15:44):
give you more service and they don't charge you another penny.
And right now, friends at pure Talk, a veteran owned company,
are providing international roaming now to over fifty countries. So
as you plan your summer travel well, make sure you
covered at home and abroad. Remember Talk that use the
same exact five G network, the same exact cell towers
as the big carriers at and T, Verizon and T Mobile.
(16:07):
You can get a plan unlimited talk, unlimited text, plenty
of five G data. Get this just twenty bucks a month,
less than half the price for the exact same service
of the big carriers. How do you make the switch?
It's simple, it's fast, it's easy. Dial pound two to fifty,
say the keyword save now. He'll save an additional fifty
percent off your first month if you do it now.
(16:29):
Call now pound two to fifty. Join one hundreds of
thousands of us saving money for the exact same service
pound two fifty keyword save now from pure talk. All Right,
we go back to liberal rob He's in Ohio. All right,
so you think that Donald Trump's payment in this NDA
case is a crime, and you're going along with this
(16:51):
ridiculous novel application of the law. New York law, the
one that would be relevant, seventeen one to fifty two
would be a misdemeanor. The statute of limitations have passed.
I'm sure, by the way, you have no problem with
the fact that the judge was selected. There wasn't a pool,
and he was selected from a pool that he was
purposely selected. And I'm sure you have no problem at
(17:12):
all with the fact that he's a Biden donor? Do you?
Speaker 8 (17:16):
So you always say those things?
Speaker 1 (17:18):
I mean, I think, no, no, no. Do you have
a problem that he's a Biden donor. I don't have
a listen, I'm not going to waste a lot of time.
Do you have a problem that the judge, I do,
donated to Joe Biden in twenty twenty.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
I do it shows bias? I think you don't think
I'm a it does?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Okay, next question, do you have a problem with what
his daughter does for a living with the Democratic Party,
especially in light of New York laws and jurisdiction over
the issue of recusal. Do you think that he should
have recused himself.
Speaker 8 (17:49):
No, because my daughter and me have different, you know,
opinions on things, and whatever she thinks doesn't affect anything
that I do.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
But what about the issue of donating to Biden in
twenty twenty, you just admit it is prejudicial?
Speaker 7 (18:01):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Why so if you donate to Biden and you got
a case with Donald Trump, his political opponent, obviously you
want an outcome because of your political beliefs and just
because of the appearance of impropriety that would be caused
for recusal if you had any fair mindedness to you.
Speaker 8 (18:21):
But I think you also have to put some hope
in the fact that people are doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
But Nicole, you have to put I have to put
hope in a judge that donated to Biden that he'll
be a good guys. How are you telling me that's
how it works? Absolutely? And do you have any problem
with the third highest ranking Department of Justice official Joe
Biden's Justice Department, leaving that prestigious position to run this case.
For the New York District Attorney Album Bragg. Does that
(18:46):
seem like coordination to you? Does that seem appropriate to you?
Speaker 8 (18:50):
It sounds like conflict of interest?
Speaker 1 (18:52):
But thank you, all right, I appreciate the honesty. Next question, now,
if you believe that this is a crime, and that
this was a mislabeled bookkeeping error, and that you go
along with the novel application of the law, which would
need to show an intent to falsify records, et cetera,
Well let me ask you about this because you remember
(19:14):
the case of Hillary Clinton, right, and you remember Christopher
Steele th those names seal, I'm familiar to you, Steele dossier,
the dirty Russian bought and paid for steel Nasia. I've
talked about it a lot, right, Yeah, Russia, Russia, Russia. Okay,
Now for Christopher Steele to get paid. Do you know
that Hillary Clinton gave money? Do you think she gave
(19:36):
money directly to Christopher Steele?
Speaker 8 (19:39):
No, it's through a different company because it was no.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
No, no, no, it was through a law firm and
it was written as a legal expense. Did you know that?
Speaker 8 (19:49):
How did not know that?
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Yeah? So she hires a company called Perkins Kooy Perkins Cooey.
Then hires an op research firm Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS
then hires Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele's not doing any legal work.
Christopher Steele's putting together a phony Russian dossier. Even the
FBI had to finally admit that their most trusted source,
(20:14):
yet again, was not so trustworthy. And everybody that signed
those Piza Warrens said, oh, knowing what we know now,
we never would have signed them. So she used it
as a legal expense. Now do you believe in equal
application of our laws in America, sir?
Speaker 8 (20:30):
I do, and I definitely think killer should be brought
up on some charges. But we're talking about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Here, Okay, But the reality is that was twenty sixteen
and it never happened. So you're saying, based on the
application of the same year we're talking about and Hillary
Clinton funneling money through a law firm to an op
research firm to hire Christopher Steele, you're saying that that's
pretty much the same allegation, isn't it.
Speaker 8 (20:55):
Well, Sean, you know jiu jitsu. Let's have a sit
rest here.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
No no, no, no, I'm asking I'm I'm asked because I'm
kind of putting you in a jiu jitsu. Move right
now and what you have to do. I want to
see if you're intellectually honest, if this, if you support
this case going forward, tell me how this is any
different than what Hillary Clinton did that in her case,
which happened at the same time.
Speaker 8 (21:19):
Shot, I'm much different than you think I am. I
think everyone that does those certain things should be tried
and acquitted. I think Hillary deserves it.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
What does it say about our justice system that it
didn't happen. Then it shows that it's weaponized, doesn't it.
It shows that we don't have equal justice and equal
application of our laws, doesn't it.
Speaker 8 (21:38):
It shows that there's some bias.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Absolutely, it shows bias. Now, if there's bias in the
legal system, I'm gonna I'm gonna actually say something about you,
and I appreciate your honesty, because if you were being
brought up on charges and a Republican or a prominent
conservative did the same thing and they weren't, I would
(22:01):
find that repulsive. I would find that that I would
find that as an affront to the rule of law.
I would consider that unequal justice under the law. I
would say that's not an equal application of our laws.
And I would say that if we continue this practice,
we're shredding our constitution. Would I be right?
Speaker 8 (22:21):
I think you would do it, and I appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
All right, You're very welcome. I now rest my case.
You're honor liberal. Rob. Appreciate you being with us. Eight
hundred nine four one, Sean if you want to be
a part of the program. Mike, Free, State of Florida.
What's up, Mike? How are you?
Speaker 9 (22:38):
First time caller? Here's my question. If Trump is found
innocent or he has to appeal, and he wins the appeal,
can this judge and this prosecutor be charged with election interference?
And if so, if they lose, that could Trump it's
ground for legal fees.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
No, I mean, I don't think that we would ever
come to that. Here's the problem. I think that let
let's say that his odds that I am right, and
his odds of any hungury or acquittal are very low,
you know, And anyway, let's say that I'm right, and
let's say he's found guilty.
Speaker 8 (23:18):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
I believe on so many levels, all of which I've
mentioned many times, you know, in the course of the
last few weeks, UH, that he will this case will
be overturned on appeal. Here's the problem. Is not going
to be an expedited appeal. They're going to be able
to call Donald Trump convict, Donald Trump convict. You'll hear
it till the you know, the cows come home, and
(23:41):
that will be their means of trying to bludgeon Trump
with this ridiculous case, this insane you know, application of
the law, this insane novel interpretation of the law. And
and that's where I think it's going to end up.
And that's sad.
Speaker 9 (23:59):
And I think the thing there with even doing that
though in the way troll, I mean the way that
Trump is his polling has gone so far, I think
it is jumping up even further.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
I will tell you this, what do I also say?
Donald Trump defies all conventional political gravity. Look at these
polls yesterday, and we spent a lot of time on them,
and spend a lot more time if you on. I
actually like talking about polls. But the polls are overwhelming.
(24:29):
And right now, Donald Trump's poll numbers are let's see,
he's winning in Nevada Nevada fifty thirty eight. He's winning
in Arizona by seven points forty nine, forty two he's
winning by seven in Michigan forty nine forty two. He's
winning in Pennsylvania forty seven forty four. He's winning in
(24:50):
Georgia by ten points forty nine to thirty nine. That
would be Now that's the New York Times, the ENA poll.
So obviously, all this law fair, I will tell you
so far has not particularly worked out so well. And
I'm going to tell you. I want you to let
me bring up an issue and see if you agree
with me. You remember when Clinton was impeached.
Speaker 9 (25:12):
Yeah, yeah, I'm okay, so yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Remember the day he was impeached and the polls came
out after. Do you remember how high his approval rating
was at that time?
Speaker 9 (25:24):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Not really, No, it was through the roof and the feeling.
I this is Bill Clinton being impeached on steroids. Now,
the American people didn't like what Clinton did, but they
didn't want a president of the United States having to
go through that ordeal. And that's how it ended. That's
(25:48):
how I interpret it in retrospect. Now, I will tell
you between the Russia collusion lies, impeachment I impeachment I
all this nonsense in New York a DC case, the
January sixth case, the case in Fulton County, Georgia, the
Document's case. You know Hillary Clinton, you know, nothing happened
(26:11):
to her, she didn't get raided, she didn't get arrested.
Nothing happened to Joe Biden's same issues. And I'll tell you,
the American people see how fundamentally unjust and unfair all
this is. And that's how I explain the polls to people.
Speaker 9 (26:26):
Yeah, that's my That's what it is exactly.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Anyway, I appreciate you being with us, my friend, great
call eight hundred and ninety four one shown North Carolina.
A lot of North Carolina calls down up. We got
three calls from North Carolina. Pamela, Let's get your thoughts.
What's on your mind today?
Speaker 6 (26:44):
I wanted to discuss the judge that's on the case
as well as the hush money. Okay, so the decisions
that could be made in this case can possibly benefit
to defend it, which is in this case is going
to be the defendant adversary the opponent, which is Joe Biden.
We're dealing right now with judicial abuse. And when I
(27:07):
say that, I'm looking at the judicial position to enhance
a private entry, which it would be Joe Biden's campaign,
and it can can create a president case. And when
you get ready to look at a board dyer later,
it can create a president case. For saying to a
(27:29):
jury that when that question is asked, can you look
at this case fair? Can you look at this case
and you know, make a decision on this case and
judge this case fairly, They can easily say no, I'm
not gonna look at it fair. I'm not gonna look
at it and judge it. I don't have to because
we have a case right now that where we found
(27:50):
Donald Trump guilty. And in that case, the judge nothing
being said in the court, just sitting there in that position.
Judicial position is say it's yelly, just louding to dish. Yes,
my daughter's campaigning against you, Donald Trump. Yes I support
your opponent, and yes I am not gonna be fair,
I'm gonna be illegally biased on this case. Those things
(28:13):
should be considered. People need to stop saying that his
daughter is campaigning for Joe Biden. They need to say
his daughter is campaigning against Donald Trump, because that is
exactly what is going on, which makes it stronger on
Trump's behalf. Not only that you have to also look
at there are people in America right now that are
(28:35):
sitting there looking at this case that are middle class
and poor people who are sitting there saying if this
judge can sit in that bench, on that bench and
judge j judge Donald Trump and know that they support
in this case.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
All right, I gotta cut you short because the only
got about ninety seconds. I want to get C's quick
comments and comments. First.
Speaker 7 (29:00):
Yes, they're is own truckyard in North Carolina, and I
want to tell you I've got drivers that have taken
the seven or eight or nine years become citizens in
the USA. They're very fragmented about what's happening at the border.
They're from Africa, Ukraine, Russia, Asia, and they're telling me
that they came to the US so they could live
the American dream, make money, take money back to their families,
(29:22):
which they actually do, which I appreciate greatly, and they
came here for a rule of law. And now they're
telling me that this is scary because they see this
happening in the countries that they came from, and that
is very sad.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
It is sad, Well said, Deb, you got the last
word in our North Carolina, Trio.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
I just mine's a whole different subject, but thank you
for taking the call. The protesters that are screaming death
to America, why can't they be charged with communicating domestic threat?
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Here, I didn't hear the last part of that, ma'am.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Oh can't they be charged or arrested for communicating threats?
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Oh like death to America, death Israel? Those?
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Well, yes, yes.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
I think I think they actually could be anyway, three
great calls from North Carolina anyway, Pamela, deb and CJ.
Speaker 7 (30:23):
Thank you, Sean, Thank you Sean,
Stay right here for our final news round up and
information overload. All right New's round up Information overload. Our
our toll free telephone number. You'll get to your calls later.
It's eight hundred and ninety four one Sean if you
want to be a part of the program. It's amazing
to even watch Fake News CNN Eli Hoenig saying the
entire prosecution witness team has been lied to by Michael Kohne.
(00:25):
And as you know, we've had cross examination this afternoon.
It's it's pretty interesting, you know, to watch. I think
they the prosecution purposely delayed the beginning of cross examination
to see at least get a preview of coming attractions
and just wanted to get an appetizer or taste of
what was going to probably be all day tomorrow. And
(00:46):
that's you know, heavy cross examination going right to the
heart of the credibility of of course Michael Cohne, who
really doesn't have much credibility. But anyway, here's what fake
News CNN even said about.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Here's what makes special Cohen so unusual, so unique. I've
never seen a witness with bigger credibility problems than Michael Cohen.
I've definitely seen witnesses. I've definitely used witnesses who've done
way worse things than Michael Cohen. But I've never seen
a witness who's lied to Congress, who's lied in court,
who's lied to the irs, who's lied to the Southern
District of New York, who lied to his banker. You know,
(01:20):
the entire prosecution witness team has been lied to by
Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Now Nicole mall o'takas commenting on this case, actually you know,
said the New York's Hush Bunny trial is a sham trial.
She's a congresswoman New York's eleventh district. She'll join us
in a minute, and she called the whole thing a sham.
Here's what she said.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
This is a sham trial. The people of America know
that it is a sham trial and is based on
a star witness that is a convicted, disbarred perjurer who
lied to Congress multiple times, has admitted to lying before Congress,
and has been convicted of lyne. What I'll say is
the people of the state of New York would wish
(02:03):
that Alvin Bragg, the district attorney who brought this case,
would focus on the actual crime that is taking place
in plaguing our city.
Speaker 4 (02:13):
All right.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
We have drug smugglers that are poisoning our children. We
have illegal immigrant gang members wreaking havoc in our city.
We see career criminals being released over and over again,
and we see a district attorney that reduces or drops
charges against the criminals who are plaguing New York. And
yet here you have a made up charge for something
(02:36):
that's not even within his jurisdiction. That the FEC has
said that there is no crime, that the DOJ has said.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
There is no crime, all right. Joining us now, she
is Congresswoman Nicole mali Otakas is with us, and she
has been following this case very closely. Congress Woman, this
is where we now find ourselves. You can beat the
hell out of police officers on but don't worry. You'll
be out of jail in an hour or two. You
can flip the bird to the people in New York
and then head off to the sanctuary state of California,
(03:08):
and I'm sure never to be seen or heard from
again in New York State.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
That's right, Sean. And the New Yorkers that I talked
to are angry. They are upset. They are furious that
they feel unsafe in their city. Many of my constituents
commute to Manhattan to work and they don't feel safe
riding the subway. They're concerned about illegal immigrant gang members
that have taken over the streets. They even had illegal
immigrants that murdered each other in New York City. And
(03:35):
we are trying to figure out watching this trial, what
is the evidence, what is the crime? Because I was
there yesterday with the star witness who is a convicted
disbarred perjurer who lied to Congress multiple times, is guilty
of that, convicted of that, and yet there was no
evidence that came out. There was no connection that Donald
(03:56):
Trump committed a crime. And so my constituents want to
know why we're wasting taxpayer money and resources to have
this case. Not to mention NYPD that has to be
at the courthouse for protection when they can be out
there making arrest of people who are actually committing crimes.
The revolving door that is New York City.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
All right, So, but that's the reality of where we
are now. Now. You represent, for example, part of southern
Brooklyn and Staten Island, and I think it would have
been a far more fair venue, at least a change
of venue to maybe Long Island, upstate New York or
Staten Island. I mean, it might have might have given
Trump a fighting chance. I just stand by my belief
(04:39):
that I don't believe in New York City, with the
demographics as they are, where you know, Democrats outnumber Republicans
nine to one, that he can get a fair jury
in New York City. I stand by that. I wish
I was wrong. I wish you weren't true. If you
look at this case, there's been no crime that has
been and you know, not even a crime fully identified,
(05:03):
to be honest. But if you're looking at, okay, a
book keeping error, Okay, well, if it's booked as a
legal fee, that seems appropriate considering. Michael Cohen admitted he
did the deal. He was Trump's quote fixer attorney, and
he paid the money. I know because I paid it.
He said, And meanwhile, you got a guy with zero
(05:23):
credibility on the stand, and yet here we find ourselves
and Trump's probably looking at a very abusively biased New
York liberal jury, you.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
Know, and looking at the jurors, I was thinking the
same thing. I mean, it's mostly young people, many women.
And this is a borough where eighty percent or so
voted against Donald Trump for president, So how can he
get a.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Fair It was way more than eighty percent. Go ahead, well,
I mean, and so.
Speaker 5 (05:50):
The question that becomes is there going to be a
direct avert from the judge?
Speaker 6 (05:54):
Is it?
Speaker 5 (05:54):
Is it going to have to go to Well?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Why would you expect a direct verdict from the judge
when the judge and the case donated to Biden. The
judges seemed hostile towards Donald Trump from day one with
his gag order for Trump. But Michael Cohne can go
on TikTok and ask for gifts and wear Donald Trump
in prison t shirts and pitch a reality show The Fixer,
(06:18):
and so on and so forth, I mean, obviously for
his own benefit. And by the way, if anybody probably
would benefit the most for Donald Trump not winning the election,
it might be him in light of the fact that
he's now facing new allegations of lying to Congress that
were referred to the Biden's weaponized DJ. But that DOJ
(06:39):
could change come January next year. But you got a guy,
disbarred lawyer Trump Peter released from prison multi year sentence,
tax evasion, bank fraud, convicted of lying to Congress after
lying under oath. More allegations pending, and I'm like, okay,
why would anybody believe a word he says, this is
(07:00):
their star witness. But he'll be calm as he's being
calm on the stand. Is they point out you're a liar,
You're a liar, you're lying. Now you're lying, then well.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
I think you're right. The star witness is a disaster.
But I think the case is so flawed that even CNN,
when you watch your legal experts are saying that there
is no crime here. This is a guy that's not trustworthy.
And so I have to believe, you know, in the courtroom,
when you're sitting there all day in this cold, dreary courtroom,
and you see on the wall it says in God
(07:29):
we trust, and part of me says, you know what,
sometimes you do need to turn over your battles. You
need to turn over your fights. And I do believe
that something's going to happen here with Donald Trump will
come out stronger and he will be vindicated in this.
And I have to believe that at my core, because
this is such an injustice showing my mother fled a
communist country. This is the type of stuff that my
(07:51):
mother fled. And you know, when I was speaking with
constituents that are Chinese Americans, they are immigrants from Albania,
from Egypt, and all of them are telling me the
same thing, that this is the stuff that they fled,
and they don't want to see it happening here, and
therefore they are supporting some Trump more than ever. And
(08:14):
I really believe that you're going to see the immigrant
communities come out strong for this president, strong for President
Trump because they don't want what their country's turned into
to happen here. And I just have that type of
faith at this moment. I will let you know that changes.
But I do believe that Something's going to happen here
where Trump will be vindicated and he will win this
(08:36):
president state.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
And I think, well, how is he going to be vindicated?
Let's assume a guilty verdict. Let's assume that my cynicism
is correct, that he can't get a fair trial in
New York and he's convicted, Okay, is he going to
get an expedited appeal hearing? And light of an uppending
election and light of a judge that was a Biden donor,
and light of this being a misdemeanor, who's statuted a
(08:59):
limits have passed, in light of the recused the issue
involving the judges family, in light of the fact that
they're using this novel application of the law to you know,
somehow turn this into a federal issue involving you know,
an election crime that's a felony, and yet that has
yet even to be outlined or explained to the jurors
(09:22):
at this late date.
Speaker 5 (09:23):
Well, look, we saw what happened with the Weinstein case, right,
it got overturned. I mean, and this is the interesting thing.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
About Yeah, but it's going to get overturned after the election,
is my point. I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
It may it may take into the election. But I
think again, I still believe that even with the conviction,
if it's unfair and people see it for what it is,
that he can still prevail. But if you believe that
at some point, look remember what happened to us New
York members in New York Court, right, they tried to
redraw all our lines the way that they tried to Jerrymander,
(09:54):
and we went and fought and we won in the
end of the day. And so I think in New
York it's interesting because you do have some of these
lower level judges that are corrupts, that are are totally politicized.
But when you reach the secondary court, I think you
have a much better shot of having a fair hearing.
And I think there's enough outrage from the public. And even,
(10:14):
like I said, these people who you would never think
legal experts for CNN siding with US, Alan Dershowitz, who
is voted for Biden siding with US. Every legal expert
is saying that there's no case here, and so I
think the judge really has got a So you want
to put his reputation on the line here, and just
(10:35):
for this.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Political I think the already crossed that threshold. Don't you
the fact that he was Usually they are chosen randomly. No,
he was selected for this case. Is that the usual practice, Congresswoman, Well, no.
Speaker 5 (10:53):
It's not. And that's why I say we have probably
a better shot when we get to the appellate court.
But I do believe that there's just no Look, he
would be ludicrous for this judge to convict. It would
be Now I can actually get more concerned about the
jury because the jury really I don't know how independent
these people could be talking about the makeup of the
political electorate in New York County. But I think that
(11:17):
if this judge wants to be an international laughing stock,
then he may move forward. But I think the support
that we've been showing him in court, the support that
the people have been showing for the president at the rallies,
the fact that the CNN legal experts are saying there's
nothing going on here. I think that gives the judge
some pause there. If he cares at all about his reputation,
(11:39):
he may have taken it this far. Let's see what happens.
Let's see what happens, because they just finished the star
witness and no evidence, no evidence came out, and that
has to give the judge some type of pause there
to say, am I really gonna put my reputation on
the line here and actually go forward with some type
of a conviction.
Speaker 7 (12:01):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (12:01):
I don't think. And let's see what jury instructions are.
I mean, in reality, I have no faith at all. Anyway,
we really appreciate you being here. Congresswoman Nicole Malia Takis,
thank you so much for being with us. She is
in New York's eleventh district. Thank you, congresswoman, appreciate you
being with us. All Right, we have our friend Liberal
(12:22):
Rob from the great state of Ohio. What's going on?
Liberal Rob? How are you? What's on your mind today?
Speaker 8 (12:28):
Taking my call? Listen. I wanted to talk about a
few different things, but obviously I'll keep it short. You
guys got to stop pretending that Donald is always an
innocent victim with every single thing that comes.
Speaker 9 (12:39):
Out negative about him.
Speaker 8 (12:40):
It just it sounds exhausting like the troal im.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Sorry, you're exhausted. Let me ask you a question. Tell
me what crime he's committed here.
Speaker 8 (12:50):
He's for falsifying business records. If you and I were
to falsify.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Slow down, is tell me the evidence that shows that
Donald Trump falsified any business record? So it was marked.
The bookkeeping was marked as a legal expense. Is paying
your lawyer Michael Cohene a legal expense or not?
Speaker 8 (13:09):
It is not when you're using it to reimburse something else.
It wasn't his salary.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Well whoa whoa, whoa whoa whoa. No, it's a legal expense.
I'm just asking you. Is is tell me what the
crime is.
Speaker 8 (13:20):
The crime is falsifying the legal expense. It wasn't a
legal expense. It was to pay off a porn star.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
So it was it was his lawyer coming into a
legal agreement with another party, which you do know is
not illegal. Right. You understand that that's not illegal.
Speaker 8 (13:36):
Right, And you understand though that the premise behind it, though,
is illegal. Is that he's information that No.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
No, no, You've got to be very clear here with
our audience. When you pay, when one law one person's
lawyer pays a amount of money for his services in costs,
including an NBA payment, that is a legal expense, and
it was entered in a ledger as a as a
(14:04):
legal business expense.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
That's not correct. That's not how you have to do
those things. If he's going to all.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Right, so then okay, let's say you're right, and that
would be under New York law a misdemeanor. How do
we get to a felony?
Speaker 8 (14:17):
Tell me that if you falsified business?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
No, no, no, Well, how come the Feds didn't try this?
And how come it's being tried in a New York
City courtroom in a district like New York? Why did
the Feds pass on charging Donald Trump on this? They
chose not to charge him with this. They looked at it,
and they didn't charge him.
Speaker 8 (14:37):
They charged Michael Cohen and then Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
No, no, no, no, no, no. Nice try. The New
York DA in this case has come up with a
novel application of law, which, by the way, you need
to show intent that Donald Trump intended to falsify records.
Where is the evidence that he intended to falsify records
when it's actually on tape. If you listen to the
(15:01):
tape played in court yesterday, it was very clear and
he said payment for what. You just want Donald Trump
in jail, and you want them off the campaign trail,
and you want them defeated, and you don't care how.
But I'm going to give you a few more minutes
on the other side, not very long, because there's only
so much patience I have. I'm going to be very
patient anyway, more with Liberal rob We'll get to your calls.
(15:22):
Eight hundred ninety four one Shawn. As we continue, I'm
twenty five to the top of the hour. Eight hundred
nine foot one Sean. If you want to join us,
more horrific economic news today, and these are tough economic
times for so many of you. One way you can
save a lot of money and not sacrifice service is
with my friends at pure talk. And once again they
invest in their customers out of their own pocket. They
(15:44):
give you more service and they don't charge you another penny.
And right now, friends at pure Talk, a veteran owned company,
are providing international roaming now to over fifty countries. So
as you plan your summer travel well, make sure you
covered at home and abroad. Remember Talk that use the
same exact five G network, the same exact cell towers
as the big carriers at and T, Verizon and T Mobile.
(16:07):
You can get a plan unlimited talk, unlimited text, plenty
of five G data. Get this just twenty bucks a month,
less than half the price for the exact same service
of the big carriers. How do you make the switch?
It's simple, it's fast, it's easy. Dial pound two to fifty,
say the keyword save now. He'll save an additional fifty
percent off your first month if you do it now.
(16:29):
Call now pound two to fifty. Join one hundreds of
thousands of us saving money for the exact same service
pound two fifty keyword save now from pure talk. All Right,
we go back to liberal rob He's in Ohio. All right,
so you think that Donald Trump's payment in this NDA
case is a crime, and you're going along with this
(16:51):
ridiculous novel application of the law. New York law, the
one that would be relevant, seventeen one to fifty two
would be a misdemeanor. The statute of limitations have passed.
I'm sure, by the way, you have no problem with
the fact that the judge was selected. There wasn't a pool,
and he was selected from a pool that he was
purposely selected. And I'm sure you have no problem at
(17:12):
all with the fact that he's a Biden donor? Do you?
Speaker 8 (17:16):
So you always say those things?
Speaker 1 (17:18):
I mean, I think, no, no, no. Do you have
a problem that he's a Biden donor. I don't have
a listen, I'm not going to waste a lot of time.
Do you have a problem that the judge, I do,
donated to Joe Biden in twenty twenty.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
I do it shows bias? I think you don't think
I'm a it does?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Okay, next question, do you have a problem with what
his daughter does for a living with the Democratic Party,
especially in light of New York laws and jurisdiction over
the issue of recusal. Do you think that he should
have recused himself.
Speaker 8 (17:49):
No, because my daughter and me have different, you know,
opinions on things, and whatever she thinks doesn't affect anything
that I do.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
But what about the issue of donating to Biden in
twenty twenty, you just admit it is prejudicial?
Speaker 7 (18:01):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Why so if you donate to Biden and you got
a case with Donald Trump, his political opponent, obviously you
want an outcome because of your political beliefs and just
because of the appearance of impropriety that would be caused
for recusal if you had any fair mindedness to you.
Speaker 8 (18:21):
But I think you also have to put some hope
in the fact that people are doing the right thing.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
But Nicole, you have to put I have to put
hope in a judge that donated to Biden that he'll
be a good guys. How are you telling me that's
how it works? Absolutely? And do you have any problem
with the third highest ranking Department of Justice official Joe
Biden's Justice Department, leaving that prestigious position to run this case.
For the New York District Attorney Album Bragg. Does that
(18:46):
seem like coordination to you? Does that seem appropriate to you?
Speaker 8 (18:50):
It sounds like conflict of interest?
Speaker 1 (18:52):
But thank you, all right, I appreciate the honesty. Next question, now,
if you believe that this is a crime, and that
this was a mislabeled bookkeeping error, and that you go
along with the novel application of the law, which would
need to show an intent to falsify records, et cetera,
Well let me ask you about this because you remember
(19:14):
the case of Hillary Clinton, right, and you remember Christopher
Steele th those names seal, I'm familiar to you, Steele dossier,
the dirty Russian bought and paid for steel Nasia. I've
talked about it a lot, right, Yeah, Russia, Russia, Russia. Okay,
Now for Christopher Steele to get paid. Do you know
that Hillary Clinton gave money? Do you think she gave
(19:36):
money directly to Christopher Steele?
Speaker 8 (19:39):
No, it's through a different company because it was no.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
No, no, no, it was through a law firm and
it was written as a legal expense. Did you know that?
Speaker 8 (19:49):
How did not know that?
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Yeah? So she hires a company called Perkins Kooy Perkins Cooey.
Then hires an op research firm Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS
then hires Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele's not doing any legal work.
Christopher Steele's putting together a phony Russian dossier. Even the
FBI had to finally admit that their most trusted source,
(20:14):
yet again, was not so trustworthy. And everybody that signed
those Piza Warrens said, oh, knowing what we know now,
we never would have signed them. So she used it
as a legal expense. Now do you believe in equal
application of our laws in America, sir?
Speaker 8 (20:30):
I do, and I definitely think killer should be brought
up on some charges. But we're talking about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Here, Okay, But the reality is that was twenty sixteen
and it never happened. So you're saying, based on the
application of the same year we're talking about and Hillary
Clinton funneling money through a law firm to an op
research firm to hire Christopher Steele, you're saying that that's
pretty much the same allegation, isn't it.
Speaker 8 (20:55):
Well, Sean, you know jiu jitsu. Let's have a sit
rest here.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
No no, no, no, I'm asking I'm I'm asked because I'm
kind of putting you in a jiu jitsu. Move right
now and what you have to do. I want to
see if you're intellectually honest, if this, if you support
this case going forward, tell me how this is any
different than what Hillary Clinton did that in her case,
which happened at the same time.
Speaker 8 (21:19):
Shot, I'm much different than you think I am. I
think everyone that does those certain things should be tried
and acquitted. I think Hillary deserves it.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
What does it say about our justice system that it
didn't happen. Then it shows that it's weaponized, doesn't it.
It shows that we don't have equal justice and equal
application of our laws, doesn't it.
Speaker 8 (21:38):
It shows that there's some bias.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Absolutely, it shows bias. Now, if there's bias in the
legal system, I'm gonna I'm gonna actually say something about you,
and I appreciate your honesty, because if you were being
brought up on charges and a Republican or a prominent
conservative did the same thing and they weren't, I would
(22:01):
find that repulsive. I would find that that I would
find that as an affront to the rule of law.
I would consider that unequal justice under the law. I
would say that's not an equal application of our laws.
And I would say that if we continue this practice,
we're shredding our constitution. Would I be right?
Speaker 8 (22:21):
I think you would do it, and I appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
All right, You're very welcome. I now rest my case.
You're honor liberal. Rob. Appreciate you being with us. Eight
hundred nine four one, Sean if you want to be
a part of the program. Mike, Free, State of Florida.
What's up, Mike? How are you?
Speaker 9 (22:38):
First time caller? Here's my question. If Trump is found
innocent or he has to appeal, and he wins the appeal,
can this judge and this prosecutor be charged with election interference?
And if so, if they lose, that could Trump it's
ground for legal fees.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
No, I mean, I don't think that we would ever
come to that. Here's the problem. I think that let
let's say that his odds that I am right, and
his odds of any hungury or acquittal are very low,
you know, And anyway, let's say that I'm right, and
let's say he's found guilty.
Speaker 8 (23:18):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
I believe on so many levels, all of which I've
mentioned many times, you know, in the course of the
last few weeks, UH, that he will this case will
be overturned on appeal. Here's the problem. Is not going
to be an expedited appeal. They're going to be able
to call Donald Trump convict, Donald Trump convict. You'll hear
it till the you know, the cows come home, and
(23:41):
that will be their means of trying to bludgeon Trump
with this ridiculous case, this insane you know, application of
the law, this insane novel interpretation of the law. And
and that's where I think it's going to end up.
And that's sad.
Speaker 9 (23:59):
And I think the thing there with even doing that
though in the way troll, I mean the way that
Trump is his polling has gone so far, I think
it is jumping up even further.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
I will tell you this, what do I also say?
Donald Trump defies all conventional political gravity. Look at these
polls yesterday, and we spent a lot of time on them,
and spend a lot more time if you on. I
actually like talking about polls. But the polls are overwhelming.
(24:29):
And right now, Donald Trump's poll numbers are let's see,
he's winning in Nevada Nevada fifty thirty eight. He's winning
in Arizona by seven points forty nine, forty two he's
winning by seven in Michigan forty nine forty two. He's
winning in Pennsylvania forty seven forty four. He's winning in
(24:50):
Georgia by ten points forty nine to thirty nine. That
would be Now that's the New York Times, the ENA poll.
So obviously, all this law fair, I will tell you
so far has not particularly worked out so well. And
I'm going to tell you. I want you to let
me bring up an issue and see if you agree
with me. You remember when Clinton was impeached.
Speaker 9 (25:12):
Yeah, yeah, I'm okay, so yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Remember the day he was impeached and the polls came
out after. Do you remember how high his approval rating
was at that time?
Speaker 9 (25:24):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (25:25):
Not really, No, it was through the roof and the feeling.
I this is Bill Clinton being impeached on steroids. Now,
the American people didn't like what Clinton did, but they
didn't want a president of the United States having to
go through that ordeal. And that's how it ended. That's
(25:48):
how I interpret it in retrospect. Now, I will tell
you between the Russia collusion lies, impeachment I impeachment I
all this nonsense in New York a DC case, the
January sixth case, the case in Fulton County, Georgia, the
Document's case. You know Hillary Clinton, you know, nothing happened
(26:11):
to her, she didn't get raided, she didn't get arrested.
Nothing happened to Joe Biden's same issues. And I'll tell you,
the American people see how fundamentally unjust and unfair all
this is. And that's how I explain the polls to people.
Speaker 9 (26:26):
Yeah, that's my That's what it is exactly.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Anyway, I appreciate you being with us, my friend, great
call eight hundred and ninety four one shown North Carolina.
A lot of North Carolina calls down up. We got
three calls from North Carolina. Pamela, Let's get your thoughts.
What's on your mind today?
Speaker 6 (26:44):
I wanted to discuss the judge that's on the case
as well as the hush money. Okay, so the decisions
that could be made in this case can possibly benefit
to defend it, which is in this case is going
to be the defendant adversary the opponent, which is Joe Biden.
We're dealing right now with judicial abuse. And when I
(27:07):
say that, I'm looking at the judicial position to enhance
a private entry, which it would be Joe Biden's campaign,
and it can can create a president case. And when
you get ready to look at a board dyer later,
it can create a president case. For saying to a
(27:29):
jury that when that question is asked, can you look
at this case fair? Can you look at this case
and you know, make a decision on this case and
judge this case fairly, They can easily say no, I'm
not gonna look at it fair. I'm not gonna look
at it and judge it. I don't have to because
we have a case right now that where we found
(27:50):
Donald Trump guilty. And in that case, the judge nothing
being said in the court, just sitting there in that position.
Judicial position is say it's yelly, just louding to dish. Yes,
my daughter's campaigning against you, Donald Trump. Yes I support
your opponent, and yes I am not gonna be fair,
I'm gonna be illegally biased on this case. Those things
(28:13):
should be considered. People need to stop saying that his
daughter is campaigning for Joe Biden. They need to say
his daughter is campaigning against Donald Trump, because that is
exactly what is going on, which makes it stronger on
Trump's behalf. Not only that you have to also look
at there are people in America right now that are
(28:35):
sitting there looking at this case that are middle class
and poor people who are sitting there saying if this
judge can sit in that bench, on that bench and
judge j judge Donald Trump and know that they support
in this case.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
All right, I gotta cut you short because the only
got about ninety seconds. I want to get C's quick
comments and comments. First.
Speaker 7 (29:00):
Yes, they're is own truckyard in North Carolina, and I
want to tell you I've got drivers that have taken
the seven or eight or nine years become citizens in
the USA. They're very fragmented about what's happening at the border.
They're from Africa, Ukraine, Russia, Asia, and they're telling me
that they came to the US so they could live
the American dream, make money, take money back to their families,
(29:22):
which they actually do, which I appreciate greatly, and they
came here for a rule of law. And now they're
telling me that this is scary because they see this
happening in the countries that they came from, and that
is very sad.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
It is sad, Well said, Deb, you got the last
word in our North Carolina, Trio.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
I just mine's a whole different subject, but thank you
for taking the call. The protesters that are screaming death
to America, why can't they be charged with communicating domestic threat?
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Here, I didn't hear the last part of that, ma'am.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Oh can't they be charged or arrested for communicating threats?
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Oh like death to America, death Israel? Those?
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Well, yes, yes.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
I think I think they actually could be anyway, three
great calls from North Carolina anyway, Pamela, deb and CJ.
Speaker 7 (30:23):
Thank you, Sean, Thank you Sean,
The Sean Hannity Show News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.