October 1, 2025 • 53 mins
Ep. 303 - Left vs. Right vs. Reality
David and Brad sit down with John Geoghegan, a former conservative warrior from the Gingrich Revolution days who's done a complete political 180. What starts as a nostalgic trip down memory lane—reminiscing about the old cable access show "One Sunday"—quickly turns into a spirited debate about government ownership of private companies, the Russia investigation, lawfare, and whether political prosecutions are ever justified.
John argues that Trump represents a dangerous departure from conservative principles, while David and Brad push back on the manufactured Russia collusion narrative and selective application of legal standards. The trio wrestles with tough questions: When does government investment in companies cross the line into socialism? Was the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation a legitimate concern or partisan witch hunt? And why do political tribes selectively apply their principles depending on whose ox is being gored?
From the banking bailouts to Intel warrants, from Mike Flynn's prosecution to Trump's fraud cases, this episode examines how both sides weaponize institutions when it serves their purposes—and how intellectual consistency has become the rarest commodity in modern politics. Whether you think Trump is democracy's savior or its greatest threat, this conversation offers a master class in how former allies can end up on opposite sides of the political divide while still managing to have a civil (kind of) conversation about it.
David and Brad sit down with John Geoghegan, a former conservative warrior from the Gingrich Revolution days who's done a complete political 180. What starts as a nostalgic trip down memory lane—reminiscing about the old cable access show "One Sunday"—quickly turns into a spirited debate about government ownership of private companies, the Russia investigation, lawfare, and whether political prosecutions are ever justified.
John argues that Trump represents a dangerous departure from conservative principles, while David and Brad push back on the manufactured Russia collusion narrative and selective application of legal standards. The trio wrestles with tough questions: When does government investment in companies cross the line into socialism? Was the FBI's handling of the Russia investigation a legitimate concern or partisan witch hunt? And why do political tribes selectively apply their principles depending on whose ox is being gored?
From the banking bailouts to Intel warrants, from Mike Flynn's prosecution to Trump's fraud cases, this episode examines how both sides weaponize institutions when it serves their purposes—and how intellectual consistency has become the rarest commodity in modern politics. Whether you think Trump is democracy's savior or its greatest threat, this conversation offers a master class in how former allies can end up on opposite sides of the political divide while still managing to have a civil (kind of) conversation about it.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Loggingess.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Well, brother, there it is the Little Riverband reminiscing. I
saw them play last summer summer twenty twenty four on
the at the Cape cod Melody Tent, which believe it
or not, is still there, and they were fantastic And
the song is perfect for what we're about to do,
because we're gonna go back and reminisce about the Reagan Revolution,
the Gingrich Revolution, the Clinton, Monica Lewinsky stuff, Vince Foster,
(01:18):
the Golf War, the Golf of Tonk and everything imaginable.
As we talk to John Gagan, who is a former
disciple of New Gingrich, who now is completely a different
political persuasion.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Well body, I mean you've certainly enticed me with that.
Let's do it.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
But let me start by saying to everyone, welcome. This
is Dave Purdman Brad Sheef here on IP frequently and
we mean business podcast. We're excited to be here on
the iHeartRadio Podcast Radio Network where you can find us
here each week. And if you don't like the iHeartRadio
(02:02):
Podcast Radio Network, and if you prefer another vehicle to
consume your your podcasts, whether that be Spotify, Apple or
really anywhere in between, Google, the Tender, whatever you whatever
you like, we're fine with that. We are we are
fine with that as long as you subscribe, rate, review,
recommend to a friend, and you know, as Brad has
(02:26):
said in the in the past, if you want to
create burner accounts to simply subscribe to the podcast and
like uh and rate and review, we're fine with that.
You can learn more about our show on our website
and also you can buy some pretty cool merch at
ip frequently dot com. And if you go to social
(02:48):
media anywhere on the planet or beyond and you type
in at I p Underscore Frequently, you'll learn all about us.
But this week we have a guest star, John gig
and who I knew back in the early nineties, John
was a friend of mine. Who did you know? I
mentioned every once in a while my time on the
(03:11):
local access show One Sunday, which was John's weekly show
that was like the answer to This Week with David Brinkley,
only without David Brinkley or any of the viewers. And
we used to go on there and there'd be like
a couple of liberal people and then there'd be John
out on the right and I'd be out there with him,
and you just have these very interesting, you know, conflicts
(03:33):
about everything from the Gulf War to Bush's tax bill
to Bill Clinton and everything between. And John and I
lost touch for a number of years, and then we
just got reconnected at a debate reunion earlier this year,
and we talked about it and thought it would be
a great idea for John to come on the program.
And I know he's frequently commented on some of the
(03:55):
things you and particularly you but you and I have
said on the show, so we thought it would be
a great idea to have him on, get his thoughts
and have another rancorous debate. So John, Welcome to the Prettyman.
Chief IP frequently podcast.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Well, thank you, gentlemen. You know, one of the things
I do want to correct you on earlier is when
we were doing our introductions off camera, I was not
at the vanguard of the Reagan Revolution. I was at
the vanguard of the Gingrich Revolution. If you remember, back
in the early to mid nineties, when the Republicans took
over Congress. I was definitely one of the foot soldiers
who was a you know, a true believer in the
(04:31):
Gingerish way of doing things. And I did enjoy many
of our many of our debates back on one Sunday.
I actually would love and it'll be impossible to do this,
but I would love to go back and look at
some of our prognostications and see how inaccurate they were.
I've had a few that have been have come true.
You know, I certainly will own up to my fair
(04:52):
share of failures on that front.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
But flying cars have yet to come true to fruition.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
That's that was a big failure.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
You know, those are kind of like the Epstein tapes
when and so you're calling for their release the public
is that right.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
Indeed, if they can be found, if there are no
missing minutes, And unfortunately I think there are missing minutes, Yes,
I would like the public to have access to them.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
I would love to see that too. I would love
to see that too. I was a great dresser back then, Brad.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
It's a great dresser back during the cable access TV.
We talked about this this morning. Buddy TV was much
simpler then. You knew how to use your TV. Now
I have an Apple TV that's got forty eight apps
on it and I still can't.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Figure out how to watch the Chiefs Chargers game.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
It's it's on YouTube. It's free. You put on YouTube.
It's free tonight, eight o'clock free. I'll call on talk
your throat if you have a problem. I'm going to
bed early.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
So John has we talked at the Debate reunion, and
John has sort of done a one to eighty from
his stance as part of the Hitler youth back in
the early nineties in Washington, d C. And he is
now he is now on the radical left, like that
nut in New York who's going to socialize the grocery
(06:07):
stores and can't bench press sixty pounds.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
You know, actually that's a great place for us to
jump off. Can I ask you guys a question.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Since you that what John we do we asked the
questions here, but yeah, sorry, no, no, you can you
can supervem chief podcast.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
No, since you mentioned a radical socialist and you.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Know Mandwani Mandabi, what's.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Let's just let's just say for the sake of argument.
In twenty twenty eight, President mom Donnie decides that the
government's going to start owning shares and companies and he decides.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
To is he eligible to run? That was? Is he A?
Speaker 4 (06:40):
I don't know, let's just just go with me on
this police so.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I don't know if we can constitution.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
He he wants to. He wants the government to own
ten percent of companies. He starts with intel. If that's
an area came to pass, you would say.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
You're talking about forced ownership, or you're talking about where
the government gives large benefits to these companies and expects
something in return, like with the auto bailout of the
two thousand and.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
The banks of ten percent of the shares of a
company that's a ten percent stake in the company. You
would say, I.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Would say, it's happened to look at the banking crisis.
It's happened before.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
And you're okay with it.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
I mean the government bailed out the banks, took large
swats of warrants in the banks and made out, Okay,
made their money back. I mean, you got to get
your money back somehow. I mean, generally, I'm not I'm
not okay with forced ownership of private enterprise. But where
the government's bailing them out, you know, the government shouldn't.
The government money is not free. It's our tax money.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Well, I understand, but do you think that you know,
if the Commerce secretary for President Mom Donnie said.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Hey, I still don't, I'm not conceding that point because
I think he's I don't think he was born here.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Yeah he's not, he's not eligible. I'm just kind of
making a general point.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
About might be too young too.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
Socialism, you know, I guess it depends on who's doing
the socialism.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Like well, I mean Bush did the Auto and Obama
did the Auto bailout. And I mean, I mean, generally,
I'm fine with getting your money back. I mean, I'm
I'm fine with That's like that chipsack thing with Intel.
You know, if they're getting a huge government subsidy, it
shouldn't be for free. There should be some something attached
to that.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
I have a real I have a real issue with
the government actually owning a stake in companies. I don't
have a problem with them saying that, like, you know,
here's a promisory note, you're gonna have to pay it back,
but actually having an ownership stake. I think it's like
we tenants. We have a tendency to say that, like, oh,
this person's terrible because this person wants to put grocery
soars in, But it's okay if my guy wants to
(08:49):
actually own ten percent of a company.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Well, I'm talking about the some of the promises this
guy's made about about taking private enterprises like grocery stores
and opening them up and giving people free grocery. I mean,
it's never gonna happen. We all know it's never gonna happen.
Were you okay with the banking bailout where we took
warrants or the auto bailout we took warrants.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
And in fact, if you want to go, I would
actually argue that bankers probably should have gone to jail,
like there was no accountability whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing the bailouts that
preserved the deposits of hundreds of millions of Americans? Are
you okay with that?
Speaker 4 (09:27):
Yeah, I'm okay with I'm okay with preserving.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
So if the if the.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Federal government's going to do that, then then shouldn't they
have some some upside. I mean, they're basically saving the banks,
and I would argue that the warrants they got in
saving the banks was the upside to the American taxpayer.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
That's I agree. I would not call for an ownership stake,
but that's.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
What that waban. It basically was. It was warrants and
issued by those companies. But I see your point. I
see your point. So some you're saying people you're you're
saying that people who are blindly for what Donald Trump
does when he takes a ten percent stake in Intel,
or the same people that are pointing to the socialist
candidate in the Democratic Canadate in New York and saying,
(10:11):
you know, he what he's saying is something that's anti capitalist,
but Trump's fine. Yeah, there's hypocrisy, there's hypocrisy.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
So, like my argument has been like sort of like
my evolution, what we were talking about the reunion, My
evolution and thinking has simply come about where it's like,
I like to think I have a level of intellectual consistency,
you know. And I'm not a big mom downye guy,
so but you know, I want to be clear on that.
So you know, I'm not a raging liberal, but you know,
but I sort of like, I like to think that
(10:41):
I have a certain level of intellectual honesty, you know,
and I can look at it and say like, well,
you know, if I'm saying this is bad, I got
to say it's bad over here too, you know. And
I think, and I'll be honest with you. Twenty twelve,
when Rodney lost, I remember talking to a colleague and
I remember the conversation was he said, well, now now
the Republicans are going to have to become more reasonable
(11:01):
right now that Romneys laws. And they said, it's actually
going the other way. There's a lunatic fringe that is
taking over the party. And I would say, that's like
one of been one of the best prognostications I've had
in a long time. And so that's sort of that's
how I've that's how I've evolved on my thinking is
that when.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
You exit, so you were a Republican up until the
Romney thing and then you you left or before.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
It was that's a great question. I would say it
was somewhere in the ball park. I don't remember exactly
when I was like, I'm done with these people. Certainly
by Trump I was done well.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Mitt Romney was not exactly the people's uh, the people's
choice in my view, But you had a lot of
claws anyway, Brad, what are your thoughts on this? On
this owned owning private enterprise of the federal government taking
warrants and stock and private enterprise? Y' all for it?
You like the socialist in New York? Can he be president?
Was he born here?
Speaker 2 (11:55):
It's a lot of questions.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
I on all those questions, or pick one or two.
Let's just go back to utunity. Wasn't born here? Then
I think he shouldn't be president.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
How's that?
Speaker 3 (12:06):
I agree with? That? Is that good?
Speaker 4 (12:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
I mean we're in agreement on that. But what about
the government owning stock and private enterprisen?
Speaker 5 (12:14):
I mean, I guess it depends on why you're doing
it right and what and what the long term projection.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
For that behavior is right.
Speaker 5 (12:25):
So there's lots of ways that the government steps into
private industry.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
We've talked about a bunch of them just.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
In the last five minutes, and they have some Theoretically,
they have some objective they're trying to achieve by doing that, right,
And theoretically, given that we're a representative democracy, that objective
is best for the people, at least the government thinks so, right,
(12:52):
And if we don't like the way the government thinks,
then theoretically we're going to vote them out can vote
somebody else in.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Right.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
So if there's a if there's a plan, and the
plan is to say, I'm doing this for this reason
that I believe is best for the electorate, and this
is how I'm going to implement the plan, and this
is the objective I'm trying to reach, and this is
why I think this is the best way to reach the subjective.
Then you know, whether it's warrants, whether it's common stock,
whether it's preferred shares of stock.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Whatever it is.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
If the electorate agrees and says, yes, there's a reason
why the government should engage with private industry using a
mechanism that is accepted within our particular economy, right, I
would be against the government seizing any kind of ownership, right,
I mean that's you don't want that, you don't want
(13:39):
the government. This is where communism and fascism meet, right,
because it's it's not a line your political bent is
not aligne. It's a circle where you know, radical left
and the radical right are is the same place.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Right.
Speaker 5 (13:54):
It's where the government runs things and the government takes things,
and the government tells you how to think and how
to behave.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
And if you don't want to think or behave that way,
you're in trouble.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
And so I wouldn't want to see the government seize
ownership of any private industry if they wanted to buy in,
and this is the reason they were doing it, and
we all agree the objective is worthwhile.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Then I don't really care what you call it.
Speaker 5 (14:20):
Stock ownership warrants taking a position in a company.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
If it's within the bounds of the way we.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
Run our economy, if it's within the bounds of what
our government is constitutionally allowed to do, then you know,
generally speaking, I don't have a problem with it. If
I think it's a ridiculous approach, then I'm going to
vote accordingly. Right, that's the only that's the only option
I have as a member of the electorate. It's it's
a fairly powerful one. If there's if enough of us
(14:50):
think that it's ridiculous. But that but that's it, right.
But I do not want to see the government seizing
control and I do not want to see the government
operating in a way that is uncom institutional.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
You know what else is? Yeah, I think that's all.
That's all well taken. You know. It's interesting. When I
first worked as a lawyer, it was out in uh
Palo Alto and we did a lot of uh like
Series A round financings for startups. It was back during
the dot com boom when you could you know, you
have a business plan and you can get you can
(15:22):
get funding. One of the big v cs in the
valley was inc. You tell and inky Tel is the
c I as it's the c I as you know
v C and Inky Tail would go. We had one
client that had this this this browser deal that allowed
you to shield all of your web history from the
(15:45):
the I s p s and an Inky Tel invested
a ton of that company eventually bought it. But there
are examples across the government where where different agencies have
their own vcs and it's basically the government putting money
into uh he's in he's whether it be like Inky
Tell for uh more strategic and national security, you know,
(16:06):
air quotes purposes, or other agencies for other purposes. But
it's all about investing American tax dollars in private enterprise.
And that happens across the government's been happening for decades.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Well, I think that's great.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
I mean if the people who are running those vcs,
who should not be any elected member of the government, right,
I mean, I think there should be a wall between
there one. I just think it's best practice too. I
have yet to meet an elected official, at least one
elected in the last ten years. There wasn't a lunatic,
and so they shouldn't be put in charge of anybody's money.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
And so Barbara Mkowski lunatic.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
I had to go to his office twice because when
I was an agent, because she was being threatened, someone
was threatening to kill her.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And that woman was just a peach buddy.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
Do you have a thing with her?
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Though?
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Was with her?
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yeah? Yeah? Who did?
Speaker 3 (16:58):
But the you know, the uh gorgeous canty, the idea of.
Speaker 5 (17:03):
The government taking taxpayer money giving it to people know
what the f they are doing.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Letting them do.
Speaker 5 (17:11):
That in an effort to encourage technology that benefits the
economy and the country in general, and oh, by the way,
hopefully see a return.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
On it is genius.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
I mean, the government normally just spends our money, right,
they don't make money on our money. And so you know,
the idea that the government would have working for it
people good enough at VC investments to actually see a
return on that and occasionally hit some kind of a
unicorn to actually, you know, really see some kind of
return on it is great.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
I'm one hundred percent for that.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
And if it again, if it pushes technologies that advance
our economy, that advance our way of life, you know,
that advance education, that advance medical research, whatever the case,
even national security, whatever the case may be, I'm one
hundred percent for that. But I mean, that's that's obvious, see,
very different than just taking a position.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
In a company.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
So actually, well, I mean I'm glad you said that, Brad,
because I think that's I mean, I'm in complete agreement
with you. I think everything you said, you know, talking
about historically the government putting money into companies, especially when
there's national security implications. There's technology the government and people
can benefit from. Absolutely, I think, you know, as far
as I can tell, I haven't heard anybody explain with
(18:25):
the national security or economic implications of the government owning
part of Intel are. I don't think that if Intel
went out of business that I mean, there would be
some disruption, but I don't think it would have real
national security implications. I also am bothered by and the
reason I zero went on this is I'm also bothered
by the fact that, and you know, it was right
(18:47):
around that time that Trump was telling Nvidia that it
had to get rid of its CEO. I see a
real slippery slope with what's happening. And that's sort of
part of like, you know, why I'm there, you know,
and sort of like where my political thinking has evolved,
because I look at these things and I don't look
at him in isolation. I look him as part of
(19:07):
a pattern, and I look at him and say, there's
something going on here that's just not right. I mean,
should the president of the United States be telling companies
who to get rid of, for example, late night talk
show hosts. Should a president of the United States be
saying fire these guys? I don't know you.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Yeah, well I was having this I actually.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
Care about a president telling a company that should get
rid of its CEO.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
But that's been happening forever though. I mean, look at
Kennedy with Us Steele. I mean, my god, that that's
been happening. The conflict between public and the you know,
the president, the president in particular, and private enterprise has
been happening way back. I mean, look at FDR. I
mean this is not new. What's new is sort of
the fact that Trump takes everything to a different level
(19:53):
because people are either on his side or people absolutely
despise everything he does. But but just like the just
like the Intel thing, I mean that it's not it's
not new, the talk show.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Host, but the examples you talk about are like, you know,
have a different historical meaning like I'm knowing about now.
Speaker 5 (20:17):
Well, let me let me ask you this, John, because
I was having this discussion with a guy, buddy.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
I mean, you know, someone I liked just over a beer.
This wasn't a debate or an argument.
Speaker 5 (20:25):
But and he this guy is like me, right, I mean,
he's middle aged, he's you know, not wealthy, but he's
not poor. You know, kids are growing and gone, he's
you know, by most measures, certainly the measures that would
be meaningful to me.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
The guy is just a successful guy.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
He happens to be retired, right, He's sort of what
you would hope to be in the United States as
a middle aged guy. Right, You've got a couple of bucks,
but away got a happy marriage. Your kids are not
doing what they want to do, right, So that's kind
of what I'm talking about. And he was, you know,
concerned about some of the things that Trump was quote
unquote doing, and I said, well, okay, I mean I
(21:06):
don't know what are you concerned about. And he made
mention of things like this where he's saying, well, Trump
says and Trump says and Trump I said.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Well, wait a minute. I think you got to draw
a distinction between.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
The move and the mouth, right, I mean, Trump says
a ton of things. And one of the great benefits
of this country and our form of government is that
it doesn't really matter what the president says. Now, I
will grant you that when the president speaks, especially if
he speaks in a public form or even a semi
(21:37):
public form, it makes the news. Right, It matters in
the sense that it becomes it changes the public's awareness
or makes the public more aware of something, or alters
the public's opinion about something, perhaps because the president has
said this or that. But it doesn't matter. He's not
a king, he's not a dictator. Right If the president says, hey,
(21:59):
you should get of a late night talk show host
that puts no pressure on the company or you know media, that's.
Speaker 4 (22:08):
Can I interject, Brad owns what company owns CBS?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
I hope you're not asking that as a serious question.
I have no idea.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
It's Viacom. Okay, what did Viacom? What? What was Trump's
FCC chairman saying to Viacom.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
You're talking about the sky Dance acquisition.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
Dance and then Viacom and the whole. So the point
is that like Trump's FCC said, like, unless you make
these changes, it was extortion They said, unless you make
these changes, we will not approve your We will not approve.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Let me just finish this thought, John, if if the
government does something that's extortionate, then the then the person's
involved in that, up to and including the president should
be prosecuted for that.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
The president can't be that was an official act, well,
decision I don't think he could be prosecuted.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Well, I mean, I guess it would depend on how
you want to construe the term prosecuted.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Right, But the president is not above the law. Go ahead, David.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
But it didn't didn't happen that way, right, They didn't
know there was no quid pro quo. You're going to
get your approval for the sky Dance acquisition if you
get rid of Steve Colbert. The reality and this is
what this is what happens a lot with with with
Keith the Trump thing, right, And and look, anyone who
listens to me knows that I, you know, I was
not a big fan of some of the the Trump
(23:33):
stuff and some stuff I like, some stuff I don't like,
and I call it like I see it. But you know,
there there are there is a this whole thing where
people just they will agree with nothing that he does
and everything that's wrong. They will tie these lines, you know,
between two things that have nothing to do with one another.
Stephen Colbert was costing the network tens of millions of
dollars a year because they were losing money. They didn't
(23:54):
have advertisers, and the show cost a ton to produce,
and he wasn't getting the numbers. It wasn't get half
the number Letterman got, so they shut down that show.
Did he criticize them him, Yes, did he criticize other
hosts that are still on. Yes. The whole FTC thing
with the sky Dance merger is something quite different. I mean,
there are people that tied the Colbert thing to that.
(24:15):
There are people that tied the settlement where CBS settled
with him for the bogus sixty minutes story with Kamala Harris,
but those are there's no nexus between the two, And
then none of that's been proven.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
I would I don't think that. I don't think it's
been proven at all. And I think there is a
nexus between the two. I was just gonna I was
actually going to get to the CBS settlement, that that
was a settlement. I don't know how you can possibly
say there's no nexus between the two. I mean, there's a.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Clear one between the FTC approval of the sky Dance
acquisition and the CBS settlement or and the termination of
Stephen Colbert.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
I mean, I think it's sewing not right CBS.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
But what's the nexus between that and the FTC. I mean,
this was a company that had it wasn't even part
of that lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
The FCC had to approve it.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
Yeah, but but sky Dance was even a party to
the lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
So no, no, But they said the whole for Sherry Redstone
to be able to make the sale, she had to
part of it was that.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
Sky Dance to sky Dance.
Speaker 4 (25:21):
Right. No, she's the one who had to make the
settlement with Trump. She's the she was the owner. It
was trying to sell this skuy Dance.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
That that was not an FT that was that was
a condition to close. It has nothing to do with
the government, had nothing to do with them. No, it
did not. But it's a private it was a private transaction.
It was a condition to close.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
Who was suing Cherry Redstone in paramount.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
I don't know. I don't know if anyone was suing that.
I thought CBS News was under was being sued by the.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
Trump campaign, by by President Trump.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
But John, just because you say that, it does it
was a condition to close between two private parties in
an acquisition. The government didn't say in order to get
this approval, you have to settle and paid Trump eighteen million.
The reason they paid Trump eighteen million is because they're
going to lose the suit. That's the reason.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
No, I completely disagree. I think lawyers had said like
they had a very they had a very good case,
I know.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
But lawyers say listen as and we'll move on to
something else. But as a lawyer, I can tell you
that I said that a lot in cases where we
paid money but there's no proven next. It's just but
it's just words. It's like the And I do want
to get your take on this, you know, because because
there are a lot of things. I was a staunch
Republican and then the whole Gulf War happened, and then
(26:39):
the Democrats and the Republicans sort of converged on this
crazy foreign policy which I don't agree with, and you know,
the Iraq War rather with the made up intelligence and
it's it seemed, you know that that was sort of
my tipping point out of the out of the whole
Republican Party as used to exist. But is there is
(27:02):
there was there some was there one tipping point that
sort of got you going in the other direction? And
are you what do you what do you think about
about Obama and Biden and their presidencies? Are you do
you think those were successful or more good than bad,
or what would you what would you say about that?
Speaker 4 (27:20):
I think I think, actually, I think Obama and Biden
were actually much better than people give him credit for.
I'm gonna go I'm gonna I'm gonna shock you on.
I'm gonna tell you. I can look back now thirty
years later and say, you know what, Clinton was better
than I thought he was at the time.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Right that you wanted to impeach him, I did.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
And I still think he lied under oath. But but
in totality, I do think his presidency was better than
I give him credit for. Then I gave him credit
four at the time. Yeah, Bush, No, Iraq, I'm with you.
The Iraq War was a major turning point for me.
A lot of Democrats I think were spineless. A lot
of Democrats today are still spinless, you know, uh and
(27:59):
unwilling to take a real stand. So, yeah, I'm with
you on that one. No, I don't. I don't think
there was any I can't point to a specific tipping
point I think Trump was. I'm not gonna lie. I
do think Trump was for me. It was the culmination,
That's the one where I went. I just I'm done.
I just can't do this anymore. I think up until then,
I was still dipping my toes. I was still trying.
(28:20):
And at that point I just went, I can't do
this anymore.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
What what is there? Is there anything in Trump's first
term you could point to and say that he did that,
You could say, you know that that was something I'd support.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
That was good, Yeah, the development of the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
Anything else.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Not much.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Well, let me ask you this, because I You've always
been a fair guy, you know, I mean maybe maybe not,
but uh. The thing that got me with the Trump thing,
and I was, you know, I I was one of
the people that that said, you know, in the in
the days leading up to the twenty six teen election,
when you hear all this crazy stuff about the Russia thing,
(29:06):
that there is no way that a campaign like the
Trump campaign back then. And it's changed a lot, right
since it's much more sophisticated, but back in twenty sixteen,
there's no way that crew colluded with the Russians to
change the outcome of the election, and if they did,
they should be tried for treason. I was said it then,
I say it now. But one of the things that
really stuck with me was that whole Russia Gate thing
(29:29):
and how that thing was used to sort of hobble
and American president and administration and it was all, I mean,
all of it was made up. And that really bothers me.
When when something like that happens, it bothered me. When
Trump said that Obama wasn't a US citizen, that bothered me,
and I didn't didn't buy into it. I said that
(29:50):
was crazy. And then and and this, this really bothers it.
And it still bothers me to this day when you
have people that are still standing by and most of
them have received blanket pardons now so you can't do
anything about it. But I mean, that is something and
I'd like to get your take on that, because I've
never got my arms around why someone who's fair can't
(30:12):
just say, man, that was the wrong thing to do,
was anti American and they shouldn't have done it.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
Well, Okay, I'll answer it this way. I'll start with
the Senate Intelligence Committee that said that Russia absolutely interfered, and.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
But we're talking about collusion. We're not talking about interference
by Russia with bots on the internet. Let's not do that. Collusion.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Well, the collusion. I'll get to in a second, but
I'm just saying, first of all, I do think there was.
I'm just I'm just laying the predicate. I absolutely think
there was Russian interference. The Senate Intelligence Committee, run by Republicans,
said that was Russian interference.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
But that's yeah, that's that's fine. There's always Russian interference.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
That's fine, Okay. I'm just saying, so, like, I'm just
to lay the predicate that there was Russian interference.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
As there was this time, as there was Chinese interfere
There are bots all over the internet. You're talking about
Facebook ads, Yes, a lot being interference. But let's talk
about let's talk about this collusion. Because his presidency was hobbled.
I mean, he was had people inside the Justice Department
force his idiot Attorney general to accuse himself and then
(31:14):
and then there was sort of this vacuum there. I mean,
it just seems to me that's fundamentally unfair what they
did there.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. So the reason I'm
going with that is I just want to make sure
we're all in agreement that the Russians did try to
interfere that so the whole start of the Russia quote
unquote collusion story. It didn't start with the Steele dossier.
And I think this is one of the things that
gets forgotten about. Do you remember who would actually where
it started.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
To get the FAISO warrant That's what was used, right.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
But it started with carter Page speaking with an Australian
diplomat and saying that the Russians had hacked the DNC
and were working to support Trump. Right, it started with that,
and then the investigation opened from there.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
I don't even know who that is. I don't even
know who that is, but I know the FBI used
the STEEL to get the visor warrants.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
Not right, well, but it just started with carter Page.
It was actually carter Page, it wasn't the Steele dossier.
So then the second thing is, because this is in
the record, is uh is Don Junior getting the email
saying that the Russians have information on Hillary and him
saying I love it, Yes, let's meet about it.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
I remember that he met he met with that crazy
lawyer who he met with for five minutes and kicked
her out of the office. I mean, but that there
was no nexus again, no nexus this is just pulling it.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Carter Page was part of the was part of the
Trump campaign.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
If yeah, and I don't even know who that. I've
never heard that name before. But don junior, look, if
there were any hint, so any whiff that he was
meeting with meeting with representatives of Putin to overturn the
election period, I'm not even saying anything actually happened, then
then he would have been prosecuted. And he wasn't no
(32:59):
charge because it didn't happen.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
Well, he wasn't prosecuted because well.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Biden was president and Biden rescued everyone else.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
Well, hold on, it didn't happen. We'll get to that
in a minute. But let's back up. Then there was
Do you remember when Trump said, Russia, if you have
more emails?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (33:17):
And what happened that afternoon?
Speaker 3 (33:20):
I have no idea when he was, when he was,
when he was, when he was speaking to millions of
people making jokes about the Hillary server where she had
highly classified emails on her home server.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Yeah, he'd be about it that afternoon.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
Okay, well Russia, Russia did.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Yes, Russia did. Russia released the day. You can look
it up. It's not you don't have to take my
word on it. Russia, he asked for it, we did it.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Yeah. Well, but see, this is what I'm but this
is what I mean. I I just think sometimes with Trump,
for some reason, people can't be fair. And well, you
just said you just pulled three things out. I mean,
I've heard of the Don Jinge thing, the other the
other two I haven't. But it's like an entire presidency
was hobbled, and you had folks at the FBI, and
(34:10):
Brad was in the FBI. I'd love to get your
take on this, But you had your folks at the FBI,
like that crazy former head of the FBI, the tall guy,
who who literally did everything they could to set Trump
up to take a big fall as a traitor to
this country, which he wasn't. And I mean, I just
(34:34):
have a huge problem with that, and that is what's
led to all of you know, what's happened in the
last last year or so, And there's a huge distrust
of these institutions because of the way they behaved in
twenty sixteen. And Brad, what are your thoughts on that
as a former member of the the Federal intelligence apparatus.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
I mean, to the extent that anyone within the FBI
took their particular prefer political position and polled levers that
only FBI agents can pull to advance that political position,
then at a minimum they should lose their jobs and
they should almost certainly be prosecuted for it. I mean
(35:17):
when I came into the bureau, which was a long
time ago, there was a process, as I'm sure there
still is for being selected to go to Quantico. And
on one of the parts that process was you were
interviewed by three senior agents just there was a pool
of senior agents who are willing to do this process.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
They'd be randomly selected.
Speaker 5 (35:36):
They'd be sent to a you know, usually a big
city where they would aggregate these interviews. And if you
had made it to this point in the process, this
was kind of towards the end of the process, then
you would also be sent, you know, to one of
these places where they were doing.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
The interviews, and you were interviewed.
Speaker 5 (35:52):
By three you know, field agents, not supervisors, but senior
field agents. And one of the questions that I was
point blank asked is you know, what is what is
your political you know kind of stance, like not what
party or you a member of if at all, But
just you know, how do you feel about politics in general?
Speaker 2 (36:11):
And I don't know how most.
Speaker 5 (36:12):
Folks answer, but for me it was easy because I
hate politics. I just cannot stand it. I love democracy,
but to me, the definition of politics is how you
twist democracy to advance something you want to advance. And
if that turns out to be good for the country,
then great, but it doesn't have to.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
And I just loathe politics. I always have. And so
that was my answer. I love politics and I don't
participate in it. And apparently that.
Speaker 5 (36:37):
Answer was at least acceptable, because, you know, as fate
would have it, I got the job. And when I
got into the Bureau, when I graduated from Quantaca and
went out to my first field office and started investigating cases,
most other people around me were that same view, right,
I mean, you just it's kind of what the Bureau
was looking for was folks who were interested in investigating
crime and didn't really care who the criminals were, even
(36:59):
if those criminals were political, even if they were judges, etc.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
And I liked that a lot.
Speaker 5 (37:06):
I mean, I think that said something about the United
States that we were willing to establish within the government
an investigative body that had the authority to investigate anyone,
didn't matter.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
Who they were.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
If they were in violation of the federal law, then
they could be investigated by the FBI.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
And the FBI was going to do.
Speaker 5 (37:26):
That fairly, and they were going to do it in
accordance with the law and the procedures established by the FBI.
And for me, when I was in and I was
in for thirteen fourteen years.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
There were agents who did that wrong things.
Speaker 5 (37:43):
I mean their agents that got bounced for fraud on
their travel voucher stuff like that. But to my knowledge,
at least with the folks I worked with, no one
ever tried to advance their own political views using the
influence they had as FBI agents and I and it
had they, I would have found that rarehensible and I
would have been the first person to say, this is
not this cannot be.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
This is this is going to.
Speaker 5 (38:05):
Knock the underpinnings out of what makes the FBI valuable.
So to the extent that that happened, then those people
above all should be prosecuted. Right other political players, people
who are trying to use the dossier or whatever else
for their own political advancement or to subordinate their opponents politically.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
That's what political people do. It's one of the reasons
why I don't like them. But that's what they do.
Speaker 5 (38:32):
And if they violated the law when doing it, then
they should be prosecuted as well. But for sure, the
people who should be prosecuted were the people who were
given investigative powers to include the ability to go and
testify in front of a PAISA court. And if they
use their political their own political views to influence that court,
then they should be prosecuted, no question about it. And
(38:55):
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That's the other thing that I don't get is you know,
you've got people on both sides saying, well, you should
investigate this person or prosecute that person, or they should
be you know, sued by a state or by a
government agency because they're a bad person.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
I just don't like them.
Speaker 5 (39:13):
And then when the same thing happens, but the shoes
on the opposite foot, then all of a sudden, that's
you know, that's you can't do that.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
That's like mortgage loan.
Speaker 5 (39:22):
I mean, it just kills me and John, I mean,
you know, I don't know where you stand on this.
But it seems to me that that was sort of
initiated against Trump by the left right. I'm sure Lawfair
was applied previously. You could probably go back into the
eighteenth century and even and find an example, but it
seems like that idea really came to the forefront. We
(39:42):
got to get this guy Trump. We hate Trump. Everything
Trump does is wrong, and it is worth whatever we
have to sacrifice to get this guy.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
And now when the.
Speaker 5 (39:53):
Shoes on the other foot, suddenly you know, that's just
terrible behavior, and that is ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
I actually I would at first I agree with you
general premise that you know Lawfair's wrong. Okay, I don't disagree,
but I do disagree that it was inappropriate in the
case of you know what happened with Trump. You know,
for example, you know, I mean, we can go back
to talking about Mike Flynn, right, Remember you remember him,
(40:22):
his first National security advisor. Do you remember what Mike
Flynn was? What played? He pled guilty to heed.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Pa, lying to the FBI, He lied to the FBI.
Speaker 4 (40:31):
Flying to the FBI about Russian contacts.
Speaker 3 (40:35):
But who whoa, whoa whoa.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Listen, let me let me hang on, because then David
you can. You can run with us because I don't.
But let me just speak to that. So that's you.
That's Title eighteen of.
Speaker 5 (40:44):
The United States Code, Section one thousand and one. Okay, John,
I mean, and you're in my wheelhouse here. Do you
have any idea how many people lie to the FBI?
And in my entire career, and I investigated some significant
cases where lying impeded the investigation of the case to
(41:05):
the detriment of private citizens of the United States, the
government of the United States, and national security. I raised
those charges with prosecutors every single time they occurred. You
do a prosecutive report that you turn over to the
US Attorney's office, and every time it happened, I wrote
it up. I said, you know, in addition to these
other violations, here's two thousand and one, right, you lied
(41:28):
to the FBI and that impeded an investigation and stood
in the way of justice being enacted. And every single
time the prosecutors said, yeah, we're not going to charge that.
I mean, you know, people just lie. They're trying to
protect themselves. You know, they're afraid something bad might happen.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
They just lie. You know what, We're going to get
them for this. We're going to get them for that.
We're not going to charge.
Speaker 5 (41:51):
That every single time. And to my knowledge, that was
true for every single investigator that ever put that charge
in a charging document, which happened all the time. And
I was incredulous when I heard that what the Bureau
got Flinn on was one thousand and one it is,
(42:13):
that's the same thing. Well, it's even worse, in fact,
as far worse as getting you know, a significant gangster
on like tax fraud alcohol, I mean well alcoholm being
an example, right on tax fraud. They got Flynn on
something that literally everyone who has contact with the FBI,
ninety nine point nine percent of people the FBI talks
(42:35):
to and a criminal investigation lied to them.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
But why were they why were they even here's the question, right, Okay,
So Flint flints and again air quotes contacts with it
Russians happened in December of twenty sixteen, when he was
the incoming National Security Advisor or whatever he was going
to be, which had happened in nineteen ninety eight, nineteen
eighty eight, with James Baker talking to the Russian, his
(43:00):
Russian compatriot when he was coming in a Secretary of State.
It happened when Hillary Clinton was coming in in two
thousand and eight. She talked to Medvedev or whoever the
president was at the time. So there is no news
in an incoming national security official talking to his counterpart
in a foreign country during a transition. And even Hillary Clinton,
(43:22):
you know, went so far as to say to Medvedev,
hold on, wait till we come in. We're going to
reset things you know, don't don't you know, make any
moves now. And no one thought about sending the FBI
in to Browbeater in her in her office, you know,
a couple of weeks after Obama took office, because it's
it's just underheard of what's happening with with Trump and
(43:46):
his officials. I mean that that's all they got flint
on and there was not that.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
Everything you said maybe true, but I tie it back
to look at it's the Russians, but.
Speaker 3 (43:59):
It's you have to deal with Russia there. They're your
biggest adversary next to the Chinese.
Speaker 2 (44:04):
David.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
The point I'm making is that like I don't pull
one thing out and say look at that thing individually,
I say look at it all.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
As Potter of a pattern, but the pattern?
Speaker 4 (44:13):
What hold on? Wait a minute, So I just saying,
so he played he pled guilty to this, correct, So
it presumably there was some kind of negotiation that occurred.
Would that be accurate to say.
Speaker 3 (44:25):
They wanted him, they wanted him out, and they got
him out, and they made him He didn't have any money,
he couldn't defend it.
Speaker 4 (44:31):
Okay, So, but the point is he did have the
contacts with the Russians he was coming.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
But wait, what's inappropriate about those contacts? Take for example
what I just said and take it as factors. It
is what happened.
Speaker 4 (44:44):
He's not supposed to be having the context like that.
I know, like I'm not that's untrue. No, he wasn't.
He was not, Actually he was.
Speaker 3 (44:52):
He was nominated to be the the.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
He was not. He was not in a position to
negotiate on behalf of the government.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
I understand that, But he what I just so, should
James Baker have been interviewed by the FBI and then prosecuted?
Should Hillary Clinton have been maybe so incoming incoming? So
your preference is there's no law that he violated, right,
I mean, other than lying to the FBI.
Speaker 4 (45:16):
I don't know the statute, but my understanding is, yes,
he did actually violate a law.
Speaker 3 (45:19):
He was not charged with that, though John I was
charged with lying with the FBI.
Speaker 4 (45:24):
The well, he pled to lying to the FBI.
Speaker 3 (45:29):
But I'm saying, there's no law that says an incoming
national security official cannot talk to their counterpart in another
country in advance of the inauguration.
Speaker 4 (45:38):
No, actually, he can't do it without approval from the
current administration. He didn't do it. He did it quietly
and secretly and didn't tell anybody you can do it.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
I don't I don't think that's right because I certainly
don't think the Bush administration gave Hillary Clinton approval to
talk about a reset with Medvedev during the transition period
in it. So I don't think that's right. But in
any of that that that's fine. But my bigger concern
is this, Then this is part of it. The law
fair right, because you you have the Flynn thing where
they they you know, did what they did, and all
(46:09):
the Trump lawsuits, which I think got him elected again,
got him reelected, you know, in twenty four and now
you have the shoe on the other foot. As Brad
just said, like, what's good for the goose? You've got us, Senators,
you've got I mean again what Trump was charged with
on the one of the cases where it was just
(46:31):
you know, there was some misrepresentation on a loan loan
documentation where both parties to the loan were happy the
loan was repaid. The banks want to do more business
with Trump. But the you know, the state jumped in
and got that half a billion dollar verdict that was
now overturned. You know you got that, and now what
you have are the Trump folks coming after. Let me
(46:53):
just finish the Trump folks coming after, you know, senators
and members of the Federal Reserve who did the very
same thing on their home mortgage applications and second home
mortgage applications. And I don't like any of it, Like
I'm not for any of this, but I do agree
with Brad. With Brad that when you start down this road,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Speaker 4 (47:14):
So can I I just want to clarify something you said.
The he actually the verdict in the fraud case against
him wasn't overturned. The judgment was overturned. The verdict half
a billion dollars. Yeah, but the verdict still stands.
Speaker 3 (47:27):
Yeah. Yeah, the half a billion is gone, so he
doesn't have to eat the bond is no longer have
to be a post.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
You're correct about the money. I'm just the judge said
it was against the Eighth Amendment. It was, but that's
fine whatever.
Speaker 3 (47:38):
Yeah, yeah, but it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is
these hyper technical prosecutions of you know, the these It
shouldn't happen. It should never have happened to Trump. I
mean there was literally you have a da in New
York that said, I am going to if you elect me,
I'm going to get Trump on whatever I can find.
But that's how she ran.
Speaker 4 (47:54):
That was her platform.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
I get that. I mean I get that. And then
maybe Adam Schiff will be and maybe this.
Speaker 2 (48:03):
I will just tell you that.
Speaker 5 (48:05):
And this is when people ask me about this, and
they asked me about all the time just because of
my background. It doesn't make me an expert, but I
do have a pretty broad background in federal criminal investigations.
Speaker 2 (48:16):
And my response is simply this.
Speaker 5 (48:18):
You don't want this, okay, don't want at the political level, right,
because as we've all talked about, it's going to get
pushed back in your face. If you established this as
an acceptable political practice for the left to go after
the right, as soon as the right's in position to
do it, they're going to do it back to you.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
So it's it's a net loser. I mean, you should
just never do it.
Speaker 5 (48:40):
But even more importantly, you don't want prosecutors taking, as
David said, hyper technical positions on the law to get
a private citizen. And that's what Trump was at the
time that these charges were brought, because.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
That could be done to you today.
Speaker 5 (48:57):
I promise you, John that, as an FBI jen if
I wanted to come after you for something, and that's
what I dedicated myself to, and I had a prosecutor
who wanted.
Speaker 2 (49:06):
To get you as well, we would get you. So
you don't want that.
Speaker 5 (49:11):
You don't want the law being used as a weapon.
What you want is justice, and that's not what you're
seeing in these fraud cases against Trump. Like him or
hate him, it doesn't matter. You're not seeing the application
of justice. You're seeing the law used as a blunt
instrument against a person's opponent. And every freaking American, anyone
(49:37):
who likes freedom.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Quite frankly, should be standing up and going stop that.
Speaker 4 (49:43):
My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, because I
don't know enough of the ins and outs of this.
Is that like the case that was brought against Trump
has been brought in New York before, Like this isn't
it's not original to Trump, right, So I don't know
that it was hyper technical and hyper political. I mean,
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong that you
can't separate the politics. Obviously going after him is is
(50:04):
obviously a big deal.
Speaker 3 (50:05):
You know.
Speaker 4 (50:07):
I'm going to try to remind us, though of something
that if you remember back in twenty sixteen, okay, because
this goes into when Trump became president, do you remember
on the debate stage what he said to Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 3 (50:18):
Did he did he actually do it?
Speaker 2 (50:20):
No?
Speaker 4 (50:20):
Hold on, I'm gonna I'm getting there. He said, I
want to put you. You should be in prison, my should?
Speaker 2 (50:26):
He probably should have been there. I mean, how did
an FBI had to have done what she did? That
FBI would have gone to jail.
Speaker 4 (50:32):
Okay, well, now, gentleman, she wasn't convicted, now was she? So?
Speaker 3 (50:35):
So I understand no Jerry convicted her?
Speaker 2 (50:39):
No, no, no, no, Jerry. The FBI said she was
wrong and then refused to charge her.
Speaker 4 (50:45):
Trump Trump did want the Justice Department to look into
prosecuting Guillery, and that was sort of pushed off because
we at least had some people with a little bit
of integrity. I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but at
least he even he his limits. Jeff Session obviously had
certain limits. I mean I kind of feel like this
(51:06):
whole thing with law fair when you have somebody standing
up on a debate stage saying that my opponent should
be in prison, and then you know, taking steps behind
the scenes to see that, well, can it be done?
You know? I think we have to kind of step
back and say, you know, where did this all begin?
Speaker 3 (51:23):
Yeah? And I know, but I get you, and I
don't agree. I mean, it's like the Russia thing with
all the different data points that don't connect to say
that he could try this behind the scene. I mean that,
as far as I know, it didn't happen. No one's
Bill Barr never said it happened. So I don't agree
with that, But I do think we should all like
try at some point to take a step back. And
(51:45):
I think it would be very helpful too for folks
on the left or on the Democratic side, left and
right really don't apply anymore. But folks who don't like
Trump to take a step back and at least say, hey, look,
he didn't get a fair shake in twenty sixteen. The
Russigate thing was clear made up, and then all these
prosecutions that were meant to ruin him shouldn't have happened.
And I'll say, you know, going into these mortgage applications
(52:10):
which appear to be have similar errors, some of them
even more errors than the Trump organization had. I don't
like that either, But I do think until we get
to that point where we can all take a step
back and call something that's wrong wrong, regardless of who's
doing it and what label you put on it, and
if it's something that's beneficial to Trump, I think we're
all going to be spinning on a hamster wheel. But anyway,
(52:34):
we are about out of time. John, I want to
give you the chance for the last word, and you know,
follow up at any points you want to follow up on.
Speaker 4 (52:45):
I know we're running low on time, so no, I
certainly would have more to say, and I certainly would
love to have more points to follow up on. But
I just want to thank you. I have actually enjoyed this.
I don't often get the opportunity to engage in these
kinds of discussions, so I appreciate your willingness to let
me do so.
Speaker 3 (53:03):
Now, this has been fun. We'll have to do it again,
and hopefully if someone finds those missing one Sunday tapes,
we can get together and watch some of the some
of the glory days. Those will be very popular on
the YouTube, Brad, very popular.
Speaker 2 (53:17):
Well, I trust that's true.
Speaker 3 (53:19):
All right, John, thank you again. We appreciate it, and
I'm sure we'll talk again down the road.
Speaker 4 (53:24):
Yeah. Thanks, guys, this was fun. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (53:27):
Ah, buddy, there you have it.
Speaker 5 (53:29):
We'll just keep at it right here, IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (53:33):
This has been IP frequently, once again, clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 3 (53:42):
You're welcome.
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Loggingess.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Well, brother, there it is the Little Riverband reminiscing. I
saw them play last summer summer twenty twenty four on
the at the Cape cod Melody Tent, which believe it
or not, is still there, and they were fantastic And
the song is perfect for what we're about to do,
because we're gonna go back and reminisce about the Reagan Revolution,
the Gingrich Revolution, the Clinton, Monica Lewinsky stuff, Vince Foster,
(01:18):
the Golf War, the Golf of Tonk and everything imaginable.
As we talk to John Gagan, who is a former
disciple of New Gingrich, who now is completely a different
political persuasion.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Well body, I mean you've certainly enticed me with that.
Let's do it.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
But let me start by saying to everyone, welcome. This
is Dave Purdman Brad Sheef here on IP frequently and
we mean business podcast. We're excited to be here on
the iHeartRadio Podcast Radio Network where you can find us
here each week. And if you don't like the iHeartRadio
(02:02):
Podcast Radio Network, and if you prefer another vehicle to
consume your your podcasts, whether that be Spotify, Apple or
really anywhere in between, Google, the Tender, whatever you whatever
you like, we're fine with that. We are we are
fine with that as long as you subscribe, rate, review,
recommend to a friend, and you know, as Brad has
(02:26):
said in the in the past, if you want to
create burner accounts to simply subscribe to the podcast and
like uh and rate and review, we're fine with that.
You can learn more about our show on our website
and also you can buy some pretty cool merch at
ip frequently dot com. And if you go to social
(02:48):
media anywhere on the planet or beyond and you type
in at I p Underscore Frequently, you'll learn all about us.
But this week we have a guest star, John gig
and who I knew back in the early nineties, John
was a friend of mine. Who did you know? I
mentioned every once in a while my time on the
(03:11):
local access show One Sunday, which was John's weekly show
that was like the answer to This Week with David Brinkley,
only without David Brinkley or any of the viewers. And
we used to go on there and there'd be like
a couple of liberal people and then there'd be John
out on the right and I'd be out there with him,
and you just have these very interesting, you know, conflicts
(03:33):
about everything from the Gulf War to Bush's tax bill
to Bill Clinton and everything between. And John and I
lost touch for a number of years, and then we
just got reconnected at a debate reunion earlier this year,
and we talked about it and thought it would be
a great idea for John to come on the program.
And I know he's frequently commented on some of the
(03:55):
things you and particularly you but you and I have
said on the show, so we thought it would be
a great idea to have him on, get his thoughts
and have another rancorous debate. So John, Welcome to the Prettyman.
Chief IP frequently podcast.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Well, thank you, gentlemen. You know, one of the things
I do want to correct you on earlier is when
we were doing our introductions off camera, I was not
at the vanguard of the Reagan Revolution. I was at
the vanguard of the Gingrich Revolution. If you remember, back
in the early to mid nineties, when the Republicans took
over Congress. I was definitely one of the foot soldiers
who was a you know, a true believer in the
(04:31):
Gingerish way of doing things. And I did enjoy many
of our many of our debates back on one Sunday.
I actually would love and it'll be impossible to do this,
but I would love to go back and look at
some of our prognostications and see how inaccurate they were.
I've had a few that have been have come true.
You know, I certainly will own up to my fair
(04:52):
share of failures on that front.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
But flying cars have yet to come true to fruition.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
That's that was a big failure.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
You know, those are kind of like the Epstein tapes
when and so you're calling for their release the public
is that right.
Speaker 4 (05:05):
Indeed, if they can be found, if there are no
missing minutes, And unfortunately I think there are missing minutes, Yes,
I would like the public to have access to them.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
I would love to see that too. I would love
to see that too. I was a great dresser back then, Brad.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
It's a great dresser back during the cable access TV.
We talked about this this morning. Buddy TV was much
simpler then. You knew how to use your TV. Now
I have an Apple TV that's got forty eight apps
on it and I still can't.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Figure out how to watch the Chiefs Chargers game.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
It's it's on YouTube. It's free. You put on YouTube.
It's free tonight, eight o'clock free. I'll call on talk
your throat if you have a problem. I'm going to
bed early.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Okay.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
So John has we talked at the Debate reunion, and
John has sort of done a one to eighty from
his stance as part of the Hitler youth back in
the early nineties in Washington, d C. And he is
now he is now on the radical left, like that
nut in New York who's going to socialize the grocery
(06:07):
stores and can't bench press sixty pounds.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
You know, actually that's a great place for us to
jump off. Can I ask you guys a question.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Since you that what John we do we asked the
questions here, but yeah, sorry, no, no, you can you
can supervem chief podcast.
Speaker 4 (06:21):
No, since you mentioned a radical socialist and you.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Know Mandwani Mandabi, what's.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Let's just let's just say for the sake of argument.
In twenty twenty eight, President mom Donnie decides that the
government's going to start owning shares and companies and he decides.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
To is he eligible to run? That was? Is he A?
Speaker 4 (06:40):
I don't know, let's just just go with me on
this police so.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I don't know if we can constitution.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
He he wants to. He wants the government to own
ten percent of companies. He starts with intel. If that's
an area came to pass, you would say.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
You're talking about forced ownership, or you're talking about where
the government gives large benefits to these companies and expects
something in return, like with the auto bailout of the
two thousand and.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
The banks of ten percent of the shares of a
company that's a ten percent stake in the company. You
would say, I.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Would say, it's happened to look at the banking crisis.
It's happened before.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
And you're okay with it.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
I mean the government bailed out the banks, took large
swats of warrants in the banks and made out, Okay,
made their money back. I mean, you got to get
your money back somehow. I mean, generally, I'm not I'm
not okay with forced ownership of private enterprise. But where
the government's bailing them out, you know, the government shouldn't.
The government money is not free. It's our tax money.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
Well, I understand, but do you think that you know,
if the Commerce secretary for President Mom Donnie said.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Hey, I still don't, I'm not conceding that point because
I think he's I don't think he was born here.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Yeah he's not, he's not eligible. I'm just kind of
making a general point.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
About might be too young too.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
Socialism, you know, I guess it depends on who's doing
the socialism.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Like well, I mean Bush did the Auto and Obama
did the Auto bailout. And I mean, I mean, generally,
I'm fine with getting your money back. I mean, I'm
I'm fine with That's like that chipsack thing with Intel.
You know, if they're getting a huge government subsidy, it
shouldn't be for free. There should be some something attached
to that.
Speaker 4 (08:28):
I have a real I have a real issue with
the government actually owning a stake in companies. I don't
have a problem with them saying that, like, you know,
here's a promisory note, you're gonna have to pay it back,
but actually having an ownership stake. I think it's like
we tenants. We have a tendency to say that, like, oh,
this person's terrible because this person wants to put grocery
soars in, But it's okay if my guy wants to
(08:49):
actually own ten percent of a company.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Well, I'm talking about the some of the promises this
guy's made about about taking private enterprises like grocery stores
and opening them up and giving people free grocery. I mean,
it's never gonna happen. We all know it's never gonna happen.
Were you okay with the banking bailout where we took
warrants or the auto bailout we took warrants.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
And in fact, if you want to go, I would
actually argue that bankers probably should have gone to jail,
like there was no accountability whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing the bailouts that
preserved the deposits of hundreds of millions of Americans? Are
you okay with that?
Speaker 4 (09:27):
Yeah, I'm okay with I'm okay with preserving.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
So if the if the.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Federal government's going to do that, then then shouldn't they
have some some upside. I mean, they're basically saving the banks,
and I would argue that the warrants they got in
saving the banks was the upside to the American taxpayer.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
That's I agree. I would not call for an ownership stake,
but that's.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
What that waban. It basically was. It was warrants and
issued by those companies. But I see your point. I
see your point. So some you're saying people you're you're
saying that people who are blindly for what Donald Trump
does when he takes a ten percent stake in Intel,
or the same people that are pointing to the socialist
candidate in the Democratic Canadate in New York and saying,
(10:11):
you know, he what he's saying is something that's anti capitalist,
but Trump's fine. Yeah, there's hypocrisy, there's hypocrisy.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
So, like my argument has been like sort of like
my evolution, what we were talking about the reunion, My
evolution and thinking has simply come about where it's like,
I like to think I have a level of intellectual consistency,
you know. And I'm not a big mom downye guy,
so but you know, I want to be clear on that.
So you know, I'm not a raging liberal, but you know,
but I sort of like, I like to think that
(10:41):
I have a certain level of intellectual honesty, you know,
and I can look at it and say like, well,
you know, if I'm saying this is bad, I got
to say it's bad over here too, you know. And
I think, and I'll be honest with you. Twenty twelve,
when Rodney lost, I remember talking to a colleague and
I remember the conversation was he said, well, now now
the Republicans are going to have to become more reasonable
(11:01):
right now that Romneys laws. And they said, it's actually
going the other way. There's a lunatic fringe that is
taking over the party. And I would say, that's like
one of been one of the best prognostications I've had
in a long time. And so that's sort of that's
how I've that's how I've evolved on my thinking is
that when.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
You exit, so you were a Republican up until the
Romney thing and then you you left or before.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
It was that's a great question. I would say it
was somewhere in the ball park. I don't remember exactly
when I was like, I'm done with these people. Certainly
by Trump I was done well.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Mitt Romney was not exactly the people's uh, the people's
choice in my view, But you had a lot of
claws anyway, Brad, what are your thoughts on this? On
this owned owning private enterprise of the federal government taking
warrants and stock and private enterprise? Y' all for it?
You like the socialist in New York? Can he be president?
Was he born here?
Speaker 2 (11:55):
It's a lot of questions.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
I on all those questions, or pick one or two.
Let's just go back to utunity. Wasn't born here? Then
I think he shouldn't be president.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
How's that?
Speaker 3 (12:06):
I agree with? That? Is that good?
Speaker 4 (12:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
I mean we're in agreement on that. But what about
the government owning stock and private enterprisen?
Speaker 5 (12:14):
I mean, I guess it depends on why you're doing
it right and what and what the long term projection.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
For that behavior is right.
Speaker 5 (12:25):
So there's lots of ways that the government steps into
private industry.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
We've talked about a bunch of them just.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
In the last five minutes, and they have some Theoretically,
they have some objective they're trying to achieve by doing that, right,
And theoretically, given that we're a representative democracy, that objective
is best for the people, at least the government thinks so, right,
(12:52):
And if we don't like the way the government thinks,
then theoretically we're going to vote them out can vote
somebody else in.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Right.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
So if there's a if there's a plan, and the
plan is to say, I'm doing this for this reason
that I believe is best for the electorate, and this
is how I'm going to implement the plan, and this
is the objective I'm trying to reach, and this is
why I think this is the best way to reach the subjective.
Then you know, whether it's warrants, whether it's common stock,
whether it's preferred shares of stock.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Whatever it is.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
If the electorate agrees and says, yes, there's a reason
why the government should engage with private industry using a
mechanism that is accepted within our particular economy, right, I
would be against the government seizing any kind of ownership, right,
I mean that's you don't want that, you don't want
(13:39):
the government. This is where communism and fascism meet, right,
because it's it's not a line your political bent is
not aligne. It's a circle where you know, radical left
and the radical right are is the same place.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Right.
Speaker 5 (13:54):
It's where the government runs things and the government takes things,
and the government tells you how to think and how
to behave.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
And if you don't want to think or behave that way,
you're in trouble.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
And so I wouldn't want to see the government seize
ownership of any private industry if they wanted to buy in,
and this is the reason they were doing it, and
we all agree the objective is worthwhile.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Then I don't really care what you call it.
Speaker 5 (14:20):
Stock ownership warrants taking a position in a company.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
If it's within the bounds of the way we.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
Run our economy, if it's within the bounds of what
our government is constitutionally allowed to do, then you know,
generally speaking, I don't have a problem with it. If
I think it's a ridiculous approach, then I'm going to
vote accordingly. Right, that's the only that's the only option
I have as a member of the electorate. It's it's
a fairly powerful one. If there's if enough of us
(14:50):
think that it's ridiculous. But that but that's it, right.
But I do not want to see the government seizing
control and I do not want to see the government
operating in a way that is uncom institutional.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
You know what else is? Yeah, I think that's all.
That's all well taken. You know. It's interesting. When I
first worked as a lawyer, it was out in uh
Palo Alto and we did a lot of uh like
Series A round financings for startups. It was back during
the dot com boom when you could you know, you
have a business plan and you can get you can
(15:22):
get funding. One of the big v cs in the
valley was inc. You tell and inky Tel is the
c I as it's the c I as you know
v C and Inky Tail would go. We had one
client that had this this this browser deal that allowed
you to shield all of your web history from the
(15:45):
the I s p s and an Inky Tel invested
a ton of that company eventually bought it. But there
are examples across the government where where different agencies have
their own vcs and it's basically the government putting money
into uh he's in he's whether it be like Inky
Tell for uh more strategic and national security, you know,
(16:06):
air quotes purposes, or other agencies for other purposes. But
it's all about investing American tax dollars in private enterprise.
And that happens across the government's been happening for decades.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Well, I think that's great.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
I mean if the people who are running those vcs,
who should not be any elected member of the government, right,
I mean, I think there should be a wall between
there one. I just think it's best practice too. I
have yet to meet an elected official, at least one
elected in the last ten years. There wasn't a lunatic,
and so they shouldn't be put in charge of anybody's money.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
And so Barbara Mkowski lunatic.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
I had to go to his office twice because when
I was an agent, because she was being threatened, someone
was threatening to kill her.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
And that woman was just a peach buddy.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
Do you have a thing with her?
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Though?
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Was with her?
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yeah? Yeah? Who did?
Speaker 3 (16:58):
But the you know, the uh gorgeous canty, the idea of.
Speaker 5 (17:03):
The government taking taxpayer money giving it to people know
what the f they are doing.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Letting them do.
Speaker 5 (17:11):
That in an effort to encourage technology that benefits the
economy and the country in general, and oh, by the way,
hopefully see a return.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
On it is genius.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
I mean, the government normally just spends our money, right,
they don't make money on our money. And so you know,
the idea that the government would have working for it
people good enough at VC investments to actually see a
return on that and occasionally hit some kind of a
unicorn to actually, you know, really see some kind of
return on it is great.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
I'm one hundred percent for that.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
And if it again, if it pushes technologies that advance
our economy, that advance our way of life, you know,
that advance education, that advance medical research, whatever the case,
even national security, whatever the case may be, I'm one
hundred percent for that. But I mean, that's that's obvious, see,
very different than just taking a position.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
In a company.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
So actually, well, I mean I'm glad you said that, Brad,
because I think that's I mean, I'm in complete agreement
with you. I think everything you said, you know, talking
about historically the government putting money into companies, especially when
there's national security implications. There's technology the government and people
can benefit from. Absolutely, I think, you know, as far
as I can tell, I haven't heard anybody explain with
(18:25):
the national security or economic implications of the government owning
part of Intel are. I don't think that if Intel
went out of business that I mean, there would be
some disruption, but I don't think it would have real
national security implications. I also am bothered by and the
reason I zero went on this is I'm also bothered
by the fact that, and you know, it was right
(18:47):
around that time that Trump was telling Nvidia that it
had to get rid of its CEO. I see a
real slippery slope with what's happening. And that's sort of
part of like, you know, why I'm there, you know,
and sort of like where my political thinking has evolved,
because I look at these things and I don't look
at him in isolation. I look him as part of
(19:07):
a pattern, and I look at him and say, there's
something going on here that's just not right. I mean,
should the president of the United States be telling companies
who to get rid of, for example, late night talk
show hosts. Should a president of the United States be
saying fire these guys? I don't know you.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Yeah, well I was having this I actually.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
Care about a president telling a company that should get
rid of its CEO.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
But that's been happening forever though. I mean, look at
Kennedy with Us Steele. I mean, my god, that that's
been happening. The conflict between public and the you know,
the president, the president in particular, and private enterprise has
been happening way back. I mean, look at FDR. I
mean this is not new. What's new is sort of
the fact that Trump takes everything to a different level
(19:53):
because people are either on his side or people absolutely
despise everything he does. But but just like the just
like the Intel thing, I mean that it's not it's
not new, the talk show.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Host, but the examples you talk about are like, you know,
have a different historical meaning like I'm knowing about now.
Speaker 5 (20:17):
Well, let me let me ask you this, John, because
I was having this discussion with a guy, buddy.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
I mean, you know, someone I liked just over a beer.
This wasn't a debate or an argument.
Speaker 5 (20:25):
But and he this guy is like me, right, I mean,
he's middle aged, he's you know, not wealthy, but he's
not poor. You know, kids are growing and gone, he's
you know, by most measures, certainly the measures that would
be meaningful to me.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
The guy is just a successful guy.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
He happens to be retired, right, He's sort of what
you would hope to be in the United States as
a middle aged guy. Right, You've got a couple of bucks,
but away got a happy marriage. Your kids are not
doing what they want to do, right, So that's kind
of what I'm talking about. And he was, you know,
concerned about some of the things that Trump was quote
unquote doing, and I said, well, okay, I mean I
(21:06):
don't know what are you concerned about. And he made
mention of things like this where he's saying, well, Trump
says and Trump says and Trump I said.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Well, wait a minute. I think you got to draw
a distinction between.
Speaker 5 (21:17):
The move and the mouth, right, I mean, Trump says
a ton of things. And one of the great benefits
of this country and our form of government is that
it doesn't really matter what the president says. Now, I
will grant you that when the president speaks, especially if
he speaks in a public form or even a semi
(21:37):
public form, it makes the news. Right, It matters in
the sense that it becomes it changes the public's awareness
or makes the public more aware of something, or alters
the public's opinion about something, perhaps because the president has
said this or that. But it doesn't matter. He's not
a king, he's not a dictator. Right If the president says, hey,
(21:59):
you should get of a late night talk show host
that puts no pressure on the company or you know media, that's.
Speaker 4 (22:08):
Can I interject, Brad owns what company owns CBS?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
I hope you're not asking that as a serious question.
I have no idea.
Speaker 4 (22:16):
It's Viacom. Okay, what did Viacom? What? What was Trump's
FCC chairman saying to Viacom.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
You're talking about the sky Dance acquisition.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
Dance and then Viacom and the whole. So the point
is that like Trump's FCC said, like, unless you make
these changes, it was extortion They said, unless you make
these changes, we will not approve your We will not approve.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Let me just finish this thought, John, if if the
government does something that's extortionate, then the then the person's
involved in that, up to and including the president should
be prosecuted for that.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
The president can't be that was an official act, well,
decision I don't think he could be prosecuted.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Well, I mean, I guess it would depend on how
you want to construe the term prosecuted.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Right, But the president is not above the law. Go ahead, David.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
But it didn't didn't happen that way, right, They didn't
know there was no quid pro quo. You're going to
get your approval for the sky Dance acquisition if you
get rid of Steve Colbert. The reality and this is
what this is what happens a lot with with with
Keith the Trump thing, right, And and look, anyone who
listens to me knows that I, you know, I was
not a big fan of some of the the Trump
(23:33):
stuff and some stuff I like, some stuff I don't like,
and I call it like I see it. But you know,
there there are there is a this whole thing where
people just they will agree with nothing that he does
and everything that's wrong. They will tie these lines, you know,
between two things that have nothing to do with one another.
Stephen Colbert was costing the network tens of millions of
dollars a year because they were losing money. They didn't
(23:54):
have advertisers, and the show cost a ton to produce,
and he wasn't getting the numbers. It wasn't get half
the number Letterman got, so they shut down that show.
Did he criticize them him, Yes, did he criticize other
hosts that are still on. Yes. The whole FTC thing
with the sky Dance merger is something quite different. I mean,
there are people that tied the Colbert thing to that.
(24:15):
There are people that tied the settlement where CBS settled
with him for the bogus sixty minutes story with Kamala Harris,
but those are there's no nexus between the two, And
then none of that's been proven.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
I would I don't think that. I don't think it's
been proven at all. And I think there is a
nexus between the two. I was just gonna I was
actually going to get to the CBS settlement, that that
was a settlement. I don't know how you can possibly
say there's no nexus between the two. I mean, there's a.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Clear one between the FTC approval of the sky Dance
acquisition and the CBS settlement or and the termination of
Stephen Colbert.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
I mean, I think it's sewing not right CBS.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
But what's the nexus between that and the FTC. I mean,
this was a company that had it wasn't even part
of that lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
The FCC had to approve it.
Speaker 3 (25:06):
Yeah, but but sky Dance was even a party to
the lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
So no, no, But they said the whole for Sherry Redstone
to be able to make the sale, she had to
part of it was that.
Speaker 3 (25:19):
Sky Dance to sky Dance.
Speaker 4 (25:21):
Right. No, she's the one who had to make the
settlement with Trump. She's the she was the owner. It
was trying to sell this skuy Dance.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
That that was not an FT that was that was
a condition to close. It has nothing to do with
the government, had nothing to do with them. No, it
did not. But it's a private it was a private transaction.
It was a condition to close.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
Who was suing Cherry Redstone in paramount.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
I don't know. I don't know if anyone was suing that.
I thought CBS News was under was being sued by the.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
Trump campaign, by by President Trump.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
But John, just because you say that, it does it
was a condition to close between two private parties in
an acquisition. The government didn't say in order to get
this approval, you have to settle and paid Trump eighteen million.
The reason they paid Trump eighteen million is because they're
going to lose the suit. That's the reason.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
No, I completely disagree. I think lawyers had said like
they had a very they had a very good case,
I know.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
But lawyers say listen as and we'll move on to
something else. But as a lawyer, I can tell you
that I said that a lot in cases where we
paid money but there's no proven next. It's just but
it's just words. It's like the And I do want
to get your take on this, you know, because because
there are a lot of things. I was a staunch
Republican and then the whole Gulf War happened, and then
(26:39):
the Democrats and the Republicans sort of converged on this
crazy foreign policy which I don't agree with, and you know,
the Iraq War rather with the made up intelligence and
it's it seemed, you know that that was sort of
my tipping point out of the out of the whole
Republican Party as used to exist. But is there is
(27:02):
there was there some was there one tipping point that
sort of got you going in the other direction? And
are you what do you what do you think about
about Obama and Biden and their presidencies? Are you do
you think those were successful or more good than bad,
or what would you what would you say about that?
Speaker 4 (27:20):
I think I think, actually, I think Obama and Biden
were actually much better than people give him credit for.
I'm gonna go I'm gonna I'm gonna shock you on.
I'm gonna tell you. I can look back now thirty
years later and say, you know what, Clinton was better
than I thought he was at the time.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Right that you wanted to impeach him, I did.
Speaker 4 (27:36):
And I still think he lied under oath. But but
in totality, I do think his presidency was better than
I give him credit for. Then I gave him credit
four at the time. Yeah, Bush, No, Iraq, I'm with you.
The Iraq War was a major turning point for me.
A lot of Democrats I think were spineless. A lot
of Democrats today are still spinless, you know, uh and
(27:59):
unwilling to take a real stand. So, yeah, I'm with
you on that one. No, I don't. I don't think
there was any I can't point to a specific tipping
point I think Trump was. I'm not gonna lie. I
do think Trump was for me. It was the culmination,
That's the one where I went. I just I'm done.
I just can't do this anymore. I think up until then,
I was still dipping my toes. I was still trying.
(28:20):
And at that point I just went, I can't do
this anymore.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
What what is there? Is there anything in Trump's first
term you could point to and say that he did that,
You could say, you know that that was something I'd support.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
That was good, Yeah, the development of the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
Anything else.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Not much.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Well, let me ask you this, because I You've always
been a fair guy, you know, I mean maybe maybe not,
but uh. The thing that got me with the Trump thing,
and I was, you know, I I was one of
the people that that said, you know, in the in
the days leading up to the twenty six teen election,
when you hear all this crazy stuff about the Russia thing,
(29:06):
that there is no way that a campaign like the
Trump campaign back then. And it's changed a lot, right
since it's much more sophisticated, but back in twenty sixteen,
there's no way that crew colluded with the Russians to
change the outcome of the election, and if they did,
they should be tried for treason. I was said it then,
I say it now. But one of the things that
really stuck with me was that whole Russia Gate thing
(29:29):
and how that thing was used to sort of hobble
and American president and administration and it was all, I mean,
all of it was made up. And that really bothers me.
When when something like that happens, it bothered me. When
Trump said that Obama wasn't a US citizen, that bothered me,
and I didn't didn't buy into it. I said that
(29:50):
was crazy. And then and and this, this really bothers it.
And it still bothers me to this day when you
have people that are still standing by and most of
them have received blanket pardons now so you can't do
anything about it. But I mean, that is something and
I'd like to get your take on that, because I've
never got my arms around why someone who's fair can't
(30:12):
just say, man, that was the wrong thing to do,
was anti American and they shouldn't have done it.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
Well, Okay, I'll answer it this way. I'll start with
the Senate Intelligence Committee that said that Russia absolutely interfered, and.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
But we're talking about collusion. We're not talking about interference
by Russia with bots on the internet. Let's not do that. Collusion.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Well, the collusion. I'll get to in a second, but
I'm just saying, first of all, I do think there was.
I'm just I'm just laying the predicate. I absolutely think
there was Russian interference. The Senate Intelligence Committee, run by Republicans,
said that was Russian interference.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
But that's yeah, that's that's fine. There's always Russian interference.
Speaker 4 (30:48):
That's fine, Okay. I'm just saying, so, like, I'm just
to lay the predicate that there was Russian interference.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
As there was this time, as there was Chinese interfere
There are bots all over the internet. You're talking about
Facebook ads, Yes, a lot being interference. But let's talk
about let's talk about this collusion. Because his presidency was hobbled.
I mean, he was had people inside the Justice Department
force his idiot Attorney general to accuse himself and then
(31:14):
and then there was sort of this vacuum there. I mean,
it just seems to me that's fundamentally unfair what they
did there.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. So the reason I'm
going with that is I just want to make sure
we're all in agreement that the Russians did try to
interfere that so the whole start of the Russia quote
unquote collusion story. It didn't start with the Steele dossier.
And I think this is one of the things that
gets forgotten about. Do you remember who would actually where
it started.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
To get the FAISO warrant That's what was used, right.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
But it started with carter Page speaking with an Australian
diplomat and saying that the Russians had hacked the DNC
and were working to support Trump. Right, it started with that,
and then the investigation opened from there.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
I don't even know who that is. I don't even
know who that is, but I know the FBI used
the STEEL to get the visor warrants.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
Not right, well, but it just started with carter Page.
It was actually carter Page, it wasn't the Steele dossier.
So then the second thing is, because this is in
the record, is uh is Don Junior getting the email
saying that the Russians have information on Hillary and him
saying I love it, Yes, let's meet about it.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
I remember that he met he met with that crazy
lawyer who he met with for five minutes and kicked
her out of the office. I mean, but that there
was no nexus again, no nexus this is just pulling it.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
Carter Page was part of the was part of the
Trump campaign.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
If yeah, and I don't even know who that. I've
never heard that name before. But don junior, look, if
there were any hint, so any whiff that he was
meeting with meeting with representatives of Putin to overturn the
election period, I'm not even saying anything actually happened, then
then he would have been prosecuted. And he wasn't no
(32:59):
charge because it didn't happen.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
Well, he wasn't prosecuted because well.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Biden was president and Biden rescued everyone else.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
Well, hold on, it didn't happen. We'll get to that
in a minute. But let's back up. Then there was
Do you remember when Trump said, Russia, if you have
more emails?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (33:17):
And what happened that afternoon?
Speaker 3 (33:20):
I have no idea when he was, when he was,
when he was, when he was speaking to millions of
people making jokes about the Hillary server where she had
highly classified emails on her home server.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Yeah, he'd be about it that afternoon.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
Okay, well Russia, Russia did.
Speaker 4 (33:38):
Yes, Russia did. Russia released the day. You can look
it up. It's not you don't have to take my
word on it. Russia, he asked for it, we did it.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Yeah. Well, but see, this is what I'm but this
is what I mean. I I just think sometimes with Trump,
for some reason, people can't be fair. And well, you
just said you just pulled three things out. I mean,
I've heard of the Don Jinge thing, the other the
other two I haven't. But it's like an entire presidency
was hobbled, and you had folks at the FBI, and
(34:10):
Brad was in the FBI. I'd love to get your
take on this, But you had your folks at the FBI,
like that crazy former head of the FBI, the tall guy,
who who literally did everything they could to set Trump
up to take a big fall as a traitor to
this country, which he wasn't. And I mean, I just
(34:34):
have a huge problem with that, and that is what's
led to all of you know, what's happened in the
last last year or so, And there's a huge distrust
of these institutions because of the way they behaved in
twenty sixteen. And Brad, what are your thoughts on that
as a former member of the the Federal intelligence apparatus.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
I mean, to the extent that anyone within the FBI
took their particular prefer political position and polled levers that
only FBI agents can pull to advance that political position,
then at a minimum they should lose their jobs and
they should almost certainly be prosecuted for it. I mean
(35:17):
when I came into the bureau, which was a long
time ago, there was a process, as I'm sure there
still is for being selected to go to Quantico. And
on one of the parts that process was you were
interviewed by three senior agents just there was a pool
of senior agents who are willing to do this process.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
They'd be randomly selected.
Speaker 5 (35:36):
They'd be sent to a you know, usually a big
city where they would aggregate these interviews. And if you
had made it to this point in the process, this
was kind of towards the end of the process, then
you would also be sent, you know, to one of
these places where they were doing.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
The interviews, and you were interviewed.
Speaker 5 (35:52):
By three you know, field agents, not supervisors, but senior
field agents. And one of the questions that I was
point blank asked is you know, what is what is
your political you know kind of stance, like not what
party or you a member of if at all, But
just you know, how do you feel about politics in general?
Speaker 2 (36:11):
And I don't know how most.
Speaker 5 (36:12):
Folks answer, but for me it was easy because I
hate politics. I just cannot stand it. I love democracy,
but to me, the definition of politics is how you
twist democracy to advance something you want to advance. And
if that turns out to be good for the country,
then great, but it doesn't have to.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
And I just loathe politics. I always have. And so
that was my answer. I love politics and I don't
participate in it. And apparently that.
Speaker 5 (36:37):
Answer was at least acceptable, because, you know, as fate
would have it, I got the job. And when I
got into the Bureau, when I graduated from Quantaca and
went out to my first field office and started investigating cases,
most other people around me were that same view, right,
I mean, you just it's kind of what the Bureau
was looking for was folks who were interested in investigating
crime and didn't really care who the criminals were, even
(36:59):
if those criminals were political, even if they were judges, etc.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
And I liked that a lot.
Speaker 5 (37:06):
I mean, I think that said something about the United
States that we were willing to establish within the government
an investigative body that had the authority to investigate anyone,
didn't matter.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
Who they were.
Speaker 5 (37:20):
If they were in violation of the federal law, then
they could be investigated by the FBI.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
And the FBI was going to do.
Speaker 5 (37:26):
That fairly, and they were going to do it in
accordance with the law and the procedures established by the FBI.
And for me, when I was in and I was
in for thirteen fourteen years.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
There were agents who did that wrong things.
Speaker 5 (37:43):
I mean their agents that got bounced for fraud on
their travel voucher stuff like that. But to my knowledge,
at least with the folks I worked with, no one
ever tried to advance their own political views using the
influence they had as FBI agents and I and it
had they, I would have found that rarehensible and I
would have been the first person to say, this is
not this cannot be.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
This is this is going to.
Speaker 5 (38:05):
Knock the underpinnings out of what makes the FBI valuable.
So to the extent that that happened, then those people
above all should be prosecuted. Right other political players, people
who are trying to use the dossier or whatever else
for their own political advancement or to subordinate their opponents politically.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
That's what political people do. It's one of the reasons
why I don't like them. But that's what they do.
Speaker 5 (38:32):
And if they violated the law when doing it, then
they should be prosecuted as well. But for sure, the
people who should be prosecuted were the people who were
given investigative powers to include the ability to go and
testify in front of a PAISA court. And if they
use their political their own political views to influence that court,
then they should be prosecuted, no question about it. And
(38:55):
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That's the other thing that I don't get is you know,
you've got people on both sides saying, well, you should
investigate this person or prosecute that person, or they should
be you know, sued by a state or by a
government agency because they're a bad person.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
I just don't like them.
Speaker 5 (39:13):
And then when the same thing happens, but the shoes
on the opposite foot, then all of a sudden, that's
you know, that's you can't do that.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
That's like mortgage loan.
Speaker 5 (39:22):
I mean, it just kills me and John, I mean,
you know, I don't know where you stand on this.
But it seems to me that that was sort of
initiated against Trump by the left right. I'm sure Lawfair
was applied previously. You could probably go back into the
eighteenth century and even and find an example, but it
seems like that idea really came to the forefront. We
(39:42):
got to get this guy Trump. We hate Trump. Everything
Trump does is wrong, and it is worth whatever we
have to sacrifice to get this guy.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
And now when the.
Speaker 5 (39:53):
Shoes on the other foot, suddenly you know, that's just
terrible behavior, and that is ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
I actually I would at first I agree with you
general premise that you know Lawfair's wrong. Okay, I don't disagree,
but I do disagree that it was inappropriate in the
case of you know what happened with Trump. You know,
for example, you know, I mean, we can go back
to talking about Mike Flynn, right, Remember you remember him,
(40:22):
his first National security advisor. Do you remember what Mike
Flynn was? What played? He pled guilty to heed.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Pa, lying to the FBI, He lied to the FBI.
Speaker 4 (40:31):
Flying to the FBI about Russian contacts.
Speaker 3 (40:35):
But who whoa, whoa whoa.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Listen, let me let me hang on, because then David
you can. You can run with us because I don't.
But let me just speak to that. So that's you.
That's Title eighteen of.
Speaker 5 (40:44):
The United States Code, Section one thousand and one. Okay, John,
I mean, and you're in my wheelhouse here. Do you
have any idea how many people lie to the FBI?
And in my entire career, and I investigated some significant
cases where lying impeded the investigation of the case to
(41:05):
the detriment of private citizens of the United States, the
government of the United States, and national security. I raised
those charges with prosecutors every single time they occurred. You
do a prosecutive report that you turn over to the
US Attorney's office, and every time it happened, I wrote
it up. I said, you know, in addition to these
other violations, here's two thousand and one, right, you lied
(41:28):
to the FBI and that impeded an investigation and stood
in the way of justice being enacted. And every single
time the prosecutors said, yeah, we're not going to charge that.
I mean, you know, people just lie. They're trying to
protect themselves. You know, they're afraid something bad might happen.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
They just lie. You know what, We're going to get
them for this. We're going to get them for that.
We're not going to charge.
Speaker 5 (41:51):
That every single time. And to my knowledge, that was
true for every single investigator that ever put that charge
in a charging document, which happened all the time. And
I was incredulous when I heard that what the Bureau
got Flinn on was one thousand and one it is,
(42:13):
that's the same thing. Well, it's even worse, in fact,
as far worse as getting you know, a significant gangster
on like tax fraud alcohol, I mean well alcoholm being
an example, right on tax fraud. They got Flynn on
something that literally everyone who has contact with the FBI,
ninety nine point nine percent of people the FBI talks
(42:35):
to and a criminal investigation lied to them.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
But why were they why were they even here's the question, right, Okay,
So Flint flints and again air quotes contacts with it
Russians happened in December of twenty sixteen, when he was
the incoming National Security Advisor or whatever he was going
to be, which had happened in nineteen ninety eight, nineteen
eighty eight, with James Baker talking to the Russian, his
(43:00):
Russian compatriot when he was coming in a Secretary of State.
It happened when Hillary Clinton was coming in in two
thousand and eight. She talked to Medvedev or whoever the
president was at the time. So there is no news
in an incoming national security official talking to his counterpart
in a foreign country during a transition. And even Hillary Clinton,
(43:22):
you know, went so far as to say to Medvedev,
hold on, wait till we come in. We're going to
reset things you know, don't don't you know, make any
moves now. And no one thought about sending the FBI
in to Browbeater in her in her office, you know,
a couple of weeks after Obama took office, because it's
it's just underheard of what's happening with with Trump and
(43:46):
his officials. I mean that that's all they got flint
on and there was not that.
Speaker 4 (43:52):
Everything you said maybe true, but I tie it back
to look at it's the Russians, but.
Speaker 3 (43:59):
It's you have to deal with Russia there. They're your
biggest adversary next to the Chinese.
Speaker 2 (44:04):
David.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
The point I'm making is that like I don't pull
one thing out and say look at that thing individually,
I say look at it all.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
As Potter of a pattern, but the pattern?
Speaker 4 (44:13):
What hold on? Wait a minute, So I just saying,
so he played he pled guilty to this, correct, So
it presumably there was some kind of negotiation that occurred.
Would that be accurate to say.
Speaker 3 (44:25):
They wanted him, they wanted him out, and they got
him out, and they made him He didn't have any money,
he couldn't defend it.
Speaker 4 (44:31):
Okay, So, but the point is he did have the
contacts with the Russians he was coming.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
But wait, what's inappropriate about those contacts? Take for example
what I just said and take it as factors. It
is what happened.
Speaker 4 (44:44):
He's not supposed to be having the context like that.
I know, like I'm not that's untrue. No, he wasn't.
He was not, Actually he was.
Speaker 3 (44:52):
He was nominated to be the the.
Speaker 4 (44:55):
He was not. He was not in a position to
negotiate on behalf of the government.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
I understand that, But he what I just so, should
James Baker have been interviewed by the FBI and then prosecuted?
Should Hillary Clinton have been maybe so incoming incoming? So
your preference is there's no law that he violated, right,
I mean, other than lying to the FBI.
Speaker 4 (45:16):
I don't know the statute, but my understanding is, yes,
he did actually violate a law.
Speaker 3 (45:19):
He was not charged with that, though John I was
charged with lying with the FBI.
Speaker 4 (45:24):
The well, he pled to lying to the FBI.
Speaker 3 (45:29):
But I'm saying, there's no law that says an incoming
national security official cannot talk to their counterpart in another
country in advance of the inauguration.
Speaker 4 (45:38):
No, actually, he can't do it without approval from the
current administration. He didn't do it. He did it quietly
and secretly and didn't tell anybody you can do it.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
I don't I don't think that's right because I certainly
don't think the Bush administration gave Hillary Clinton approval to
talk about a reset with Medvedev during the transition period
in it. So I don't think that's right. But in
any of that that that's fine. But my bigger concern
is this, Then this is part of it. The law
fair right, because you you have the Flynn thing where
they they you know, did what they did, and all
(46:09):
the Trump lawsuits, which I think got him elected again,
got him reelected, you know, in twenty four and now
you have the shoe on the other foot. As Brad
just said, like, what's good for the goose? You've got us, Senators,
you've got I mean again what Trump was charged with
on the one of the cases where it was just
(46:31):
you know, there was some misrepresentation on a loan loan
documentation where both parties to the loan were happy the
loan was repaid. The banks want to do more business
with Trump. But the you know, the state jumped in
and got that half a billion dollar verdict that was
now overturned. You know you got that, and now what
you have are the Trump folks coming after. Let me
(46:53):
just finish the Trump folks coming after, you know, senators
and members of the Federal Reserve who did the very
same thing on their home mortgage applications and second home
mortgage applications. And I don't like any of it, Like
I'm not for any of this, but I do agree
with Brad. With Brad that when you start down this road,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Speaker 4 (47:14):
So can I I just want to clarify something you said.
The he actually the verdict in the fraud case against
him wasn't overturned. The judgment was overturned. The verdict half
a billion dollars. Yeah, but the verdict still stands.
Speaker 3 (47:27):
Yeah. Yeah, the half a billion is gone, so he
doesn't have to eat the bond is no longer have
to be a post.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
You're correct about the money. I'm just the judge said
it was against the Eighth Amendment. It was, but that's
fine whatever.
Speaker 3 (47:38):
Yeah, yeah, but it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is
these hyper technical prosecutions of you know, the these It
shouldn't happen. It should never have happened to Trump. I
mean there was literally you have a da in New
York that said, I am going to if you elect me,
I'm going to get Trump on whatever I can find.
But that's how she ran.
Speaker 4 (47:54):
That was her platform.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
I get that. I mean I get that. And then
maybe Adam Schiff will be and maybe this.
Speaker 2 (48:03):
I will just tell you that.
Speaker 5 (48:05):
And this is when people ask me about this, and
they asked me about all the time just because of
my background. It doesn't make me an expert, but I
do have a pretty broad background in federal criminal investigations.
Speaker 2 (48:16):
And my response is simply this.
Speaker 5 (48:18):
You don't want this, okay, don't want at the political level, right,
because as we've all talked about, it's going to get
pushed back in your face. If you established this as
an acceptable political practice for the left to go after
the right, as soon as the right's in position to
do it, they're going to do it back to you.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
So it's it's a net loser. I mean, you should
just never do it.
Speaker 5 (48:40):
But even more importantly, you don't want prosecutors taking, as
David said, hyper technical positions on the law to get
a private citizen. And that's what Trump was at the
time that these charges were brought, because.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
That could be done to you today.
Speaker 5 (48:57):
I promise you, John that, as an FBI jen if
I wanted to come after you for something, and that's
what I dedicated myself to, and I had a prosecutor
who wanted.
Speaker 2 (49:06):
To get you as well, we would get you. So
you don't want that.
Speaker 5 (49:11):
You don't want the law being used as a weapon.
What you want is justice, and that's not what you're
seeing in these fraud cases against Trump. Like him or
hate him, it doesn't matter. You're not seeing the application
of justice. You're seeing the law used as a blunt
instrument against a person's opponent. And every freaking American, anyone
(49:37):
who likes freedom.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Quite frankly, should be standing up and going stop that.
Speaker 4 (49:43):
My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, because I
don't know enough of the ins and outs of this.
Is that like the case that was brought against Trump
has been brought in New York before, Like this isn't
it's not original to Trump, right, So I don't know
that it was hyper technical and hyper political. I mean,
I'm not going to tell you you're wrong that you
can't separate the politics. Obviously going after him is is
(50:04):
obviously a big deal.
Speaker 3 (50:05):
You know.
Speaker 4 (50:07):
I'm going to try to remind us, though of something
that if you remember back in twenty sixteen, okay, because
this goes into when Trump became president, do you remember
on the debate stage what he said to Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 3 (50:18):
Did he did he actually do it?
Speaker 2 (50:20):
No?
Speaker 4 (50:20):
Hold on, I'm gonna I'm getting there. He said, I
want to put you. You should be in prison, my should?
Speaker 2 (50:26):
He probably should have been there. I mean, how did
an FBI had to have done what she did? That
FBI would have gone to jail.
Speaker 4 (50:32):
Okay, well, now, gentleman, she wasn't convicted, now was she? So?
Speaker 3 (50:35):
So I understand no Jerry convicted her?
Speaker 2 (50:39):
No, no, no, no, Jerry. The FBI said she was
wrong and then refused to charge her.
Speaker 4 (50:45):
Trump Trump did want the Justice Department to look into
prosecuting Guillery, and that was sort of pushed off because
we at least had some people with a little bit
of integrity. I'm no fan of Bill Barr, but at
least he even he his limits. Jeff Session obviously had
certain limits. I mean I kind of feel like this
(51:06):
whole thing with law fair when you have somebody standing
up on a debate stage saying that my opponent should
be in prison, and then you know, taking steps behind
the scenes to see that, well, can it be done?
You know? I think we have to kind of step
back and say, you know, where did this all begin?
Speaker 3 (51:23):
Yeah? And I know, but I get you, and I
don't agree. I mean, it's like the Russia thing with
all the different data points that don't connect to say
that he could try this behind the scene. I mean that,
as far as I know, it didn't happen. No one's
Bill Barr never said it happened. So I don't agree
with that, But I do think we should all like
try at some point to take a step back. And
(51:45):
I think it would be very helpful too for folks
on the left or on the Democratic side, left and
right really don't apply anymore. But folks who don't like
Trump to take a step back and at least say, hey, look,
he didn't get a fair shake in twenty sixteen. The
Russigate thing was clear made up, and then all these
prosecutions that were meant to ruin him shouldn't have happened.
And I'll say, you know, going into these mortgage applications
(52:10):
which appear to be have similar errors, some of them
even more errors than the Trump organization had. I don't
like that either, But I do think until we get
to that point where we can all take a step
back and call something that's wrong wrong, regardless of who's
doing it and what label you put on it, and
if it's something that's beneficial to Trump, I think we're
all going to be spinning on a hamster wheel. But anyway,
(52:34):
we are about out of time. John, I want to
give you the chance for the last word, and you know,
follow up at any points you want to follow up on.
Speaker 4 (52:45):
I know we're running low on time, so no, I
certainly would have more to say, and I certainly would
love to have more points to follow up on. But
I just want to thank you. I have actually enjoyed this.
I don't often get the opportunity to engage in these
kinds of discussions, so I appreciate your willingness to let
me do so.
Speaker 3 (53:03):
Now, this has been fun. We'll have to do it again,
and hopefully if someone finds those missing one Sunday tapes,
we can get together and watch some of the some
of the glory days. Those will be very popular on
the YouTube, Brad, very popular.
Speaker 2 (53:17):
Well, I trust that's true.
Speaker 3 (53:19):
All right, John, thank you again. We appreciate it, and
I'm sure we'll talk again down the road.
Speaker 4 (53:24):
Yeah. Thanks, guys, this was fun. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (53:27):
Ah, buddy, there you have it.
Speaker 5 (53:29):
We'll just keep at it right here, IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (53:33):
This has been IP frequently, once again, clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 3 (53:42):
You're welcome.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!