Daniel Grossberg on Joe Biden's future and what a Trump White House would look like

Kentucky State Representative Daniel Grossberg discusses Joe Biden's future, what he thinks a Trump White House would like this time, and his view of the differences between the last two presidents...

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Kentucky State Representative Representative Daniel Grosberg isback in the studio. Was he should
be a talk show host? Youwere made for this kind of life.
Why thank you. I'm sure thatmany people in the political world would rather
have me behind a microphone than onthe General Assembly floor, but I'm happy
to be able to do both.You are not shy. That's why it

(00:21):
makes you a great radio guest orhost. Yes, I keep saying,
you know, sometime when I takea vacation, you need to come in
here and do this shit. Iwould absolutely be honored to life treating you
well. Life is treating me great. And I'm joined today by my lovely
wife, Erica. She is ahigh school teacher at Ballard High School,
and we were just talking about thereturn to school and how she won't go

(00:42):
shopping with me because she's going tosee those back to school sales going on
everywhere. So we're on shopping hiatus, which does great things for my credit
card, but not such great thingsfor the sundry supplies at the house.
Hi, Erica, she is here. I just want to let you I
get that my mom was a teacherfor a long time. Two of my
sisters, and I get the littleanxiety of schools starts. There's nothing she'd

(01:07):
rather do in life or be betterat. But still, as she just
said when we were in the commercialbreak, you go from ultimate freedom to
being back at the grind at amoment's notice. There's no doubt about it.
All Right, let's hop in onthe national issues. They're obviously prevalent
in every coffee shop, every conversationgoing on everywhere. We'll start with President
Joe Biden. This pressure Adam Schiff, I think today is saying, hey,

(01:30):
maybe we need a different candidate.And we've seen all the other prominent
folks. Are there enough dominoes yetto push to make Joe Biden step back
and say I'm not going to run. Well, this seems to me to
be the death of a thousand cuts, and I think we're already past a
thousand. But the truth is,at this stage of the game, the
only person who can make that decisionis Joe Biden himself. That even if

(01:53):
the polling were exhaustive, even ifall the donors were holding back, and
there are many of them, ifif all the elected officials were asking him
to withdraw, he has to makethat decision himself, and I think the
only one who can make him dothat, that can put that kind of
pressure is doctor Jill Biden and maybePresident Obama. But his closest advisors are

(02:13):
telling him to stick it out.They have internals that you and I are
not privy to. And I justread an analysis today that said that those
who are most upset about him stayingin the race are actually the most hardcore
Democrats, not the moderates, butthe liberal activists, and they're not the
ones who are going to determine theoutcome of this election insofar as he's in

(02:36):
the race. For now, forthe listeners who aren't familiar with me,
I am a Democrat, we needto get behind him one hundred percent.
I'm not going to say that hisperformance was concerning. He was not concerning,
because it was. But all ofthe polling that I've seen shows barely
a blip on the radar and responseto the debate. Because we have a

(02:57):
country that's already split approximately forty sixsix percent locked in, and that only
gives us about eight percent of thepeople who can sway one way or the
other. And no one is surprisedthat the eighty one year old is going
to act eighty one years old everyonce in a while. But he didn't
have an immediate good recovery. Butin the following weeks he dusted himself off

(03:20):
and come back. Joe is standingup and pushing back. And I actually
think that the more that people arepushing him to get out of the race,
the more that he's doubling down,but the more that he's showing his
medal because he's standing up not justto the Republicans but to those within our
party or calling him to step aside. But it's not about like a dance
marathon in the first week of November. It's about the four years beyond that,

(03:44):
and that's the issue. It's like, you're looking at him now,
the clock's ticking, and you're wonderingwhat will he be like two years from
today. I hear you, butpretend I'm not biased, which is hard
because I've already made it a democraticelected official. You're on the Biden team,
we get that, So sell me. If I had to choose between
the known certainty of who Donald Trumpis and what he would do as president,

(04:08):
and we saw what he did lasttime, and this time he's saying
he's going to go ten times moreMaga. He's going to be a dictator
on day one. He's going tostart having tribunals and executing the people who
are against him. He's going toweaponize government by purging all the civil service
and replacing himself with replacing them,excuse me, with people who have a
loyalty oath not to the country butto him. And I compare it to

(04:30):
someone who has, under some ofthe most difficult circumstances ever, been one
of the most effective presidents. Evenif I believe that he won't make it
all four years, I know theteam that stands beside him right now,
and I know the kind of personthat Kamala Harris would be if she had
to step in to be president.And there are many Democrats who are quietly

(04:50):
saying, oh, we should pushhim aside and have Kamala Harris here.
We're getting the best of both worldsas it is right now, because if
that time comes with him in office, she will step in and she'll be
ready on day one. There's noway you believe that Trump's going to execute
people he had his You have tosay that, but you don't believe he

(05:11):
had his attorneys argue in front ofthe Supreme Court that he should have the
authority to do so. That's highlyconcerning. Do I think he's probably going
to execute people? Probably not,But I think he's going to weaponize government
if he gets in, he's goingto take over the entire regulatory state and
deregulate. I think he is goingto have the mass expulsions. I think

(05:32):
we're going to see a national abortionban. I think we're going to see
a national ban on birth control.I think that we're going to see an
end of the Department of Education.We're going to see an end of the
Environmental Protection Agency. We're going toroll the clock backwards the sixty seventy years
to go to where his people seeAmerica was great when they say make America

(05:53):
great again. So you've said,though, we're all extremists positions, you're
saying all extremist positions. Trump hassaid that abortion state by state issue.
He has been on three sides onevery issue, and he proudly brags to
his base that he's the one whostacked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v.
Wade. Now he's trying to stepback just a little, but it's

(06:14):
not very convincing, too much tomany of us if you look at his
actual behavior in office. But tocompare it to the Biden question, I
don't think you can reasonably say thatat eighty three years old, which is
what Trump would be at the endof a second term, that he would
necessarily be fully capable. And hispick jd Vance makes Trump look like a

(06:39):
lightweight in terms of extremism in rhetoricand in policy. I mean, this
is a guy who has said hedoes want a national abortion ban with no
exceptions and only changed his mind threedays ago, pected as the VP.
Not yet. But if you're goingto ask the question look ahead four years
on Biden, I have to askthe question, of course, can you
look four years ahead on Look atthe two men side by side. We

(07:00):
saw them compared. There is nocomparison. Trump's decline, whatever it happens
to be through aging, is nowherenear as horrific as has been Biden's.
We know who he was on theday he swore in Joe Biden. And
then when you look at that andyou just watch the tape roll the tape,
you see a significant change. Iwould say the change is different that

(07:23):
Biden is having more verbal gaps andmore lapses, and he's mixing up people's
names occasionally, whereas Trump, asunhinged as he's been in the past,
as finding himself more and more unhinged. And I have to remind you that
during his sexual assault trial, heaccidentally mixed up the accuser, who he
said was too ugly for him tosleep with, right with his own ex

(07:45):
wife. That's right. They werein a photo or something. It was
a photo. And who's that,Oh, that's Marla. It is like,
sir, that's not your ex wife, Marla. That's the woman who's
accusing you of assaulting her, whoyou said that you would never be with
because she's too ugly, you said. Weaponizing the judicial areas of government.
A lot of people feel like thiswhole thing of Trump and the valuation of

(08:07):
buildings and everybody got paid was alljust nonsense. Weaponization of the Department of
Justice, you see. And andso if that stuff gets politicized, America's
in shambles. If the next presidentcomes in as a different party and then
turns it around on Democrats, it'slike you have to step back and question

(08:28):
the thing about valuating buildings, sexualassault issues, that's a different fiefdom.
But this valuation of buildings is like, so what this is a guy who
has had over eighty felony indictments invery many different spheres, and probably the
weakest ones were the ones having todo with the valuations of the buildings,
which actually, if I remember correctly, was not one of the felonies.

(08:52):
That was a civil infraction against hisbusiness that I don't know whether it was
weaponiz or not. I know therewas a lot more attention, but I
know that if you and I wereto try and get loans by falsifying records
and documents and get out of taxesby falsifying records and documents, we'd be
prosecuted. To me, the twomost concerning prosecutions are the January sixth because

(09:18):
whether you believe he was involved ornot, we need to have some resolution
on whether or not he was involvedin an insurrection to overthrow the rightful government
of the United States. And then, of course the Documents case, which,
if you want to talk about politicization, a Trump appointed judge is going
against all president from every judge inhistory and saying that the Special Council is

(09:43):
unconstitutional because the Special Council is quotetoo independent from the federal government. Meanwhile,
Trump's attorneys were arguing the exact opposite, saying the prob but the Special
Council is he's not independent enough.He's an extension of the Justice Department,
and therefore they're weaponizing government. Sothe moment they get this ruling, they
say, forget everything that we've beensaying for the last few years. It's

(10:03):
the exact opposite. The guy isnot too dependent, he's too independent,
and that to me is the weaponizationthat this is a guy who has an
advantage that no one else that youor I have ever met, would that
he can drag out a case yearafter year after year to run out the
clock. Because he's already said thatif he is re elected, he will
pardon all the January sixth people.If he's reelected, he will pardon himself

(10:26):
and drop all the cases. Andif we don't have the special Counsel,
which we're now told we can't havethe special Counsel, it's got to go
through the Justice Department. You knowwho the answer to the president, he'll
drop the cases against himself. You'rea Democrat in Kentucky. You smile every
time a case goes to Philip Shepard. Why is that? I'm not going
to say what's good for the goosesgood? It is what's good for the
goose is good for the gander.There are some judges who are more favorable

(10:50):
than some judges who are less favorable. But you don't get absolute pick of
the lottery. There has been latelyjudge shopping, and that's something that should
be tossed out completely. And Ithink there should be a more substantive lottery
system. And to me, oneof the best examples is with these abortion
cases and with the mill prefest Zone. I can't pronounce it, but you

(11:11):
know the the morning after pill theydecided to try the case and a circuit
in Texas that has only one judgeon the bench, knowing therefore exactly what
judge that they're going to get,and they have left the other positions vacant
so they can always get that specificjudge. You know, you don't get
to fast track all the way tothe Supreme Court. The fastest case we

(11:33):
ever saw was the Bush v.Gore. But you also shouldn't be able
to just select what judge you wantand you know, Eileen Cannon has been
handing everything to Trump on a civilplatter, and we are talking about the
sanctity of democracy itself. That youknow, in the case of the documents,

(11:54):
it's not whether or not he knewthey were classified, whether or not
he even knew that he had therecords. And I think the answer to
both of those is quite clear basedupon the evidence that we've seen. The
statute is simply whether or not hewas in possession, and it's not complicated
to argue that he was in possessionof those documents. I bought two of
them on eBay, so you knowthey were of it, no kidding,

(12:16):
but like, so that's how youknew my private numbers. You bought these
government documents the ninth District in California. I mean, there's all these areas
where people know they're going to getthe sweet spot in terms of judges,
and that's not what it's meant tobe. We shouldn't have such politicized judicial
system. The Supreme Court. It'sgone far away and I'm not going to

(12:39):
say it's single partisans. We needto have term limits on the Supreme Court,
and we need to rotate through andwe need to have one representing each
of the thirteen districts. How canthe executive branch, though, try to
try to man handle the Supreme Courtissue? When we have separate sections of
government, we have three branches ofgovernment. How can the executive branch try
to over push around restructure a judicialentity. It would be just as inappropriate

(13:05):
for the president to push around theSupreme Court as a supreme court to give
free reign to a president, orto tap them on the shoulder and knight
them as the next king of theUnited States. But the solution is legislative.
The solution is to have term limits. You know, when it was
a life appointment. It's back whenpeople live to thirty five or forty,
not to eighty five or ninety.I think that we need to rotate through

(13:30):
the different circuits. Every president shouldget two or three appointments. The appointment
should be eighteen years if you wantto be very generous, twenty four years
appointment. You shouldn't have it forlife, which can mean fifty sixty years
on the court. Daniel Grosberg,Kentucky State Representative District thirty always great talking
with you. Thank you. Lastthing I got to say as They say
all politics is local until it's notgreat being here. Terry Hey cover right

(13:54):
back on news radio AD forty whas