Mike Allen Saturday Mid-Day -- 10/11/25

Mike Allen rants about the latest news and takes your calls. Christopher Smitherman discusses his campaign for Cincinnati City Council. Steve Goodin discusses transgender laws.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Seven hundred WLW Mike Allen and Saturday Midday on a
beautiful Saturday morning. Gonna be a great weekend weatherwise. Well,
yet another short show today. I am on until eleven
and then we turn it over to our coverage of
the UC Bearcats four and one. You see Bearcats versus

(00:23):
University of Central Florida nights, and I double checked that
they are the nights. They're three and two. That game
is at noon, So anyway, I will be out of
here at eleven o'clock. Well, I'll tell you last Friday,
Nicholas Rosky, who now is Sophie Rosky, was sent eight

(00:45):
years in prison for the attempted as assassination of the
United States Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He was locked up.
Rosky was for about three years before sentencing, so it's
credit for that, and they have to give him credit
for it. Also, federal inmates they can receive up to

(01:08):
fifty four days a year for good time credit if
they stay out of trouble while they're in prison. So
applying the three year credit for time served and assuming
he gets the fifty four days per year of good
time credit, mister Rosky will get out sometime in twenty

(01:29):
twenty nine, which ain't that far away. All that for
the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice, it just
doesn't seem right.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
A review of the facts of this case, I think
would be helpful. And this is from an op ed
piece written by Mike Davis. He's with the article three project. Okay,
here's a review of the facts. Rosky came well prepared
to kill Justice Kavanaugh. Among other things, he brought a handgun,
nearly forty rounds of ammunition, a tactical knife, lock picking tools,

(02:07):
a nail punch, a crowbar, a pistol, light, duct tape,
pepper spray, zipdizes, and hiking boots with padding on the
souls so he could move about the kavanaughs home more quietly,
just as Kavanaugh lives with his wife and two teenage daughters.
God forbid, what would have happened had the other Kavanaughs

(02:29):
tried to defend him. When Roski arrived, however, he found
he could not go through with his plan because law
enforcement was outside the Kavanaugh's home, realizing they had seen him.
Rossi called nine to one one and claimed to be suicidal,
and he confessed his plan to the police dispatcher.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
So I want to tell you just briefly.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
In federal court, in sentencing, they have the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
They are not mandatory, they are advisory. However, how it's important.
In federal court, it's a big thing. Most judges usually
don't stray too far from what the guidelines dictate and

(03:15):
the government. According to the government, the guideline calculation, according
to them was thirty years to life. Thirty years to life,
and that was the max. As she gave him eight years.
And it even gets worse. Okay, so one morning Nicholas
woke up and decided he was now Sophie. And the

(03:39):
record suggests that Judge Bordman's leniency was influenced, at least
in part by ideological sympathy. In her sentencing remarks, she
cited Roski's mental health struggles and his alleged transgender status
as mitigating factors and mitigating means that's in his favor,

(03:59):
the defendant favor, And she actually mentioned President Trump in
the decision in her sentence, noting that one of President
Trump's executive orders would affect Roski's ability to receive gender
transition medical care. However, sincere her concern, the courtroom is
not the place for identity based indulgence. A judge's duty

(04:24):
is to apply the law even handedly, not to validate
the defendant's self expression. And did I mention that, Judge Boardman,
are you ready for this was a Biden appointee.

Speaker 3 (04:41):
Certainly, no surprise there.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
Let's drilled down on her just a little bit more,
Judge Boardman, and what we know about her. In twenty
twenty three, she denied a request from parents in Maryland
to opt out their children from public school classes where
LGBTQ plus books are promoted. In June of this year,

(05:06):
the Supreme Court reversed Bowman Boardman by siding with the parents.
So the good guys won there in the appeal, okay,
the facts of that case. In the case, a group
of Muslim and Christian parents sued the Montgomery County, Maryland
School Board over a policy that would allow parents to

(05:27):
opt their children out of classes. Sounds reasonable to me.
Judge Boorman denied the parents' plainists motion for a preliminary
injunction that would have reinstated a previous policy that allowed
for that opt out. Boardman ruled that mere exposure to
ideas contrary to religious beliefs doesn't constitute a burden on

(05:52):
religious exercise and quote that is not in doctrination close quote.
I think a lot of people would disagree.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
With you, Judge on that.

Speaker 1 (06:04):
Also in February, Judge Boardman imposed a nationwide preliminary in junction.
Remember we talked about those against the enforcement of President
Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. That's why in
its way through the courts. Also in February, the activist
judge masquerading as a unbiased federal judge, sided with the

(06:30):
ultra radical American Federation of Teachers to block the Department
of Government Efficiency from accessing information from the Offices of
Personnel Management and the Department of Energy regard or Department
of Education regarding student loans. But in August, again, thank

(06:51):
god for the Court of Appeals, the Fourth District US
Court of Appeals vacated that lower court injunction and allowed
DOJE in the Treasury Department to proceed with accessing the information.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
So, you know, we get her deal.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
Also, and I don't consider this as too big a deal,
but it just kind of shows where she's coming from.
She also made modest contribution five hundred bucks to Hillary
Clinton's presidential campaign. She gave five hundred bucks to Obama's
presidential campaign. So I think, based on her history of

(07:33):
siding with liberal litigants, it's fair to ask this question.

Speaker 3 (07:39):
And I'm rolling around in my mind. I think I
know what my answer is.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
But the question, would her sentence have been as lenient
if the victims of the attempted assassination were, oh, say,
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Soda
mayor think about that. I kind of think you might

(08:06):
have seen a different sentence there. And there's a thing
in the criminal justice system that's called deterrence. You know,
any first year criminal justice student learns about what deterrence is.
And I'm not really in most cases a big proponent
of a sentence being a deterrent. In some cases it is,

(08:29):
and this is one of them. Let's think about that
just for a minute. Deterrence aims to prevent crime in
the wider community by making an example of the offender. Now,
this offense was a very thorough and well thought out
attempt by mister Rossky to kill a Supreme Court justice

(08:53):
and possibly his family as well.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
You know, this wasn't a shooting at three am and
over the rhine.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
This guy, Rosky, he put a lot of thought into this,
a lot of planning, and what I read to you
is just the tip of the iceberg.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
This guy was rare and to go. And you know,
you know there.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
Are others out there with the same demented minds, thinking
the same demented things that Rosky thought about. I don't
need to tell you what has happened in the not
too distance future. Two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump, the
congressional baseball shooting of Steve Scalise in twenty seventeen, the

(09:40):
plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Widmer in twenty twenty, then,
of course, sadly, just recently, the assassination of Charlie Kirk
one month ago yesterday. So, if a demented radical leftist
who thinks it's okay to kill to advance a political agenda,

(10:03):
if you're one of those persons, or I'm one of
those persons, do you think that an eight year sentence
is going to deter that person from following through on
an assassination attempt. I don't think so. I don't think so.
Of course it wouldn't. But thirty to life what the

(10:23):
sentence should have been. That's a deterrent. And again I
usually don't speak about deterrence with respect to criminal sentencing,
but in this case, it's different. These people think about it.
These people plan these things. You know, it's not a
three in the morning suiting down an OTR.

Speaker 3 (10:44):
They plan it through.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
And you know, most of these people are somewhat intelligent.
They're twisted, but they're somewhat intelligent. But of course, as
we know, Judge Boardman was more concerned about the defendant's
trend issues then she was concerned about crafting a sentence

(11:05):
that would deter others. And she could have done that
and the government you can appeal a sentence in federal court.
The government thankfully is appealing that sentence. And you know,
we're talking about a Supreme Court justice here, and I
kind of think, I don't know much about the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. I kind of think that that

(11:27):
sentence may be increased. And I'll tell you something, all
the years I've been doing this stuff and doing federal work,
I've never seen that happen. But in this case, it
just may and I think it would be appropriate if
they do, And hopefully the Fourth Circuit will make the
right decision and just fix this obvious wrong because it

(11:53):
was so we'll have to see where that goes. But again,
she's on the bench up there, and he's all worried about, Oh, well,
he may go to a federal prison because of Trump.
They're not going to pay for his sex change surgery.
He attempted to murder a Supreme Court justice. Do you

(12:15):
care about that at all? Well, of course that Supreme
Court justice happened to be just happened to be a
Trump appointment, but that shouldn't matter.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
But see, that's the thing. And I don't know her,
and I only know about her what I just read
to you. But that's the thing with these people on
the left.

Speaker 1 (12:38):
They think that they're right, they're righteous, and what they
believe just kind of cancels out any other obvious things
that the judge should be thinking about. And I was
shocked by it. And by the way, we're gonna be
talking to legal analysts Steve Gooden about this decision at

(13:03):
ten thirty, and I'm really interested to see what he
thinks about it, because he does a lot of federal
work too, But eight years, three years for time for
credit served, I think about I don't know about a
year and a half for good time credit. Dude is
out in about twenty twenty eight, and you know what,

(13:23):
he's got a lifetime.

Speaker 3 (13:24):
He's got to report lifetime.

Speaker 1 (13:26):
But you know, people don't, people don't follow those things
all the time. So it was just a travesty and
absolute travesty. But no surprise given her pedigree. And I
hate to say that, and I don't like criticizing judges,
especially federal judges, but I think it's appropriate in this case.

(13:50):
This never should have happened, never should have happened. But again,
we'll have to see what the appellate court does.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
You know what I think.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
I'm going to take a short break here and be
back if you want to weigh in. Seven four nine,
seven thousand, one, eight hundred. The big one are the numbers.
Mike Allen, Saturday midday.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
We are back, Mike Allen, Saturday midday.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
We've just got a couple minutes here before we have
to break for the news. I have open lines from
nine thirty to ten seven four, nine, seven thousand, one,
eight hundred.

Speaker 3 (14:29):
The big one are the numbers.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
If you weigh in those of you that have called
and are on hold, I will get you after the news.
I promise just a little bit more about this decision,
which is just an abomination.

Speaker 3 (14:46):
I mean, think about it.

Speaker 1 (14:48):
The man is a sitting Supreme Court justice, the highest
court in the land, the highest that you can rise
to in the judiciary. And I've read to you and
there's a lot more about his plans. This guy was

(15:10):
primed and ready to go. I guess he got a
pang of conscience. Well, I think, probably more accurately, he
saw that federal authorities, law enforcement people were there, and
then he got his pangs of conscience where he confessed.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
But he was ready to do this. He was ready
to do this.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
And when the sentence what the government was arguing for,
which I think was reasonable under the circumstances in this case,
thirty to life. And what does Judge Deborah Boardman, an
activist judge of Biden appoint.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
What does she do?

Speaker 1 (15:52):
Gives him eight years credits, three years time, and she
has to do that, and she has no say over
the good time decided by the Bureau of Prisons. But again,
this dude could be out in twenty twenty nine. I mean,
what kind of example does that set? I mean, how

(16:12):
does that factor in with deterrens? And ain't gonna deter
anybody but thirty to life I think would because, as
I said, if you look at it, you'll find out.

Speaker 3 (16:24):
I'm right.

Speaker 1 (16:25):
These people that try this stuff, they're not stupid. They
may be evil, they may be demented, but.

Speaker 3 (16:32):
They're not stupid. They're gonna know.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
If somebody's planning an assassination, they're gonna know what the
sentence in this case is.

Speaker 3 (16:41):
And I mean, who knows.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
Maybe you shrug your shoulders and say, you know what,
eight years, Yeah, I can do that. It would be
worth that for me to assassinate fill in the blank.
So we should see what the Court of Appeals does
on this thing. But I sure hope they step in
and do the right thing. And he has been slammed.

(17:05):
I'm sorry she has been slammed. After the decision. I
just want to read you a couple of them. There's
an author, M. A. Rothman. I'm not familiar with him.
He called the sentence pathetic, and you can use that
word to describe it. Here's what he said. A guy
who showed up at a Supreme Court justice's house, armed

(17:26):
and ready to kill him, just got a lighter sentence
than some people get for tax crimes, and the judge
turned it into a trans acceptance story. This is beyond parody.
The doj oneted thirty years, he got eight. And this
is another thing too, the last thing that mister Rockman

(17:49):
said and the media barely blinked.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
And Buddy, he is right about that.

Speaker 1 (17:55):
I tried to find in some of these media Resource
Center times this was mentioned in the lamestream media. Maybe
I can try to do that during the break, because
if you're not watching Fox, you're not going to know
about this, and if you do know about it, you're
not going to know much. So anyway, your call is
when we get back Mike Allen Saturday midday. They were

(18:22):
back Mike Allen Saturday midday talking about the absurd, abhorrent.

Speaker 3 (18:30):
I mean, think of any other word that you can
think of.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
To describe the sentence that was given to Nicholas Rosky
also known as Sophie Rosky.

Speaker 3 (18:41):
I guess he.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
Woke up one morning and say, you know what, I
want to be a girl. So of course, you know
the government and the Bureau of Prisons has to move
heaven and earth to accommodate that. And the sentencing judge,
Judge Boardman, that was one of the things that she
was concerned about in sentencing. So a guy who's already demented,

(19:03):
I mean, you'd have to be to want to kill
a Supreme Court justice. Does the sex change deal the
trans thing, which there are some that think that that
is a psychological illness or symptomatic of it. And you know,
like I said, those one of the factors that she
based it on. There are people calling for her impeachment,

(19:27):
and there is precedent for impeachment of a federal judge.
I don't necessarily agree with that. I think it would
be a waste of time. I don't think there would
be a conviction in the Senate. But it's still it's
still reprehensible. Hey, let's go to the phones here, Let's
talk to Steve and Marie mont Hey. Good morning, Steve, Hey, Mike.

Speaker 4 (19:48):
Can I say goodbye to a feign officer?

Speaker 3 (19:50):
Absolutely.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
His name is Jeff Wabb But he was a correction
officer with me at Levin and Correctional. He died two
is still heart failure. He was sixty four, and he
was a great officer, and most most officers have heart
problems when they get older because of the stress. Yeah,
so I just want to mention that he's a great guy.

(20:16):
I'm glad I worked with him well at all, correction officer.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
You know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
I've been to the state institutions in my role as
criminal defense lawyer before I retired. That has got to
be a tough, tough job, you know, I mean it
and a dangerous job too.

Speaker 4 (20:36):
Just want to let you know I appreciate you my
contents for let me tell tough. Okay, say goodbye to.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
Him, No problem, my pleasure, thank you.

Speaker 5 (20:45):
You know.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
Yeah, I wanted him to address that. But that's got
to be a tough job. And those people, they don't
make much money at all. And you know, you're not
obviously locked up in prison, but you're around that day
in and day out. And I always salute those people
because again, I don't think you'll get a lot of

(21:07):
people that want to do that.

Speaker 3 (21:08):
Hey, let's talk to Rick in Dallas. Hey, good morning, Rick.

Speaker 2 (21:13):
I'll good morning.

Speaker 3 (21:13):
That might have you going, I'm good, I'm good.

Speaker 6 (21:15):
What you got one thing? First thing to begin with,
don't bear a cat. So I know the boys. I
know they're gonna beat them boys down of the Florida
So I'm not gonna even worry about it.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
That they're looking good, aren't they.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Now?

Speaker 1 (21:30):
Somebody told me they cracked the top twenty five. I
don't know, but they are looking really good.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (21:37):
And before I hold your phone, I wanted to ask
you keep mentioning a guy on the police force.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
He's an official.

Speaker 6 (21:45):
His last name is Guten Guten.

Speaker 3 (21:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (21:49):
Now, he don't tell me if he.

Speaker 5 (21:51):
Could, is he is?

Speaker 6 (21:52):
Somehow blood leaked to that call Gooden that was found
guilty of racketeern or something that seventy He was a
police chief back in the seventh I remember what exactly
did he get in trouble for him back then?

Speaker 1 (22:06):
Well, it was a sort of different things. Uh Sy
Lease was the prosecutor at the time, and I have
so much respect for Cy. He didn't get along with
the chief of police Carl Gooden, and Gooden was indicted.

Speaker 3 (22:21):
He was convicted.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
However, it's important to note that his conviction was overturned
and he had a very successful career in business after that.
I always kind of thought that he got a raw deal.
But to answer your question, I don't know for certain.
I don't think so. I don't think there's there's a
connection there. But you know, just out of curiosity, I'm

(22:45):
gonna ask him.

Speaker 3 (22:47):
Well, he's cold because he's on at ten thirty.

Speaker 6 (22:51):
Yeah, one, one and one final thing. They got a
real gauntlet to go through, I'm talking to They gotta
play a Zola, they gotta play Baylor. So I mean,
if they if they gonna be uh, nobody can say
if they they do.

Speaker 2 (23:08):
Somebody gave it to him now.

Speaker 5 (23:10):
They don't have to earn it, you.

Speaker 3 (23:11):
Know, And you're right about that.

Speaker 1 (23:13):
When I was up at UC in the in the
mid to late seventies, you know, they have oh and eight,
you know, oh and nine seasons. But if you recall
maybe about ten fifteen years ago, they cracked the top
four and they darn near got Bowl consideration. And I
don't know if they're that good this year, but I

(23:35):
love to see them do well.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
I mean, it's just a good thing for the city.
And thank you for the call.

Speaker 5 (23:40):
Rick.

Speaker 6 (23:41):
They gonna win. They gonna win today, and they're gonna
beat Oklahoma States. They not Oklahoma States, not that year really,
but they gonna, but now they gonna have trouble with Baylor,
and they gonna definitely have trouble with all of it.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
I'm what I'm pulling for real.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
We shall see. I appreciate the call, Rick, thank you. Yeah,
they're surprising some people this year. And I'm not gonna
say I follow them closely because I don't. I'm a
baseball guy. But uh, you know I'm paying attention to him.

Speaker 7 (24:12):
Now.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
Hey, let's talk to Barry in Miamisburg. Hey, good morning, Barry.

Speaker 2 (24:17):
Hey, good morning.

Speaker 8 (24:18):
How's it going today.

Speaker 3 (24:19):
I'm good, I'm good. What you got for me?

Speaker 8 (24:23):
I wanted to talk about something different this week?

Speaker 2 (24:27):
That's fine.

Speaker 8 (24:27):
Uh the government shutdown. Yeah, the big beautiful bill made
a few tiny, itty bitty cuts things that needed to go,
and now the Democrats are holding a third of the
country hostage, trying to replace with more spending that we

(24:52):
don't need.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
Yep, we need.

Speaker 8 (24:53):
Real spending cuts, not more spending.

Speaker 3 (24:57):
You're absolutely right about that.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
But what I'm seeing in the opinion Pollsbury is that
it's kind of a split between who's at fault, pretty
even between Republicans and Democrats. It's not, in fact, but
that's what people think.

Speaker 8 (25:14):
That's because a lot of people are listening to the
garbage that you know, consumer's like, but they're not even
talking to us. Well, you know, if you'd stop trying
to waste over a trillion dollars, then maybe people will
want to talk to you.

Speaker 7 (25:31):
Yep.

Speaker 8 (25:31):
But you're stealing money from taxpayers and burning it for corruption,
and of course nobody wants to talk to you. Get
rid of it.

Speaker 1 (25:42):
Yeah, I agree with you, And you know, the Republicans contend,
and I'm not drilled down on this deeply, but they
contend this is all about federal dollars for health care
for illegal immigrants. And there again, if in fact that
it's true, and I think it probably is, there's a
case of with the Democrats, Uh, the hell with the

(26:05):
American people. I'm going to bat for these people that
trespassed in our country. It's just beyond bizarre, and they
are paying a price for it.

Speaker 8 (26:16):
Yes, a few of those dollars will be going to
illegal immigrants. Yes, a few of those dollars will be
going to abortion, but only because the Democrats want to
spend as much money as they can on everything, not
because they are targeting spending for illegal aliens or for

(26:40):
abortion right right.

Speaker 1 (26:43):
Well, I heard just this morning too that thousands of
federal employees are now being fired. I don't know that
whether that's going to stand up in the courts, but
you know what, that's what everything bitched about.

Speaker 3 (26:54):
Dose.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
You don't think the federal government the workforce needed a
shaking up, and that's exactly what's happening. So I'm sympathetic
to people that get laid off. I was laid off
from the police department back in nineteen seventy six, and
it's tough to take, but it is what it is.

Speaker 8 (27:13):
At this point, well, you know, just pass a clean bill.
Stop trying to put stuff that was cut and rightfully
cut earlier this year and has already been voted on.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
Yep, you're right, and I appreciate the call, Barry. We'll
see where it goes.

Speaker 8 (27:36):
Second thing, Okay, my prayers. First caller and his friend. Yes,
you know, those guys need everything they can get.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
Absolutely a tough job, a tough Thank you for your
consideration on that too.

Speaker 3 (27:50):
Very considerate.

Speaker 2 (27:51):
I'll have a nice take.

Speaker 1 (27:52):
Okay you too, Barry. Oh Man, you know you talk
about the government shutdown. We just have a few minutes here.
I wanted to do this last week but didn't have
enough time. There is a publication, and as I'll tell you,
it's the Babylon Bee, and boy they twist the Libs
into circles. Last week they did a really funny piece

(28:16):
on the seven most terrifying consequences of a government shutdown.
Here are the seven most terrifying, according to the Babylon
b I don't really understand this. The Capital Cafeteria will
not be able to serve Ted Kruz his customary afternoon

(28:36):
ho hos.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
I don't know if Ted Cruz loves hose or not.

Speaker 1 (28:43):
Number two, the department that you've never heard of that
does nothing for you will be furloughed. And they follow
that up with you can kiss the Commission on Overseas
Native Fisheries goodbye. There's a lot of truth in number two.
I think Number three government workers will lose thousands of

(29:03):
hours of sleep. They would otherwise be oh man, they
would otherwise be getting at work.

Speaker 3 (29:10):
No one wants to sleep on their own time.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
Number four, Rand Paul will be intolerably giddy. So you
know they're trying to keep this on both sides. I
guess I like this one. AOC will have to go
back to bartending, but she doesn't know how to make
a rum and coke. And they follow that up with, hey,

(29:34):
it's a tough recipe. Number six. Instead of shopping online
while working from home, government employees will have to shop
online while.

Speaker 3 (29:45):
Furloughed at home.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
And finally, at number seven, no one will be able
to unlock the restrooms at y seventy National Park. It
is literally impossible to evacuate your bowels without government support.
You know, obviously it's a serious thing, and there probably
are some people that are going to get.

Speaker 3 (30:07):
Hurt by it. I do understand that.

Speaker 1 (30:09):
And again, I was on the receiving end of one
of these things quite a few years ago. And you know,
as far as the layoffs that we went through, I
went through with the Police Department. I know, I was young.
I didn't understand, you know, budget things and all this
kind of stuff. But I did not believe in many
of my friends who were on the police department, we

(30:32):
were police cadets at time, didn't believe that this was
going to happen. I mean, really, it's like, how can
they do this?

Speaker 3 (30:40):
They can't do.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
This too as well, they can and they did. I
got back on the department in nineteen seventy nine. I
believe it was they finally got some money. What happened
with us was there was a thing called the l
EAA Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. It was created by President
Nixon that poured millions of dollars into federal aid for

(31:02):
police departments. That was what paid us our salaries as
police cadets. Well, that money ran out, and boom, we
were gone. It's a tough thing to take, but you know,
sometimes things have to happen, and you know, to me,
it's not gonna I don't think we're gonna see any

(31:24):
serious consequences of paring down the federal government so much.
I guess, you know, time will tell on all of that.
But those are kind of funny from the Babylon b
you know. Getting back to the thing with Justice Kavanaugh
and the assassination attempt, one of the other things that

(31:47):
Judge Boardman took into consideration, which she is allowed to do,
is the fact that he abandoned his criminal intent, which
he did apparently if the facts that I have read
are true, and a judge can consider that. But I mean,
if you read the opinion, she makes it a real

(32:09):
big deal, like, well, that's the main thing I'm taking
into consideration. That was not the main thing. The main
thing she was taking into consideration was the fact that,
then God, for Donald Trump, there's an executive order prohibiting
the full I don't even know what they call it anymore,
and I don't really care, you know, the full sex

(32:32):
change thing. But they're still doing things that are costing
you and I in federal prisons, in the Bureau of
Prisons to kind of make these people that don't know
what sex they are feel a little bit more comfortable.
And I'm not saying you make jail a terrible place,
but my god, once again, once again you got the Democrats,

(32:56):
and you got them, and they're all concerned about these things.
And at some point you just have to wonder, when
are the people going to matter, the American people.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
You know, you hear some of these people too.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
They'll talk about illegal immigrants, and they'll say they won't
refer to them as that. They'll say residents of the
state of Illinois, residents of the state of California, and
that is their legal status. Well, I don't know if
it's their legal status it's their practical status. They're not citizens,

(33:37):
their residents. And again I'm not saying you go take
them and throw them in federal prison forever. However, when
it comes down to helping Americans as opposed to helping
illegal immigrants, I know where I fall on that one,
and I read some things a while back. I should
have probably drilled down on them where the Bureau of

(33:59):
Prisons is having one hell of a time dealing with
these trans issues in the various prisons.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
I mean, think about it.

Speaker 1 (34:08):
You got a guy, I mean, take this guy, you know,
he wakes up in the morning and say, gee, you know,
maybe I'm a girl. So we all got to by
we I mean the taxpayers. We have to jump through hoops,
spend all this money because of this. And again I'm
not advocating that you are cruel to these people. You're

(34:33):
mean to these people that you know you do bad
things to them. However, I think you do, or you
should take into consideration. They are point zero five percent
of the population. Point zero five percent of the population.

(34:53):
That's got a factor into this somehow. Anyway, we got
to take a break for the news, but when we
get back, we're gonna back in with our friend Christopher Smithman.
Lots going on on the city council race, mayor's debate
they had this week. I'm going to talk to Christopher
about that, and we'll do that when we get back.

Speaker 3 (35:10):
Video seven hundred WLW Mike.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
Gallan AM Hour two Today is the second and final
hour of Saturday Midday. Yet another short show because of
the University of Cincinnati University of Central Florida football game,
which begins at noon. Our coverage begins at eleven after

(35:34):
I vacate the premises here.

Speaker 3 (35:37):
Well, I'll tell you what. There was a lively.

Speaker 1 (35:40):
Debate mayor's candidate debate Thursday night, sponsored by The Inquirer
and Xavier University. Lots of talk about the collaborative agreement,
you know, with Pureval. A lot of it was, you know, Trump, Trump, Trump.
He would not this one of my takeaway, he would

(36:01):
not rule out a tax increase. So I think that's
something of some significance. Here to talk about it is
Christopher Smitheman, former Vice mayor, former Law and Public Safety chair,
and current financial advisor extraordinaire.

Speaker 3 (36:18):
Christopher, how you doing.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
I'm doing good, Mike. Thanks for having me on My
pleasure I definitely watch, Yeah, but I definitely watched the debate.
You know what happens is, you know, candidates go out
and they poll things the public doesn't understand, like, hey,
a candidate goes out, they do a poll and they're
trying to figure out what type of negative ad they

(36:41):
can run that would move the needle for them to
win the race. And clearly this mayor believes saying things
about Trump are talking about MAGA during a local election
which has nothing to do with Trump and nothing about
Maga right, will help will help drive voters away from
Corey Bowman. So that that's really why he kept coming

(37:04):
back to it. He's done a poll out there. The
taps say the more he says that, the worse it
is for Corey. And that's why they always say, this
is Corey Bowman, the brother of the vice president, right me,
They don't introduce me that way. They don't go Christopher Smitheman,
the brother of Herbs Smith or James Smith. Aman are
Albert smithmen? Right? That's that's a strategy on his part,

(37:25):
and the problem with it is it distracts us, which
is his goal. The mayor's goal, current mayor's goal, distracts
us from the real problems that we've got to solve,
and number one is crime. I was just disappointed that
the lead question was from the Inquirer, crime is down.
This is your there. They're absolutely did wrong about that.

(37:48):
And just as you're going into it, Mike, to that debate,
there was a shooting down at Fountain Square, and so
you and I have lived long enough to see that.
You know, you're seeing spikes and crime in downtown, and
then you see it spreading out into the other fifty
one neighborhood, and that's an indication that we're not headed
in the right direction. And my last comment about it

(38:10):
is the mayor was very disingenuous, and I want to
hone in on this because you heard him speaking a
lot about the police and how he supported him. But
the clear message from the FOP, which you've been endorsed
by and I've been endorsed by, they have taken a
no confidence vote in this mayor. So if you don't

(38:31):
know that, he send me up there saying, you know,
the police and I have a great relationship. We're doing great.
Everything is wonderful. But he's the clarity. Was it okay?
What the FOP has taken a no confidence voting you.
And if I was looking for the moderator and the inquirer,
listen to this, ask him that question. Meaning the number

(38:52):
one issue on people's mind is crime. You would think
a question would be why do you believe the Cincinnati
Police depart took a no confidence vote in your leadership? Yeah,
but that question wasn't asked of him, right, And so
people have to understand that we've got to focus on
this crime that's going on. And Holly was there in

(39:13):
the front row. Ronda Win, whose daughter Cassandra Wynn was
murdered in OTR shot in the back, five children, She
was there in the front row. And I would say
that I was looking for the mayor to say, listen,
I see you, Holly, I see you, Ronda Win mother.
I am so sorry about you being beat up and punched.

(39:36):
You didn't deserve that. And Ronda Whin, the burying of
a child has got to be the worst case scenario
for any parent. We extend our deepest condolences to you.
The government failed to provide that protection and we're so sorry. Hey,
guess what, we still have an arrest that the bad
guy who did it we're still searching and wanting that

(39:56):
arrest and committing himself in that debate to finding the
per who killed Cassandra Win. That's what I was looking
for from the mayor. I didn't hear any of that.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
No, he didn't say anything like that. The Inquirer is reporting, Christopher.
The candidates clashed over crime, with pure of All defending
the city's collaborative Agreement and Bowman claiming it was being
weaponized against police. Where do you come down on the
collaborative Agreement?

Speaker 2 (40:24):
Well, the Collaborative Agreement is a historic document that we
all should be very proud of. But we're no longer
under federal oversight. That's a very important statement. Right. Paul
Green has come in, he's done his job. We've done
a refresh. This Cincinnati Police Department has turned itself around,
and we now are a model for the rest of

(40:46):
the country to see and witness, and we should be
proud of that, right. But I don't even want this
pseudo with that our officers to feel like they're under
some federal oversight because we're hiring consultants that think they
can go out and intervene directly in police business. Here's
what my direct point about the Collaborative Agreement. We can

(41:07):
support the collaborate agreement, do community policing and at the
same time do proactive policing. Those two things are in concert.
And I don't know. I just think that there are
this mindset where Mayor Purvoal thinks playing to the African
American community by acting as if the Collaborative Agreement is

(41:29):
the trump card and not the death of the African
American men that are being murdered in our streets. The
number one issue for our mothers and our grandmothers, and
our uncles and our aunts are the young African American
men who are being murdered in our streets. That's what
they're talking about. And so what we want are good investigations,

(41:52):
cold cases, getting after these bad guys, getting them locked up.
And this is important having judges that have the courage
to give them the time. We don't want people to
get eight years. We want them get in prison, right.
We don't want them to get fifteen years from murdering somebody.
So we've got to work on these judges like Judge Berkerwitz,

(42:13):
who's running, who I support. I want to see them
get reelected. Our judges are important, as you know, our
prosecution prosecutors are important, and our cops. Our cops feel
like they're arresting people, but the judicial system is letting
them out. They didn't deal with any of that because
the mayor was spending more time in his paths for

(42:34):
most likely some type of research that he has done
that says the more he says Maga, the more it
boxes in Corey. Here's what I'll say about Corey. Corey
has a good heart community. He's a good man. He cares,
he cares right. He's not trying to climb the latter

(42:57):
trying to go to Washington like our current mayor. So
we have a decision to make. We can continue to
do these four years the way we've done it. And
what blew me away Mike Allan is when he started
damming John Cranley. He said it was the previous administration.
They're the reason I'm in this hole that I'm in,

(43:17):
and which includes Paula Balks Music, who was a great
city manager. So it was amazing to me that he
was throwing John Cranley, which would include be the vice
mayor of John Cranley's under the bus, saying over these
four years. The reason he's having so many problems is
this related to John Cranley in the previous administration. I

(43:38):
reject that completely. This man has been the mayor for
four years. Your snow didn't get picked up, not because
of John Cranley. Your garbage is that getting picked up,
not because of John Cranley. Our city is dirty, not
because of John Cranley. Our cops aren't out there doing
not doing proactive policy because of John Cranley. This mayor
has to own it is administration and that's a problem.

Speaker 3 (44:02):
There's no question about that.

Speaker 1 (44:04):
Also this week the Inquirer Scott Wortman, they released a
questionnaire that they sent out about issues with respect to
the city, crime being the one that they focused on.
And I mean, obviously you're in there too. Did you
get a chance to read that, Christopher, And if you did,
what are your thoughts in general?

Speaker 2 (44:26):
I didn't. I didn't, but I can tell you I
am out even right now, I'm sitting down in one
of our fifty two neighborhoods and our team were out
going door to door lit dropping. I haven't talked to
one person, no matter whether I'm in Hyde Park or
Mount Adams. These are places I've been, Mount Lookout, Mount Washington, Heartwell, Carthridge,

(44:49):
bond Hill, Evingston, Roseline, you name it, Mike Allen, everybody's
talking about crime. That is what they are concerned about.
And so with the every time the mayor says it's
our perception right, it really burns citizens their minds and
their behind. They are very very concerned about the gun violence.

(45:13):
It seems like every other day there's some type of
murder and people are very very concerned about it. So
I haven't read the article, but I would say crime
is number one. Development is number two. High park issues,
communities feeling like they're not listening to those are the
two things that I'm hearing as I'm knocking on doors,
and they are not happy with the current council. I've

(45:33):
never seen more Democrats tell me the Democratic Party has
left me. I haven't left the Democratic Party. I hear
this drum beat. So I don't know what's going to
happen in this election, but I can tell you that
there are Democrats out there that are not voting down
this ticket, and I'm trying to educate voters even today,

(45:54):
I'm in Heartwell going door to door that they don't
have to vote for nine people right, that they should
always go for three or four people in the system.
Do not vote for nine people for city council. You're
you're every time you vote for somebody, you're diluting your ballot.
And the and the Democrats keep trying to sell this,

(46:14):
this marketing tool to people to hold their power by
saying making making grandma and grandpa think that they have
to vote for nine you shouldn't vote for more than
four or five people, and stop. That's it, period.

Speaker 1 (46:28):
You know, are people getting that, Christopher, because that's always
come up in city council races. I think it flies
over people's heads. And I know when you're going door
to door, I'm sure that's what you're advising people to
do or suggesting that they do.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
But do people.

Speaker 1 (46:45):
Realize that because that is a powerful tool if it's.

Speaker 2 (46:49):
Used, they're not. And it's because what the Democratic Party
does is they brand vote for your nine people, and
they don't understand is up to nine right on your ballot?
It says up to nine right, And we lose about
two or three thousand ballots in these elections because people

(47:10):
vote for ten people. That's also very dangerous so I
would say, you don't want to over vote, and the
best thing to do is vote for three or four
or five people. That's what I do. You know, there's
a pretty big field out there, and there's some good
people like Liz Keating. I think she's a solid person
who's running. I'm not a selfish politician, So I like

(47:31):
to say other people's names that are out there that
are good. I like a Stephen Goodon. He's running as
a charter right, good guy, smart lawyer. You know, he's
a good person to have community on council that has depth,
Like you want to elect people that can look at contracts,
review those contracts, provide that kind of advisement to the

(47:51):
other eight members of council. Stephen Goodon is a person
that can do that and provide that kind of depth.
I would vote for Steven Gooden. Also, like in here
there's a Linda Matthews. Yes, nice, nice lady, good heart,
wants to do the right thing. She's also a good
choice in there. Drea House is running. This is Denise

(48:12):
Dreehouse is uh brother. He's running. He's a blue dog Democrat,
lives over on the good Man lives over on the
West side of town. He really wants to impact housing.
You know, he's very concerned about our housing stock and
how it's uh treated. You've got Lakda Cole out there running.

(48:33):
And I tell you one of the things I respect
about Lakida Cole is she works hard. I mean her
her campaign. She's not out there sleep so you know
she's knocking on doors and her team is working very hard.
My point in naming these people is that there are
a slew of candidates that that the public can pick
from right and and get a get a group of

(48:54):
of broad experiences from different political perspectives, males and female,
black and white. That we've put together a council that
has depth and diversity and a mayor that cares and
loves the people that they are serving. That is a
very important point because when the mayor was asked the

(49:14):
question have you reached out to the victims and he said,
I don't have time. That's not an exaggeration to say that. Again,
the mayor was asked the question have you reached out
to the victims? And the mayor said he didn't have time.
That's a problem community. So you want to elect people
with a heart who care about you care about your streets,

(49:35):
care about your children, care about your community and development,
care about crime, care about our firefighters. You got to
have somebody that cares. If you don't, and they're using
us to go to the next level, they'll always be distracted,
Mike Allant, They'll always be distracted.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
No question about it. Let me ask you this. I
mean the elections in a little bit over a month.
I think early voting has started. Am I right about that?

Speaker 2 (49:59):
You asked ya I started. I mean that's the mail
in ballots or life. It's scary. I mean I would
say we're probably I don't think we've broke two thousand
requests for ballots and we're chasing them. So that's why
I know the number. I don't think we if we did,
we just broke it on Friday two thousand. You know
it's a low number. It's concerning and public. There's so

(50:23):
many registered voters out there. We need you to show
up me your registered to vote. Here's the reality, Mike.
About twenty percent of people vote. The other eighty percent
stay home. So when we're out here knocking on a door,
we go knock on ten voters. We know that two
out of the ten are going to vote eight are.

(50:43):
That's a problem if if you want to weigh in community,
you can't not participate in the election. Elections have consequences
and then be disgrustle about the outcome. So here's my recommendation.
Talk to your mom and dad, your aunts, your uncles,
off to your children. Make sure that they're getting out
on November fourth and they are voting. And I'm going

(51:07):
to tell her. I'm not here to tell them who
to vote for, other than I'm asking the public to
capt the vote for Christopher Smitheman. But my point is
that there are a lot of good candidates that are
running that are not incumbents, that are not on the
current council, that you can vote for and get this
diverse council that Mike Allen, you have the confidence and
I have the confidence that they're putting us first and

(51:29):
not all these other distractions like DC. So imagine the
mayor during that two week period when there was this
ambush in downtown right where the gentleman slaps the African
American guy. Whatever the words that were said, the N
word not. There's now this ambush where people are being
beat in the middle of the Street. Our mayor didn't

(51:50):
even have the wherewithal to say, I better fly back
into my city. I'm at this mayor's conference out here.
I better fly back. No, I'm going to stay here.
As a matter of fact, I'm gonna go and leave
and go on vacation for another week. He didn't engage
that for two weeks, and that was a part of
the problem. Mike Alla, you know, when there's a void
in the leadership, you got a vacuum, bad things happened.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
That was incredible, Christopher. Unfortunately, we're out of time. We
never have enough time. We'll definitely have you on before
the election more than once. But appreciate you taking time
out of your Saturday to talk to us, and.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
Thank you and Mike. People can follow me on social media.
It's I'm on one space. It's at vote Smitherman. That's X,
that's at vote Smithman. And the reason I like people
to follow me there is they can track me for
my own words. They don't have to listen to the
newspaper or the media stations. They can hear what I'm
saying directly by following me on EG sounds. Thank you

(52:48):
so much, Okay, Christopher, thank you God, bless you, man,
Thank you you.

Speaker 3 (52:51):
Bye bye, bye bye.

Speaker 1 (52:52):
All Right, Christopher smitheman, I'm telling you that guy, if
he gets back on council, he's just not gonna sit
there in a chair and not comment on anything. He's
going to take the bull by the horns. I really
really hope he cracks it. I think he's got a
good chance of doing it. Anyway, we got to take
a break. Button we get back, We're going to talk

(53:13):
to the aforementioned Steve Gooden. Christopher talked about him about
some legal issues, mainly the sentence, the ridiculous sentence that
was imposed by Judge Boardman on the guy that tried
to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh. We're going to talk about some
political things too. We'll do that when we get back.
Mike Allen Saturday Midday. Have you taken your family to dinner?

Speaker 3 (53:36):
Recently?

Speaker 1 (53:37):
Had forty two News Radio seven hundred WLW. Mike Allen
Saturday Midday.

Speaker 3 (53:43):
Well, I'll tell you, we've been talking about it all morning.

Speaker 1 (53:46):
Nicholas also known now as Sasha, decided that she woke
up or he woke up and wanted to be a woman. Anyway,
got set Rosky Nicholas Rosscott sentenced to eight years. Government
was seeking thirty to life. Here to talk about it
is Steve Gooden. Steve has done a lot of federal

(54:09):
criminal work and I want to get his take on it.
Good morning, Steve, Hello Steve, Good morning, Steve, good morning.

Speaker 3 (54:20):
Yeah, sorry about that. Your thoughts on my fault, your thoughts.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
On the sentencing, I mean, eight years. I don't think
that's an appropriate sentence. Government, of course wanted thirty to life.
Your thoughts on that.

Speaker 7 (54:35):
Well, it's a travesty and I'll tell you why. And
it's a bigger deal than just this one judge. I mean,
we know this judge is Deborah Boardman.

Speaker 5 (54:43):
Yep.

Speaker 7 (54:43):
You know sort of has a history of this sort
of thing. And you know, in the federal sentencing world,
you have to really bend over backwards if you're going
to depart from the guidelines, and the guidelines here called
for thirty to life, yep. And the prosecutors weren't being unreasonable,
That's just what the federal guidelines were. And if you're
going to depart from that, you have to make these

(55:05):
very very specific factual findings. And the finding she entered
sounded like.

Speaker 5 (55:10):
Out of a rant against the Trump administration and really jumped.

Speaker 7 (55:13):
Into the culture wars. She basically gave this person a
break for being mentally ill number one, which it sounds
like most people in these circumstances are, and number two
because he or she is transgendered. I don't want to
mess up the pronouns and be insensitive. I don't remember
which way this particular one goes. I think it's started
as a biological man going to a female.

Speaker 5 (55:34):
Yes, and then.

Speaker 7 (55:36):
Also noted that the time, this was the part that
was so outrageous that her time and his time or
her time in federal prison will be even worse because
the Trumpet ministration has banned the use of these transgender
procedures in prisons. I mean we used to like actually
prisoners used to be able to transition while they were

(55:58):
in federal prison. Is no longer the case. So basically
saying this is going to be even harder on this
person because they can't do this transitioning while in prison,
and kind of gave her a break there, and I'll
know it just looked it falls into this whole kind
of politicization of of the federal system where you really
didn't for years, the federal system was thought of as
the place because it has these guidelines that are passed

(56:20):
by Congress, where it is less political, it's harder to get,
you know, to have partisan politics creeped in. But that's
really no longer the case. You've got January sixth defendants.
Many of them got twenty plus year sentences. And I'm
not saying a lot of those guys should have just walked,
because I think some of them did some pretty bad things.
But it was pretty clear there that the judges were
going upwards to send a message. And now we have

(56:42):
a sitting Supreme Court justice and this person, you know
who very well could have been assassinated. This person traveled
across the country, had burglary tools, had a firearm, and
really got to the threshold of the property. And if
they head and back out at the last minute, you know,
we could have had the first sitting Supreme Court justice assassinated,

(57:04):
which is amazing. In two hundred and thirty five years,
we've never had one assassinated. So Kavanaugh could have made
history in a way he didn't want to. And what
was we saw with Charlie Kirk and other things. These
individuals are very very much pepable of this kind of violence,
and this sentence did not reflect that, and it was
just a true shame and it makes people. Things like

(57:25):
this make the average person lose faith in the justice
system being fair and impartial.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
You're absolutely right about that. The government said they're appealing.
I've never been involved in, or actually even read any
cases about appealing a sentence from a federal district court judge.
How does that work, Steve? Do you know and have
you ever heard of it tried or being successful?

Speaker 7 (57:49):
No, I've seen it a couple of different times in
my career, and it often is successful. And basically what
they do is they argue the judge abused his or
her discretion in making a departure from the guidelines that
big and I don't know that the sentence is going
to hold up, you know. And making it even more
kind of bizarre, you know, is that the federal district

(58:10):
court judges and appellate court judges have an unusual degree
of contact with the US Supreme Court. It's kind of
like with the Ohio Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (58:19):
You know.

Speaker 5 (58:19):
The U.

Speaker 7 (58:19):
S Supreme Court actually does have administrative functions and sort
of oversees these lower courts to a certain degree when
they're not just ruling on their decisions, but there's personnel
things and issues like that, so you know, I so
so you know, she's basically saying, hey to her one
of her bosses, Hey, I didn't think it was that
big a deal that this transgender person was trying to

(58:40):
kill you. So we'll see how see how that goes.
The other question here really is, you know, there are
a lot of people, and a lot of very smart
people calling to impeach the judge. You know, it's only
had about six or seven district court judges impeached over
the years, and it's usually been for something corruption based
or extraordinary.

Speaker 5 (58:58):
But this one is just so.

Speaker 7 (59:00):
So out there that I wouldn't be too surprised if
somebody out of the federal society world or something of
that nature tried to at least make application and try
to begin that very obscure process to a beach, because
it really was a thumb in the eye to the whole,
to the Supreme Court and to the justice system. And
you know, it's just a strange strength set of facts.

(59:21):
The other thing here that's so ugly is that this
woman there, man, I'm a woman. And I'm not trying
to be mean. I just keeps hearing it up. This person,
this person was motivated about Roe v.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
Wade.

Speaker 7 (59:32):
I mean they it was in that period where, if
you recall, the decision had been leaked but not finalized,
and uh, you know, the court hadn't finally signed off
on the Dobbs decision, which is essentially overruled Row, and
that was the motivator here, you know, it was to
somehow try to stop it from becoming final. That's what

(59:54):
this person told the investigators when when captured. So so
that you know, that also adds to this weird element
here where it's almost like is the judge sort of,
you know, implicitly saying that's okay too, because you were
because this person was motivated, yeah, over these things again
the politics right there. So you know, I do think

(01:00:14):
you're going to see some I do think they've got
a pretty good chance, the prosecutors do, of getting this
revisited by the appellate court. But I also don't think
people are going to be done with miss Judge Boardman.
I think there's going to be a lot of activity
to try to pull her back.

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Oh yeah, this isn't the only thing with her too.
I went through it during the ran. We don't have
time to do it now. But what you said leads
me to my final question about this. She removed effectively
the terrorism enhancement to this thing. I think that's how
the government got to thirty to life. A couple of
days ago. I looked at the spec the specification, man,

(01:00:55):
it sure sounded like it fit to me, because, as
you just said, he was motivated by the abortion issue, right.

Speaker 7 (01:01:03):
I mean, I if trying to assassinate a judge because
of a ruling that they're about to make, If that
isn't a form of domestic terrorism, I don't know what is.
I mean, you're you're doing so you can do nothing
more anti democratic and try to assassinate ah, you know,
a sitting federal official over his or her opinion. I mean,

(01:01:26):
it's it's just a disgusting thing. And if that isn't terrorism,
I don't know what it is the dictionary definition.

Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
Speaking of disgusting Latsia James indicted on bank fraud and
making false alarm statements. A lot of talk about this
one being politically motivated, like all the stuff that was
done to Trump, wasn't politically motivated anyway, just in general,
your thoughts.

Speaker 7 (01:01:50):
On that, Yeah, this one, I think it's a little tougher.
I've read the indictment here, so so to refresh everyone's
recollect you very briefly, she was the attorney j General
New Yorkers. He's training general in New York who brought
the big civil mortgage fraud case against Donald Trump where
they got the thirty four million dollar verdict and Trump
was basically accused of inflating his assets to get more

(01:02:13):
favorable bank loans. We know, you know from my practice,
these kinds of things happen all the time, and usually
as long as the banks are made whole and no
one defaults on the loans, no one cares. I mean,
everyone puts their best foot forward when they're presenting their
their valuations of their properties and so forth to get
a bank loan, particularly in these big commercial thing deals.

(01:02:35):
What Letitia James did, I don't think there's any questions
she did this was she bought a house for her
great niece that she's renting to her great niece. She
paid one hundred and thirty seven dollars or thousand dollars
for it. In Virginia, and she represented it was going
to be her residence and of course instead of an
investment property, which did get her a lower interest rate.

(01:02:56):
So basically the same thing she accused Trump of doing,
but a much, much, much smaller scale. So the hypocrisy
of it is incredible. It is pretty unusual, though, for
federal prosecutors to go after a case this small. And
I've been involved in a couple mortgage fraud cases over
the years, and usually it is something, you know, they're

(01:03:17):
looking at a multi million dollars sort of, you know,
a commercial situation where the dollars are really big. So
it does look weird in a lot of ways that
they're going after an individual, you know, residential property this
way that I mean, they can, but it does kind
of contribute to this idea that it's the folks trying

(01:03:38):
to who are you know, either in the Justice Department
or or well, I guess they're all in the Justice
Department who are kind of trying to even the score here.
So I'm kind of curious what a jury will make
of all of it. I mean, I don't think there's
any questions she did what she's accused of doing. It
is unusual for federal prosecutors to go after something the small.
They're clearly trying to make an example out of her.

(01:04:00):
But I could see a jury looking at the numbers
here and thinking that it's, you know, maybe not that
big a deal.

Speaker 5 (01:04:07):
So, I mean, this.

Speaker 7 (01:04:07):
One's kind of like with the James Comey situation here,
where you know, he's accused the line of Congress.

Speaker 5 (01:04:12):
I'm very curious, you know.

Speaker 7 (01:04:14):
What kind of case they really have, and I hope
they've got the goods because otherwise, you know, it will
be a scenario where where Trump may give away some
of his moral advantage.

Speaker 5 (01:04:24):
Here. There's no question that they came after him.

Speaker 7 (01:04:27):
With things that they shouldn't have, that were politically motivated,
that they weaponized the justice system. And you know, let's
hope that this turns out to be I hate to
say it turns out to be a real crime, and
that doing the same thing back.

Speaker 1 (01:04:41):
I got it, I got you one final question, and
he got about thirty seconds from this. I'm sorry the
statements that she made and I don't have time to
read them.

Speaker 3 (01:04:52):
I mean, it's just incredible, just real quickly. This is.

Speaker 1 (01:04:58):
Something from her a tweet from her back in February
twenty twenty four. When powerful people cheat to get better loans,
it comes at the expense of hardworking people. Everyday Americans
cannot lie to get a mortgage, and our government would
throw the book at them. We simply can't hate have
different rules for different people. My question is this, Will

(01:05:20):
the government be able to use those statements in trial
to show that she's a hypocrite. I know that's not
a legal type thing, but will they be able to use.

Speaker 7 (01:05:29):
Those Absolutely they will, And it goes well beyond her
being a hypocrite, And she is a breeze and hypocrite,
by the way, And if you could convict someone of that,
I would, I would absolutely stay it breaking that. But
what it goes to is under the federal rules, it
goes to the idea that she knows it's wrong. I mean,

(01:05:49):
you know, just the idea that she's acknowledged, you know,
the wrongfulness of the conduct. I think is the exact
phrase that they use. Because a lot of people in
these mortgage part cases, and I've been involved in a couple. Look,
the argument is, hey, checked, I'm.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
Sorry, we're out of time.

Speaker 1 (01:06:07):
Everything's also that, uh, I'm gonna have you on soon
to talk about politics too, because you are the head
of the Charter Party and we will do that, maybe
even next week.

Speaker 3 (01:06:17):
I'll get with you later in the week.

Speaker 5 (01:06:19):
Well, I'll do that.

Speaker 7 (01:06:20):
Hey.

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
We have a good day, man. Thank you you too.
Thanks Steve, good care you too. Hey, you know what,
I am way out of time. Want to thank my
producer Liam for keeping me out of trouble. I am
out of here. Will be back next Saturday with full
show Mike Allen seven hundred WLW. You've got your whole
life ahead of you, so choose a Medicare plan you

(01:06:40):
can count on if you're living with a chronic condition
like diabetes, chronic car failure, or a cardiovascu