Judge Napolitano - The Tyranny of the Majority

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Fill Heavy from two seventy five andSouthgate into town Chuck Ingram on fifty five
krs. The talk station Ay thirtyfifty five krs. The talk station always
a special day and time of theweek thanks to Judge Ed Apolitano. You
can find him online in various placesFacebook, YouTube, judging Freedom, remarkable

(00:21):
guest and always interesting interviews and topicsof conversation, which is the same thing
here. Although the guest is alwaysremarkable, it's Judge entered a polatana.
Returning to the show. Welcome tothe program, Judge. It's always a
pleasure to have you on. Whathappened to Ingram? Did he forget me
this morning? Apparently? So yeah, he apparently had a lot of traffic
to deal with because of weather issueshere and elsewhere. I don't know.

(00:45):
But he's alive and well anyway,which is always a good thing to know.
So, oh God, I'll givehim a hard time for forgetting you.
How's that He's right around the corners, So I'll stick my head in
there and say, say, thejudge was asking about you. I hear
your doggy in the background. Yes, I'm not sure what it is,
Chris, Come on, that's analways everyday occurrence at our house. The

(01:08):
dog's always barketed something. Anyhow,before we pivot over to your column comes
out tonight, I'm lucky to geta copy in advance. The tyranny of
the majority. I just we hadsome listeners, or I had rather some
listeners call in, not the royalwee. I had some listeners call in
earlier in the week. And I'vehad conversations off air with people wondering what
the hell's going on with Judge marshaOn and him clearing the courtroom though,

(01:34):
and getting in the witness's face aboutabout staring him down in some of the
subtle under his breath comments that hemade. I just he seemed to have
engaged in some rather bizarre behavior.Now I understand clearing the courtroom of the
jurors so that the lawyers can outloud discuss matters of objections or things that

(01:55):
might be prejudicial to one side ofthe other's case. They can get it
all out. It goes on thecourt record, but absent the jury being
present. So that makes perfect senseto me from a litigation attorney standpoint.
But this judge kind of went offon a tear was having a go at
this witness for what is staring downa judge? I mean, is that
some sort of their boat and behaviorin the courtroom, Your honor, Well,

(02:17):
I think that it was very unusualto clear the press out of the
courtroom and then lock the doors.I mean, the only time that I
know that that is lawful is whenthe defendant is a juvenile and you have
to shield the defendant's identity from thepublic. The law actually requires that.

(02:39):
But short of that, it's vitalthat the press be the eyes and ears
of the public in the courtroom.However, I think the witness on the
stand, Bob Costello, whom Iknow in full disclosure, is a very
very prominent criminal defense lawyer until theyhad a dispute Rudy Giuliani's criminal defense lawyer,

(03:07):
and Bob was expressing negative opinions byfacial expressions and other semi vocal communication
about the judge's ruling, and itappeared as though he was mocking the judge.
I actually think the judge did hima favor by rebuking him without the

(03:30):
press there so that the rebuke wasnot public because the rebuke could result in
an ethics prosecution against mister Costello.So even though it was unusual, let
the jury that not that the juryout of the courtroom. That was quite
usual, even though it was unusualthat the press be out of the courtroom.
I think it was done as afavor to the witness. And then

(03:52):
he permitted the witness to testify.I didn't see what the witness did,
but the witness, who has aas much experience in the courtroom, almost
as much as the judge does,appeared to be second guessing the judge on
his ruling and was saying, jeezushlike that. When the judge sustained a

(04:15):
government objection to a question the defense, one edy asked, you can't have
that happening happened in your courtroom.Okay, fair enough, and all things
considered Trump's they defense rested Trump didn'ttestify. They're not gonna put any more
witnesses there the cases over. Thatreally came as no surprise to me.
It didn't seem after at least fromthe the the boiled down reporters version of

(04:39):
what has transpired thus far in thistrial, they didn't really have any reason
to put Trump on or continue theI think they're just going to try to
go with the fact that they there'sreasonable doubt and that they didn't provide sufficient
evidence of the crime that is beingalleged here. Well, the crime that's
being alleged here, it's very diffdifficult for the jury to understand, and

(05:02):
it's the judge's job to explain itin a nutshell as the government offers it.
The crime is falsifying corporate records inorder to hide the use of corporate
funds for a campaign contribution. Thatis the latter of felony. If the

(05:26):
jury buys all of this, theywill do so, I think from the
corporate records of the Trump organization,not from anything Michael Cohen said. I
mean, do liars tell the truth? Yeah, every once in a while,
liars do tell the truth. ButI think that the defense will have
a full screen of every lie towhich Michael Cohen admitted, not the disputed

(05:47):
ones, but to which he admitted, will go through each one of these
lies and closing argument and then say, would you put the freedom of your
children in this man's hands? Theyand point to the government lawyers want you
to put the freedom of the formerpress at president in this man's hands.

(06:09):
These are very powerful arguments, andTodd Lance doesn't need any advice from me.
He's very experienced and very adept atthis. These are very powerful arguments
that he can make. The government, on the other hand, will say,
Look, we take our witnesses aswe find them. You know,
often our witnesses have more baggage thanthe people were prosecuting. We're accustomed to

(06:30):
that, We deal with it.We don't put him up here as a
paragon of appropriate behavior. We don'tcompare his background to the president's. We
ask you to accept what he saidthat is corroborated by the documents, and
the documents, which were prepared byTrump's people, don't lie. So those
are the two arguments. In anutshell, as I see it, I

(06:53):
understand that the judge is going togive each of them a day. I
would never have done this. Thejudge is going to get each other them
a day for closing argument a TuesdayWednesday, and then Thursday he's going to
charge the jury. There's no courtMonday because it's a holiday. Well,
and the other component of this,and I thought, and I don't know

(07:15):
where your perspective is on this.Donald Trump denies that he had this affair
but it's immaterial whether he did ornot. We know that there was a
non disclosure agreement, and we knowStormy Daniel's got money. I mean,
the issue is independent of that thatthe judge allowed her to get on the
witness stand and testify about something thatwhat I would argue is completely immaterial to
the case and highly prejudicial, isin and of itself grounds for an appeal

(07:39):
should he be found found found guiltyby this jury. That that's a mistake
that Todd Blanche made. He madea couple of mistakes in the case,
all of which were because his clientinsistent on it. So when Blanche,
the chief defense lawyer said in openingthe sexual affair never took place, he
never had sex, that's Trump.That's the political side of Trump insisting on

(08:03):
that. If he had remained silenton it, then Stormy Daniel's testimony is
irrelevant. The other mistake he madewas putting Bob Costello on the stand.
He told Trump, we don't needCostello. He's going to do nothing because
us problems, and that's what happened. But Trump Trump knowsa likes Costello and
wanted him on the stand. It'svery difficult Before I was after I left

(08:28):
the bench, I represented some celebrities. I probably wouldn't have even gotten the
cases had I not been a recently, had I not recently left the bench
and got a lot of favorable publicityabout it. And representing celebrities is very
difficult because they are more concerned withtheir public image than they are with the
legal elements of the case, andthey want to control the narrative as they're

(08:52):
accustomed to doing. Take that andput it on steroids. When you have
Donald Trump that have an absolutely irrefutablestatement and conclusion, Your honor, we
all know that Donald drop which isbetter to be ruled by one tyrant or
our three thousand or tyrant three thousandmiles away or by three thousand tyrants one

(09:13):
mile away. That's how your columnbegins this morning. And my response to
you was, which is typically thereaction, you didn't write this looking for
an argument from me. No,No, I did not write it.
I don't write anything looking for anargument from you. But because we are
so strong in our belief and thehuman freedom. I mean the purpose of

(09:35):
the column is to remind us thatthe people we elect in Washington, DC,
the majority, take our property andtake our liberty to get re elected
to give it away. They takefrom the haves, they give to the
have nots. They give it away, and they take our liberty like suppress

(09:56):
our speech because their benefactors don't likewhat we say. That's not a democracy.
Democracy is not just majority rules.Democracy is respect for individual liberties that
come from our humanity. So everyonce in a while I feel the need
to put a column out there that'smore a think piece than one that addresses

(10:18):
contemporary issues. But these issues arealways irrelevant. I mean, does the
Congress run the country or does themilitary, industrial, welfare, warfare,
banking donor class cartel run the country? Well, and you know along these
lines, we all know that anytax dollars taken by the federal government,

(10:39):
once landing in DC and after removinga sizable chunk for bureaucratic overhead, come
back to us in the form ofdollars that have like a gazillion strings attached.
So we in in fact have towe're forced to work for the government,
which I consider slavery because they canrandomly choose to take whatever percentage they
want from our income and then theyget to convert it for their own use

(11:01):
which eradicates and eliminate some of thefreedoms that we're talking about here when the
money comes back, because we're fullenough to accept it with the strings.
You're right, You're right. Imean, the government thinks it can write
any wrong and regulate any behavior,and tax any event the restraints imposed upon
it by the Constitution be dammed.The reason I mentioned the Bank speech is

(11:22):
the guy who wrote the Constitution gavethe greatest explanation for limited government of which
I am aware. When he,as a member of Congress argued against the
First National Bank, he lost,and they founded the first National Bank.
They assumed for themselves powers. Thisis the Congress in seventeen ninety one that

(11:46):
the Constitution never granted to it,and it has gone downhill since, demonstrably
so judging freedom. Who are yougonna be talking with today, your honor,
Oh, I have the great ProfessorJohn Meerscheimer from the University of Chicago
on today. He's absolutely fearless andbrilliant in his analysis of what's going on

(12:13):
in Gaza and what's going on inUkraine. And I have my friend Phil
geraldy forty year CIA agent whom GeorgeBush threw out of the Oval office when
he told him Saddam Hussein does nothave weapons. Destruct and Phil comes back
and every week finds something else thatthe intelligence community is up to that they

(12:33):
don't want us to know about,and that you won't hear on mainstream media,
which is why we find Judging Freedomonline. Check them out on YouTube,
Facebook search. It's well worth it, and spend a little time with
the judge Beyond this segment here onthe fifty five CARC morning, Hey,
how's our friend Thomas Massey. Ihaven't heard his voice on the show.
I know there's a primary going onin there. There was, it was
yesterday and he handily defeated his challengers. We will have him back on the

(12:56):
program now that we don't have toworry about providing equal time to those challengers.
My friends in the fourth in thein Kentucky know what they're doing,
and they re elected or renominated CongressmanMassey, who will go ahead onto victory.
I don't think there's any Democrats evenchallenging him in November, so I'm
so happy. I'm so happy tohear that he's the Ron Paul of the
House of Representatives today. He isso utterly faithful to the Constitution, nobody

(13:22):
can compare to him. What adifferent world it would be if we had
clones of Congressman Massy from all fiftystates representing the interests of the Republic.
Judge of Paula Tano until next Wednesday, Best of health, your honor.
It's always a pleasure having you onhis show. Early. Happy Memorial Day
weekend to you and your family.Brian, thank you. I'll go give
strekerhart Ar God give Ingram a hardtime. Now take care of Man forty

(13:45):
three. If you've got caresee detalkstation Fast and Pro roofing. Get in
touch with Fast and Pro right now, and hurry up and lock in the
roof replacement.