Speaker 1: I can't believe I didn't talk about this much yesterday.
Speaker 1: And I had a whole show yesterday about the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden pardon, and I wound up just blathering on about
Speaker 1: the principles behind the pardon power, and then I wound
Speaker 1: up talking about Roman history, about the example of this
Speaker 1: fourth century Roman consul who oversaw the execution of his
Speaker 1: own son because he had such fidelity to the law
Speaker 1: in Rome that his son had disobeyed a military order
Speaker 1: and charged at the enemy when he wasn't allowed to.
Speaker 1: So Titus Manlius Torquatus had his own son executed. Why
Speaker 1: because he was faithful to the law and his son
Speaker 1: had broken the law done something that merited the death
Speaker 1: penalty in Rome, and he was like, well, sorry, yes,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna kill my son. And how Trump just letting
Speaker 1: his son completely off the hook for everything he's ever
Speaker 1: done wrong in his life is maybe sort of the
Speaker 1: opposite example of that. Anyway, I blathered on and on
Speaker 1: and on about all this, and on and on and
Speaker 1: on about the narrative of like, oh, this isn't really
Speaker 1: a crime anyone would have charged against Hunter Biden, And
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, no, quite the opposite. Hunter has been
Speaker 1: treated with kid gloves for all this conduct for years.
Speaker 1: He would have been charged with more if prosecutors hadn't
Speaker 1: been trying to give him a sweetheart deal to get
Speaker 1: off Scott free from all of his misconduct. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of things they could have charged him with that
Speaker 1: they didn't. That they allowed the Statute of Limitations to
Speaker 1: pass on. All of his shenanigans, gallivanting around Europe and Asia,
Speaker 1: selling access to selling the appearance of access or flat
Speaker 1: out access to his dad, to foreign businesses in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: foreign businesses in China, China that were foreign business in
Speaker 1: China that were clearly connected with Chinese Communist Party, in intelligence,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: So a bunch of stuff the Statute of Limitations passed on.
Speaker 1: He was only charged with his tech problems. Going back
Speaker 1: to I think about twenty eighteen onward and then the
Speaker 1: gun charge, and I also talked about how it's such
Speaker 1: a shameful thing given that Biden had spent a large
Speaker 1: chunk of his political life ranting about two different issues
Speaker 1: one gun violence, two the ultra wealthy who don't pay
Speaker 1: their taxes and what does he absolve his son of
Speaker 1: a gun crime. A gun crime, by the way, for
Speaker 1: gun legislation that Biden himself worked on as a senator,
Speaker 1: that Biden himself could have called, you know, could have
Speaker 1: you know, here's Biden saying, well, this is overly harsh
Speaker 1: to penalize someone with a prison sentence for wrongly stating
Speaker 1: something on a gun form. Oh, you think that this
Speaker 1: federal gun law is too harsh? Boy, If only somebody
Speaker 1: had been in a position to help rewrite or amend
Speaker 1: this federal gun legislation to make it less punitive. If
Speaker 1: only someone had been, like say, a US senator for
Speaker 1: thirty six years, and then Vice president of the United
Speaker 1: States for eight years, and then President of the United
Speaker 1: States for another four years, maybe they could have suggested
Speaker 1: some amendments to it. Oh, but of course not, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden would never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever
Speaker 1: ever in a billion years suggest gun legislation that was
Speaker 1: less punitive. So anyway, I talked about all these different
Speaker 1: ways in which the Hunter Biden pardon was ridiculous and
Speaker 1: historical examples about the pardon power, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and
Speaker 1: I didn't really talk enough about maybe Joe Biden's motivations
Speaker 1: for this pardon are not as clean and pure as
Speaker 1: the wind driven snow, and that there's a little densey
Speaker 1: bit of self interest. Now, let's remember kind of where
Speaker 1: Hunter is in his legal problems. He's already had his
Speaker 1: trial for the guns stuff. Trial for the gun stuff
Speaker 1: is done, he was found guilty, His sentencing was coming up.
Speaker 1: My head, friends asking me, is why did why did
Speaker 1: Joe pardon Hunter in early December. Wouldn't isn't that usually
Speaker 1: a thing a president does like closer to the very
Speaker 1: end of his term like this. Wouldn't this have been
Speaker 1: more likely to have happened on like January nineteenth or something. Well,
Speaker 1: Hunter's sentencing was coming up, I believe later this month.
Speaker 1: So I think Trump, excuse me, I think Biden issues
Speaker 1: the pardon now so that Hunter doesn't have to go
Speaker 1: through the sentencing. Now, Hunter has been found guilty after
Speaker 1: a trial for the gun thing. He has been He
Speaker 1: has pled guilty to the tax charges that were filed
Speaker 1: against him. This is basically in connection to Hunter was
Speaker 1: receiving millions and millions and millions of dollars of income
Speaker 1: from his various business dealings, gallivanting around Europe and Asia
Speaker 1: and not paying any taxes at all. Already, some of
Speaker 1: that financial information has become public on like the kinds
Speaker 1: of things he was spending money on and not paying
Speaker 1: his taxes. Again, it was gazillions of dollars. By the way,
Speaker 1: the only way Hunter has been able to not get
Speaker 1: hit with worst charges or isn't in a worst predicament
Speaker 1: is because various Joe Biden donors paid Hunter's tax debts.
Speaker 1: So the stuff that Hunter owed in taxes has been
Speaker 1: paid back with interest and penalties by Joe Biden donors.
Speaker 1: Which how that isn't a massive elections problem an unreported
Speaker 1: campaign expense probably, you know, especially by the liberal standard,
Speaker 1: where that was the whole basis of the Trump prosecution
Speaker 1: in Manhattan. The whole idea was that Trump paying Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels for a non disclosure agreement constituted a campaign expense
Speaker 1: that he didn't report to federal campaign officials, a federal
Speaker 1: campaign expense to hide the fact that he paid off
Speaker 1: this woman to not talk about their affair and thereby
Speaker 1: won the twenty sixteen election. That's the whole narrative for
Speaker 1: the Alvin Bragg thing. Which seems kind of silly. I mean,
Speaker 1: a news story came out about another woman that Trump
Speaker 1: signed a non disclosure agreement with with whom he allegedly
Speaker 1: had an affair. That story came out also like two
Speaker 1: or three days before the twenty sixteen election, and Trump's
Speaker 1: stilt one. I doubt two bimbo stories would have sunk
Speaker 1: his campaign where one bimbo story didn't now regards so, so,
Speaker 1: the left is all in on this notion that what
Speaker 1: constitutes a campaign expense is this huge, very flexible idea. Frank, actually,
Speaker 1: under federal election law, in all likelihood no having someone
Speaker 1: sign a non disclosure agreement. Yeah, maybe it helps put
Speaker 1: you in a better position for getting elected because this
Speaker 1: person won't come out to talk about how you cheated
Speaker 1: on your wife with them. But that's not, properly speaking,
Speaker 1: a campaign expense. A campaign expense is a campaign television ad, billboards,
Speaker 1: you know, uh, internal polling that you pay for, Like
Speaker 1: those are campaign expenses. That's the stuff you have to
Speaker 1: report to federal elections officials. Anyway, the thing I didn't
Speaker 1: really talk about is the self serving nature of the part.
Speaker 1: Now Biden's pardon of his son Trump is covering a
Speaker 1: very specific timeline. It's going from early twenty fourteen to
Speaker 1: the present. Now, that's an oddly specific timeline for any
Speaker 1: crimes he may have committed that are touched upon it
Speaker 1: all in the Special Council's investigation from January of twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen onward. What kind of things were happening in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: Let's ask, well, Joe Biden was vice president at that time,
Speaker 1: and twenty fourteen was when Hunter was doing all of
Speaker 1: his shenanigans with Barisma, the Ukrainian energy company, where a
Speaker 1: lot of people have implicated Joe Biden and all of that.
Speaker 1: Tony Bobolinski, who had been a business partner of Hunters,
Speaker 1: he was the guy testifying whether it was the Ukraine
Speaker 1: stuff with the Chinese stuff, et cetera, that the big
Speaker 1: guy mentioned in the Hunter Biden emails frequently mentioned the
Speaker 1: big guy was Joe Biden. Clearly it's Joe Biden, And
Speaker 1: I think that one of the important things to remember here.
Speaker 1: By Joe pardoning Hunter for all of that stuff, and
Speaker 1: now a lot of that stuff, Hunter couldn't have been
Speaker 1: prosecuted for necessarily because it was pasted the Statute of
Speaker 1: Limitations all right, So for federal tax offenses, if you've
Speaker 1: committed some kind of tax fraud, if you haven't paid
Speaker 1: a bunch of your taxes, whatever, and it's it's at
Speaker 1: such a bad level that it we're not talking about
Speaker 1: the IRS anymore. We're talking about federal prosecutors, okay. And
Speaker 1: that's the thing. You know, if you're ten thousand dollars
Speaker 1: short paying your taxes, the IRS handles it. If you
Speaker 1: were six or seven million dollars of income short of
Speaker 1: paying your taxes, that's when a federal prosecutor gets involved.
Speaker 1: And that's the uh domain that Hunter was in as
Speaker 1: far as how much taxes he wasn't paying. For Hunter's
Speaker 1: tax charges, it wasn't going to touch all the stuff
Speaker 1: that happened in twenty fourteen because the prosecutors, in their
Speaker 1: effort to give Hunter a sweetheart deal, let years go
Speaker 1: by where they didn't indict him. So Hunter, you know,
Speaker 1: they didn't indict him in twenty twenty. His twenty fourteen
Speaker 1: tax stuff went by the wayside. This actually the limitation
Speaker 1: tolls and his twenty fourteen tax problems they go away.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty one goes by his twenty fifteen tax problems
Speaker 1: go away. Twenty twenty two goes by his twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: tax problems go away, twenty twenty three goes by his
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen tax problems go away. Finally he gets indicted
Speaker 1: this year. So everything you know six years back and
Speaker 1: forward he can be indicted for. But evidence of stuff
Speaker 1: Hunter did prior to that could still come in. Financial
Speaker 1: information of stuff he did prior to then could still
Speaker 1: come in, and maybe some really damaging information about what
Speaker 1: Joe was involved in, stuff that could really screw up
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's legacy, maybe even stuff that could lead to
Speaker 1: joecing some kind of criminal jeopardy. And that's the thing.
Speaker 1: When we return, I want to talk about how clearly
Speaker 1: Hunter always knew the pardon was coming. That's next on
Speaker 1: The John Gerardy Show. Is Joe's pardon of Hunter an
Speaker 1: altruistic act of a father protecting his son. Is it
Speaker 1: a reasonable act by the President of the United States
Speaker 1: to moderate the strict application of justice in a way
Speaker 1: that was unfair and politically motivated. No, and no, I
Speaker 1: think it might have also just been the President doing
Speaker 1: a little bit of his own cya. The whole setup
Speaker 1: of how Hunter was making money was he would go
Speaker 1: to these foreign companies, he would sell to them. At
Speaker 1: the very least. The best interpretation of this possible is
Speaker 1: that Hunter was selling to these companies the appearance of Hey,
Speaker 1: you give me money and I give you access to
Speaker 1: the Vice president of the United States. They would give
Speaker 1: Hunter money, Hunter would at least pretend to give them
Speaker 1: access or something. And because there's nothing else that it
Speaker 1: could have been, Hunter was getting millions of dollars of
Speaker 1: payment and there was no clear service going back. Let's
Speaker 1: put Hunter Biden on the board of directors of Barisma,
Speaker 1: a Ukrainian energy company. What the heck does Hunter know
Speaker 1: about Ukrainian energy? He doesn't know Jack Squatt, but his
Speaker 1: dad is the key point person in the Obama administration
Speaker 1: for Ukraine policy. All of a sudden, here's Joe Biden
Speaker 1: exerting pressure on the Ukrainian government to fire this prosecutor
Speaker 1: who's investigating Barisma. Shortly around the time, I'm his son
Speaker 1: joins the board. Oh, the Ukrainian government fires that guy. Ah.
Speaker 1: Barisma immediately cuts Hunter Biden's pay as a board member
Speaker 1: in half. I believe it was a massive reduction in
Speaker 1: what they were paying him. As soon as Joe Biden
Speaker 1: stopped being the Vice president of the United States on
Speaker 1: January twentieth, twenty seventeen, I think it was literally two
Speaker 1: months later, like they didn't even wait very long. And
Speaker 1: I think it was in March of twenty seventeen that
Speaker 1: they immediately cut Hunter Biden's salary like that. They were
Speaker 1: not subtle about it. We're gonna pay you a lot
Speaker 1: less because you have a lot less to offer to
Speaker 1: us now that your dad's not the vice president. And
Speaker 1: I think Hunter knew all alone. And this is the thing, Joe,
Speaker 1: We already know that Joe at least knew that he's
Speaker 1: son was selling at the very Again, this is the
Speaker 1: best case interpretation of it. It's very reasonable to draw
Speaker 1: a far less flattering interpretation of these events. The best
Speaker 1: interpretation of it is that Joe knew that his son
Speaker 1: and his brother were selling the appearance of access to him,
Speaker 1: an influence from him to foreign businesses, and he did
Speaker 1: nothing to stop it. He was the one person who
Speaker 1: could have stopped it. He could have told Hunter, don't
Speaker 1: you dare tell these foreign businesses that they can get
Speaker 1: something out of me. That the whole that that's that's bribery.
Speaker 1: That there's your you could be operating as a foreign
Speaker 1: agent without being registered as one like that. There's there's
Speaker 1: a million things wrong with this. It's it could be
Speaker 1: totally corrupt and slazy looking. Absolutely not. Don't do this
Speaker 1: that there are all these there's evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence
Speaker 1: that's come in that Joe talked with, interacted with Hunter's clients.
Speaker 1: Hunter had a dinner in DC for a bunch of them.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden stopped by, said a load of people that
Speaker 1: Hunter would put his dad on the phone when he
Speaker 1: was around clients. The first time Hunter puts his dad
Speaker 1: on the phone with clients, and Joe says, oh, you've
Speaker 1: got so and so with you. If Joe were an honest,
Speaker 1: upright person, he would have called Hunter back a minute
Speaker 1: later and yelled at him, don't you dare ever put
Speaker 1: me on a phone with one of your clients again.
Speaker 1: Stop telling these people that they can get access to me.
Speaker 1: If that's what you're selling these people, you got to stop.
Speaker 1: I can't have the appearance of this. It just even
Speaker 1: the very appearance that this is happening is corrupt. But
Speaker 1: Joe clearly never did that. If Hunter was really being
Speaker 1: charged with these federal tacks crimes, and all of this
Speaker 1: evidence could come in of what was Hunter doing, How
Speaker 1: was Hunter making this money, What were these, you know,
Speaker 1: what kinds of things of his father's expenses, Maybe was
Speaker 1: he paying for? Was money flowing to Hunter as a
Speaker 1: workaround for things that were intended to benefit the big guy?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not a crazy thing in fraud cases
Speaker 1: where the fraudster, instead of having someone fraudulently pay the
Speaker 1: money to him, has the payments go to a family
Speaker 1: member and then the family member benefit the big guy
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form. That's not an uncommon thing.
Speaker 1: Was that what Hunter was doing. If Hunter's taxes get
Speaker 1: opened up in the course of a criminal trial where
Speaker 1: Hunter's fighting for his life, where he doesn't know the
Speaker 1: silver bullet of a presidential pardon is waiting for him,
Speaker 1: maybe that evidence comes in. Maybe Hunter is not going
Speaker 1: to just plead guilty. Maybe we go through all kinds
Speaker 1: of discovery. Maybe we go through a detailed public presentation
Speaker 1: of evidence that is not flattering to Joe. Heck, maybe
Speaker 1: Hunter even testifies against his own dad. If he's in
Speaker 1: a bad enough situation. If federal prosecutors are like what
Speaker 1: you've got evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, by well by at that time, the
Speaker 1: vice president of the United States, who is currently the
Speaker 1: President of the United States. You got clear, can you know,
Speaker 1: criminal evidence? But Hunter didn't do that. Hunter's entire conduct
Speaker 1: over the course of this indictment for his federal tax problems.
Speaker 2: He has always operated as so some one would operate
Speaker 2: if they knew they had the silver bullet available to
Speaker 2: them of their daddy issuing them a presidential pardon.
Speaker 1: He doesn't fight the charges, he just pleads guilty. Well,
Speaker 1: at first it seemed like he was gonna and then
Speaker 1: he didn't. Decisions seem to and then of course what happens.
Speaker 1: The presidential pardon comes out. And it's very detailed as
Speaker 1: far as the timeline of what kinds of conduct Hunter's
Speaker 1: being absolved for. It's not. It goes all the way
Speaker 1: back to January, it goes all the way back to
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, when Joe was vice president, when Hunter was
Speaker 1: beginning to gallivant around selling at again, best case scenario,
Speaker 1: the appearance of influence from his dad, all of that
Speaker 1: stuff is covered by the pardon. So and by this
Speaker 1: so once you're pardoned, It totally eviscerates any need, any
Speaker 1: incentive for a criminal investigator to investigate it. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna investigate this for possible criminal violations when the
Speaker 1: guy has received a presidential pardon. We can't. We can't
Speaker 1: move forward with the prosecution. He's been pardoned. So I
Speaker 1: think that's another way of needing to look at the
Speaker 1: pardon of Hunter. Biden is no one. It is not
Speaker 1: the moderating hand of the president to moderate the strict
Speaker 1: application of justice in a way that was overly rigorous
Speaker 1: in a certain given circumstance. It wasn't the president, you know.
Speaker 1: Uh just it wasn't even altruistically a father caring for
Speaker 1: his son. And I mean, that's a human motivation. I
Speaker 1: can understand if I had the complete power to wave
Speaker 1: a magic wand and make my son not go to
Speaker 1: federal prison, I'd probably waive it, even if my son
Speaker 1: had done something meriting federal prison time. I could understand
Speaker 1: that motivation. But it's not just that. It's not just
Speaker 1: that there's some self dealing here. When we return a
Speaker 1: journey into the twisted mind of mind of erstwhile political
Speaker 1: commentator Keith Olberman next on the John Girardi Show. I
Speaker 1: want to talk about someone who is maybe kind of
Speaker 1: a bit of a blast from the past for a
Speaker 1: lot of you, hasn't really been particularly relevant in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form for the last several years. Keith Olberman. Now,
Speaker 1: many of you may remember Keith from when he had
Speaker 1: a show on MSNBC. Some of you may go further
Speaker 1: back and remember when he was an anchor on Sports Center.
Speaker 1: It was him and Dan Patrick and a lot of
Speaker 1: people Harold people who are ESPN officionados, you know, sports
Speaker 1: TV officionados, Harold Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman as the
Speaker 1: epitome of ESPN that they were the best Sports Center
Speaker 1: anchors ever and that was the best and blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: blah blah. I can't actually think of any Keith Olberman
Speaker 1: moment that I thought was great. I mean, Dan Patrick
Speaker 1: is clearly a very talented broadcaster and a very successful career.
Speaker 1: But Olberman had a different kind of successful career. Basically,
Speaker 1: it's sort of successful. He just kept getting opportunity after
Speaker 1: opportunity after opportunity, and he kept so ticking off his
Speaker 1: own employers that he would get fired. He seems to
Speaker 1: be a total misanthrope who just burns bridges everywhere he
Speaker 1: goes to the point where, in spite of the fact
Speaker 1: that this man is obviously very talented broadcaster, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna say he's bad at talking or bad at TV
Speaker 1: or bad at radio. He's not currently doesn't currently have
Speaker 1: a job. What he is is completely unhinged on Twitter.
Speaker 1: He's on Twitter and he is an unbelievable follow just
Speaker 1: in like like the way that maybe like car crash
Speaker 1: videos would be popular to watch online or something. He's oh,
Speaker 1: he is out there the just whatever is the most
Speaker 1: aggressively insane left wing position to hold. And he's also
Speaker 1: like at this old man yelling at Cloud's phase of
Speaker 1: life where he thinks everybody needs to be fired. He
Speaker 1: thinks everyone should resign, he thinks everyone should be anyone
Speaker 1: on the right. He hates obviously, he hates Trump. He
Speaker 1: thinks everyone on the right should be arrested and convicted.
Speaker 1: I found this guy on Twitter who just did a
Speaker 1: string of tweets from Olberman from the last year, just
Speaker 1: this year, tweets where Olberman was demanding that Democrats resign
Speaker 1: And why now this guy follow on Twitter. He's this
Speaker 1: lawyer who goes by the name Jarvis Jarvis Underscore Best
Speaker 1: and he's very, very funny. I have no idea who
Speaker 1: he is. All I know he's like a lawyer from Colorado.
Speaker 1: But he's super funny. So he writes, I have decided
Speaker 1: and I've retweeted this. You can find this at my
Speaker 1: Twitter account Twitter dot com slash Fresno Johnny at Fresno Johnny,
Speaker 1: I have decided to do a new Keith thread, a
Speaker 1: thread of tweets by Keith Oberman. I really enjoyed my
Speaker 1: last one, where he demanded that everyone get arrested for
Speaker 1: insane reasons. But this new one is made up of
Speaker 1: people he demands to resign. Now, Keith demands that people
Speaker 1: resign every day, So to keep it of reasonable length,
Speaker 1: I'm limiting it to one Democrats, people on his own side,
Speaker 1: and two a demand issued within the last year. Even
Speaker 1: with those restrictions, there's still a lot of content. As
Speaker 1: with the last thread, I will name the person who
Speaker 1: should resign and identify the reason why they should resign.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go. So, here are some of the
Speaker 1: people that Olberman thinks should resign. All right, We'll start
Speaker 1: off Senator Gary Peters Senator Gary Peters is a senator
Speaker 1: from Michigan. Gary Peters said some stuff that was kind
Speaker 1: of critical. He's a Democrat senator from Michigan. He said
Speaker 1: some stuff kind of critical of the Hunter. Biden. Pardon,
Speaker 1: resign you cowardly pine cone, says Keith Olberman. Now I'm
Speaker 1: not sure where the pine cone thing came from, is
Speaker 1: because Michigan's kind of a northern state, more or evergreens,
Speaker 1: more pine cones. Not exactly sure. Olberman thought that also,
Speaker 1: in addition to partning Hunter, he thought Biden should preemptively
Speaker 1: partner all the people that he thinks Trump is going
Speaker 1: to prosecute when Trump comes into office. He says, you
Speaker 1: should issue ten million pardons today, which led people to say, oh,
Speaker 1: are there ten million people in Washington, DC committing crimes? Keith?
Speaker 1: All right, so a Democrats senator with the temerity to say, hey,
Speaker 1: Biden said he wasn't going to pardon his son, and
Speaker 1: then he one did it. That's not a great look. No,
Speaker 1: you don't do, not dare criticize this outgoing democratic president
Speaker 1: where there's no harm in criticizing him, no political harm whatsoever. Nope,
Speaker 1: resign you, cowardly pine Cone Jared Polis. Jared Polis is
Speaker 1: the governor of Colorado. Polus was slightly optimistic about the
Speaker 1: appointment of RFK Junior to be Secretary of Health and
Speaker 1: Human Services. He said, there are some things that RFK
Speaker 1: has said that I that I agree with, and he's
Speaker 1: the governor of Colorado, which is not like Colorado's not
Speaker 1: I think at this point a traditionally blue state, necessarily
Speaker 1: it's kind of a lot of hippies. They kind of
Speaker 1: lean a lot more crunchy. I don't think it's seems
Speaker 1: kind of understandable that the governor of a state like
Speaker 1: Colorado might kind of vibe a little bit at least
Speaker 1: with RFK Junior resign Judge Juan Merchon. So, Judge Juan
Speaker 1: Mrchon is the judge who's overseen Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: This is the criminal trial for allegedly falsifying business records
Speaker 1: with regards to payments to Stormy Daniels in exchange for
Speaker 1: the non disclosure agreement. Mrchon has been needing to kind
Speaker 1: of reschedule hearings relating to Trump's sentencing because of this
Speaker 1: little hiccup in the prosecution. Well, two little hiccups. One
Speaker 1: the fact that a Supreme Court decision came down between
Speaker 1: the guilty verdict and the sentencing that said presidents cannot
Speaker 1: have evidence of official acts used against them in the
Speaker 1: context of criminal prosecutions, that they are immune from having
Speaker 1: such evidence come in. And Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney
Speaker 1: of Manhattan, used a bunch of that evidence in the
Speaker 1: Manhattan trial, although he didn't necessarily need to. But it
Speaker 1: was Bragg himself who called this evidence devastating against Trump.
Speaker 1: He can't now reasonably go back and say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: it was a nothing burger. It totally was unnecessary. That's
Speaker 1: why I included it and said it was so devastating.
Speaker 1: So Mrchon has to have he has to hear emotions
Speaker 1: about that. And also the person who was the defendant
Speaker 1: in this criminal prosecution, uh, just got elected president of
Speaker 1: the United States. So that's going to impact things as
Speaker 1: far as sentencing. That has to move some stuff around. Mrchon.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Murchon has been who is a
Speaker 1: Democrat donor whose daughter was like a big time Democrat fundraiser,
Speaker 1: including for Kamala Harris, the person Trump was running for
Speaker 1: president against. Mrchon has ruled against Trump on literally every,
Speaker 1: essentially every important motion in the Manhattan trial. He was
Speaker 1: so biased it's completely absurd. But not enough for Keith Oberman.
Speaker 1: Judge Wan Murchon is afraid to uphold the law. If
Speaker 1: that's the case, he should resign today. CBS campaign reporter
Speaker 1: Olivia Rinaldi this year, she reported that Trump had announced
Speaker 1: he would agree to a debate with Kamala Harris on
Speaker 1: Fox News. She reported this without commentary. She's a reporter.
Speaker 1: She reports, this is what the Trump campaign is saying.
Speaker 1: They will agree to a debate with Kamala Harris on
Speaker 1: Fox News. Olberman, resign. You've chosen the wrong field. You
Speaker 1: may qualify as a stenographer. Try that. Also, he lives
Speaker 1: in a world where, anyway, I guess there are still
Speaker 1: courtroom stenographers, but not exactly a booming profession. The National
Speaker 1: Association of Black Journalists president Ken Lemon, some of you
Speaker 1: may remember this. Trump went to the National Association of
Speaker 1: Black Journalists convention, where he fielded questions from black journalists
Speaker 1: and a lot of very hostile questions. Keith Olberman thinks
Speaker 1: that the president of that association, I guess, just for
Speaker 1: letting Trump into the building and asking him very hostile
Speaker 1: questions that he should resign for this resign Congressman Representative
Speaker 1: Jared Golden. After the assassination the first I guess, the
Speaker 1: first assassination attempt against President Trump was issued some statements
Speaker 1: encouraging people to turn down the level of their political
Speaker 1: rhetoric given that an assassination attempt that happened against President Trump.
Speaker 1: Sad to say, but Representative Golden has folded in the
Speaker 1: face of the trumpest threat. Please Congressman resign. So how
Speaker 1: many Democrat resignations do we have? We're up to one, two, three, four, five, six.
Speaker 1: We're not done yet. Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Durbin is
Speaker 1: the Democrat Senator from Illinois, and he is the chair
Speaker 1: right now. He won't become January third, I guess when
Speaker 1: the new Congress is sworn in. Dick Durbin is the
Speaker 1: chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the confirmation
Speaker 1: of judges and other issues relating to the federal judiciary
Speaker 1: in so far as Congress is able to regulate it.
Speaker 1: Dick Durbin criticized Clarence Thomas and called for legislation to
Speaker 1: regulate the Supreme Court, but Keith thought he wasn't tough enough.
Speaker 1: Keith Oberman thought, no, no, no, no, no, he wasn't
Speaker 1: tough enough in criticizing Clarence Thomas, which, as the guy
Speaker 1: who authored this tweet thread writes, other than donning a
Speaker 1: suicide vest I'm not sure what Durbin was supposed to
Speaker 1: do here that would be tougher. Resign and turn the
Speaker 1: chair of the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Chairmanship. Resign and
Speaker 1: turn the chair over to a non eunuch, Dick Durbin. So,
Speaker 1: in addition to telling Senator Durbin that he should resign,
Speaker 1: he also called him a eunuch, so good to know.
Speaker 1: He then tweeted at David Challion, Jake Tapper, and Dana
Speaker 1: Bash and Mark Thompson, who are all different CNN anchors
Speaker 1: and personalities, that all of them should resign because they
Speaker 1: hosted the Trump Biden presidential debate. Trump thought your infomercial
Speaker 1: mislabeled a debate was great. You should all resign and
Speaker 1: find new careers, which, in fairness, Keith has resigned and
Speaker 1: found a new career, you know, four or five different times.
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe maybe he's just that, maybe that's
Speaker 1: not that big of a deal. We're gonna still keep going.
Speaker 1: Governor Kathy Hackull, the governor of New York Hakuele, was
Speaker 1: calling for increased infrastructure spending in the Bronx, to which
Speaker 1: Olberman responded that Kathy Hockul needs to resign or be impeached.
Speaker 1: This was this was a hard one to understand. What's
Speaker 1: wrong with Is that such a crazy thing? It's not
Speaker 1: like the Bronx is the nicest part of New York
Speaker 1: by any stretch. Seems like a reasonable thing for the
Speaker 1: governor to say, Hey, we need better infrastructure in the Bronx.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but no, Oberman's unacceptable. I guess I
Speaker 1: think he's kind of a Manhattanite. I don't know. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe it's some maybe it's some internal New York City
Speaker 1: politics that I don't understand. Ken Delanyan from NBC. This
Speaker 1: is because Delanian noted that Robert Herr, the Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: thought Joe Biden was old Keith Now, Keith was of
Speaker 1: the opinion that Biden being old was a disinformation plot.
Speaker 1: Olberman writes, the judiciary correspondent of NBC News can't tell
Speaker 1: when one party has hijacked the hearing. Process to have
Speaker 1: lying political hacks like Robert hur advance the Biden age
Speaker 1: plot and the other side isn't resign Kendlanian from NBC.
Speaker 1: You have failed a minimal journalistic threshold. We gotta keep going.
Speaker 1: I got to finish this segment, but he keeps going.
Speaker 1: All of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court for
Speaker 1: not disqualifying Trump, Merrick Garland needed to be fired, Jonathan Chase,
Speaker 1: who wrote a column that was critical of Trump but
Speaker 1: not critical enough, Eric Adams, Themeir of New York for
Speaker 1: noticing immigration, and then but at the end of it,
Speaker 1: he says Bob Menendez did nothing wrong. He shouldn't resign.
Speaker 1: Bob Menendez, the guy who had gold bars in his
Speaker 1: house given to him from the saudis all right when
Speaker 1: we return my proposal to give Keith Olberman a show
Speaker 1: next on The John Girardi Show. Here's my appeal to MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Give Keith Olberman a showback. Look if his tweeting history
Speaker 1: is any indication this guy is wild. And actually maybe
Speaker 1: MSNBC is in the right forum because they'll like treat
Speaker 1: him seriously. I think maybe like either Fox needs to
Speaker 1: give him a show or maybe Elon Musk just puts
Speaker 1: a camera in Keith's room and just lets him go wild.
Speaker 1: Go follow Keith Olverman on Twitter. It's hilarious. That'll do it.
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk