Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior Elections correspondent at The
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Don Brown, joining us to talk
about his new book Kangaroo Court, How dirty prosecutors and
sleazy lawyers destroy political opponents, attack free speech, and subvert
the Constitution. Don, thank you so much for joining us
on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Man, thanks for having me, Thanks for the great work
that you do with The Federalist on the podcast, in
the paper, and for what Molly does. You guys had
a lot of real in debt, intellectual conservative analysis to
the conversation. I really appreciate you well.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those kind words. And you know it's
authors like you examining some of the darkest chapters now
in American history that make this so important. But let's
be up front right away, we're not talking to Don
Brown here, Dan Brown, excuse me, there's no there's no
symbologist or cryptologist or murders that we know of in
the Louver Museum in your books. Am I correct on
that front.
Speaker 2: It's like they say, what a difference a vowel makes?
And I guess a vowel makes a difference in a
number of millions in the bank account there. But no,
I joke around that. Dan is my younger, better looking
and wealthier cousin. I've written a lot more books than
he has. In fact, kantgrew Court was number sixteen. He's
written about three or four. But you know, when the
bell rings, it rings, so there you go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well step it up. Dan, you're kind of a
piker here. But perhaps we will have Tom Hanks play
the lead role in your latest book. And it is
a compelling book because we've lived it and you've studied
what we lived. There are no mincing of words here
how dirty prosecutors and sleazy lawyers destroy political opponents. But
I guess let's begin with how we got here in America.
Why is lawfare now so integral to politics, particularly on
the left in America?
Speaker 2: Well, and that's a great question and the Democrats. The
short answer is a Democrats to discovery that they can
bastardize the course, they can use the course as a
political weapon. And in the Trump cases, which hopefully are
now on down, we've seen the dismissal of the DC
case with just Shukin. Trump's attorneys are now trying to
get Mershan to dismiss the Newark case, the Rico case,
and George's all but dead because of Trump Vus. And
by the way, in Kangaroo Court I address all these cases.
The book was released about a week before the election
and predicts, based on these three significant Scotus decisions over
this past summer, they're going to unravel, and they should.
But the Trump cases have brought our attention to just
prosecutoral misconduct through political prosecutions on steroids. It is clear
in my judgment that while the Democrats used COVID as
an excuse to bend election rules and get away with
bloody murder during the twenty twenty election on many many fronts,
in particular six states Georgia, Pennsylvania, and I could go
down the list Wisconsin etcat C. At this time it
appeared that they tried law heir, and of course President
Trump was subjected to criminal prosecutions in four different courts
in Florida, in the in the.
Speaker 3: Document's case, which is bobush from the the beginning, because
you know, Jack Smith never informed the grand jury that
the Presidential Records Act is the defense to a former
president specifically is right to his records.
Speaker 2: That's specifically enumerated into President's Records Act. Then we had
in d C, of course, and we of course that
was the so called January sixth case with Judge Chucklin
and Jack Smith. And of course Fanny Willis enters the
fray in Georgia with this imaginative, ridiculous, rico type of
theory she comes up with her boyfriend, and then of
course in New York. So you're looking at four criminal prosecutions.
Then you're looking at multiple civil cases, including Latissia James,
the Attorney General of New York, basically trying to bankrupt
the president and his organization when there's no victim, when
the banks involved in the loans were happy to be
in the loans, when everybody made money. It's totally ridiculous.
Then you had in Colorado and several other jurisdic This
is the Colorado in particular, where they tried this ridiculous
use of the insurrection clause of the fourteenth Amendment to
try to take the president off the ballot. And of
course all this was aimed at trying to get him
off the ballot so that they knew they could not
beat him at the ballot. So we see all this
in the just the position of these cases against the
president all of the country. The American public did not buy.
They looked through the bs and the president won an
electoral landslide. But here's the thing, Matt, because you asked
the question, the Democrats have been doing this for a
number of years. It's just that the Trump prosecutions have
brought it to life. So in Kangaroo Court, what I
wanted to do was lay out the case case back,
case by case. About a third of the book, probably
toward the end, deals with the Trump cases, but two
thirds before that we're looking at easy to read chapters
involving cases that were in the news, probably covered by
the Federalists and Fox and others, but have sort of
faded into oblivion. So, for example, the Democrats prosecuted the
former governor of Texas, Rick Perry for vetoing a bill
which he had absolutely right to do that the Texas
constitution gives a governor the line on in vito, which
we should have in the US Constitution. Prosecuted that guy, dismissed.
Tom Delay, the former House Majority leader, was prosecuted and
of course convicted there. In fact, I made the argument,
you could look at Travis County, Texas, which is where
the state Kapa Austin is located, may have have been
sort of like ground zero for these things because they
went after Rick Perry, they went Tom Delay there, they
went after former Centaer Kay Bailey Hudges in there, and
it has been just a cesspool. But it's been one
case after the other. Ted Stevens, the former Alaska Senator
who was the longest serving Republic senator at the time
when Obama came in, democratated that seat. So they come
up with his wild theory that Ted Stevens did not
report some work done by a contractor on his house.
They prosecute him, They get him convicted by the skin
of his teeth. He loses that seat. Within six months.
The federal judge finds prosecutor of misconduct throws the case out.
One of the prosecutors commits suicide. It was so bad,
and it goes on and on, and so the book
is looking about twenty five or so of these cases.
And it's not just you know, political figures like the
names that I've mentioned, you know, Hunches and Stevenson, you
know Governor Perry, Governor Bob McDonald of course, the former
governor of Virginia, who was prosecuted by the Saint Jack
Smith reverse eight to zero by the US Supreme Court
after spending twenty seven million dollars and appeals, but also
average Americans. So when when Scotus reverses Roe v. Wade, which,
as I believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg said once was on
a collision course with itself, we have a few intellectently
honest Democrats who understood that it was a constitutional train wreck.
So when it's reversed in a Dobbs case, you see
the Biden Justice Department essentially anger, you know, feeling anger
and retaliating. Has two pro life fathers, Mark Halck got
a Philadelphia and Paul Vaughan out of Tennessee, going after
them under the so called Face Act. The backs. Yeah,
so they get one convicted. Unfortunately, Paul Vaughan, excuse me, Paul,
Paul Vaughan, Mark Half both are defended by the Thomas
More Society and great organization in Philadelphia. Fortunately, there's video
footage from nearby stores there that show that it was
a pro abortion activist that antagonize a shoving match between
Mark Holt, which the DOJ held from the grand jury there.
But he was acquitted. But these are average guys. They're
just Christian guys, just fathers of many children who were
going out expressing their faith, exercising their rights to the
First Amendment. Weren't breaking anything, won't harm anybody. And you
have Douglas Mackie, of course, the cartoonists who in twenty
sixteen does a cartoon lampooting Hillary's voters as being kind
of dumb. And I have to agree with him on
that point. And then in twenty twenty one, nearly five
years later, the Biden Justice Department prosecutes him for a
cartoon when the Supreme Court had clearly you know, in
the famous case of Hustler Magazine versus Fallwell, when Jerry
Falwell went after Hustler Magazine for some derogatory images that
were placed there of Jerry Fowell. The images showed Jerry Fowell,
he thought having incestors. The mother and Fallwell sued them
when always Supreme Court. Supreme Court essentially said, hey, this
may be repugnant, but it is protected by the First Amendment.
But when it comes to art against a Democrat, they
get prosecuted. And that's what the Biden the Justice Department
did to Douglas McKay. So the point of the matter
is it isn't just a Trump cases. They've been using
this as their modus operandi for preservation of political power
and attacking opponents. Now going on over thirty years. It
seems to have accelerated in the age of Obama and
just exploded. I mean, they went after the first two Congressmen,
Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins that endorsed Donald Trump in
twenty seventeen, and they went after you know, they went
after you know, Steve Mannon and Steve and Navarro and
General Flynn mothers simply for their association with the president.
So I wanted to write Kangaroo Court because I felt
like that the case needs to be laid out against
the Democrat showing the frequency of these ridiculous political prosecutions
leading up to an including of course, the Trump prosecutions
that we're now hopefully finally getting through. I'll feel much
better when the Manhattan case is gone, and when the
Georgia case is gone. They are dead on arrival. But
we need to understand that these prosecutions are basically number one,
and I argue this in the book, they are an
attack on the United States Constitution because this is a
bastardization of our judicial system for political purposes. But they're
an attack on the in this case, look at the
Trump case of the president's First Amendment right of free speech.
They're an attack on the president's associates such as Bannon,
Navarro and others. First Amendment right, the freedom of association,
that's that the Supreme Court is held the First Amendment
and bodies freedom of association. They're an attack on the
president's Fourth Amendment right. When you look at the mar
A Lago ray, and then when you look at the
attack and the prosecutions that Fanny Wilson has brought against
Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and my friend Jack Smith
and others there in Fulton County. When you attack a
defendant's attorneys because your real target is their client. So
Fanny Wilson is prosecuting these lawyers because they want the
lawyers to flip to go on Trump. What you're doing
is your attacking the attorney client privilege. And think about that.
When you go in to talk to an attorney, matt
you have the right and the expectation in English and
American jurisprudence, especially American jurisprudence to what you say to
a lawyer is confidential. Ninety nine percent of the cases
is confidential, and that and that that whatever you say
won't be used against you. So the attorney client privilege
is wrapped up in the Fifth Amendment right against self
incrimination and also the sixth Amendment right to effective assistance
of council criminal cases. So when they prosecute lawyers, they're
attacking the fifth and sixth Amendment because they're trying to
erode through attorney client privilege. Then you have you you
mentioned law fairbship, the fifteenth Amendment, you have the nineteenth Amendment,
and you have the twenty sixth Amendment, all guaranteeing the
right to vote. And the right to vote is also
set forth as you know, in the in the first
in article one and two, when we talk about the
Electoral College, the election of the direct election of members
of the Congress, and article one, you're looking at a
direct attack against your right, am I right to vote
to the franchise. So it is an attack on the
constitutional right of every American to choose and to vote
for whom they would wish to vote for.
Speaker 1: But done, But done. Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.
Speaker 2: That's what we've.
Speaker 1: Heard over and over and over again from the left,
from Kamala Harris and Tim Walls and the DNC and
all of their surrogates. That's what they campaigned on, Donald threat.
Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. But what you
have just laid out extensively is a real legitimate threat
to democracy coming from the radicalized left in America. You know,
it reminds me of Harry Reid back in the Romney
Obama election, you know, in the irs case or the
tax situation. You know, Mitt Romney not reporting his taxes
and the big lie that was attached to it was
a massive lie. And Harry Reid acknowledged after Obama won
that it was a massive lie. And they asked him
why did you lie? And he said, effectively, well, we won,
didn't we Isn't that what this is really all about.
At the end of the day, love left trying to
take over power, consolidate power, consolidate power and keep power.
Speaker 2: You know. I have a friend who had a conversation
with Dable to ask a Rod, and they were talking politics,
and the friend told David Astrod, you guys don't play
about the rules, and Asterod responded to words, it is
effect I didn't hear the conversation. There are no rules.
And the Democrat and that may be, you know, a
legendary thing or why, But nonetheless, the Democrats do not
play by rules. They do not respect the Constitution. The
Democrat Party, in my opinion, at the national level, now,
there are fine people, Richard Democrats, that are Goden country
and sauted the earth folks out there that don't think
twice about anything other than putting food on the table.
But the National Democrat Party has become largely criminal syndic
It has become it has become the biggest threat to
the United States Constitution that there is on the face
of the planet day because they're seeking to subvert it
from within. They will use rhetoric that is exactly opposite
of the truth. And so what you were saying there,
Trump is a threat to democracy. First off. In an
article for Session four, the United States and Constitution of
Republic not a democracy in James Madison said democracies must
bile form of government. But I won't go off on
a tangent there, but you get the point. They the
the real threat are these political prosecutors. And I make
the argument that we need to shut these political prosecutions
down because they're a bastardization of the court system. You
look at them, millions and millions and millions of dollars
that are spent in everybody. The public knows you take
Jack Ford Smith for example, the public knows are Fanning
Wells or Alphaband that these cases are brought primarily for
political motivation. And so what is a political prosecution. It's
a case primary for political you know, motivations. People say, well,
if you're probably secute, the prosecutors, you know, want that
want that to ter, you know, prosecutions against lawless, lawless
figures in government. Well, no, there's a difference between a
political prosecution. And I've been a prosecutor myself, so, and
I've been a lawyer, I still am. So when I'm
when I'm seeing dirty and sleazy lawyers, I'm working in
this profession, so I know when I see them versus
a meat and potato crime, what do I mean by
meat and potato type crime. I'm talking about crimes that
are direct injury to person, property, murder, larceny, rape, breaking
and entering, you know, ribery, whatever. These are meat and
potato type crimes. But these these political crimes usually start
with conspiracy to and then fill in the blank. And
in the book can Report, you know, we look at
we have a couple of chapters looking at political prosecutions
and other you know, Banana republic type of governments, going
the way back to the fall the Roman Republic, when
the Roman Republic devolved in the Roman Empire, all the
way through Cambodian Venezuela, the Commonist China, the Wymer Republic,
you know, bleeding into to the Nazi to Nazi Germany
to Soviet Russia to the Chia comps and conspiracy that
the charge of conspiracy is a common denominator that basically
floats from uh, you know, the first political prosecutions from
time immemorial up into what the Democrats have been doing.
So you can stay conspiracy and fill in the blank.
So he's trying to find a way that as Jack Smith,
to prosecute the president, you know in in in d C.
So it's conspiracy to defraud the United States. What kind
of bs is that, Matt, Conspiracy to defraud the United States,
to fraud of the United States and what. But see
they use conspiracy as a pitch, as a kind of
like a pitching tool to move forward these political prosecutions.
I made the argument in the book, and I'll stand
by this that we need rogue prosecutor laws. Watch the
rogue prosecutor law wrote prosecute law is would be a
law in Congressly jump on this. I know they're gonna
have a lot of their plate, but we've got two
years Republican Congress. I don't know if we can get
the rhinos to go along. But any pro secutor who
is in retrospect you two have brought a prosecution primarily
for political purposes, that prosecutor, that prosecutor should be subject
to funding prosecution himself. So Jack Smith should be worried
if political if we're going to road prosecutor laws in place.
He should be worried that, Pam Bonni, it appears our
next Trade General can review this conduct guard on the
same thing. If they are if they if they are
found to have brought a prosecution primarily for political purposes,
they ought to be subject to prosecution. Look, here's the
reason for that. These prosecutions are an attack on the
United States Constitution. And I laid out several of the
amendments that are in play and that are vulnerable as
a result of these prosecutions. They are a serious threat
to our I'll say it correctly, our constitutional republic. They
are far more in it. It's like it's like whether
where the Biden says, I'm not going to pardon them all,
part of them all, and then she pardons them, and
then and then and then and then Kamala says Trumps
he's tired, he's getting tired and fatigued. And Trump's out there.
You know, he's sleeping three hours a night. You know,
he's running, He's campaign in twenty hour days. You know.
But they accuse you what they're guilty of themselves. These
are a real existential threat. And when the other problem
from a practical standpoint. You know, our judicial system should
be Sacker saying, you know, there's the image of lady
liberty and being blind, and especially the criminal prostitutal system
should not be ever brought based upon someone's desire to
destroy a political opponent simply to gain power themselves. It's
what the Democrats try to do these and to me,
that is that that is a much much. First of all,
there is none. I looked at every charge brought against
the president and look and have come to this conclusion far before,
long before Supreme Court got ahold of two cases and
a third that you know between the you know, the
USB Trump and the Fisher case, the Earlinger case, those
are the three I'm talking about before the tru the
court got a hold of those cases. It's very clear to me,
every one, every one of these charges, these criminal charts
are absolute bogus. And we can spend the whole you know,
interview on those and explaining why, but they're brought bogus.
You know, you look at in New York you have
Cyrus Vance turning that case down. You know, they they
typically have two year stash limitations on falsification of records,
so they have to stretch it into a felony, so
they they have to put some sort of felony intent
to you know, to to defraud the taxpayers or to
violate the UH, the UH the elections statue of the
United States or New York. And they're still they're still
you know, short of the stash limitations. So they stretch
it out by virtue of the fact that that Colomo
by executive or extend the statue limitations for COVID, which
he doesn't have a legal right to do, and the
Democratic judge and do it. That just just how they
stretch it, just stretching it to get in there. And
these are criminals, These prosecutors are criminals themselves. They are
a danger to the constitutional.
Speaker 1: Reput Well that is that is the question then ultimately,
because you talk about all of these cases, what happened
in New York, what's happened specifically in Manhattan, in Georgia,
in Florida, in Washington, d C. And I want to
get to that. Of course, in just a moment.
Speaker 4: They allow IRS agents to go after you even though
they don't pay their taxes. The watch Dot on Wall
Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack
the connection between politics and the economy and how it
affects your wallet. The IRS agents audered in you owe
a lot in back taxes. Six thousand IRS workers owe
a total of fifty million dollars. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Don Brown joining us to talk
about his new book Kangaroo Court. How dirty prosecutors and
sleazy lawyers destroy political opponents, attack free speech, and subvert
the Constitution. There's a lot to unpack there done and
what I want to ask you is, will anybody ever
be held accountable? Will Jack Smith, Will Alvin Bragg, will
these judges who also massage the law to fit what
the prosecutors we're looking for. I mean, you have judges
that are working hand in hand with prosecutors. This is
supposed to be an adversarial relationship. That's what makes our
system so, you know, important, so wonderful is that you
have an adversarial legal system. You know, and as as
a decent attorney. I think I know the answer to
this question because I've reported on it over and over again.
There seems to never be any accountability. Can there be
accountability this time around?
Speaker 2: That's a great question, man. One of the reasons I'm
calling forgue prosecutor laws is to give us something with teeth.
There should be an investigation, and I'll talk about that
in a second. Essentially two federal acts that could come
into play. First, there as a Hatch Act, which is
pretty much toothless. But the Hatch Act prohibits any federal
employee and executive department from you know, using their position
to interfere in an election. And when you when you
when you're dropping you know, indictments right to time it
with the Iowa Caucuses. That's a violation a Hatch Act.
But there's no real teeth. I think it's like a
five hundred, five thousand dollars five and department from working
for the federal government for years is toothless. Then there
is there is a possibility conspiracy against rights. Now this
is in the United States Code makes it a fellony
ten years for anyone under the color of law to
conspire to deprive a person of their constitutional rights? And
so is there a conspiracy here? Well, it appears that
the Biden you know, Justice Department had had intertwinings with
Alvin Bragg's team in New York. We have seen that
Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, God bless them, have sent
wanted the fault judgment now in the Fulton County from
a superior court on a Foyer case. Uh, you know
they're going to get access to communications between the January
sixth Committee and Fanny Willis Fannie Fanny, how have you
pronounced it? My apologies if I mispronounced it, but it
was an intentional But I believe that there should be
there should be an investigation under a conspiracy rights theory.
And if there is, if it's determined that there was
a conspiracy amongst multiple more two or more persons to
deprive the president or others of their constitutional rights, then
the the investigation should at least move forward. I'm not
optimistic that there is going to be the type of
justice that we that we need or that is deserved,
but these these cases should be investigated very thoroughly under
that theory.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, Yes, And isn't it clear that the
president's constitutional rights were violated over and over again Supreme Court.
You know, just as we talk about Colorado and Maine
and these other places that tried to deny Donald Trump
from the ballot and disenfranchised, talk about violating rights, disenfranchising
millions upon millions of voters trying to kick him off
the ballot on a bogus insurrection clause argument. I mean,
that's a clear deprivation of rights. But I don't see
you know, the court system in Colorado or the Secretary
of State they're being held accountable for anything.
Speaker 2: Well that that's the problem, because a lot of a
lot of a lot of this has to do with
where you're picking your jury, you're picking your judge, and
of course you know, Manhattan was selected with a calculated
purpose because you knew you're going to get a trumpeting
jury who would would have convicted the president for you know,
making a peanut butter and joy sand, which if the
Democrat prosecuted Democrat, that we're a crime. So venue is
certainly a problem, you know, but all that aside from
a strategic standpoint, the new Attorney General should launch investigations
based upon deprophas and rights under the United States Code.
In my opinion, because you're correct. The president's constitutional rights
have been violated on multiple fronts, freedom of speech and
the freedom of association. And you know you look for example,
you guys are kind of to publish an op ed
that I wrote about three weeks ago on Jack Smith
stepping down quickly as quickly as he did. Unlike Chris Ray,
who apparently is going to wait until Trump is inaugurated
and way to get fired, Jack Smith will plug pretty
quick as soon as the president. You want a landside
victory because what's happened is the federal judgment in Florida
Highleian Cannon has taken her cue from Justice Thomas, whose
concurrence in Trump v. Us said this in emotion that
Jack Smith was appointed illegally in violating the epoyments, and
he doesn't want that in front of the Eleventh Circuit.
He doesn't want this Justice Department under Garland certainly doesn't
want a federal appeals court affirming the United States District
Court that the appointments clause has been violated, because if
you think about it, it's one thing to have, as
US District Court judge said, and their nutcase Dustin Court
judges or the judge can is a great one, but
having US Appeals Court is another thing. And if that's
the case, you got to think about Robert Muller too,
because Robert Muller also in my judgment, you know, stretching
the logic one more step, was appointed in violation the
appointments clause. And where does that lead. You know, they're
investigating Russia, Russia, Russia. Not one single Trump associate and
that's key freedom of association. The Supreme Court says it's
protected in the First Amendment. Not one single Trump associate
who was prosecuted, from Papa Dallas, Papadopoulos to General Flynn,
you know, to man Afford, Just go down list, not one,
not one was ever convicted in connection with any sort
of Russia speculations. So what they do with Manaphort they
go back ten years or so and find a tax charge,
you know. With with General Flynn, they make all he
lied to the FBI even though the agents, and we
discussed this in Kangaroo Court as well, even though the
agents on the ground didn't think he was lying. They
threatened to prosecute a son. These are the type of
tactics that be used. But the point is if the
head is cut off the snake. If the argument is
made that Muller was unconstitutionusly appointed, also, then every one
of those prosecutions under his tentacles should be wiped out.
There's something akin to the fruit of the boards tree doctrine,
akin to it. It isn't an evidentary question, but it's
a question of constitutional you know, of constitutional vulnerability. They was,
there was never you know. The Justice Thomas points out
the Article two station two claws to officers of the
United States would be appointed by the President, but inferior
officers must be appointed by legislation from the Congress. So
some of the most distinguished positions in the government, for example,
United States Attorney or United States Marshals or others, are
are appointed strictly under a specific sections of the United
States Code. We had such a section for the Independent
Council Statue, which expired June thirtieth, nineteen ninety nine, and
nothing has ever been passed by the Congress. Street places
and Mullard excuse me. Garland claims he has a right
to appoint you know, Jack Smith under the dj regulations
which give him rights of the personnel, manage the personnel.
But I'm sorry. DLJ regulations don't trump the US Constitution.
So there is a method of the madness there, and
I got off a little bit. But the point of
the matter is these Democrat prosecutors will use and violate
the law, violate the Constitution in order to to acquire
political power.
Speaker 1: Well, Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland thought that he had the
right to harass parents at school board meetings. Merrick Garland
thought he had the right to harass legitimate protesters outside
abortion clinics. You know, this guy, scarily enough, could have
been a Supreme Court justice. Just think about that. But
I wanted to ask you too. You mentioned this before.
This is not just about Donald Trump, although certainly Donald
Trump has experienced the brunt of law fare and these illegal,
unconstitutional prosecutions. But I wanted to get your take as
well on the alternate Electors of twenty twenty. That is
a case that continues to go on in places like
Arizona and Wisconsin. And you know, it has been billed
by the accomplice media as the fake Elector's story. This
is one of the greatest injustices.
Speaker 2: I think about.
Speaker 1: You know, these attorneys who were doing their level best
to help their client. In this case, their client just
happened to be the left's most hated enemy, Donald Trump,
following the disputed and quite frankly rigged twenty twenty election.
I think of guys like Judge Jim troopis out of
Dane County, Wisconsin, the Madison area, who's been a respected
judge forever, and he remains locked into this nasty, clearly
political investigation led ostensibly by the Department of Justice in Wisconsin.
The leftist Attorney General Josh call who I believe has
visions of running for governor in twenty twenty six, and
that's what this case is really all about. But he's
getting his marching orders from Washington, d C. Can you
speak to this, because what I'm hearing from folks is
that this is a prime example of why this kind
of leftist led lawfare that has nothing to do with
the actual law but mainly politics, will continue to go
on and on.
Speaker 2: Well, you bring up a great point, and I've touched
basically briefly on this in the book, but an entire
book could be written on the persecution of these alternate electors. Listen,
this is a class example of the tyrannical federal jack boot.
Whereas they simply make up and state also depend on
the state, they make up crimes that are not there.
You won't find any statutory crime listed for being an
alternative elector. In fact, you and I both know that.
In the nineteen sixty election.
Speaker 5: Absolutely right, Yeah, Hawaiisan's two sets of delegates, one for Kennedy,
went for Nixon, and Richard Nixon, who has just lost
the lection to JFK makes he makes a discretionary call
based upon what he believes or his powers under.
Speaker 2: The constitution, to recognize one of the sets of delegates
or the other. My rec collection is he recognized the
Kennedy del It wouldn't have mattered. But nonetheless, there is
no crime for you know, autun of election fraud for
alternative electors. These these folks were acting under precedent, under
historical and constitutional president to challenge and to make challenges
that needed to be made in every one of these states.
I was doing some work on the ground, you know,
working with some Republican witnesses, and we were taking affidavits
from folks there in the I think it was a
TGF center in Detroit that've changed the name of it.
But I can tell you we had Republican you know,
observers on the ground who saw multiple ballots from military
guys born in nineteen hundred being brought in and the
Democrats were just counting in, counting and counting, and the
disaster goes on and on, and no court actually looked
at any of that substantively. So the Constitution gives us
a right, I mean, there's absolute First Amendment right to
speak out. But this whole alternate elector's prosecution scheme and
the prosecute these prosecutor me to be prosecuted, and they
need to be there needs to be federal there need
That's why we needed at the federal level, so that
if we hadn't we had road prosecutor loss Pam BONDI
could then look into the actions of these of these
crazy Democrats in Wisconsin or I believe in Arizona. They're
trying the same thing now where they're trying to go
after you know, decent Americans or Republicans who simply let
their names be be put on an at lectures list, which,
if you follow the president from the president excuse me,
from nineteen sixty would have been up to you know,
the Vice President of the United States, either to accept
or not accept or or or by the way Pence
himself could have There are a number of things you
could do when he comes on. Disingenuously, says I, I
on that day the President asked me to put himself
over the constitution. President Trump never did that, you know,
I mean, never did that. But this is just another example,
like the j sixers that are still sitting in prison,
they never been brought to trial. Federal, the tyrannical federal
jack boot is being used to crush innocent Americans for
political reasons. Because those innocent Americans are exercising their First
Amendment rights and calling them fake electors is just like
you know, you know, if you and I are we
ask a question about what happened, we get called election deniers.
That is just it's just a textbook gobiles. You know,
you just repeat the lie enough and enoughing of people
started believing it. Which is why I appreciate what y'all
are doing here at the Federal is to continue to
bring these issues to bear. But those prosecutors need to
be dealt with harshly. You ask a question a few
minutes ago will have happened and may or may not,
probably not, but nonetheless they need to be investigated, and
under a deprivation of rights theory, there should be an
investigation against every one of these prosecutors. Bringing a fake
elector charge is under a federal deprivation of right's theory,
and they at least ought to feel some of the heat.
Even if you can't get the hook into debate, they
need to feel the heat because they have thrown the
Constitution in the trash can with these cases, as far.
Speaker 1: As i'm and that leads us, I think to my
final question, and it is back to accountability because there
is an opportunity, there is a window, as you noted,
with Republican control of Congress, Republican control of the White House,
and a Supreme Court that is steeped in federalism, in
federalist values. Thankfully, that this is an opportunity to rectify
some things. It's going to take one significant situation to happen,
and this is the one that worries me the most.
If we are going to see accountability of the rogue
prosecutors and the law, it's the Republicans themselves you talked about,
you know, recognizing the fact that the left will never
play by the rules and they will never stop. It's
like rust. The radical left in this country will never sleep.
And so with that said, we have had Republicans, we
need conservatives, so to speak, in this country for a
long time saying we're going to play by the rules
and that's great, but you know, we're going to let
bygones be bygones in the spirit of unity. And they
really do believe that somehow the Democratic Party is going
to come along on the unity ride. Do you have
any faith that the new Republican majority in the Senate
and the sustained Republican majority in the House will actually
perform as if if they remember what Democrats have done,
what the left has done in this country.
Speaker 2: Well, you you ask a good question, and recall we
had Republican control of the Senate of the House the
first two years of President Trump's first term. Remember John
McCain on the Obamacare question, the famous thumbs down. And
from what we have seen, Matt answer your question with
some of the president's initial you know, uh, suggested nominees
for the cabinet. You've got a cat a handful of
the same questionable characters. Murkowski Collins. Of course, I think.
I think even though you know hughme maybe now the leader,
I think we have a puppet puppeteer situation like doing
the House where McConnell still wants to keep the strings
uh in play as long as you can. But you've
got McConnell, you got you've got Fune, you've got the
two women, Murkowski and Collins, and you've got John Corny
who bounces back and forth, been on what day it is?
You got Ron's replacement out in Arizona. So to answer
your question, I don't have confidence that we you know that,
I don't have confidence in the US in it even
with a majority. I'm sort of I'm more sort of
in a believer when I'll see that type of thing.
I don't think those six things that I've just called for.
You have the guts to do the things we need
to do. And with the House, you know you've got
you know we have razor film majority. We're still trying
to sort out of the last seat out in California.
The members of the House that have resigned to go
to the President's Cabinet or to attempt to go are
gonna have to be replaced so that's gonna have to
come to place. We don't know who their papments are
going to be there in Republican districts, we assume they're
going to be Republicans. But no, I don't have a
lot of faith in it. You know, the Rhinos and
the Republican Party have do almost as much damage as
the Democrats in some ways, because the Democrats you know
where they're coming from. You just don't know where the
Rhino's coming from. You know, half the time they should
be a Democrat. Anyway, Rodney's just switch parties and you
know this change should have done a long time ago.
And the list goes on on. So to answer your question,
I'm I am hopeful the president has a very solid mandate.
He's coming in with a position of much more power
and authority than before, and so I have confidence that
his ability to put the squeeze on is going to
be more affected than it might have been in twenty seventeen.
But I'm still suspicious of the afore mentioned characters, and
we'll just have to wait to see what happens in January.
Speaker 1: Well, this is a fascinating book and it is written
in real time. I mean as you noted earlier in
our conversation, this was published right before the election. All
of these what we have experienced in this country over
the last more than four years, really since Donald Trump
came down that escalator. But as you track in this book,
this is a long time in the process, the left,
its law fare and abusive, abusive prosecutions, some of the
darkest chapters in American history. And it covers everything from
Alvin Bragg to Jack Smith, Fannie Willis, Letitia James Kim Gardner,
all of those rogue prosecutors and rogue prosecutions in these
politically charged jurisdictions, weaponizing the legal system and as we
have so often seen, offering two disparate systems of justice
in America. And really what that boils down to is
in the disparate system is justice and injustice. That's ultimately
what we're talking about here. Thank you so much for
joining us today, Don, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Matt, Mary, because you and your family keep
up the google work. Hope chat again.
Speaker 1: Soon, absolutely I look forward to that. Our guest today
once again is Don Brown joining us to talk about
his new book Kangaroo Court, How Dirty Prosecutors and sleazy lawyers,
destroy political opponents, attack free speech, and subvert the Constitution.
I think we have a good survey on exactly what's
been going down on all of those fronts over the
last several years in America. You've been listening to another
edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior
correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.