Speaker 1: I had more time to digest the debate from Tuesday night,
Speaker 1: the debate, the ABC News debate, and I got a
Speaker 1: couple of thoughts, a couple of sort of I don't Basically,
Speaker 1: one of the things I did was I listened through
Speaker 1: all of the stuff about abortion.
Speaker 2: I listened through all of that very carefully.
Speaker 1: Basically, for those who don't know, this is my I
Speaker 1: think this is the stuff that I have to do
Speaker 1: to make my show interesting.
Speaker 2: I hate debates.
Speaker 1: I hate political debates, and I really hate State of
Speaker 1: the Union addresses. And I think a lot of talk
Speaker 1: radio gets dominated by those two things. And I've sort
Speaker 1: of made it my personal mission to be different by
Speaker 1: not just obsessively listening to and talking about those things.
Speaker 1: So I was on vacation when the debate happened. I
Speaker 1: didn't watch it live. Didn't want to watch it live
Speaker 1: since then though, for Right to Life, and we'll do
Speaker 1: we'll break this down tomorrow morning on Right to Life
Speaker 1: Radio Right to Life Radio at nine am here on
Speaker 1: Power Talk, where my Right to Life Radio producer Colton
Speaker 1: he stitched together. We did this thing where I was
Speaker 1: live reacting to the whole section of the debate that
Speaker 1: talked about abortion, and so I was live reacting. I
Speaker 1: hadn't heard any of it before, and I was reacting
Speaker 1: in real time. And I came away with this, and
Speaker 1: in reading some of the reactions to the debate in
Speaker 1: other quarters, it seems like Trump's performance in the abortion
Speaker 1: section was similar to his performance throughout the rest of
Speaker 1: the debate, which is that Trump didn't do didn't do
Speaker 1: a very good job. Now I could tell that the
Speaker 1: moderators of the debate were terrible. I think the problem is, though,
Speaker 1: that this is what was happening. Trump is so imprecise
Speaker 1: when he talks, and frankly, that's part of his genius.
Speaker 1: It's part of why he's attractive. That he isn't highly polished,
Speaker 1: that he isn't consultant driven, that he isn't just an
Speaker 1: empty suit repeating lines that his consultants tell him. He
Speaker 1: actually has a personality, He actually wants to do things
Speaker 1: his way. He has an actual existence in a way
Speaker 1: that Kamala Harris does not. Kamala Harris is an empty suit.
Speaker 2: She is a.
Speaker 1: Stand in an avatar for the Democrat Party in general,
Speaker 1: the same way Joe Biden was.
Speaker 2: She is.
Speaker 1: She clearly had her talking points she stuck with them.
Speaker 1: She stuck the landing for the most part. She didn't
Speaker 1: do anything spectacular, but she seemed focused said the things
Speaker 1: she was supposed to say.
Speaker 2: Whereas Trump is.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Trump was winging it, but a little
Speaker 1: bit was winging it. He has certain themes he likes
Speaker 1: to go back to, but he also isn't super fluid
Speaker 1: with them. He doesn't have this stuff boom boom boom
Speaker 1: boom ready to go on the top of his head.
Speaker 1: And he has certain kind of personal obsessions that aren't
Speaker 1: really true and that maybe not even true, but just
Speaker 1: aren't really effective. So, like listening to the abortion section,
Speaker 1: Trump has certain things he says that are true but imprecise,
Speaker 1: and so the media moderators were able to say that
Speaker 1: he was lying. Trump was talking about how Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: and Democrats support abortion policies for allowing abortion of children
Speaker 1: after they are born, basically allowing children to be and
Speaker 1: Trump used the word executed after they are born. The
Speaker 1: media moderators jumped in for Harris to say, there's no
Speaker 1: state where that's legal. Now, the problem is that Trump
Speaker 1: is imprecise. Trump says they're allowing them to execute babies
Speaker 1: after they are born execute, which implies active killing. What
Speaker 1: is actually happening.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 1: Governors like Tim Walls in Minnesota have passed legislation to
Speaker 1: eliminate any kind of protection for children who are born
Speaker 1: alive after surviving an abortion, basically to say that children
Speaker 1: who are born alive following an abortion have to receive
Speaker 1: the same kind of care as a child who is
Speaker 1: wanted would receive that basically, children who survive an abortion attempt,
Speaker 1: and there's a decent number of those per year. It's
Speaker 1: not I don't think it's even one hundred, but it's
Speaker 1: in the tens every year, that those children should be
Speaker 1: given the same kind of resuscitative treatment you would give
Speaker 1: a wanted child. Democrats have stripped away language of that
Speaker 1: sort from state law after state law after state law,
Speaker 1: including in Tim Walls's Minnesota. Not just in the abortion context,
Speaker 1: though this also tends to happen in the context of
Speaker 1: nick us, where a child is born with some kind
Speaker 1: of disability and the docs and or the parents just decide, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want to resuscitate this baby, even though it
Speaker 1: might be not a life debilitating, not a life life
Speaker 1: threatening disability. It might be something like spina biffida, and
Speaker 1: knowing some families who have children with spinea bifadae, I mean,
Speaker 1: I just find that revolting where basically they will just
Speaker 1: leave the baby to die rather than take care of
Speaker 1: the baby. That's what Trump is meaning when he says
Speaker 1: they'll execute the baby after they're born. And then he
Speaker 1: brings up the quote from Governor Ralph Northam. Ralph Northam
Speaker 1: around twenty eighteen, who was both a doctor and the
Speaker 1: governor of Virginia, said, you know, after a baby is born,
Speaker 1: maybe if the baby survives an abortion attempt, you know,
Speaker 1: the parents and the doctor would have a conversation and
Speaker 1: then would decide what to do. Basically Governor Northam saying, well,
Speaker 1: we would decide if they don't want the baby, we
Speaker 1: just wouldn't take care of the baby. And that quote
Speaker 1: from Governor Northam a quote he said a week before
Speaker 1: revealing that for his medical school yearbook he either dressed
Speaker 1: up as a clansman or in blackface, we weren't sure which.
Speaker 1: Northam basically revealed this ethic on the part of the
Speaker 1: pro choice of pro choice people within medicine of just
Speaker 1: saying we're just gonna let a child die rather than
Speaker 1: provide resuscitative care when the child isn't wanted. And that's
Speaker 1: the thing. Trump's trying to say that, but he can't.
Speaker 1: He lacks the precision, he lacks the knowledge, he lacks
Speaker 1: the debate chops to actually communicate that effectively, and he
Speaker 1: wanders off into stuff that unless you know about the issue,
Speaker 1: like I do, you have no idea what the heck
Speaker 1: he's talking about. When he starts talking about the governor
Speaker 1: of Virginia said we would set the baby aside. I
Speaker 1: know what that story is. I know the context of
Speaker 1: that story, but I'm a pro life activist. That's literally
Speaker 1: my job. I knew about that story in twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: when it was happening. I know about that story today.
Speaker 1: Most Americans have no idea what Trump's talking about. When
Speaker 1: they hear Trump saying they'll execute the baby after they're born.
Speaker 1: The governor of Virginia said so, and then the ABC
Speaker 1: newsperson comes in, there's no state where that's legal. Vice
Speaker 1: President Harris by bah bah bah bah. What do you
Speaker 1: have to say to that. There's this lack of precision
Speaker 1: and this ability to sort of meander off into these
Speaker 1: things that he likes to say, but that just don't work.
Speaker 1: That just don't land. Talking about the whole Haitian immigrants
Speaker 1: eating cats and dogs thing was a distraction. It's a
Speaker 1: thing that revs upright wingers on Twitter, but is kind
Speaker 1: of seems bizarre to the average listener and turns into
Speaker 1: this bizarre debate on whether or not Haitian immigrants in
Speaker 1: Ohio are or are not eating cats and dogs, which
Speaker 1: is a distraction from the main points about immigration. How
Speaker 1: the Biden administration allowed immigration in this incredibly reckless, extreme
Speaker 1: way with no vetting and millions of people coming into
Speaker 1: the country.
Speaker 2: Who we have no idea of their security threats or not.
Speaker 1: And it seems like it was the same way on
Speaker 1: issue after issue after issue, and where Trump was getting
Speaker 1: distracted by things that he cares about that nobody gives
Speaker 1: a darn about.
Speaker 2: Did you win the twenty twenty election or not.
Speaker 1: Nine percent of America, ninety percent whatever, are not ish
Speaker 1: interested in relitigating.
Speaker 2: The twenty twenty election. They're just not. You might be
Speaker 2: hung up on it. Trump is clearly still hung up
Speaker 2: on it.
Speaker 1: Most Americans, especially the swing voters he needs to get,
Speaker 1: don't want to hear about the twenty twenty election anymore.
Speaker 1: They don't want to hear about the twenty twenty election anymore.
Speaker 1: They don't want to hear some pickyun little debate about
Speaker 1: whether or not the sizes of Trump's crowds at his
Speaker 1: rallies that he got all defensive about.
Speaker 2: Nobody gives a darn. It's irrelevant.
Speaker 1: Trump would have done a better job if the whole
Speaker 1: debate instead of answering a single question or responding to anything,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris said.
Speaker 2: Just had a list, Just had a list.
Speaker 1: Ground beef at the end of my you know, ground
Speaker 1: beef at the end of my administration was on average
Speaker 1: throughout America two dollars and thirty nine cents a pound. Today,
Speaker 1: the average cost of ground beef is four dollars a pound.
Speaker 1: A gallon of gas was da da da per gallon.
Speaker 1: Today it's da dada. The average cost of a home
Speaker 1: when I left office was da da da one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. Today it's da da da da da. The
Speaker 1: average cost of this was da da da da da.
Speaker 1: Today it's da da.
Speaker 2: Da da da.
Speaker 1: Then average number of border crossings on the day that
Speaker 1: I left office was dad da da da per month.
Speaker 1: Today it's aboutda da da da per month. There were
Speaker 1: no wars going. You know, the United States was tangentially
Speaker 1: involved in no wars when I left office. Today it
Speaker 1: is tangentially involved into on and on and on and on.
Speaker 1: He could just hit on those things, and he he
Speaker 1: just gets distracted from these things. And that's always been
Speaker 1: the tale of Trump, I guess, is him getting distracted,
Speaker 1: allowing himself to be distracted, allowing himself to draw the
Speaker 1: conversation into something else instead of doing a stump speech
Speaker 1: where he just sticks to his message. He had libs,
Speaker 1: He gets bored, he says stuff that interests himself rather
Speaker 1: than staying on message. Whereas Kamala Harris, Like there were
Speaker 1: some Republicans who were mocking Harris because she gave the
Speaker 1: exact same stump speech five or six times. She didn't deviate, Like,
Speaker 1: she didn't deviate at all for five six straight stump speeches.
Speaker 2: Oh what a robot. Yeah, that's called campaigning. That's why
Speaker 2: it's called a stump speech.
Speaker 1: You have ones, you have ah stump speech, maybe two
Speaker 1: stump speeches, and you hit him and you hit them,
Speaker 1: and you hit him and you hit him and you
Speaker 1: don't go off message. Why because when you go off message,
Speaker 1: it has the opportunity to screw you up. And I
Speaker 1: guess I'm just afraid that we're headed for a twenty
Speaker 1: twenty repeat where the media is gonna do so much
Speaker 1: work for Harris, it'll be really close. If there are
Speaker 1: shenanigans to happen, then shenanigans will happen, and we're just
Speaker 1: gonna lose narrowly again because Trump won't deviate from how
Speaker 1: he does what he does. And I think that the
Speaker 1: point is, I don't know that he has the capacity
Speaker 1: or the desire for issues that don't really interest him
Speaker 1: but which are important still, because I have seen him
Speaker 1: go into real specificity for certain things that really interest him,
Speaker 1: stuff about trade, stuff about certain kinds of economic questions,
Speaker 1: like there are things where he can really be engaging
Speaker 1: and really get into it. But for stuff that he
Speaker 1: clearly doesn't care as much about, like the abortion issue,
Speaker 1: he's very imprecise, and it allows the media to blast him.
Speaker 1: It makes him look bad and sound bad. So I
Speaker 1: don't know, I'm I feel like we're heading towards another
Speaker 1: twenty twenty and again, my constant, my constant proviso for
Speaker 1: my constant sort of caveat rather for all of this
Speaker 1: is he's one one more presidential election than I have.
Speaker 1: He's also lost a presidential election, though, and we saw
Speaker 1: how he lost it.
Speaker 2: He didn't lose it.
Speaker 1: Well, who is occupying sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue right now?
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, he lost it, Get over it. If he's
Speaker 2: gonna win, he's gonna.
Speaker 1: Win, like clearly, like Democrats really didn't want him to
Speaker 1: win in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: Okay, Like all right, anyway, So.
Speaker 1: I just feel like were headed towards another twenty twenty
Speaker 1: the longer we go on and and it it. I
Speaker 1: feel really frustrated at how the Democrats were able to
Speaker 1: get an early debate with Biden in time for them
Speaker 1: to remove him. I feel like that was deliberate on
Speaker 1: their part, that they that Biden's handlers agreed to it,
Speaker 1: because they were like, we got to see if Biden
Speaker 1: can hold up, and if you can't, then we got
Speaker 1: to do something to switch them out.
Speaker 2: So they throw them to the wolves.
Speaker 1: They'd throw him out for a live debate, and Biden
Speaker 1: bombs allows them to switch out for Harris.
Speaker 2: And I think there when we return.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about whether they're they, Whether Trump
Speaker 1: should agree to another debate, and the double haters. That
Speaker 1: is next on the John Girardi Show. Should Trump agree
Speaker 1: to another debate? Yeah, he should. And and this is
Speaker 1: this weird kind of Trump pride thing playing in. Trump
Speaker 1: clearly did not win the debate. He clearly didn't Winning
Speaker 1: or losing a debate is a reflection of how people reacted.
Speaker 1: And the reaction, for the most part is that from
Speaker 1: a lot of people on the right and everyone on
Speaker 1: the left, is that Trump didn't do very well. I
Speaker 1: really just don't think he did that well. Now was
Speaker 1: it a crushing Harris win?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Will anyone remember it on November fifth? I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe not. And I guess I'm sort of two minds
Speaker 1: whether Trump should agree to another debate. Harris wants another
Speaker 1: debate and Trump doesn't. Now, my initial thought was Trump
Speaker 1: is crazy. He didn't do very well. He needs to
Speaker 1: do another debate and do better so that he can
Speaker 1: kind of get.
Speaker 2: Another leg up.
Speaker 1: And my thought was that Harris should, you know, back
Speaker 1: out while she has the chance, take her victory and walk.
Speaker 1: I sort of thought, you know, Harris should do the
Speaker 1: thing like George Costanza did, where there was a Seinfeld
Speaker 1: episode where George Costanza realized he had, like, if he
Speaker 1: had one good funny thing to say during a meeting,
Speaker 1: he should just immediately leave the meeting, leave the meeting
Speaker 1: on a high note. So I sort of thought that's
Speaker 1: what Harris should do, but that instead we have the
Speaker 1: opposite reaction, because I think what Harris and the Democrat
Speaker 1: team have realized is the following Trump's not Trump's going
Speaker 1: to be about that level of prepared.
Speaker 2: For a debate.
Speaker 1: And Trump was able to win the debate against Biden
Speaker 1: because Biden was just completely senile and everyone could see it. It
Speaker 1: wasn't because Trump was some devastatingly great debater. I think
Speaker 1: Trump was kind of locked in and focused and did
Speaker 1: a decent job during the CNN debate. And I think
Speaker 1: the CNN moderators were much more fair than the ABC moderators.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's Biden lost that debate far more
Speaker 1: than Trump won it. It was it wasn't like Trump
Speaker 1: was giving some masterclass. I think the Harris people realize
Speaker 1: if they can just keep getting performances like that, Harris
Speaker 1: is going to win. Because Harris is basically taking no risks.
Speaker 1: She's just staying on message. She's not getting tripped up,
Speaker 1: she's not getting confused, she's just answering. She's just giving
Speaker 1: her scripted answers. She's not going to get challenged on anything.
Speaker 1: She says, she's just going to give her scripted answers,
Speaker 1: and that actually more debates might help her and hurt Trump.
Speaker 1: So I guess my initial reaction was Trump is crazy.
Speaker 1: Why doesn't he want a debate again? He needs to
Speaker 1: debate again so that he can do better this time.
Speaker 1: But I don't Now I'm wondering if that's not the case.
Speaker 1: I think probably Trump and his team privately understand that
Speaker 1: Trump didn't do very well, and they probably understand, hey,
Speaker 1: if he goes out and does that again, it's not
Speaker 1: going to be good. So they're gonna say, all right, well,
Speaker 1: we're just gonna stop. And we're two months out from
Speaker 1: the elect well a little less than two months out
Speaker 1: from the election, maybe seven weeks. Passage of time will
Speaker 1: allow people to forget much of how that debate performance went,
Speaker 1: and we'll just you know, Trump seems to do better
Speaker 1: in the in between stages where we're having rallies having rallies,
Speaker 1: having rallies, and we're building, building, building, So maybe that's
Speaker 1: what we got to do.
Speaker 2: We'll just focus on that. And I guess here's my fear.
Speaker 1: When it was Biden versus Trump, the thing that people
Speaker 1: were talking about were the double haters. Basically, this contingent
Speaker 1: of voters who didn't like either choice, really disliked both choices.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of the distaste was, why are
Speaker 1: we voting between a seventy eight year old and an
Speaker 1: eighty two year old? Is there anybody in America younger
Speaker 1: that we could vote for here? Is this really the
Speaker 1: two best people we could have? There was distaste, dissatisfaction
Speaker 1: with both, and especially after the Biden debate performance, there
Speaker 1: are a bunch of Democrats who were like, forget this,
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. We're not voting for an eighty one
Speaker 1: year old man who's senile. And I just think that
Speaker 1: Harris coming back in and getting the kind of media
Speaker 1: facelift that she's gotten, where you know, two months ago
Speaker 1: she was a stumbling, bumbling idiot vice president who was
Speaker 1: a radical leftist, to now she's getting this new appearance
Speaker 1: as well. You know, she didn't really believe all that
Speaker 1: stuff she talked about in twenty twenty when she ran,
Speaker 1: she was just a modern Democrat. I think unfortunately, well,
Speaker 1: it's clear that there were a bunch of Democrats who
Speaker 1: were like, forget this Biden thing. They've all come back home,
Speaker 1: and I think there's a crowd of the double haters
Speaker 1: where like, Okay, finally someone who isn't Trump or Biden,
Speaker 1: ignoring the fact that she's the horrible liberals, that she's
Speaker 1: got all these crazy, whacked out beliefs. She's terrible on
Speaker 1: Paul's terrible on this, terrible on that, and the idea
Speaker 1: that the way the media has been able to push
Speaker 1: walk this fine line of basically Biden's not gonna subzero
Speaker 1: her campaign because she keeps saying nice things about Biden.
Speaker 1: But basically the media has been able to try to
Speaker 1: present her as not the establishment candidate, like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you can't blame her for anything Biden does. She's one
Speaker 1: of the great vice presidents ever. But you know, she's
Speaker 1: not responsible for any of Biden's faults. She's a new
Speaker 1: fresh face. We can't go back. We can't go back,
Speaker 1: is what she keeps saying about Trump. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you're the If we have problems, now they're
Speaker 1: your problems. You're in charge now. So I guess that's
Speaker 1: my fear is that we had that crowd of the
Speaker 1: double haters, and I think in a Biden versus Trump scenario,
Speaker 1: they would have gravitated towards Trump. And now I'm not
Speaker 1: so sure. I think now in a Biden versus Harris setting,
Speaker 1: they might gravitate to Harris.
Speaker 2: All right, when we return, I want.
Speaker 1: To do a kind of review of Lawfair, the cases
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump, where they kind of stand and how
Speaker 1: that was all just a massive thud.
Speaker 2: Next on the John Girardi.
Speaker 1: Show, the Democrats that sort of set up the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four campaign around Lawfair when they thought it was
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. What they they're sort of their plan was,
Speaker 1: all right, we're going to coordinate this. We'll have the
Speaker 1: DOJ file charges against Donald Trump. Basically will will indict
Speaker 1: Donald Trump during the Republican primary process. That'll take Republicans
Speaker 1: off so much that they'll all want to vote for
Speaker 1: Trump because we want Trump as the candidate. We think
Speaker 1: that Trump is the most beatable candidate. We think that
Speaker 1: he has a certain ceiling that he can't get over.
Speaker 1: He's never going to get more than about forty six
Speaker 1: or forty seven percent of the vote. So we will
Speaker 1: indict Trump during the Republican primary process.
Speaker 2: Starting in kind of.
Speaker 1: Winter of twenty twenty two, and then all during sort
Speaker 1: of starting in twenty twenty three, and then his various
Speaker 1: trials and stuff will hopefully start to get to trials.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can get some convictions, maybe we can, you know,
Speaker 1: and and we'll have all these trials going on against
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and legal action after legal action after legal
Speaker 1: action after legal action will take place, and there will
Speaker 1: be this constant stream of negative news about Donald Trump
Speaker 1: throughout the course of twenty twenty four, leading to his
Speaker 1: numbers tanking and Joe Biden winning. The campaign that was
Speaker 1: the place plan did not really go according to plan, however,
Speaker 1: So let's review the four cases, the the four indictments
Speaker 1: that were made against Trump. Georgia Fanny Willis, the Fulton
Speaker 1: County District Attorney, charged Trump with a series of crimes
Speaker 1: centered around a Rico charge, which never made any sense.
Speaker 1: Rico is the kind of body of criminal law that
Speaker 1: was designed to take down organized crime, designed to take
Speaker 1: down the mob and the idea is you have a
Speaker 1: kind of continuing criminal enterprise that is an ongoing thing,
Speaker 1: and you can charge people for You can charge leadership
Speaker 1: for all of the crimes of the enterprise. It was
Speaker 1: a sort of novel, sort of federal statute. Actually, one
Speaker 1: of my professors at Notre Dame Law School, Robert Blake,
Speaker 1: was sort of the chief architect of RICO, so I
Speaker 1: got to learn a little bit about it from him.
Speaker 1: So charging Trump with RICO made no sense because the
Speaker 1: conspiracy to steal the election in Georgia, to swap out
Speaker 1: Georgia's electors for Joe Biden in favor of new electors
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, it wasn't an ongoing conspiracy. After the
Speaker 1: election was done, the conspiracy sort of ended. So RICO
Speaker 1: was never a great tool for doing this, and the
Speaker 1: whole thing fell apart. The whole thing is just hanging
Speaker 1: on by a thread right now. Why Well, because Fanny
Speaker 1: Willis put her boyfriend in charge of it, some guy
Speaker 1: she was having an affair with a relationship with. Now
Speaker 1: there's all these accusations of impropriety that she was appointed
Speaker 1: him to this to sort of pay him off, and
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, blah blah. So that whole thing has
Speaker 1: not proceeded at all. The no trial has taken place,
Speaker 1: the whole thing has hung up procedurally because of Willis's
Speaker 1: own misconduct. The initial judge said, well, you either need
Speaker 1: him to get off the case or you to get
Speaker 1: off the case. That decisions being appealed about the Trump
Speaker 1: people are saying this whole thing should be tossed out.
Speaker 1: There are new developments in the case that basically Judge
Speaker 1: Scott McAfee dismissed three more counts in the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: election indictment brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis
Speaker 1: and her special prosecutor slash paramore Nathan Wade. This included
Speaker 1: two of the counts against Donald Trump. So that whole
Speaker 1: case is in shambles. You've got the Trump classified documents
Speaker 1: case in Florida. This was the one thing that I
Speaker 1: actually thought Donald Trump probably actually committed real crimes.
Speaker 2: And you know, I try to be fair.
Speaker 1: With all my assessment of these Trump cases, this was
Speaker 1: the one where I was like, yeah, he had a
Speaker 1: bunch of classified documents that he wasn't suppose to have,
Speaker 1: or or documents with really sensitive national security info in them.
Speaker 1: He kept them in his house in Florida when he
Speaker 1: shouldn't have done that. Now it's the same damn thing
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton was doing, that Joe Biden was doing,
Speaker 1: and of course the one person getting prosecuted for it
Speaker 1: is Donald Trump. Yeah, tell me how that's fair. But
Speaker 1: that case is completely dismissed. Why well, the Biden, the
Speaker 1: Biden DOJ team was just too proud to change anything. Basically,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General Merrick Garland had appointed a special council
Speaker 1: to oversee the January sixth stuff, and the same special
Speaker 1: council was made to oversee the Florida documents case Jack Smith.
Speaker 2: So Jack Smith had been.
Speaker 1: A war crimes prosecutor in the Hague, He's brought in
Speaker 1: to be a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor system is
Speaker 1: basically this setup where if the Department of Justice feels
Speaker 1: like they have a conflict, an internal conflict of interest,
Speaker 1: where they can't fairly prosecute something because it involves someone
Speaker 1: directly within the chain of command, like if the Attorney
Speaker 1: General did something wrong or something, then in that case,
Speaker 1: the Deputy Attorney, the second in command to the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: would appoint a special counsel, someone from the outside to
Speaker 1: come in with prosecutorial authority, like a US attorney would
Speaker 1: have to bring charges in whatever jurisdiction he wants, whatever
Speaker 1: federal jurisdiction he or she wants to investigate and bring charges.
Speaker 1: So they bring in Jack Smith, even though there's no
Speaker 1: internal conflict. There's no reason the Biden Department of Justice
Speaker 1: would have any conflict of interest going after Trump, of
Speaker 1: all people, it might have a conflict going after Biden
Speaker 1: because Biden's in the changing command, but not after Trump.
Speaker 2: Now in Florida.
Speaker 1: Basically, one of the challenges that the Trump people brought
Speaker 1: was that, hey, we're not sure about the constitutionality of
Speaker 1: this special prosecutor setup that the federal government has. We
Speaker 1: think that this isn't constitutional. That this person has executive authority,
Speaker 1: but he is not an officer of the United States
Speaker 1: who has received Senate approval. The other US attorneys who
Speaker 1: prosecute federal crimes, they all receive Senate approval. They're appointed
Speaker 1: by the President, and they receive approval from the Senate
Speaker 1: Advice and Consent.
Speaker 2: Jack Smith never got that.
Speaker 1: It's not like he's an existing US attorney who's received
Speaker 1: Senate confirmation.
Speaker 2: No, he's from the outside.
Speaker 1: He's exercising executive authority, but he's not an officer of
Speaker 1: the United States. This violates the Constitution. Now, that was
Speaker 1: sort of considered by the Supreme Court in Jack Smith's
Speaker 1: other case. But the federal judge in South Florida, Eilean Cannon,
Speaker 1: really examined it, wrote an extensive, like ninety page really
Speaker 1: impressive ninety something Paige opinion about it and concluded, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think Jack Smith has the kind of constitutional
Speaker 1: authority needed to prosecute this case. So the whole Florida
Speaker 1: Documents case was dismissed by Judge Cannon. Now that decision
Speaker 1: is being appealed. And here's the thing is that the
Speaker 1: DOJ could have completely avoided this. All they would have
Speaker 1: needed to do is amend things, and Cannon gave them
Speaker 1: the opportunity. They could have just amended things to say, Okay, look,
Speaker 1: Jack Smith is doing this under the auspices of the US.
Speaker 2: Attorney for South Florida, who you know.
Speaker 1: So it's the US Attorney for South Florida who's doing
Speaker 1: the prosecuting, and he's brought in this attorney, Jacksmith, to
Speaker 1: do this work for him, Like they could have done
Speaker 1: that and would have solved the whole thing, but the
Speaker 1: Jack Smith and the DOJ people were like, I guess
Speaker 1: too proud to do that and say, no, absolutely not,
Speaker 1: we're not bending to this whatsoever. Well, get your whole
Speaker 1: case dismissed. So the Florida things kind of hung up.
Speaker 1: The charges have all been dismissed. It's being appealed, but
Speaker 1: that's all gone the January sixth stuff. So the January
Speaker 1: sixth case got massively curtailed by the Supreme Court's decision
Speaker 1: on presidential immunity. This is basically the idea, the kind
Speaker 1: of separation of power's idea that if the president is
Speaker 1: able to function, he needs to be able to function
Speaker 1: knowing that his conversations with other executive officials, the performance
Speaker 1: of his official duties is not going to be subject
Speaker 1: to criminal prosecution criminal scrutiny. Later on, So the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court issued this decision on presidential immunity that was pretty sweeping,
Speaker 1: where they said presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for
Speaker 1: clearly official acts, stuff that's within their core competency as president,
Speaker 1: and that evidence of their official acts cannot be brought
Speaker 1: in to be used against them in other criminal settings.
Speaker 1: This winds up eliminating a lot of Jack Smith's case
Speaker 1: against Trump relating to January sixth stuff, because some of
Speaker 1: it had to do with conversations Trump was having with
Speaker 1: his attorney general, some of the conversations Trump was having
Speaker 1: with this executive official, that executive official, his conversations with
Speaker 1: the attorney general asking him to investigate voter fraud, this, this, this,
Speaker 1: A lot of that was stuff that was part of
Speaker 1: Trump's official conduct, and not all of the charges against Basically,
Speaker 1: there needs to be a sussing out of which of
Speaker 1: Trump's charges have anything to do with official acts versus.
Speaker 2: Not official acts.
Speaker 1: Now, Jack Smith sort of brought a renewed indictment to
Speaker 1: try to bring his original indictment down into conformity with
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's decision. But that whole thing is hung up.
Speaker 1: I don't it doesn't that that's not going anywhere, certainly
Speaker 1: not before the election. Then there's the Manhattan case by
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg. A jury found Trump guilty, but Bragg had
Speaker 1: brought in a whole bunch of evidence of Trump's conversations
Speaker 1: with people during his administration that that that might have
Speaker 1: been evidence of official presidential conduct, evidence that at the
Speaker 1: time Bragg and his attorneys found to be quote devastating.
Speaker 1: They got a conviction in part with that devastating evidence
Speaker 1: being brought in. So while Trump was found guilty, he
Speaker 1: hasn't technically been convicted. You're only convicted of a crime
Speaker 1: when a judge gives you the sentence. Okay, he might
Speaker 1: have been found guilty by the jury, but the judge
Speaker 1: may throw out the jury maybe.
Speaker 2: If the judge rules that.
Speaker 1: If the judge determines maybe for some reason the jury
Speaker 1: acted improperly or decided the case improperly in some way,
Speaker 1: the judge has some authority in some cases to revoke
Speaker 1: that and the person would not be convicted. So Trump
Speaker 1: is not yet convicted in the New York thing. He's
Speaker 1: been found guilty by the jury, but the sentence has
Speaker 1: not been given to him, and it looks like the
Speaker 1: sentence is now going to be pushed after the election
Speaker 1: because why well, they're going to need to decide this
Speaker 1: immunity thing and whether the evidence that was used against
Speaker 1: Trump to get the guilty verdict in Manhattan for again
Speaker 1: alleged falsification of business documents classifying the payments that were
Speaker 1: ultimately given to Stormy Daniels as attorney's fees rather than
Speaker 1: loan repayment to Michael Cohen.
Speaker 2: This grievous crime.
Speaker 1: Which again paying off porn star with a non disclosure
Speaker 1: agreement to not talk about your affair. Very unsavory, very bad,
Speaker 1: very sleazy, not a crime, not a violation of federal
Speaker 1: election law. Paying back your attorney to do that also
Speaker 1: not a crime. Some argument that that his business records
Speaker 1: were falsified. Anyway, the sentencing for that's going to be
Speaker 1: pushed after the election. So it's very odd. And when
Speaker 1: we return, I want to talk about how basically all
Speaker 1: of the law stuff against Trump is now completely ignored
Speaker 1: and instead we're just going off of Instead, Democrats have
Speaker 1: turned to a far more effective tactic.
Speaker 2: Trump is Weird. Next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: One of the things that surprised me about the election,
Speaker 1: I just win the last segment through the law fair
Speaker 1: campaign against Trump, all the different cases that the idea was,
Speaker 1: let's indict Trump during the Republican primary process in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. Trump will therefore win the primary because Republican
Speaker 1: base voters will be so mad that he's being indicted,
Speaker 1: that they'll all vote for him. They'll say, we got
Speaker 1: to rally around our guy. It's precisely what happened. Desant
Speaker 1: has never stood a chance. Then we'll have all of
Speaker 1: our trials for Trump all through the course of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four and it'll just be a never ending stream
Speaker 1: of Trump had news. And that's not really what happened.
Speaker 1: The trials against Trump have had very little effect on
Speaker 1: the election.
Speaker 2: I don't think.
Speaker 1: January sixth has had much of any effect on the election.
Speaker 1: You know what's the thing that actually worked for the
Speaker 1: Harris people that actually saw their numbers swinging. Just calling
Speaker 1: Trump weird. That was twenty times more effective. Seemingly, just
Speaker 1: calling Trump weird led to her poll numbers swinging more
Speaker 1: than all of Joe Biden's ranting about January sixth and
Speaker 1: threat to democracy stuff. That's all they needed to do,
Speaker 1: just say Trump is weird, because I think most Americans
Speaker 1: were like, I just don't think Trump's really a threat
Speaker 1: to democracy. But you know what, a lot of Americans
Speaker 1: will agree he's weird. And I guess the more we
Speaker 1: keep talking about whether or not Haitian immigrants are in
Speaker 1: fact eating cats and dogs, in Ohio rather than we
Speaker 1: let in tens of millions of people without appropriately vetting them.
Speaker 1: What a colossal disaster the last administration. This administration's immigration
Speaker 1: policies have been. The more we keep focusing on the weird,
Speaker 1: the more that Trump is weird is going to win
Speaker 1: the day.
Speaker 2: That'll do it for John Girardies show, See you next
Speaker 2: time on Power Talk