Speaker 1: From the Skying in Center. This is Paul Murray live well.
Speaker 2: A you kind, my dear friend. Thank you very much
Speaker 2: to Sharry Markson of course for doing it. Nobody else
Speaker 2: does yet it's gott he's no room to appreciate her
Speaker 2: and all of my other friends and colleagues here. Let's
Speaker 2: have a great night together. And yes, let us talk
Speaker 2: about something that may will have slipped through the fingers.
Speaker 3: Of much of the news media today.
Speaker 2: Remember a couple of weeks ago we told you about
Speaker 2: Channel Line reporting at the time it's exclusive for them,
Speaker 2: and it was about China disrupting members again of the
Speaker 2: Australian Defense Force. This was the scenario where the chopper
Speaker 2: was flying and then some flares had been released in
Speaker 2: front of it. If it was not for the skill
Speaker 2: of the pilot, then they may well have ended up
Speaker 2: in a scenario where the helicopter may will have crashed
Speaker 2: and this could have been come very serious, very quickly. Now,
Speaker 2: Andrew Croben in the story when he broke this story,
Speaker 2: had this what is called in the business peace to camera.
Speaker 2: Richard Marles says Australia has formally registered its deep concern
Speaker 2: about the incident, telling Beijing it's completely unacceptable, and the
Speaker 2: next day the Prime Minister was waving his finger Beijing's way.
Speaker 4: We have made very strong representations at every level to
Speaker 4: China about this incident, which your regard as unprofessional and unacceptable.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll just wait for the control room.
Speaker 2: Can we requeue that and let's play that again when
Speaker 2: everyone to understand what the Prime Minister said after this
Speaker 2: story had become public, and what he said was our
Speaker 2: response to China one more time.
Speaker 4: We have made very strong representations at every level to
Speaker 4: China about this incident, which your regard as unprofessional and
Speaker 4: unacceptable at every level.
Speaker 2: Well, guess what the Prime Minister lied now. That is
Speaker 2: not my assumption. It is the basic admission of parliamentary
Speaker 2: officials in Senate Estimates. This was written up today in
Speaker 2: part by the Financial Review saying the Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 2: Abernezi did not seek a phone call with President Jijingping
Speaker 2: or the Premier after a Chinese fighter jet dedionated flares
Speaker 2: in front of an Australian Navy helicopter earlier this month.
Speaker 2: Repeat Prime Minister did not seek a phone call. Senate
Speaker 2: Estimates heard on Tuesday that no direct contact was made
Speaker 2: between ministers no direct contact to protest the dangerous maneuver,
Speaker 2: despite Albanesi claiming very strong representations had been made to China. Now,
Speaker 2: remember they did not release the information about this incident
Speaker 2: until Channel nine had got in touch with them. So
Speaker 2: was there a chance we would never have known about
Speaker 2: this potentially near fatal incident where the obvious aggressor is
Speaker 2: China who knows. Thankfully Andrew Proben was able to find
Speaker 2: the story, put it to the government, and then the
Speaker 2: government of course the next day in wider media says
Speaker 2: we have done everything we can to contact every possible
Speaker 2: level of the Chinese government. But again Senate estimates yesterday.
Speaker 2: Let me show you the moment when it was clear
Speaker 2: that there has not been phone calls.
Speaker 3: There has not been every possible level.
Speaker 5: Instead, representations are very strong and clear and direct representations
Speaker 5: made at the diplomatic, defense and political levels, including ah
Speaker 5: public statements by the Deputy Prime Minister, our Minister for
Speaker 5: Defense and the prime ministers. Then the public statement that
Speaker 5: the Prime Minister was making on his feet at the time.
Speaker 3: Let me translate that for you.
Speaker 2: Apparently, part of our communication with China at every possible level.
Speaker 3: Was not a phone call.
Speaker 2: From leader to leader was not a phone call minister
Speaker 2: to minister. Instead, the press conference at Beefweek is considered
Speaker 2: part of our response to China. Apparently that is what
Speaker 2: counted in part as confronting China about what had happened.
Speaker 3: Again, more from Senate estimates.
Speaker 6: Arranging phone calls with China's leaders is not a straightforward
Speaker 6: or speedy process, so we.
Speaker 3: Don't do it very often.
Speaker 6: We're going to see the Chinese premiere in Australia very soon,
Speaker 6: and we will have thorough discussions with him when he arrives.
Speaker 2: It's too hard to make a phone call, but we'll
Speaker 2: tell the public that we did it. It's too hard
Speaker 2: to make a phone call. But the Chinese premier is
Speaker 2: coming here. Does anyone honestly believe that, while we are
Speaker 2: rolling out the red carpet for the second most significant
Speaker 2: person in the Chinese government, that we're going to say,
Speaker 2: by the way, about that event a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 2: where the behavior of your defense force could have killed
Speaker 2: members of our defense force.
Speaker 3: No, of course not.
Speaker 2: You see, China knows that they have got this government
Speaker 2: right where they want them.
Speaker 3: We'll let the trade happen.
Speaker 2: That'll make you look better, will send no messages to
Speaker 2: the diaspora. We'll hope that they're voting patterns which change
Speaker 2: to the life election, continue into the next election.
Speaker 3: Just never call us out. What has now been proven.
Speaker 2: In questioning and in this reporting today is the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister lies. Now we've seen this many times before at
Speaker 2: every possible level, every possible level. In fact, third time,
Speaker 2: Control room, Let's bring it back. I wasn't planning to
Speaker 2: do it, but let's bring it back. Here's the Prime
Speaker 2: minister third time. Now, given what you have just heard
Speaker 2: from Senate estimates, what you've just read in the Financial review,
Speaker 2: does this match up with what the prime ministers said?
Speaker 4: We have made very strong representations at every level to
Speaker 4: China about this incident, which we regard as unprofessional and unacceptable.
Speaker 2: Now, this is a pattern of behavior when it comes
Speaker 2: to this government that when we talk about them sending messages,
Speaker 2: it's akin to when you want to have when you
Speaker 2: need to have an awkward conversation with somebody, but you
Speaker 2: secretly hope that their phone is turned off, so you
Speaker 2: leave a voicemail and move on. Or in this case,
Speaker 2: they probably wrote China Police call and send it to
Speaker 2: a fax machine that hopefully isn't connected at the other end.
Speaker 3: But you say, well, I sent a message, was it received?
Speaker 3: Who cares?
Speaker 2: They say, at the diplomatic level? So yes, okay, let's imagine,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to give them the benefit of the
Speaker 2: doubt that they don't deserve. Perhaps it was embassy to embassy,
Speaker 2: but that's not every level. That's not what you've now
Speaker 2: seen three times from the Prime Minister.
Speaker 3: Three times.
Speaker 2: They never told us this event happened until the media
Speaker 2: called them, and then they claim that they spoke to
Speaker 2: every level of the Chinese government, when of course the
Speaker 2: proof is there that they didn't. And why do we
Speaker 2: know that this process is one that's burnt them in
Speaker 2: the past, because remember Maus Towoomba.
Speaker 3: This, of course was the.
Speaker 2: Australian navy divers who were trying to free up something
Speaker 2: that had got caught in one of their propellers. That's
Speaker 2: when the Chinese decided to fire sonar at them.
Speaker 3: One of them got injured.
Speaker 2: The Chinese said, oh, it's not us, because if it
Speaker 2: really was us, they would have been killed. And again
Speaker 2: the Australian public was not told about this until the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister was on his way back from the Australian Sorry,
Speaker 2: from the Asia Pacific Economic Forum of the APEK. That's
Speaker 2: the meeting where he was face to face with the
Speaker 2: President of China. He did not raise this face to
Speaker 2: face with the president. He has not picked up the
Speaker 2: phone to even try to arrange the phone call to China. Now,
Speaker 2: presumably the handsome boy has been given their new mobile number,
Speaker 2: because we know that when they broke up with the
Speaker 2: last guy, they definitely didn't return calls. But China has
Speaker 2: the Abaneze government and thus Australia right where it wants it.
Speaker 2: Don't upset them. Tell your people whatever you want because
Speaker 2: nobody will really follow up, and even if they do
Speaker 2: follow up, it'll be a few weeks later and no
Speaker 2: one will care. The Prime Minister lied, lied about who
Speaker 2: knew what, and it came to our national defenses. Now,
Speaker 2: no doubt there'll be a whole bunch of smart Aleci
Speaker 2: replies when he's asked this question, if at all, in
Speaker 2: the Parliament tomorrow. But the evidence seems pretty clear right
Speaker 2: the reporting of the Financial Review here is absolute that
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister, and I say one more time, did
Speaker 2: not seek a phone.
Speaker 3: Call with the bloke who's coming to Australia, or the
Speaker 3: bloke who he went and met in Beijing.
Speaker 2: The beautiful boy is a useful idiot and a lot
Speaker 2: of people will get rich and a lot of people
Speaker 2: will be happy. What does it say when the leader
Speaker 2: of our own country will lie to his own citizens
Speaker 2: about a potential situation that could have killed members of
Speaker 2: the defense force.
Speaker 3: Nothing to see here, I'm albow Now.
Speaker 2: Maintime, let's talk about Jim Charmers and the economy that's
Speaker 2: put in place right now. I hate to report what
Speaker 2: we've known instinctively for weeks and weeks and weeks that
Speaker 2: guess what Jim Charmers is wrong on inflation? The Reserve
Speaker 2: Bank is more likely to be correct on inflation and
Speaker 2: cost of living? Is that the Reserve Bank is said,
Speaker 2: unless it is going to be between two and three
Speaker 2: percent the consumer price index, then guess what they're going
Speaker 2: to do. They are going to hold into strates or
Speaker 2: god forbid, increase interest rates until inflation starts to fall. Well,
Speaker 2: today inflation went up again. It is now three point
Speaker 2: six percent. But of course there's a whole bunch of stuff,
Speaker 2: and I do this every month. There's a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of staff that is nowhere near the headlines. A whole
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff that is way above the average number
Speaker 2: that still is nowhere near the number that the Preserve
Speaker 2: Bank needs to respond to. Have a look at all
Speaker 2: of the stuff that is way above three and a
Speaker 2: bit percent and three and a half percent, I should say,
Speaker 2: at the moment when it comes to inflation, Tobacco year
Speaker 2: on year up thirteen percent, insurance up eight percent, rent
Speaker 2: up seven and a half percent, petrol seven and a
Speaker 2: half percent, alcohol six and a half percent, education six percent, sorry,
Speaker 2: health six percent, education five percent five.
Speaker 3: Percent for bread and cereal.
Speaker 2: New homes that are purchased by the people who will
Speaker 2: live in them again way higher. Not to mention food,
Speaker 2: not to mention electricity. Someone writing about this at news
Speaker 2: dot com Dot a U puts it very cleanly. For
Speaker 2: anyone who is expecting an interest rate cut anytime soon,
Speaker 2: particularly a government that would fingers cross be one to
Speaker 2: go to an election sooner rather than later, because the
Speaker 2: economy is not going to get better from here. Responding
Speaker 2: to the hotter than expected figures, traders slashed their rate
Speaker 2: cut bets, pushing out and expected easing of rates until
Speaker 2: November next year. November next year. The hope had been
Speaker 2: that they may well have done something this year, or
Speaker 2: certainly by May.
Speaker 3: Of next year.
Speaker 2: Now another year and a half. Of the pain that
Speaker 2: you feel when it comes to trying to pay.
Speaker 3: Off a house.
Speaker 2: All because, as we have told you many times before,
Speaker 2: what they will all claim is global factors. There are
Speaker 2: plenty of things that this country and this government in
Speaker 2: particular have made things harder for. That is the effect
Speaker 2: that exists. When it comes to inflation. They have been
Speaker 2: there for more than two years. In that time, interst
Speaker 2: rates have gone up twelve percent, up twelve times. I
Speaker 2: apologize twelve times. When it went up once before the
Speaker 2: last election the sky was caving in.
Speaker 3: Well what do we say now? Oh yeah.
Speaker 2: And by the way, about people trying to build homes
Speaker 2: in either order to rent them out or to move in.
Speaker 2: Interest rates in part is the reason why, according to
Speaker 2: the Turnbull Times, forty thousand homes waiting to be built
Speaker 2: right now are not being built because of high interest rates,
Speaker 2: interest rates that, according to the market today, don't expect
Speaker 2: to cut until November next year. While the information coming
Speaker 2: today is close to where the Reserve Bank was not,
Speaker 2: the rosy picture of a treasurer trying to get through
Speaker 2: a political cycle. Now, there was plenty of air support
Speaker 2: today for lefty Laura Tingle over there at the ABC.
Speaker 2: This cartoon in the nine newspapers confirmed that Australia is racist.
Speaker 2: I mean they just put words like terranalius and white
Speaker 2: Australia policy and both people and kids in detention and
Speaker 2: then apparently sixty percent of the country voting against the
Speaker 2: change its own constitution. No, all proof that Australia is racist.
Speaker 2: We all know this is the attempt to support Laura
Speaker 2: Tingle because she is, of course one of the high
Speaker 2: priestesses of the media left. The Turble Times writing about
Speaker 2: this makes it all seem like it's a news corp
Speaker 2: fever dream. Meantime, today we got to see that by
Speaker 2: the way, other media organizations have focused on this. Just
Speaker 2: I know this won't matter by the time it makes
Speaker 2: it to TV next Monday. Not on the ABC, but
Speaker 2: still the New Daily they wrote about this story and
Speaker 2: this story by the way, they are owned by union
Speaker 2: super funds. Then there's the radio station that's owned by
Speaker 2: Channel nine, who has also talked about it. But no, no, no,
Speaker 2: it's all a fever dream of Sky News Prime Time.
Speaker 2: You know, of course it all comes around the fact
Speaker 2: that she said that Australia was a racist country. But
Speaker 2: I took particular focus on this comment, which I notice
Speaker 2: nobody else seems to focus on, because yeah, Australia's the
Speaker 2: racist countries are sexier quote. But what about what she
Speaker 2: thinks of her fellow Australians for a.
Speaker 7: Major politicality that us been saying, As Nicky says, you know,
Speaker 7: everything that's going wrong in this country is because of migrants.
Speaker 7: And you know, I had a sudden flash of people
Speaker 7: turning up to try to read a property or at
Speaker 7: an auction, and they look a bit different whatever you
Speaker 7: defined different as that basically he has given them license
Speaker 7: to be abused.
Speaker 3: Rubbish.
Speaker 2: She is admonishing Peter Dutton for a situation that she
Speaker 2: has imagined and one that, as I have said before,
Speaker 2: frustrates me because in suburban Australia there are lots of
Speaker 2: people who look like lots of people from lots of
Speaker 2: places around the world. Nobody's being abused because of what
Speaker 2: they look like when it comes to real estate. And
Speaker 2: maybe Lefty Law, in her bubble of whiteness in and
Speaker 2: around the Act, perhaps that strikes her differently than it
Speaker 2: strikes the rest of us.
Speaker 3: But it was that particular.
Speaker 2: Comment that has been part of my focus. Now, of
Speaker 2: course I also say this that I'm fine for people
Speaker 2: to have strong opinions, but come out and join us
Speaker 2: in the commercial world. Come and join us in a
Speaker 2: world where your opinions have to stand on their own
Speaker 2: two feet and people have to show confidence in them
Speaker 2: by buying access to your service. But of course no,
Speaker 2: she of course has it both ways. She's able to
Speaker 2: sit as the independent umpire of everything on the ABC,
Speaker 2: all of the fame and adulation that comes withered, and
Speaker 2: then she gets to have the side gigs where she's
Speaker 2: able to give her opinion. Well, today, the slap on
Speaker 2: the wrist exactly as we expected. The boss of ABC
Speaker 2: News puts out the following statement. Now, none of this
Speaker 2: is on camera, because if they've spoken of a camera
Speaker 2: and microphone, it would elevate it. It would recognize the
Speaker 2: seriousness of an otherwise unseerious issue. Laura has been reminded
Speaker 2: of their application that being ABC standards at external events
Speaker 2: as well as in her work. I have counseled her
Speaker 2: over the remarks. Could you imagine how strenuous that struggle
Speaker 2: session would have been Laura Tingle, and then immediately after
Speaker 2: admonishing her has to give her a cuddle. Laura Tingle
Speaker 2: is one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and accomplished journalists.
Speaker 2: For her part, Laura Tinger put out an essay today.
Speaker 2: I didn't really mean it, but I did mean air
Speaker 2: because I prove it, and then I don't prove her.
Speaker 3: You know the footballer's apology. Here's the bit worth reading
Speaker 3: to you.
Speaker 2: I regret that when I was making these observations at
Speaker 2: the Writer's Festival, the nature of the free flowing panel
Speaker 2: discussion means they were not surrounded.
Speaker 3: By every quote substay sorry, substantiating.
Speaker 2: Them, which would have had included what I had said
Speaker 2: earlier on the ABC. Can we go back and play
Speaker 2: the grab. I'm sorry to keep doing this to your
Speaker 2: control room tonight, but can we go back and play
Speaker 2: all of this crap?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: There's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of words before this
Speaker 3: is what she said.
Speaker 7: For a major political ley that be saying, as Nicky says,
Speaker 7: you know everything that's going wrong in this country is
Speaker 7: because of migrants, and you know I had sudden flash
Speaker 7: of people turning up to try to read a property
Speaker 7: or at an auction, and they look a bit different
Speaker 7: whatever you defined different as that basically he has given
Speaker 7: them license to be abused.
Speaker 2: She didn't really deal with this at the statement, because
Speaker 2: of course this hasn't been the focus of much of
Speaker 2: the conversation. She can, of course, immediately then pulls the
Speaker 2: shield of the ABC in front of her. This is
Speaker 2: created an opportunity for yet another anti ABC pylon. Yeah,
Speaker 2: because you called Australia a racist country. You suggested a
Speaker 2: situation when fellow Australians would turn on each other because
Speaker 2: of the way they look when they turn up to
Speaker 2: an auction. This is not helpful to me. You're the
Speaker 2: victim or the ABC or the national debate. Well, guess what, sorry,
Speaker 2: criticizing you does not affect the national debate. You criticizing
Speaker 2: me does not affect the national debate. Get out of yourself.
Speaker 2: I'm so proud of my work as a journalist at
Speaker 2: the ABC on all of its platforms, and I.
Speaker 3: Let that work speak for itself.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, because when you do end up speaking
Speaker 2: for yourself at libbing, you say things like you really mean,
Speaker 2: like Australia is a racist country. It is based always
Speaker 2: on solid research and a lifetime of experience reporting on
Speaker 2: Australian politics. What that you think that there's going to
Speaker 2: be Australians turning on Australians at auctions because they quote
Speaker 2: unquote look different. That work is built on and delivered
Speaker 2: in the frame work of the ABC's very high editorial
Speaker 2: standards poice. They marked their own homework, They let themselves off.
Speaker 2: Any criticism is a pylon. That's not helpful to me.
Speaker 2: What about I'm sorry? What about I'm wrong? What about
Speaker 2: I shouldn't have said that? No, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 3: Here's the She was able to.
Speaker 2: Produce her school project, the proof everything was right, and
Speaker 2: didn't really deal with the bit where she just made
Speaker 2: up a scenario that she was admonishing Peter Dutton for.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: What will happen is that she will, of course be
Speaker 2: completely embraced by the machine. She will be nothing but
Speaker 2: defended in all directions because you see, apparently there are
Speaker 2: people that are beyond criticism, There are people that are
Speaker 2: beyond observation, beyond ridicule, beyond a joke. And who knew
Speaker 2: they all work in the one building and they all
Speaker 2: mark each other's homework A plus.
Speaker 3: A plus ABC plus.
Speaker 2: Another example of it again, the multifaceted ways at which
Speaker 2: they get the same message across. Peter Dutton as always
Speaker 2: the focus of the government because of course he's the
Speaker 2: biggest threat to them being able to hold onto government.
Speaker 3: But the assumption is the.
Speaker 2: Teals won't move anywhere, so don't worry Peter Dutton. It's
Speaker 2: just a bit of noise between.
Speaker 3: Now and then.
Speaker 2: We can keep lying about China, we keep pretending to
Speaker 2: be transparent, you know, all that stuff. We can make
Speaker 2: the economy worse. But no, no, Peter Dutton is a real problem.
Speaker 2: And of course one of the ways that they are
Speaker 2: going to come with Peter Dutton is again to say
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party has a problem with women.
Speaker 3: Liberal Party has a problem with women.
Speaker 2: Send the message until they have a statistical problem with women,
Speaker 2: certainly what happened at the last election. Well, until people
Speaker 2: are told, I know I'm stumbling tonight so much, I
Speaker 2: apologize about why the problem with women. Before that narrative
Speaker 2: starts up, I wanted to show you the essential poll,
Speaker 2: you know, the one in the Guardian that shows this
Speaker 2: dead level right now between the Labor and the Liberal Party.
Speaker 3: It's not great.
Speaker 2: It's a primary vout of twenty nine percent, but still
Speaker 2: there is no difference right now in the female vote
Speaker 2: between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party as the
Speaker 2: equal number one options for women. So it is time
Speaker 2: to send a message out that Peter Dutton has a
Speaker 2: problem with women. And if Peter Dutton it doesn't have
Speaker 2: a problem with women, women should have a problem with
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton.
Speaker 3: Who is the person.
Speaker 2: Who is sending this message none other than again one
Speaker 2: of the High Priestesses of the ABC. Cannot be questioned,
Speaker 2: cannot be ridiculed because that would be a pilot and
Speaker 2: that's not helpful for me or national debates. And miss
Speaker 2: Crab says today among opposition leaders, Peter Dunne is a
Speaker 2: miracle survival story, but easy about to nuke himself with
Speaker 2: women vote as well?
Speaker 3: Oh here we go.
Speaker 2: Pety Dutton is a freak of nature politically that is, oh,
Speaker 2: always thought you did there. Two years in Dutton is
Speaker 2: not only still in office, but nobody inside his own
Speaker 2: party or even the National Party is trying to blow
Speaker 2: him out of it. Truly extraordinary achievement. Well that's cause
Speaker 2: Malcolm's not there anymore. But then we get to eventually
Speaker 2: to the issue that apparently is going to cost the
Speaker 2: Liberal Party votes with women and its nuclear power.
Speaker 3: Apparently.
Speaker 2: Truly fascinating detail in the survey that she was having
Speaker 2: a look at is when you dig down into especially
Speaker 2: who loves the idea of nuclear and who hates it,
Speaker 2: the biggest difference of opinion on nuclear, it turns out
Speaker 2: breaks along gender lines. Yeah, the person who has a
Speaker 2: problem with women is the guy who's talking about what
Speaker 2: form of energy, not the guy who literally makes women
Speaker 2: cry at rallies about domestic violence. Oh, he's the preferred
Speaker 2: candidate right, A bit like it's racist if Peter Dunton
Speaker 2: wants to cut immigration for housing, but it's not racist
Speaker 2: if Albo wants to do it.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I see the logic now, you remember.
Speaker 2: I was particularly annoyed going into the last election about
Speaker 2: a little decision which was made by the then Palachet
Speaker 2: government in Queensland. This was a disgraceful and I mean
Speaker 2: disgraceful decision that they tried to push in I think
Speaker 2: in the last week of Parliament before the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 2: and it was to do with the Crime and Corruption
Speaker 2: Commission in Queensland. Back then the then Attorney General who
Speaker 2: then became the Health Minister who's now the Attorney General again,
Speaker 2: tried to introduce a law to make it, and I quote,
Speaker 2: a criminal offense for me to tell you on this
Speaker 2: show if somebody who was putting themselves up for Parliament
Speaker 2: was being investigated by the Corruption Commission. They would make
Speaker 2: it a crime for anyone in any media anywhere to
Speaker 2: say if somebody's name on the ballot was also the
Speaker 2: name of somebody who was being investigated by the Corruption Commission.
Speaker 2: He was the minister at the time.
Speaker 8: There is no argument, Deputy Speaker, this is undoubtedly a
Speaker 8: challenging issue, but it is not one that the Palishe
Speaker 8: government is going to shy away from.
Speaker 2: Except they did after we made it rather public what
Speaker 2: the problem was and the rest of the media started
Speaker 2: to catch on because all of this had actually taken
Speaker 2: place pretty late one night or when nobody else was looking.
Speaker 3: And this was back when most of the media.
Speaker 2: Were pretty much doing whatever the Palaschet government wanted them to,
Speaker 2: because you know, she's keeping it safe and she's the
Speaker 2: one who's saving everyone from the you know, it seemed
Speaker 2: like it was going to be a pretty easy victory.
Speaker 2: It turned out, of course, to be a pretty easy
Speaker 2: victory for Palachet, but even that media that was pretty
Speaker 2: compliant started to blow up about it. The ABC again
Speaker 2: in particular, started to blow up about it. So you
Speaker 2: had people like this blowing up about the idea.
Speaker 9: It's a real attack on the community's right to information
Speaker 9: to hold the powerful accountable.
Speaker 4: The legislation would have punished a reporter with up to
Speaker 4: six months jail, but not stop the person making the complaint.
Speaker 2: So thankfully it didn't happen. Paul, why are you mentioning
Speaker 2: something from four years ago, because guess who as the
Speaker 2: brand new premiere is also fiddling with what you should
Speaker 2: or shouldn't know about the people who do and don't
Speaker 2: go before the Crime and Corruption Commission. Now, of course
Speaker 2: there are people who are found to be corrupt, they
Speaker 2: are charged to be corrupted, and they go on to
Speaker 2: the next level. They do not collect two hundred dollars,
Speaker 2: and they often go to a scenario that could will
Speaker 2: end up in jail. But this premiere is trying to
Speaker 2: tell the Crime and Corruption Commission that basically, unless you
Speaker 2: find someone corrupt, you can often know other commentary about
Speaker 2: the behavior that got them in front of the Corruption
Speaker 2: Commission in the first place, Stephen Miles will ban Quenslane's
Speaker 2: anti corruption watchdog from making critical commentary about politicians who
Speaker 2: are not convicted of a crime under sweeping new laws,
Speaker 2: forcing the Crime and Corruption Commission to do most of
Speaker 2: its work in secret.
Speaker 3: Now, there have.
Speaker 2: Been plenty of people that have gone near corruption commissions
Speaker 2: in the past who don't end up getting charged, but
Speaker 2: because of some of the critical findings or some of
Speaker 2: the things that have been said during that process, their
Speaker 2: political career disappears. Because guess what, it shouldn't just be
Speaker 2: a crime that ends up disqualifying you from being able
Speaker 2: to be in charge of a ministry and therefore the
Speaker 2: public purse. But Stephen Miles thinks that going into this election,
Speaker 2: let's put a muzzle on the corruption watchdog, exactly the
Speaker 2: same opinion that was offered by the previous premier and
Speaker 2: the previous government, but instead of gagging the media, they
Speaker 2: gag the organization. Now, of course this has nothing to
Speaker 2: do whatsoever with the former deputy Premier and an investigation
Speaker 2: which is being done by that organization into her Jackie
Speaker 2: trad where the assumption is that in the next couple
Speaker 2: of months, we will actually see a full detailed report
Speaker 2: about matters that have been before that commission. Wouldn't it
Speaker 2: just be convenient for the Miles government if they move
Speaker 2: the law that says unless somebody is up for a
Speaker 2: criminal charge, then basically you can't say anything bad about them,
Speaker 2: and then a report may need to be slightly edited
Speaker 2: to make sure that well, it wasn't a criminal offense,
Speaker 2: but there might have been some other stuff that was around.
Speaker 2: Now again, I don't know. I'm not casting persons on
Speaker 2: Jackie Trade's character. It's just a little convenient. Don't you
Speaker 2: think that the report into the former Deputy Premier of
Speaker 2: the Labor Party may well end up having to be
Speaker 2: rewritten by the new laws introduced by the Labor Party.
Speaker 3: Nothing to see here right now. Trump is back in court.
Speaker 2: And today is the day when the jury will now
Speaker 2: finally get the opportunity to start working out whether they're
Speaker 2: going to find him guilty or not. Now, there was
Speaker 2: an absurd amount of time, literally all day yesterday was
Speaker 2: taken up by the closing arguments.
Speaker 3: But all of that is done, it is over.
Speaker 2: There will be a couple of hours tops, but that
Speaker 2: would be ridiculous for.
Speaker 3: The judge to give his advice to the jury.
Speaker 2: And look, we know how invested the judges in one
Speaker 2: particular outcome, so no surprise, there'll be handed a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of stuff. That's code for find him guilty, find
Speaker 2: him guilty, find him guilty. But what has been fascinating
Speaker 2: to watch is even in parts of the media that
Speaker 2: have just wall to wall covered this with every detail,
Speaker 2: and they've only ever had prosecutors on and Trump's one
Speaker 2: hundred percent guilty that even CNN said what I said
Speaker 2: last night, that they haven't actually proven the case.
Speaker 10: There is reasonable doubt all over this case. Where is
Speaker 10: Keith Schiller? Where is Alan Weiselberg? How did Michael Cohene
Speaker 10: get away with stealing thirty thousand dollars hold a pity
Speaker 10: party for him? Made four million dollars on this thought
Speaker 10: he'd be chief of staff.
Speaker 1: He's a fixer.
Speaker 10: Why do we need to know whether or not the
Speaker 10: former president warre condom or not. It's simply about did
Speaker 10: the former president know that books his records four centuries
Speaker 10: for legal fees? Michael cohe was his lawyer. Did he
Speaker 10: intend to cover up the election or to protect his family?
Speaker 2: It's every everywhere he'll never be seen again on their
Speaker 2: AA Wives. Anyway, we'll talk about this and a whole
Speaker 2: lot more with Megan Kelly. She thinks, regardless of the
Speaker 2: fact I haven't proven the crime, it is a lifty
Speaker 2: jury with a lifty judge and being pushed to a
Speaker 2: certain decision.
Speaker 11: The case really comes down to the jury instructions and
Speaker 11: the verdict form, and that judge is going to lead
Speaker 11: this jury right to the water that reads guilty. You know,
Speaker 11: come here, worthy, drink, drink from the fountain of guilt.
Speaker 12: It's right here.
Speaker 2: And Kelly in a moment Broman Bishop Stephen Conroy next
Speaker 2: has no doubt they furiously agreed that Andrew Giles should
Speaker 2: remain a Minister of the Crown. And a whole lot
Speaker 2: more here on Paul Murray Life. Thank you very much
Speaker 2: for watching. Broman Bishop is here with Stephen Conroy. They're
Speaker 2: both just here to help. They both carry out a
Speaker 2: chance and they both got plenty of stay tonight. So
Speaker 2: Bromwin Andrew Giles, there's any of immigration minister who yes,
Speaker 2: was doing the bidding of the Prime minister who basically
Speaker 2: flipped a system to help her just sit at donapp
Speaker 2: before she jumped and before labor got punted in New Zealand.
Speaker 2: But how many times in a row can this bloke
Speaker 2: be proven to be not up to it, argue one
Speaker 2: thing one way and go the other way the next day.
Speaker 3: Surely he's got to go.
Speaker 8: Right, Well he should, but I'll tell you why it's not.
Speaker 8: Because he's the pawn of the Prime Minister, right he
Speaker 8: acts to have him around like a little plaque so
Speaker 8: he can hav him come out with all the statements
Speaker 8: he once made and he can cop all the pun
Speaker 8: an our an easy committee over here, not suffering the pain.
Speaker 8: That's a classic. That's exactly what happened with the Adurn stuff. Yes,
Speaker 8: and there's Direction ninety nine and I just love the
Speaker 8: language today.
Speaker 3: Please.
Speaker 8: It was the new direction will ensure that all members
Speaker 8: of the New Review Tribunal will adopt a common sense
Speaker 8: approach to the visa decisions consistent with the intent of
Speaker 8: Ministerial Direction ninety nine. I'd love to know what that means. Oh,
Speaker 8: he tells us. This means ensuring protection of the community
Speaker 8: outweighs other considerations. Yeah, boy, I want to see that wording.
Speaker 2: Well, but don't forget and don't forget Stephen one of
Speaker 2: the ways that this has certain moved its way out
Speaker 2: that a bloke from Africa who ended up marrying an
Speaker 2: Indigenous woman having children with her, says he's indigenous because,
Speaker 2: among other things, he can play the digerido. This has
Speaker 2: gone crazy. The Prime Minister says, it's going to flip
Speaker 2: back the other way. So I don't know partial credit
Speaker 2: for admitting a mistake, but how big is the mistake right,
Speaker 2: surely he's got to go.
Speaker 9: Look, I think what was also admitted today, which you
Speaker 9: haven't focused on and some of the media haven't focused on,
Speaker 9: was quite extraordinary admission by the head of the department
Speaker 9: that they had failed to do their job. Now, for
Speaker 9: those who don't know who Stephanie Foster is, she got
Speaker 9: parachuted into Immigration. Her title was Associate Secretary, so over
Speaker 9: a year ago she was put in charge. She was
Speaker 9: there as extra reinforcement inside Home Affairs, so she has
Speaker 9: had sole responsibility about this for.
Speaker 1: Well over a year.
Speaker 9: So when Andrew Giles puts it in place, as you've
Speaker 9: correctly said, it was done and I was surprised by it.
Speaker 9: I wouldn't have done it myself. Around the Ardourne, New
Speaker 9: Zealand issuecifically. The minister specifically said, now I need to
Speaker 9: be kept abreast if there are any knock on consequences
Speaker 9: of this in this cohort of really bad people over here.
Speaker 8: Have you any idea?
Speaker 1: Could you please be quiet?
Speaker 8: Throwing?
Speaker 9: Could you just be quiet and let me finish.
Speaker 1: I think she threw.
Speaker 9: She threw herself under the bus, and she should resign,
Speaker 9: So I'll go.
Speaker 1: I'll actually go that far.
Speaker 9: This person was solely put in charge of the immigration issues.
Speaker 9: She was supposed to supervise the actual you know, here's
Speaker 9: a big problem. If it starts to bleed over in here.
Speaker 9: I need to know about it so I can cancel
Speaker 9: some more visas.
Speaker 3: But what about it?
Speaker 1: And then sits there.
Speaker 9: No, sorry, let me, I haven't finished, the brown minister
Speaker 9: and then he says, I'm sorry. We failed. We failed,
Speaker 9: We failed to keep this area properly staffed. I don't
Speaker 9: believe that's true. But but I don't believe that area
Speaker 9: was understaffed at all. I think it is down purely
Speaker 9: and simply to the incompetence of the official.
Speaker 1: And she should resign, so the officials should go.
Speaker 9: What's happened also today, you've made this No she they
Speaker 9: put in place at Minister's direction that her job was
Speaker 9: to brief him if there were a bleeding of the use.
Speaker 1: Of ninety nine.
Speaker 3: Board.
Speaker 1: So he's never.
Speaker 9: This was her responsibility and she failed it, and she's humiliated.
Speaker 8: It's the minister's responsibility, and you know it, So.
Speaker 9: Okay when this public goes public and says should ye fowl.
Speaker 8: And al believes he wrote because he liked the flogging,
Speaker 8: so he can do what he wants. And honestly, it
Speaker 8: was the trade off of the addern agreement. He wasn't
Speaker 8: going to send New Zealanders back to New Zealand when
Speaker 8: they had done really bad things.
Speaker 2: Now forgive me, lots of people have had plenty to
Speaker 2: say about that. Even though we could go on for
Speaker 2: a while, they can Kelly's up in a couple of seconds.
Speaker 2: I have no doubt that both of you were watching
Speaker 2: my editorial taking notes Stephen the Green furiously. So I
Speaker 2: am going to, without notice throw a question at both
Speaker 2: of you. Sent in estimates yesterday it comes out financial
Speaker 2: review reports. I give it a bit more focus tonight.
Speaker 2: Prime Minister said that at all levels they reacted to
Speaker 2: China about the helicopter that may well have ended up
Speaker 2: getting blown out of the sky. The channel on reporting,
Speaker 2: remember was if it wasn't for the skill of the pilot,
Speaker 2: then this thing could have ended up becoming catastrophic, right,
Speaker 2: Prime Minister says at Beef Week, all levels we discussed,
Speaker 2: guess what, No fun calls at the ministerial level, no
Speaker 2: phone calls at the leadership level. And one of the
Speaker 2: examples of communication between the two countries was what he
Speaker 2: said at beefwek now Broman.
Speaker 3: Hed at Beef Week.
Speaker 2: That's right, just like he lied the last time when
Speaker 2: it was of course hmas to Wombo. Yet this will
Speaker 2: be the longest conversation that you'll see about it on
Speaker 2: television and radio, because the circus moves on.
Speaker 8: Absolutely. If you'd said it in Parliament then he would
Speaker 8: be in trouble. But that's he's just not up to it.
Speaker 8: For all I've said again and again over twenty years,
Speaker 8: I sat in that chamber with him, and nobody ever
Speaker 8: said he was leadership material. And I watched I think
Speaker 8: Bridget mackenzie was pointing out that the troops are getting restless.
Speaker 8: The ones who see themselves as potential leaders who do
Speaker 8: a better job, they start to get redless.
Speaker 1: Because they start to see.
Speaker 8: Is that my seat that's going?
Speaker 1: Where am I?
Speaker 3: It is?
Speaker 8: It becomes like a tagent within a political party.
Speaker 2: But okay, Stephen, back to the shadow defense stuff, right,
Speaker 2: what would you have said of a prime minister who
Speaker 2: said that they've raised it at every possible level, but
Speaker 2: the reality is they haven't.
Speaker 9: Well, Paul, I know you have a real be in
Speaker 9: your bondom on this one. I just don't accept your
Speaker 9: basic premise.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 9: The way you're trying to interpret the Prime minister's words,
Speaker 9: it's your interpretation of the primary resource.
Speaker 1: I don't agree. Okay.
Speaker 9: One of the key differences, no one, no one remotely
Speaker 9: thinks that meant he picked up the phone to g
Speaker 9: and go on.
Speaker 1: That was the impression you meant to make, Paul.
Speaker 9: That is that that is just a delusional interpretation. Okay.
Speaker 9: The one key difference between labor and liberals on this
Speaker 9: issue is they're not conducting what you would call foghorn diplomacy.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're screaming the Chinese rooftops just quietly.
Speaker 3: Would you have gone made about that? Knock it off?
Speaker 3: You would right as.
Speaker 2: A defense minister to the other defense at the moment,
Speaker 2: because the evidence at the moment is that didn't happen.
Speaker 9: At the moment the Chinese engaged in such consistent, disruptive behavior,
Speaker 9: you'd have to have a permanent open line to the Chinese.
Speaker 9: That is not how diploment, how you want to try
Speaker 9: and explain it to And it was a disgraceful, a
Speaker 9: disgraceful attack. But I'm a commentator. You're a commentator. We
Speaker 9: get to do that. The failure of the last government
Speaker 9: was that couldn't walk into gum when it came to China.
Speaker 9: We're able to overtly openly critical.
Speaker 8: Steven that the this current government keeps boasting about having
Speaker 8: restored communications with the Chinese, which was absent from the
Speaker 8: last government. You keep saying, as others do, but they
Speaker 8: couldn't pick up a phone to make it complaint about
Speaker 8: what had happened.
Speaker 1: That handsome texting not critical. I'm not critical.
Speaker 9: I'm not critical of the previous governments in terms of
Speaker 9: it took some robust positions, but the sort of response
Speaker 9: for your suggesting is as moronic as moronic as Tony
Speaker 9: Habbitt going I'm going to shirt front Pewtin. If that's
Speaker 9: the definition of diplomacy, I'll leave that to Bromwin and
Speaker 9: Tony bish. But that's not how it were. I would
Speaker 9: like in the real world of diplomacy to.
Speaker 2: Ring the other defense miss to say hey, knock that
Speaker 2: stuff off right, or hey can you tell.
Speaker 3: Me more about this? There's a way I get it,
Speaker 3: you know, just pick up the phone and start screaming.
Speaker 2: But the idea that they are telling the Australian publics,
Speaker 2: they're not going to Yeah that's the point, right slash.
Speaker 9: They're going to ignore China. China are going to ignore
Speaker 9: all of our protestations. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: Sure, but.
Speaker 1: People, he pretended that you are trying.
Speaker 9: He is your interpretation, he said, he said we the
Speaker 9: gravity is the word.
Speaker 1: He was fine, and we have made that trade and go.
Speaker 9: We means I picked up the phone and ruck call
Speaker 9: g that's what That's what it means.
Speaker 1: Just a quick one.
Speaker 9: I don't think Trump will get convicted.
Speaker 3: Just one newsplash for you, all right, Well from there
Speaker 3: now you've made me happy. At the end you call
Speaker 3: be disgraceful and all the rest of it. But we
Speaker 3: agree on that. Thank you, guys.
Speaker 2: Meghan Kelly is nicked straight up of the break you're
Speaker 2: on for Murray live her thoughts on the Trump trial from.
Speaker 3: An agree that he shouldn't be found guilty.
Speaker 6: Correct, Absolutely, our favorite time of the week to talk
Speaker 6: to our favorite person in the world, none of them,
Speaker 6: the wonderful Meghan Kelly in the United States.
Speaker 3: How are a rock? Start?
Speaker 1: How are you doing?
Speaker 8: For so?
Speaker 2: Closing arguments in the Trump trial, it took up all day.
Speaker 3: This should have been like one hour your turn, one hour,
Speaker 3: my turn. Let's get on with it.
Speaker 1: Kill me.
Speaker 11: I mean absolutely loving the sound of their own voices.
Speaker 11: And I have to make a distinction here between the
Speaker 11: defense and the prosecution. The defense has a man's potential
Speaker 11: freedom on the line, potentially the freedom of the country,
Speaker 11: the future of the free world, since they're banking on
Speaker 11: this thing stopping Donald Trump from winning. He took just
Speaker 11: over two hours, almost two and a half hours.
Speaker 1: That actually is.
Speaker 11: A reasonable amount of time. Could have done it shorter,
Speaker 11: but it's not totally unreasonable. The prosecution estimated four and
Speaker 11: a half hours. They're still going right now, and this
Speaker 11: poor jury, they're only human. They have to sit there
Speaker 11: and they have to look at the guy as he's talking,
Speaker 11: and you know, for them, now this is our what
Speaker 11: So four and a half two and a half says
Speaker 11: six and a half.
Speaker 12: Is that whatever is, it will be like seven hours.
Speaker 11: And they have to actually keep looking at him like
Speaker 11: I'm interested, I'm paying attention.
Speaker 12: You know they're yawning. You know they're getting the glassy eyes.
Speaker 11: And this prosecutor, had he been smart, would have kept
Speaker 11: it tight, tight, tight, excuse me, Paul would have kept
Speaker 11: it tight, tight, tight, would have gotten up there and saidification.
Speaker 1: You know they did that.
Speaker 11: Here's how you know of business records in order to
Speaker 11: conceal or commit another unlevel act.
Speaker 12: Here's how they did that, and here's the unlovel act.
Speaker 11: That's it done by keep it clear, give him three
Speaker 11: clear points to hold on to when they go back
Speaker 11: into the jury room. He made it harder for them
Speaker 11: to understand this very complex legal theory and did himself
Speaker 11: no favors.
Speaker 2: I don't think that the prosecution has made its case.
Speaker 2: So what did you think all of the defense and
Speaker 2: trying to get to that one jura who might hold
Speaker 2: the whole process up and finish this thing off.
Speaker 12: I didn't like it. I didn't like it.
Speaker 11: I just he too, It's like, stop meandering, here's what happens.
Speaker 11: People fall, So in love with the case that they
Speaker 11: heard or they thought they tried, that they forget the
Speaker 11: importance of clarity and brevity. Like the jury, I understand,
Speaker 11: the rest of us have been on the outside analyzing
Speaker 11: this thing to Kingdom Come for weeks now. The jury
Speaker 11: was in there for all the evidence, but they're.
Speaker 12: Not following it.
Speaker 11: When they go home with NonStop CNN, Trump porn analysis
Speaker 11: and every single podcast known to man and all the
Speaker 11: newspapers like, they're probably going home and doing what they're
Speaker 11: supposed to do, which is tuning out the coverage and
Speaker 11: spending time with their families. So what they need now
Speaker 11: is just a very clear roadmap. The best thing the
Speaker 11: defense did was ten reasons why there's a reasonable doubt
Speaker 11: that they ended with that.
Speaker 12: That was very good.
Speaker 11: That's a nice clear way of getting after their main points.
Speaker 11: I actually thought they could have picked better points, to
Speaker 11: be totally honest with you, But fine, that was the
Speaker 11: clearest thing I've heard. But the prosecution's been all over
Speaker 11: the map and still still, Paul, I think they'll be
Speaker 11: rewarded for it, because, as you and I have discussed,
Speaker 11: the case really comes down to the jury instructions and
Speaker 11: the verdict form and that judge is going to lead
Speaker 11: this jury right to the water that reads guilty. You know,
Speaker 11: come here, wor see drink, drink from the out and
Speaker 11: of guilt.
Speaker 12: It's right here. And there have already been some rulings
Speaker 12: behind the scenes. We have yet to see the jury instructions.
Speaker 11: He hasn't released them, even though they are the public's business.
Speaker 11: But we understand, for example, that the prosecution proposed a
Speaker 11: jury instruction, and we've read that the defense did not object,
Speaker 11: which seems impossible and I really hope is wrong. If so,
Speaker 11: Trump's going to have an inassistance of council grounds for
Speaker 11: appeal if he loses. But there is a suggestion in
Speaker 11: these jury instructions that a general intent when it comes
Speaker 11: to proving the fraud count is enough.
Speaker 12: That's not true.
Speaker 1: In the law.
Speaker 11: There needs to be a specific intent when you're talking
Speaker 11: about a fraud case. And the only areas in which
Speaker 11: they say a general intent to defraud, like, gee, I'm
Speaker 11: just going to commit a fraud. I'm going to commit
Speaker 11: a fraud today. I'm just like some general people out there,
Speaker 11: I don't know who. The only times where the courts
Speaker 11: allow that, and the Supreme Court just only recently upheld
Speaker 11: this is in connection with dough financial frauds money, which
Speaker 11: is even arguably the case here. So who specifically was
Speaker 11: Trump defrauding? The prosecution needs to say and hasn't because
Speaker 11: their own jury instructions say just a general intent to
Speaker 11: defraud the electorate is enough, and it seems like the
Speaker 11: defense didn't argue that point. And that's how this jury's
Speaker 11: going to be instructed. That's just one of what I
Speaker 11: guarantee will be many problems with these jury instructions that,
Speaker 11: as I said, will lead the little horses right to
Speaker 11: the fountain of guilt.
Speaker 1: And what about the garbage outside tonight?
Speaker 2: Robert de Niro, officially sent by the Biden campaign, makes
Speaker 2: himself look like an idiot and reminds us why Trump
Speaker 2: is so popular.
Speaker 12: It's so stupid. It was colossally stupid.
Speaker 11: If you're going to send somebody to go speak outside
Speaker 11: of the Trump trial, make it someone who's universally beloved,
Speaker 11: like a Michelle Obama.
Speaker 12: You know, she's not universally loved, She's not loved on
Speaker 12: the right.
Speaker 11: But I'm saying, like, at least within the left and
Speaker 11: the center left and maybe even some center righties. Robert
Speaker 11: de Niro has gone so hard partisan over the past
Speaker 11: eight years. He is like example number one of Trump
Speaker 11: arrangement syndrome. He's one of those on moving to Canada
Speaker 11: if he wins, and he's never gonna leave the White House.
Speaker 11: If he wins, We're going to have Trump forever more.
Speaker 11: I mean, hello, I hate to break it to you
Speaker 11: because I realize you're advanced age too, Robert, but people die,
Speaker 11: so we will leave one way or the other.
Speaker 1: He's going to go.
Speaker 11: And in the not too distant future, even if Trump
Speaker 11: says he shouldn't have to.
Speaker 12: But an event, he.
Speaker 11: Didn't do that the last time, Paul, can you really
Speaker 11: picture a scenario in which Trump is more determined to
Speaker 11: hold onto power than he was at the last time
Speaker 11: in twenty twenty, you know, going into twenty twenty one.
Speaker 12: And what did he do? Ultimately he left. He did leave.
Speaker 12: He did it under protest.
Speaker 11: He was a baby about it, he pouted and then
Speaker 11: some but he left. So but this is the latest
Speaker 11: narrative from the left that he will never leave. And
Speaker 11: on top of that, they bring out two cops who
Speaker 11: were there on January sixth at the usk Apital. Who
Speaker 11: are I mean rabbid Trump haters who are on CNN
Speaker 11: every night telling another terrible story about Trump for their
Speaker 11: feelings about So.
Speaker 12: It's likely no one's listening to them, like literally nobody.
Speaker 11: And so the other plan that we learned today that
Speaker 11: the White House has is apparently Joe Biden, mister, I'm
Speaker 11: not involved in any of this, even though I just
Speaker 11: sent my campaign to make comments about the trial at
Speaker 11: the trial site. Is when and if Trump is convicted,
Speaker 11: prepared to deliver a statement himself from the White House,
Speaker 11: which is totally inappropriate and totally stupid. Only in recent
Speaker 11: eras like the recent era of Barack Obama, have we
Speaker 11: had presidents feeling the need to comment on legal cases
Speaker 11: that used to be a hard no no in the
Speaker 11: United States. Our presidents stayed out of the criminal justice system.
Speaker 11: Only Barack Obama started violating that norm, and now it's
Speaker 11: getting broken by everyone, and so we don't need to
Speaker 11: hear the president comment on the criminal case of one man,
Speaker 11: whether it's Joe Schmoe or Donald Trump. He's obviously doing
Speaker 11: it for a political advantage.