Speaker 1: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer had this to say
Speaker 1: on Fox News recently.
Speaker 2: No one believes this was a coincidence that on the
Speaker 2: same day the FBI produced a document that showed they've
Speaker 2: been sitting on allegations of a Biden bribery for years.
Speaker 2: That Donald Trump just happened to be indicted by the
Speaker 2: Special Council for mishandling and classified documents when Joe Biden
Speaker 2: himself mishandled classified documents on a much greater scale than
Speaker 2: what Donald Trump did, and we haven't heard a thing
Speaker 2: from that Special Council.
Speaker 1: So is that what this is all about. We know
Speaker 1: that Democrats have been trying to get Donald Trump from
Speaker 1: day one. The latest is thirty seven phony charges from
Speaker 1: the federal government ranging from the wilful retention of national
Speaker 1: defense information to conspiracy to obstruct justice. We're going to
Speaker 1: dig into those charges and get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: What you need to know, where this is going and
Speaker 1: what it means. I'm sure you've heard a lot about
Speaker 1: the Presidential Records Act. What is it and how does
Speaker 1: it play into this case. We're going to get into
Speaker 1: all of this with former Chief Assistant US Attorney Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy's also a senior fellow at the National Review Institute
Speaker 1: and a Fox News contributor. Stay tuned for Annie McCarthy. Well,
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, I appreciate you taking the time to come on.
Speaker 1: You've joined us before, and I feel like, in such
Speaker 1: a thoughtful manner, really took us through the New York
Speaker 1: City indictment against Donald Trump. So I appreciate you making
Speaker 1: the time this time.
Speaker 3: It's my pleasure. Lisa. Thanks.
Speaker 1: And then of course that gets to, you know, sort
Speaker 1: of the frustration of where we are now. We've now
Speaker 1: had two unprecedented indictments against a former president. Obviously, this
Speaker 1: has never happened before in American history. Is this the
Speaker 1: right direction for the country.
Speaker 3: No, it's a terrible direction. And I wish we could
Speaker 3: say the half of it was over. But I think,
Speaker 3: you know, in August, we're going to get yet another
Speaker 3: indictment from Fulton County, Georgia, in connection with the with
Speaker 3: the election stuff from twenty twenty. In October, Lisa, I
Speaker 3: feel like everybody's going to sleep on this one. But
Speaker 3: in October, the civil trial that was brought by Letitia James,
Speaker 3: the Attorney General in New York who ran on using
Speaker 3: her power to go after Trump. That trial starts on
Speaker 3: October third. That's going to be a major fraud trial
Speaker 3: that's going to take a number of weeks. And as
Speaker 3: we just saw with the last civil trial that Trump
Speaker 3: had with Egene Carroll, it's tough being a defendant in
Speaker 3: a civil case. There's a lot of disadvantages that litigation wise,
Speaker 3: that are where you lack the protections you have as
Speaker 3: a defendant in a criminal case. So I think that
Speaker 3: could be that could be worse than people are focused on.
Speaker 3: We have this new case with Smith, and what I
Speaker 3: have started to try to remind people is that Smith
Speaker 3: is a special counsel like Muller was and like so
Speaker 3: at some point, I don't think he's going to charge
Speaker 3: Trump with January sixth stuff. But I do think he's
Speaker 3: going to write a report like Muller did and like
Speaker 3: Durham did, and they will drop that some you know,
Speaker 3: it's some advantageous moment for them during the election cycle.
Speaker 3: So no, it's a terrible you know, we've had now
Speaker 3: how many presidential election cycles in a row where we
Speaker 3: have law enforcement pervasively involved in electoral politics. It's terrible
Speaker 3: for the country.
Speaker 1: Looking at this case that he is going to be
Speaker 1: facing in the Southern District of Florida where I live.
Speaker 1: I live in Miami. In South Florida thirty seven felon
Speaker 1: accounts ranging from things like will for retention of national
Speaker 1: defense information to conspiracy to obstruct justice. After reading the indictment,
Speaker 1: what do you make of it?
Speaker 3: It's not quite the indictment that I thought it was
Speaker 3: going to be. In two ways. I thought number one,
Speaker 3: that if he really wanted to get to trial quickly,
Speaker 3: he would have indicted it lean and mean and just
Speaker 3: done the obstruction stuff, because I think it's the obstruction
Speaker 3: stuff that their political messaging is that what distinguishes Trump
Speaker 3: from say Biden, who also illegally retained classified information, is
Speaker 3: that Biden supposedly cooperated to the utmost with the investigation,
Speaker 3: while Trump obstructed the investigation and lied to the grand jury.
Speaker 3: So I would have expected that that was what he
Speaker 3: was going to front, and I thought that maybe it
Speaker 3: would be the only charges he brought. The problem Lisa
Speaker 3: was bringing the espionage Jack counts from a from a
Speaker 3: prosecution perspective, as if you're trying to get the trial
Speaker 3: the case to trial quickly, which he claims he is
Speaker 3: trying to do. That opens up a lot of litigation
Speaker 3: issues about what classified information is going to be admitted
Speaker 3: at the trial. I was really surprised reading the indictment
Speaker 3: at how descriptive it was about the thirty one classified
Speaker 3: documents that they've made the heart of the case. Usually
Speaker 3: the government takes the position that we can't even whisper
Speaker 3: or anything about this stuff because it would harm national
Speaker 3: security for any of it to be public. Here, they
Speaker 3: were pretty descriptive about the kind of information that was involved,
Speaker 3: the classification levels that were involved, the duration of time
Speaker 3: that Trump is alleged to have retained these things. And
Speaker 3: I think by doing that, you invite Trump to say
Speaker 3: that in his defense, he needs to give the jury
Speaker 3: a more expansive idea of what's in these documents, which
Speaker 3: is typically what defendants do in these national security classified
Speaker 3: information cases. Not so much because the documents necessarily helped
Speaker 3: them in the sense of being exculpatory, because they know
Speaker 3: the government doesn't want to reveal the contents of the documents,
Speaker 3: so it puts the government in a position of blocking
Speaker 3: the defense from making what they argue is their defense,
Speaker 3: which creates a big issue on appeal, and also because
Speaker 3: this all has to be litigated pre trial into something
Speaker 3: that's called SIPA, which is the Classified Information Procedures Act,
Speaker 3: those proceed those litigations proceed at a glacial pace. I
Speaker 3: had one in a terrorism case in the nineties. At
Speaker 3: the end of it, I think I read toward the
Speaker 3: end of our trial, I read like a nine line
Speaker 3: stipulation to the jury, but it took a year and
Speaker 3: a half of litigation to get there.
Speaker 1: The part where I'm confused is, Okay, if you take
Speaker 1: the instance of Joe Biden, he allegedly has documents from
Speaker 1: his time in the Senate, and if that would be
Speaker 1: the case, you have to enter a skiff you're signing
Speaker 1: documents in it out like you would basically have to
Speaker 1: have like stuffed it in, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: Like to remove documents in that instance, right, would show
Speaker 1: like absolute malice and intent. Whereas with this Donald Trump case,
Speaker 1: it's like a reasonable person could say that there is
Speaker 1: some ambiguity in the sense that like a president does
Speaker 1: have ultimate authority to declassify or classify documents, and so,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it is reasonable to believe that
Speaker 1: there could be ambiguity about is he allowed to keep
Speaker 1: the you know what I mean, like, whereas if you're
Speaker 1: taking documents out of the Senate, it's like, dude, you're
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, you're really trying here, right, And
Speaker 1: so I think that's where there's a lot of confusion
Speaker 1: and you know, maybe doubt or a perception of bias.
Speaker 3: I would say that, you know, having been in these
Speaker 3: kinds of positions, the big difference between the executive branch
Speaker 3: and the legislative branch in this regard is that national
Speaker 3: security officials and the executive branch are on duty twenty
Speaker 3: four to seven, and consequently arrangements are made so that
Speaker 3: they can review classified information at home and in other locations,
Speaker 3: whereas members of Congress are not in that position and
Speaker 3: they have to review if they want to review, they
Speaker 3: have to review national security information in a skiff on
Speaker 3: Capitol Hill and they're not allowed to take it out.
Speaker 3: So I quite agree with you that if Biden had
Speaker 3: information from the time he was in the Senate, he
Speaker 3: had to have willfully taken this, and to me, that
Speaker 3: undermines a lot of his a lot of the points
Speaker 3: he gets for being cooperative with the FBI's investigation. I
Speaker 3: do give him some credit for that. You know, he
Speaker 3: allowed them to search his homes. I don't think he
Speaker 3: did it rapidly enough. I mean, to me, I think
Speaker 3: that Merrick Garland, you know, basically sat on his hands
Speaker 3: and let Biden handle this thing, which was irresponsible on
Speaker 3: Garland's part. But look, he did let the FBI come
Speaker 3: in and search his places and all that stuff, whereas
Speaker 3: with Trump he was a national security official. But you know,
Speaker 3: to the extent they had arrangements in mar A Lago
Speaker 3: while he was president to allow him to review you know,
Speaker 3: I assume they had a skiff down there while he
Speaker 3: was president so that you know, he could review those
Speaker 3: documents under those conditions. You know, when he wasn't president anymore.
Speaker 3: If he didn't have a skiff, he wasn't supposed to
Speaker 3: have that stuff down there, and he would have known that.
Speaker 3: But so you know, there's there's obviously problems. But you're
Speaker 3: right that as president, he would have had the power
Speaker 3: to look at this stuff, or the authority look at
Speaker 3: this stuff in locations other than a skiff in the
Speaker 3: White House. And you know, we're seeing the same thing
Speaker 3: with Pence, right he ended up with documents in his
Speaker 3: House because he was allowed to review stuff there too,
Speaker 3: and he said that it was typical that after he
Speaker 3: reviewed it, he would give it to his military attache
Speaker 3: who brought it and they put it in the burn
Speaker 3: bag or do whatever they do with it. And at
Speaker 3: least on a few occasions it sounds like that didn't happen.
Speaker 3: But you could see, as you're saying, you know, how
Speaker 3: there could be something inadvertent that happened in that kind
Speaker 3: of situation.
Speaker 1: Well, it just feels like everybody does it. But then
Speaker 1: the one guy they're trying to get is the guy
Speaker 1: they've been trying to get since day one. So it's
Speaker 1: just it's it's a feeling of unfairness. And I say
Speaker 1: this as someone who is unsure about, you know, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump being the strongest Republican nominee, right, but it just
Speaker 1: it's a feeling of unfairness and also just concerned about
Speaker 1: the weaponization of the law. You know, there's been a
Speaker 1: lot discussed about the Presidential Records Act and it's a
Speaker 1: little confusing, you know. I read there as an op
Speaker 1: ed in the Wall Street Journal by Michael Bakesha I
Speaker 1: think is his name. I'm probably butchering his last name
Speaker 1: who lost the Clinton socktorre case, and he wrote that
Speaker 1: the Presidential Records Act allows the president to decide what
Speaker 1: records to return and what records to keep at the
Speaker 1: end of a presidency, and the National Archives and Records
Speaker 1: Administration can't do anything about it. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: about that? You know, what are your thoughts about the
Speaker 1: Presidential Records Act? And you know, using it as you know, hey,
Speaker 1: he didn't do anything wrong here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't agree with it, and I think, you know,
Speaker 3: in the op ed and in the commentary about the
Speaker 3: Presidential Records Act, they're leaving out something that's like the
Speaker 3: most critical, straightforward fact, and that is it doesn't apply
Speaker 3: to agency records. It explicitly, the Presidential Records Act explicitly
Speaker 3: excludes agency records from coverage. So, in other words, they're
Speaker 3: saying agency records are not presidential records. What's an issue
Speaker 3: in President Trump's case is agency records specifically are national
Speaker 3: security agencies, and they're classified reporting about various threats to
Speaker 3: the United States and military situations and the like. They're
Speaker 3: not covered by the Presidential Records Act. That act is
Speaker 3: basically what it covers is things that are generated by
Speaker 3: the president and his staff or given to him for
Speaker 3: purposes of carrying out his day to day activities. And
Speaker 3: what he's allowed to keep as opposed to archive is
Speaker 3: things that are in the nature of say diaries or journals.
Speaker 3: And what was at stake in what the op ed
Speaker 3: today in the Wall Street Journal is about were tape
Speaker 3: recordings that Clinton when he was president, created in conjunction
Speaker 3: with a historian who he was working with to compile
Speaker 3: what they helped would be a published history of the
Speaker 3: Clinton presidency. So these were documents that were created by Clinton,
Speaker 3: and they're more in the nature of presidential records than
Speaker 3: agency reports, which is what it's set at stake in
Speaker 3: Trump's case. So I really don't think it's obviously caused
Speaker 3: a lot of confusion, and it's going to give the
Speaker 3: the Trump defenders some things to play with, but you know,
Speaker 3: ultimately an don't think they're going to get very far
Speaker 3: with it.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick commercial break more with Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: on the other side. You know, one could argue that,
Speaker 1: you know, destroying evidence with the hammer or using bleach
Speaker 1: bit to delete emails would be obstruction of justice. You know,
Speaker 1: Yet Hillary Clinton's been unscathed.
Speaker 3: That's a political problem of the discretion that you have
Speaker 3: in law enforcement to bring charges has been politicized, and
Speaker 3: it is totally unfair that she got a pass and
Speaker 3: he gets charged. But I guess the problem for him, Lisa,
Speaker 3: is that selective prosecution as a as a piece of
Speaker 3: political rhetoric is very effective. I think, you know, on
Speaker 3: the stump, Trump is going to have a lot of
Speaker 3: fun comparing his case to Hillary's case and comparing you know,
Speaker 3: to Biden's case and to everyone else who got a
Speaker 3: pass Petraeus Deutsch. You can go down the list of
Speaker 3: people who either didn't get prosecuted at all or got
Speaker 3: to slap on the wrist over stuff that was arguably
Speaker 3: at least as serious as what Trump did. The problem
Speaker 3: with it as a legal strategy is if Trump were
Speaker 3: to argue selective prosecution to try to get his case
Speaker 3: knocked out, the legal test is not going to compare
Speaker 3: Trump to Clinton. It's not like a one on one thing.
Speaker 3: It will be it will be to compare Trump to
Speaker 3: everyone else who gets prosecuted under the Espiona jacked or
Speaker 3: to everyone else who gets prosecuted on obstruction. And he's
Speaker 3: just not going to be able to argue that no
Speaker 3: one gets prosecuted under those provisions. Obstruction cases are very common,
Speaker 3: and when we're dealing with people who are not you know,
Speaker 3: high level celebrity politicians like Trump and Clinton and you know,
Speaker 3: Petraeus and Pence and Biden and the rest of them,
Speaker 3: if you're dealing with just like the normal military officer,
Speaker 3: intelligence officer, defense contractor, those people get prosecuted when they
Speaker 3: when they possess an unlawfully retain classified information that's a
Speaker 3: lot less serious than you know, a lot of the
Speaker 3: stuff we're talking about in these high level cases, and
Speaker 3: it's totally not fair to them either. You know. On
Speaker 3: the one hand, I think Trump is right to say,
Speaker 3: like how come Hillary gets a pass and I don't.
Speaker 3: But you know, if you're a military guy who's who's
Speaker 3: like doing a two year sentence for keeping some stuff
Speaker 3: that you shouldn't have kept in your house, you know,
Speaker 3: you've got a pretty good argument that you know, it's
Speaker 3: likely that Trump may end up being treated better than
Speaker 3: you are, you know.
Speaker 1: So, but it also sends a different message to go
Speaker 1: after that military guy than it does a former president.
Speaker 1: And you know, the leading contender for Republicans in the
Speaker 1: presidential election.
Speaker 3: One could argue with the message it sends is a
Speaker 3: terrible message. It's that the two tier justice system is
Speaker 3: just what your part is, an affiliation is, it's how
Speaker 3: connected you are.
Speaker 1: Obviously, this all stemmed from the National Archives and Records
Speaker 1: administrations seeking documents. If this was anyone but Trump, would
Speaker 1: they have been given more deference.
Speaker 3: Yes, although I think it's fair to say that they
Speaker 3: also gave Trump deference for a long time. And one
Speaker 3: of the things that bothers me about this case is
Speaker 3: the way that people tend to Some of the people
Speaker 3: who will argue about the case tend to collapse the
Speaker 3: you know, the timeline of what happened here. The National
Speaker 3: Archives pleaded with Trump for months to return his stuff,
Speaker 3: and they didn't get the Justice Department involved until almost
Speaker 3: a year after they started asking Trump to give his
Speaker 3: stuff back, when he returned grudgingly fifteen of the boxes,
Speaker 3: which he only did, by the way, because they said that.
Speaker 3: The National Archives said, you know, look, if you're not
Speaker 3: going to give us our stuff back, we're going to
Speaker 3: have to go to the Congressional Committee, the oversight committee
Speaker 3: that deals with this kind of stuff, which was controlled
Speaker 3: by a you know, a portisan Democrat, of course. So
Speaker 3: Trump was angry about that, but he realized that, you know,
Speaker 3: he didn't want that mess. So what they did was
Speaker 3: they gave fifteen boxes, which I think, in the greatest
Speaker 3: scheme of things, is probably less than half of what
Speaker 3: he had down at Mar A Lago. And the only
Speaker 3: reason the Justice Department got involved is when they went
Speaker 3: through those boxes, they found I think it was like
Speaker 3: one hundred and eighty four or something classified document. Some
Speaker 3: of them were highly classified. So at that point the
Speaker 3: Inspector General of the National Archives referred it to the
Speaker 3: Justice Department, and even they didn't want to touch it
Speaker 3: because Biden understood the implications of you know, taking enforcement
Speaker 3: action against a guy he was going to be running
Speaker 3: against in the election, or at least it was a
Speaker 3: very high probability of it. So the FBI and the
Speaker 3: Justice Department didthered for about three months before they did anything,
Speaker 3: And there were messages that were sent to Trump basically saying,
Speaker 3: you know, let's just give us the stuff back and
Speaker 3: then we can call it a day, when he wouldn't
Speaker 3: do it. They didn't leap to like, you know, the harshest,
Speaker 3: most intrusive measure they could have done. They gave him
Speaker 3: a grand jury subpoena, which meant that he could go
Speaker 3: through his own stuff and give them back what they
Speaker 3: were asking for. And at that point they didn't ask
Speaker 3: for every single government document he had. They asked for
Speaker 3: the classified documents, and even then when they asked him
Speaker 3: for that, he didn't. You know, they realized pretty quickly
Speaker 3: that what he gave them, which was thirty eight documents,
Speaker 3: was not everything that he had left, and that was
Speaker 3: why ultimately they did the search warrant. Now, I think, interestingly,
Speaker 3: the FBI didn't want to do the search warrant. You know,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of criticism, which a lot of it's
Speaker 3: very valid against the FBI, but I think this, I
Speaker 3: think the search warrant was more driven by the Biden
Speaker 3: Justice Department than the FBI. What the FBI wanted to
Speaker 3: do was ask Trump to consent to search tomorrow Lago
Speaker 3: to search his home, rather than get a warrant. And
Speaker 3: if they had done that, I don't know if Trump
Speaker 3: would have agreed to this, but at least you would
Speaker 3: have had a situation where, you know, Trump could have
Speaker 3: been present, he could have had his lawyers present, they
Speaker 3: could have accompanied the Bureau and it would have been
Speaker 3: done by agreement, and it probably could have been done
Speaker 3: quietly and without fan fear. The Justice Department didn't want
Speaker 3: to do that, and it's hard to I'm like a
Speaker 3: major critic of the Biden Justice Department, but it's hard
Speaker 3: to criticize them under circumstances where you know, you have
Speaker 3: one government official after another for over eighteen months who's
Speaker 3: asking Trump please just give us our stuff back, and
Speaker 3: he wouldn't do it. Point you know, they don't like
Speaker 3: them to begin with, but I think their patients was
Speaker 3: run out.
Speaker 1: Facing a jury in the southern district of Florida looks
Speaker 1: a lot different than facing a jury in liberal New
Speaker 1: York City. How hard is it going to be for
Speaker 1: prosecutors to win in South Florida, where you do have
Speaker 1: Trump supporters, where you do have Republicans.
Speaker 3: I like to think, Lisa, because I you know, I
Speaker 3: tried cases in New York for twenty years now. Politically,
Speaker 3: fraud cases are a little different from other cases. But
Speaker 3: in my experience, juries tend to you know, they they
Speaker 3: tend to check their politics at the door. In fact,
Speaker 3: I didn't really think that was a phenomenon until recently.
Speaker 3: You know, when I was when I was a prosecutor
Speaker 3: in New York, you know, I was a liberal. I
Speaker 3: was a conservative lawyer in New York. All my best
Speaker 3: friends in the office were Democrats, you know, and it
Speaker 3: wasn't a big deal because the job was more you know,
Speaker 3: clinical than political. And I found that most of the time,
Speaker 3: you know, you can get a crazy jury here or there,
Speaker 3: but for the most part, juries are pretty good at
Speaker 3: listening to what the court tells them and you know,
Speaker 3: applying the law that the judge instructs them on to
Speaker 3: the only the facts that they learn in court. Judges
Speaker 3: in federal court in particular, do a very good job
Speaker 3: of vetting a jury and visiting on them the obligation
Speaker 3: to decide the case based solely on the law and
Speaker 3: the facts and not extraneous concerns. They do a good
Speaker 3: job of weeding out people who are so political they
Speaker 3: don't belong on a case like that. So I have
Speaker 3: confidence because I've seen the system work. I have confidence
Speaker 3: that the system will work and that President Trump will
Speaker 3: get a fair trial, and I hope it'll be decided
Speaker 3: based on, you know, whatever the facts are, rather than
Speaker 3: the politics. But I feel like we're talking a little
Speaker 3: bit of a fantasy or a fiction because the way
Speaker 3: I see it, I don't see how this case gets
Speaker 3: to trial before the election, and depending on how the
Speaker 3: election comes out, I don't know, it may never get
Speaker 3: to trial. I mean if Trump obviously, if Trump were
Speaker 3: the if the Republicans win the election, forget about you know,
Speaker 3: whether it's Trump, I don't think this case would ever
Speaker 3: go forward. I think that, you know, there's enough anger
Speaker 3: on the Republican side over the two tiers of justice.
Speaker 3: I don't think people want to defend Trump's actions, but
Speaker 3: they do want to defend the principle that everybody should
Speaker 3: be treated the same. So I think it will be
Speaker 3: a thing for whoever the Republican nominee is, whether it's
Speaker 3: Trump or somebody else, that if that case hasn't been
Speaker 3: disposed of before the election, the Justice Department will drop
Speaker 3: it in the next administration. And whether the Democrats are
Speaker 3: actually going to pursue it, I guess they will. You know,
Speaker 3: if the Democrats win the election, I suppose then it
Speaker 3: could go to trial. But I just don't see how
Speaker 3: how it gets to trial because I think these classified
Speaker 3: information issues are going to be so hard to work through.
Speaker 3: Trump's got to get lawyers who are cleared for national
Speaker 3: security information. That takes time. There's a million things that
Speaker 3: could be appealed in this case. In the normal criminal case,
Speaker 3: you know, the judge decides the issues, and then you
Speaker 3: have a trial, and then there's a conviction, and only
Speaker 3: then do you get to appeal. But because of Trump's status,
Speaker 3: and because of a number of the complicated issues that
Speaker 3: are going to arise because of his status, and because
Speaker 3: we're dealing with classified information, there could be appeals before
Speaker 3: the trial, which would delay things. And then I don't
Speaker 3: mean to go on and on, but the other thing
Speaker 3: I would just say about it is if this were
Speaker 3: the only thing on Trump's dance card, I think it
Speaker 3: would be hard, if not impossible, to get this case
Speaker 3: to trial before the next election. But it's not the
Speaker 3: only thing. He's going to have, like four or five
Speaker 3: other cases going.
Speaker 1: House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer blasted the timing of
Speaker 1: the FBI finally producing its FD ten twenty three form
Speaker 1: that alleges a criminal bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and a foreign national. He says, no one believes this
Speaker 1: was a coincidence that on the same day the FBI
Speaker 1: produced a document that showed they've been sitting on allegations
Speaker 1: of a Biden bribery for years. That Donald Trump just
Speaker 1: happened to be indicted by the Special Council for the
Speaker 1: mishandling of classified documents. Is that what this is about,
Speaker 1: is this the Department of Justice in the FBI trying
Speaker 1: to create a distraction from what their guy is facing,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: I don't think they're at all unhappy that they can
Speaker 3: exploit that, but it just seems to me that they
Speaker 3: I wrote something, Lisa, I want to say it was
Speaker 3: like September, probably two or three weeks after those search
Speaker 3: at mar A Lagos, So maybe it's early September where
Speaker 3: I said it was virtually guaranteed that Trump was going
Speaker 3: to be charged in connection with mar A Lago. And
Speaker 3: the reason I said that was not so much the
Speaker 3: potential seriousness of the charges. It was that the prosecutors,
Speaker 3: and this was two months or three months before Smith
Speaker 3: was named as a Special counsel. This was the Biden
Speaker 3: Justice Department. But they were doing all the things that
Speaker 3: prosecutors do when they're very serious about building a case,
Speaker 3: including giving people immunity, which the Justice Department only does
Speaker 3: that when they're trying to move up the chain and
Speaker 3: make a case against somebody who's bigger than the person
Speaker 3: they're giving immunity to. So I wouldn't say that they
Speaker 3: decided to prosecute this case because of the need to
Speaker 3: have a distraction from the Biden bribery stuff, because at
Speaker 3: the time it looked to me like they were pretty
Speaker 3: certainly trying to make a case. They wouldn't have known
Speaker 3: about that the bribery thing would be a scandal at
Speaker 3: this point. But I'm sure they're going to, you know,
Speaker 3: given that the table is set the way it's set,
Speaker 3: obviously they're going to use what they can use to
Speaker 3: their advantage.
Speaker 1: Is there anything else you'd like to leave us with
Speaker 1: before we go?
Speaker 3: I would say about the FBI investigation, I'm more disturbed
Speaker 3: about that than anything else. I'm obviously I'm disturbed, as
Speaker 3: I think we all are, about the bribery allegations, but
Speaker 3: I'm much more disturbed about what I think is the
Speaker 3: growing mountain of evidence that the FBI conspired with Democrats
Speaker 3: and had an arrangement with social media in order to
Speaker 3: basically put its thumb on the scale in connection with
Speaker 3: the twenty twenty election. And to me, that's the biggest
Speaker 3: scandal we have going now, the Biden, the Biden bribery thing. Actually,
Speaker 3: you know, obviously you ought to be investigated to the ground.
Speaker 3: And what's going to happen with Trump is going to
Speaker 3: happen with Trump, right, These things are going to play out,
Speaker 3: These cases are going to play out, But it's really
Speaker 3: dangerous for the country to have what I think we have,
Speaker 3: which is a lot of evidence that the FBI worked
Speaker 3: with Congressional Democrats in order to discredit the financial information
Speaker 3: that Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson and the Senate were
Speaker 3: compiling with respect to Biden, the Biden's getting millions of
Speaker 3: dollars from corrupt and anti American regimes. We've heard a
Speaker 3: lot about, like the letter of the fifty one former
Speaker 3: intelligence officials who discredited or tried to discredit the New
Speaker 3: York Post's reporting. What I don't think we've paid enough
Speaker 3: attention to is that those fifty one officials were basically
Speaker 3: working off a template that the FBI had already developed
Speaker 3: in conjunction with Congressional Democrats in trying to discredit what
Speaker 3: Johnson and Grassley were doing on the on the financial investigation,
Speaker 3: and I think the FBI systematically went to the social
Speaker 3: media companies and in a nod in a wing kind
Speaker 3: of way, told them that if there were derogatory information
Speaker 3: to come out about the Bidens, the chances were that
Speaker 3: that was a reflection of Russia once again trying to
Speaker 3: interfere in our election. So I think the FBI worked
Speaker 3: very hard to defeat Trump and to get Biden elected.
Speaker 1: Andy, I appreciate your sober analysis. I appreciate you taking
Speaker 1: the time and walking us through all this. Obviously it's complex, complicated,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of opinions, so I appreciate you
Speaker 1: giving yours and you know your outlook on the law.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much for taking the time. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, Lisa, So as Andy McCarthy, I appreciate a
Speaker 1: sober analysis. I do really believe that he is looking
Speaker 1: at them as objectively as possible, and that's really what
Speaker 1: I wanted to accomplish with this episode, of just getting
Speaker 1: a real look at what's going on, what we need
Speaker 1: to know and where this is going.
Speaker 3: I appreciate you home.
Speaker 1: For listening every Monday and Thursday, but of course you
Speaker 1: can listen throughout the week. Please leave us for a review,
Speaker 1: give us a rating on Apple podcast. I love reading those.
Speaker 1: I want to thank John Cassio and my producer for
Speaker 1: putting the show together. Until next time,