Speaker 1: All right, thanks Scott Shan an hour two Sean Hannedy's
Speaker 1: show Toll Free, It is eight hundred and nine to
Speaker 1: four one, Shawn, if you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. A couple of nights ago, when I
Speaker 1: had comedian Adam Carolla on my TV show, it was
Speaker 1: up in the air. He didn't know whether his house
Speaker 1: would survive the wildfires. Thank God, for his sake, he
Speaker 1: was not one of the thousands and thousands of victims
Speaker 1: that lost their homes that have had their entire lives
Speaker 1: not a pun.
Speaker 2: Intend to go up and smoke.
Speaker 1: A lot of this, if not most of it completely preventable,
Speaker 1: and anyway, he talked at it on his own show
Speaker 1: at length about you know, there will be more people
Speaker 1: in winne Bagos that will be on the Pacific Coast
Speaker 1: Highway before Hollywood elites ever returned to their homes because
Speaker 1: of the permitting process, which is formidable. Jillian Michaels brought
Speaker 1: this up on TV and on radio yesterday in California.
Speaker 2: Listen already on.
Speaker 3: A happy note, I guess all the win of bagos
Speaker 3: that were parked up and down pch where they're cooking
Speaker 3: out of those things surely are gone. They'll be the
Speaker 3: first ones back. The comedy is the guys who lost
Speaker 3: their twenty million dollar homes on the ocean side of
Speaker 3: PCH will be knee deep in the permit process. They
Speaker 3: will be trying to pull permits when the guys in
Speaker 3: the Winnebagos will have been back for months, months before
Speaker 3: those guys ever get a permit. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 3: Alan Hamill and Suzanne Summers moved because they could not
Speaker 3: get a permit to rebuild their home of forty years
Speaker 3: on the ocean on PCH. You know how Bill Maher
Speaker 3: seems real conservative now when he's like arguing with Jane
Speaker 3: Fonda about regulations, too many regulations, like strangling everything. Because
Speaker 3: remember when Bill Maher tried to put solar in his
Speaker 3: house in Beverly Hills. That's when he turned against the
Speaker 3: government because he saw what the government and the overreach
Speaker 3: of government and overregulation does.
Speaker 2: Now he's not wrong.
Speaker 1: By the way, if you don't live in California, you
Speaker 1: may not know PCH is the Pacific Coast Highway if
Speaker 1: you've never driven it from northern California all the way
Speaker 1: down to southern California. It is one of the most spectacular, picturesque,
Speaker 1: beautiful drives you'll ever go on in your life. It's
Speaker 1: unbelievably stunning. Then he predicted that these wildfires will convert Democrats,
Speaker 1: and he's going to join us in a minute after
Speaker 1: evacuating their homes. I'm not sure I agree with them
Speaker 1: on this part.
Speaker 3: But listen, you guys all voted for Karen Bass, the
Speaker 3: mayor of Los Angeles.
Speaker 4: You all voted for Gavenusom, and.
Speaker 3: Now you get what you get. Oh, now that your
Speaker 3: house is on fire, well, now you're thinking about something else.
Speaker 3: Now you want to know what's going on, what's going
Speaker 3: on around here. You didn't give a shit about what
Speaker 3: was going on when other people's houses were on fire,
Speaker 3: but now you can. So here's what's gonna happen. All
Speaker 3: these people who were deep blue Democrats are now going
Speaker 3: to have to pull a permit to rebuild, and they're
Speaker 3: gonna get the twenty eight year old from the Coastal
Speaker 3: Commission telling them to go fifth off, and then they're
Speaker 3: going to vote for Trump or whoever's Trump being next.
Speaker 3: You see, they're gonna.
Speaker 2: Get turned all right. So Adam Carroll joins us.
Speaker 1: Now when I last spoke to you, you aren't sure
Speaker 1: if your house is gonna survive. I mean, I assume
Speaker 1: a lot of homes around where you live burned to
Speaker 1: the ground like so many others. And what you were saying,
Speaker 1: by the way, about the permit process is dead on accurate.
Speaker 1: Jillian Michaels, I think it was. Back in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: lost a home and it took well over a year
Speaker 1: to begin to get the permits needed to rebuild. It's insane.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like I said, Alan ham On Suzanne Summer's Alan
Speaker 4: and Suzanne Summer's husband, a good friends loved Alan told
Speaker 4: me at dinner, took him seven years. It was a
Speaker 4: seven year process. They finally they finally popped it in
Speaker 4: and they moved to Palm Springs because the Coastal Commission
Speaker 4: would not let them rebuild where their home formally stood.
Speaker 4: So it's a big deal. I was a builder, Sean,
Speaker 4: you know, a contractor. I've been dealing with these people
Speaker 4: since my early twenties, so I've been screaming about this
Speaker 4: for a million years. But these folks, like Jane Konda especially,
Speaker 4: they have no idea. They've never pulled a permit, they've
Speaker 4: never dealt with this city. They've never dealt with the
Speaker 4: Coastal Commission. So when they do, that's when they start
Speaker 4: turning the corner and they start thinking like us. Now,
Speaker 4: obviously they're not all going to vote Republican the next
Speaker 4: time around, which you can bet that they're going to
Speaker 4: take a real good look at the next Gavin Newsome
Speaker 4: character who comes down the pike.
Speaker 1: Well, we already know who that is. That's going to
Speaker 1: be Kamala Harris, right right, Yes.
Speaker 4: That's true, that's true. And and look, this is no
Speaker 4: different than a sanctuary city. Remember all the blue cities
Speaker 4: New York City, they all loved the sanctuary city that
Speaker 4: patted themselves on the back and they celebrated the fact
Speaker 4: that they were heroes because they were sanctuary city. But
Speaker 4: when the first bustloads of migrants started getting dropped off
Speaker 4: in their slanky neighborhoods, what did they do? They started screaming,
Speaker 4: where's the government? What's going on? We didn't sign up
Speaker 4: for this. That's what's going to happen with the rebuilding process.
Speaker 1: I really have got a wonder And if you look
Speaker 1: at everything that we've learned since you know this, this
Speaker 1: tragedy happened and it is a tragedy. And I honestly,
Speaker 1: with all my heart, and I don't care what your
Speaker 1: politics are, I really feel awful for the people of
Speaker 1: la I mean, they're now going to have to try
Speaker 1: and rebuild their lives. But when you learn that the
Speaker 1: science of forestry and you can get degrees from big universities.
Speaker 2: I've actually listed them on this program.
Speaker 1: Auburn, University of Florida, NC State University at Georgia. I
Speaker 1: can go on for you know, twenty minutes here and
Speaker 1: talk about it. You can get it out at the
Speaker 1: University of California. I think Davis has a forestry program
Speaker 1: and you can get a degree in that. And there
Speaker 1: are legitimate criticisms here. You know, why weren't the hydrants working?
Speaker 1: Let's start with that. You know, we learned also this
Speaker 1: morning that in fact, in the Pacific Palisades that the
Speaker 1: reservoir was freaking empty. I mean, how is that possible?
Speaker 1: Avin Newsom doesn't like criticism, but his answer that this
Speaker 1: is a local issue. Why these hydrants weren't designed for
Speaker 1: wildfires in a state that's known for wildfires and Santa
Speaker 1: Ana wins. How does that make any sense to you?
Speaker 4: Well, first, just the notion.
Speaker 1: By the way, he's just sipping on Vodkas. Not a
Speaker 1: big deal of It's a little early in California, but
Speaker 1: it's fine.
Speaker 4: I'm kidding anything to take the ad job. Sehan come on,
Speaker 4: by the.
Speaker 1: Way, at this point in dime, I think anybody in
Speaker 1: LA has every right to do whatever they want.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, well I'm in Vegas, so I just
Speaker 4: took off. I can't get back to my place in Malibu.
Speaker 4: I just found out it was at a one piece. The
Speaker 4: restaurant in front of it is gone. In the entire
Speaker 4: Pacific Coast Highway, every house on it in front of
Speaker 4: me is gone, and I mean for a mile. The
Speaker 4: devastation is beyond the script. We're talking about multimillion dollar
Speaker 4: homes and not three million dollar homes. Twenty five million
Speaker 4: dollar homes all gone for far.
Speaker 2: Why do you think your house survived?
Speaker 1: We had Caitlin Jenner call on the other day and
Speaker 1: Caitlin fireproof the outside of her home, which I thought
Speaker 1: was brilliant on her part. And when Malibu burn the
Speaker 1: last time, her house didn't burn.
Speaker 4: You know, the only theme, as an X contractor I
Speaker 4: can see is the more modern homes with the stucco
Speaker 4: and the cement facades with the steel and aluminum windows
Speaker 4: and steel roofs, those fared much better than anything traditional
Speaker 4: with wood eves, you know, shake roof, you know, wood
Speaker 4: trim and molding. All the traditional type homes, the ranch
Speaker 4: style homes one up immediately. The more contemporary modern homes
Speaker 4: stood a much better chance. But still we're going to
Speaker 4: burn to the ground if everything was on file. So
Speaker 4: you will see weird pockets just like you do in
Speaker 4: every fire, just like you do in tornadoes, where you
Speaker 4: see the house to the right is gone, the house
Speaker 4: to the left is gone, and the one in the
Speaker 4: middle seems completely untouched. That's what just happened to my home.
Speaker 4: And I'm happy. But I have obviously survivor's guilt now
Speaker 4: because of so many friends, and I know a.
Speaker 1: Guy who had I don't think you need to have
Speaker 1: survivor Why would you have survivors guilt? I mean, if
Speaker 1: you know it gives you an opportunity with your platform,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want to help people out that
Speaker 1: are really desperate and maybe fight for regulations and Sacramento
Speaker 1: to move the process so these people can rebuild their
Speaker 1: lives in a reasonable period of time, by the way,
Speaker 1: if they even have insurance, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: insurance companies pulled out because they knew that this was
Speaker 1: a likely a likelihood. State Farm pulled out. They pulled
Speaker 1: out big time in the last year and a half.
Speaker 1: And they did so because they knew that this would happen.
Speaker 1: They knew that California wasn't prepared and that should have
Speaker 1: been the Canary and the coal mine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, look, I would liken it to this.
Speaker 4: You know, Gavin knew some once to talk about, you know,
Speaker 4: climate change and all that lefs and all the Blues
Speaker 4: want to blame climate change. Okay, it's here. We're not
Speaker 4: going to get rid of it by having electric leaf
Speaker 4: blowers and converting to electric cars by two thousand and thirty.
Speaker 4: As long as China is, as long as India is
Speaker 4: crapping out coal mines, then we're not going to be
Speaker 4: able to move the needle on this. But what are
Speaker 4: you going to do about it? Remember? New Orleans is
Speaker 4: under sea level, so you have to build sea walls.
Speaker 4: And if the Army Corp of Engineers builds a good seawall,
Speaker 4: then the people in New Orleans will not flood. So
Speaker 4: we need to take our technology and steer it toward
Speaker 4: these problems. Instead of sit around and point fingers and
Speaker 4: complain about climate change, how about you do something. Let's
Speaker 4: just say it is climate change. Good. Now, what are
Speaker 4: we going to do?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: Quick break, We'll have more with Adam Corolo than your
Speaker 1: calls on the other side. Eight hundred and nine to
Speaker 1: four one sewn our number as we continue this Friday, Right,
Speaker 1: we continue now with Adam Corolla. His house did survive,
Speaker 1: pretty much every house around him did not survive. You know,
Speaker 1: the LAFD Fire Apartment, their budget is slashed, but they
Speaker 1: have six hundred and fifty million allocated for the LA
Speaker 1: port to Go green federal state dollars, eight hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars green street sweepers.
Speaker 2: Whatever the hell that is.
Speaker 1: Why would you pay that amount of money for that
Speaker 1: but not pay firefighters. Then they have, you know, billions
Speaker 1: of dollars allocated for wind turbines. And meanwhile, I bet
Speaker 1: how much do you pay for a gallon of gasoline
Speaker 1: where you are? Because I guarantee you I pay.
Speaker 4: About half fifty five to seventy five.
Speaker 2: I mean I pay.
Speaker 1: About three dollars a gallon now in the free state
Speaker 1: of Florida three dollars a gallon. Can you explain that
Speaker 1: there's no income tax in my state?
Speaker 2: None?
Speaker 4: Well, according to Gavin Newsome, all the major oil companies
Speaker 4: only gouge California. They don't gouge any other state. So
Speaker 4: this is all because of greed oil companies who.
Speaker 1: Just they're suing the oil companies and guess what they're
Speaker 1: going to hire very expensive attorneys and guess what these
Speaker 1: companies will do. They'll raise the price of a gallon
Speaker 1: of gasoline to offset that.
Speaker 4: Well, there's another price height coming soon because he already
Speaker 4: agreed to that a couple of months ago. So we're
Speaker 4: going to get above six dollars a gallon. Yes, it's
Speaker 4: gross and confidence. I mean, of course you know it, Sean,
Speaker 4: and you brought it up. But we have our bullet
Speaker 4: train to nowhere. That's eighty billion dollars over budget. That's
Speaker 4: from Bakersfield to mercet Your audience doesn't know where Bakersfield
Speaker 4: and Mercet is. I live in California. I don't know
Speaker 4: where Bakersfield in Mercet is.
Speaker 1: I've been to Bakersfield in the business conference I used
Speaker 1: to have out there. I spoke there many times, but
Speaker 1: I do know where Bakersfield is. But you're right, what's
Speaker 1: the point.
Speaker 4: Said from Bakersfield?
Speaker 2: Not really? No, I mean you could drive.
Speaker 4: What's the point pointed toward mercaid?
Speaker 2: Yeah, to get an auto drive and you're on your way.
Speaker 1: Look, I don't mean to laugh at all about this,
Speaker 1: because there's nothing funny about it. But you know, if
Speaker 1: you look at it and you stand back big picture,
Speaker 1: there is this sort of intersection between environmental radicalism and
Speaker 1: radical socialism, status and Marxism, whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of summed up in the Green New Deal,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of being implemented and test run out
Speaker 1: where you live in California. And while you stay out there,
Speaker 1: I don't know. And this is exactly what was on
Speaker 1: the line I think in this past election, and America
Speaker 1: thankfully rejected it. But you know, there's still a fairly
Speaker 1: healthy percentage of the American people that bought into this crop.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think what they don't know what the
Speaker 4: people that bought into it, They bought into windmills and
Speaker 4: solar and clean renewables and blue skies and clean water.
Speaker 4: People are nielis I think they want it all to go.
Speaker 4: I don't think, you know, it's not that they want
Speaker 4: clean air. They don't want you to have a car.
Speaker 4: It's not that you need to have an electric car.
Speaker 4: They don't want you to have any car. Like, what
Speaker 4: they don't realize is the endgame. The Coastal Commission is
Speaker 4: not interested in protecting the coast. They're interested in getting
Speaker 4: human beings off the coade. What is the endgame? Like,
Speaker 4: we have road dives in Los Angeles, right. They take
Speaker 4: two highway lanes and they shrink them down to one
Speaker 4: and they make the other one for cyclists, for bicycles.
Speaker 4: But nobody has a bicycle. You can't use a bicycle
Speaker 4: to get anywhere. You can't cycle to work in Los Angeles.
Speaker 4: So what are they doing? Do they love the environment,
Speaker 4: do they love cyclists? Or are they trying to get
Speaker 4: you out of your car. They won't say what they're
Speaker 4: trying to do, but that's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 4: That's what the endgame is. And I think the Green
Speaker 4: New Deal people the endgame is to get rid of you,
Speaker 4: not to clean up the environm.
Speaker 1: But of course we're the ones, you know, we're pillaging
Speaker 1: the Earth for profit and they do want you know,
Speaker 1: equality as kammalis as an equal justice and diversity, equity
Speaker 1: and inclusion. Anyway, my prayers do go out to the
Speaker 1: people of California. I don't know why you stay out there.
Speaker 1: I would imagine that you're going to make the move
Speaker 1: within the next five years. There's my prediction.
Speaker 4: I mean know, if I'm right, I got laying in Nevada.
Speaker 4: I'm looking at it right now.
Speaker 1: I don't blame you anyway, Adam Corolla. Prayers for your
Speaker 1: friends don't have survivors guilt. You can help people out
Speaker 1: in ways that you can't imagine. Do a big comedy show.
Speaker 1: I'll come out there and say Hi, thank you, my friend.
Speaker 1: Hi twenty five now to the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: Toll free are number if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. Eight hundred ninety four one, Shawn
Speaker 1: on this Friday. So, I mean sort of anti climatic.
Speaker 1: I believe that with all my heart. I think it's
Speaker 1: a certainty I'm ninety nine point nine percent that this
Speaker 1: case will be overthrown on appeal. But regardless, I mean
Speaker 1: to get there the little pound of flesh and to
Speaker 1: be able to you know, tattoo the name convicted Felon
Speaker 1: onto Donald Trump's forehead, which it has no impact on people.
Speaker 1: If it was going to have an impact, it would
Speaker 1: have had an impact on the election. So it's somewhat
Speaker 1: meaningless anti climatic in so many ways. And as Judge
Speaker 1: Juan Mershawn sentenced President elect Donald Trump to this unconditional
Speaker 1: discharge for his conviction for the quote falsification of business records.
Speaker 1: And you know, it really is remarkable that, you know,
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump said, he actually said, I'm being I'm
Speaker 1: getting indicted for calling a legal expense illegal expense.
Speaker 2: And that's what it was.
Speaker 1: An NDA is a perfectly legal maneuver that happens all
Speaker 1: the time. I'd bet everything I had that the DA's
Speaker 1: office of Alvin Bragg probably if you went through the records,
Speaker 1: has hundreds of them over the years, even before his tenure. Anyway,
Speaker 1: here's what Donald Trump said about it.
Speaker 5: They're saying, I just noticed where he said I was
Speaker 5: falsifying business records. Well, the falsification of business records, as
Speaker 5: they said, was calling a legal expense in the books
Speaker 5: where everybody could see them, a legal expense, in other words,
Speaker 5: a legal fees or a legal expense. Were put down
Speaker 5: as legal expense by accountants, and they weren't put down
Speaker 5: by me. They were put down by accountants. I didn't
Speaker 5: call them construction, concrete work. I didn't call them electrical work.
Speaker 5: I didn't call them any They called a legal fee
Speaker 5: or a legal expense, a legal expense. And for this
Speaker 5: I got indicting.
Speaker 2: It's incredible, and he's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: I mean, in the saddest part of all of this,
Speaker 1: it was a novel legal theory. The statute of limitations
Speaker 1: had run out in this case. They did, you know,
Speaker 1: they stacked the charges to make it in one charge,
Speaker 1: basically thirty four charges.
Speaker 2: You know, claim this to be justice.
Speaker 1: It really was a federal matter, and I think at
Speaker 1: the end of the day that they never got to
Speaker 1: the issue at hand in terms of the appeal. We'll
Speaker 1: ask our attorneys on our legal panel in just a
Speaker 1: second here, But I think it was very very obvious
Speaker 1: that they in my view, that they could have argued
Speaker 1: something very differently when they went to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: But that's a different issue for a different day. But
Speaker 1: you know, I think the supremacy clause would have been
Speaker 1: more applicable myself rather than the process that they went through.
Speaker 1: Here's Donald Trump saying that this was a political witch hunt.
Speaker 1: This was to damage his reputation so he wouldn't run
Speaker 1: for president. They didn't do this until after he announced
Speaker 1: he was running for president and then claimed his innocence.
Speaker 2: Here's what he said.
Speaker 5: It's been a political witch hunt. It was done to
Speaker 5: damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And
Speaker 5: obviously that didn't work. People of our country got to
Speaker 5: see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom.
Speaker 5: They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted,
Speaker 5: and I won and got the largest number of votes
Speaker 5: by far, of any Republican candidate in history, and one,
Speaker 5: as you know, all seven swing states, one conclusively, all
Speaker 5: seven swing states, and one the popularity the popular vote
Speaker 5: by millions and millions of votes. And they've been watching
Speaker 5: you trial, so they understood it. But the fact is
Speaker 5: that I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talked
Speaker 5: about business records, and the business records were extremely accurately counted.
Speaker 5: I had nothing to do with them. Any of that
Speaker 5: was done by an accountant or a bookkeeper who I
Speaker 5: think a very credible testimony, and was corroborated by everybody
Speaker 5: that was asked. And with all that's happening in our
Speaker 5: country today, with a city that's burning to the around
Speaker 5: one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground,
Speaker 5: with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of
Speaker 5: the problems of inflation and attacks on countries, and all
Speaker 5: of the horrible things that are going on. I got
Speaker 5: indicted over calling a legal expense. I llegal expense. It
Speaker 5: was called a legal expense. I just want to say,
Speaker 5: I think it's an embarrassment to New York, and New
Speaker 5: York has a lot of problems, but this is a
Speaker 5: great embarrassment.
Speaker 1: And the president is one thousand percent right. Here's Jan
Speaker 1: Mershawn talking about the hush money case. Both extraordinary and ordinary.
Speaker 6: Never before has this court been presented with such a
Speaker 6: unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it could be
Speaker 6: viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case.
Speaker 6: There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security
Speaker 6: involving various agencies. And yet the trial was a bit
Speaker 6: of a paradox because once the courtroom doors were closed,
Speaker 6: the trial itself was no more special unique or extraordinary
Speaker 6: than the other thirty two criminal trials that took place
Speaker 6: in this courthouse at the same exact time. Jury selection
Speaker 6: was conducted. The same rules of evidence were followed, opening
Speaker 6: statements were made, witnesses called and cross examined, evidence presented,
Speaker 6: some nations delivered, the same burden of proof was applied,
Speaker 6: and the jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict.
Speaker 6: And it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of
Speaker 6: procedure and guided.
Speaker 2: By the law.
Speaker 1: Ordinary citizens in a part of the country where Democrats
Speaker 1: outnumber Republicans and Trump hatred is that the probably the
Speaker 1: pinnacle in the entire country anyway. To analyze all of this,
Speaker 1: our legal panel, Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal analyst, best
Speaker 1: selling author, David Shoon, civil rights attorney. Welcome both of
Speaker 1: you back to the program, and Greg start with you.
Speaker 1: This is a case that never should have been tried
Speaker 1: before a very biased jury with a novel legal theory,
Speaker 1: after the statute of limitations had run out.
Speaker 2: And then you have the added burden of.
Speaker 1: An immunity decision by the US Supreme Court that just
Speaker 1: didn't move, a judge that was abusively biased towards Trump.
Speaker 2: The whole way.
Speaker 7: Yeah, there's a veritable Morgas board of reversible errors made
Speaker 7: by the judge, a principle among them. As you just
Speaker 7: pointed out, the teenage evidence that's prohibited by the presidential
Speaker 7: immunity standard enunciated by the Supreme Court on July first,
Speaker 7: testimony from White House officials, numerous presidential records should never
Speaker 7: have been introduced. But Judge one Sean just you know,
Speaker 7: disregarded all of it, insisting that, oh well, that evidence
Speaker 7: was really quite trifling, even though prosecutors emphasized it during
Speaker 7: closing arguments to the jury, it was certainly important to them.
Speaker 7: You know. Overall, Braggs convoluted incoherent legal theory was really
Speaker 7: theater of the absurd. And I had to laugh today.
Speaker 7: You know, the prosecutor Stenglass condemning Donald Trump, and you know,
Speaker 7: using the kind of descriptive language that's normally reserved for
Speaker 7: serial killers, not somebody convicted of a book keeping error.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is not a city that takes
Speaker 1: crime seriously. Look at the Daniel Penny case. Look at
Speaker 1: the case of this guy that stabbed two people, but
Speaker 1: a couple of weekend ago on a subway that had
Speaker 1: eighty seven prior arrest.
Speaker 2: That was still all the street. So this is a joke.
Speaker 1: This was a legal nondisclosure agreement put together by an
Speaker 1: attorney identified as such in their bookkeeping, and the statute
Speaker 1: of limitations had run out. Anyway, how did this become
Speaker 1: a federal crime to begin with.
Speaker 7: Well, it's impossible. A state or local official is not
Speaker 7: allowed to bring a campaign finance prosecution. That's the exclusive
Speaker 7: authority of the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission,
Speaker 7: both of which looked at this case and said there's
Speaker 7: no there there, No crimes were committed, mostly because the
Speaker 7: money given to Stormy Daniels did not constitute a campaign contribution. So,
Speaker 7: you know, case over. But this DA decided to resurrect
Speaker 7: from the dead, you know, expired misdemeanors and morphed them
Speaker 7: into these phantom felonies. And as I said, hey, this
Speaker 7: was theater of the absurd.
Speaker 2: It really was, David Shan let's get your take on
Speaker 2: all of us.
Speaker 8: Well, while jose Mara Shawn has said that the same
Speaker 8: thing happened in thirty two other trials at the same
Speaker 8: time this was going on, God help us, that's true.
Speaker 8: If they had anything like him as a judge and
Speaker 8: any of the other trials, we're in big trouble. And
Speaker 8: if he made as those other judges made many mistakes,
Speaker 8: we're in worse trouble. The idea that you know this
Speaker 8: didn't impact the election, I think it did impact the election.
Speaker 8: I think the American people are fair minded and they
Speaker 8: saw this for what it was, and I think that
Speaker 8: boosted President Trump in the election. You're right about the
Speaker 8: federal crime issue, but I don't even think you get there.
Speaker 8: I think that's a secondary argument, because the fundamental problem
Speaker 8: with this case is the jury was the defendant was
Speaker 8: never told what he was charged with, and the jury
Speaker 8: was never told what he was charged with. You have
Speaker 8: no idea what they found he did is the purpose
Speaker 8: for a falsified so called falsifying business records. Remember quickly,
Speaker 8: one seventy five point oh five makes it a misdemeanor
Speaker 8: to falsify business records. One seventy five to ten could
Speaker 8: a felony if you did it to commit or conceal
Speaker 8: another crime they never identify with that other crime is
Speaker 8: violates the New York Constitution, the Federal Constitution. New York
Speaker 8: Statute two hundred point fifty. In the penal law, you
Speaker 8: can't defend against the case if you don't know what
Speaker 8: you did. So the prosecution gave the judge three or
Speaker 8: four choices in a letter they wrote, and the judge said, well,
Speaker 8: that's fine, we don't have to identify the crime. So
Speaker 8: it could have been falsifying business records for tax purposes,
Speaker 8: for election fraud, purposes to boost an election, purposes otherwise
Speaker 8: affect it, and so on. We have no idea. And
Speaker 8: he refused to charge the jury on any express crime.
Speaker 8: He couldn't have at that point. It would have been
Speaker 8: too late. It has to be reversed on those grams alone.
Speaker 8: But besides that, you have evid entry problems from the
Speaker 8: Weinstein case alone. You know that the when President Trump
Speaker 8: wanted to testify, the judge said he would open up
Speaker 8: the door to all kinds of extraneous things that the
Speaker 8: court in the Weinstein case when they reversed Harvey Weinstein's conviction,
Speaker 8: said you can't possibly do and they move from Trump
Speaker 8: moved from mistrial the time, and that's preserved. So there's
Speaker 8: so many issues in this case. It will be reversed.
Speaker 1: Well, the is there a silver lighting here? Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: and as much as now Marshawn is off the case
Speaker 1: and this will be brought all these issues will be
Speaker 1: brought up on appeal. And had he not been sentenced,
Speaker 1: maybe that appeal process would have installed until he got
Speaker 1: out of office.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's the real benefit for Trump. He can now
Speaker 7: in earnest appeal all of the mistakes and reversible errors
Speaker 7: that were made at trial. And I agree with David
Speaker 7: that this is you know, this is a conviction that
Speaker 7: will not last. I guarantee at one hundred percent it'll
Speaker 7: be overturned on appeal because of all of the prejudicial,
Speaker 7: inadmissible evidence that the jurors were allowed to listen to
Speaker 7: in a legal theory that is so utterly incoherent and
Speaker 7: incomprehensible that you know, in my forty five yours as
Speaker 7: a lawyer, I can't make sense of it. I don't
Speaker 7: understand it. I don't know what Trump was convicted of.
Speaker 7: Such an egregious mistake by the judge to tell the
Speaker 7: Jersey you don't have to identify the underlying crime, and
Speaker 7: you don't even have to agree unanimously, So nobody knows
Speaker 7: what a violation of a bedrock constitutional principle repeatedly reiterated
Speaker 7: by the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: All Right, quick break more with our legal panel on
Speaker 1: this anti climatic sentencing of Donald Trump today. I'm certain
Speaker 1: it will be overturned by a higher court. At least
Speaker 1: it's finally out of Juan Mershan's abusively biased, corrupt courtroom.
Speaker 1: We continue with David Joan and Greg Jarrett on the
Speaker 1: other side.
Speaker 3: Straight ahead, the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show
Speaker 3: was up next.
Speaker 4: Hang on for Sean's conservative solution.
Speaker 1: All right, we continue the anti climatic ruling and sentencing,
Speaker 1: which is a non sentence by Juan Mershan, with our
Speaker 1: legal panel, Greg Jarrett and David Shona with us. I'm
Speaker 1: sure this will be overturned on appeal. Mark Levin was
Speaker 1: was a big advocate that the argument should have been
Speaker 1: brought to the Supreme Court a lot sooner, David shown,
Speaker 1: and it should have been brought on the supremacy clause,
Speaker 1: and how this was a federal issue and this novel
Speaker 1: legal theory didn't you know, had no standing at all whatsoever,
Speaker 1: and in Alvin Bragg's jurisdiction, and more importantly, you know
Speaker 1: that this was a case about election interference and had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the rule of law. Would there
Speaker 1: have been a better argument before the Supreme Court because
Speaker 1: I would assume at some point it may be back there.
Speaker 8: Yes, he is right, and you know, there's a principle
Speaker 8: also that this immunity issue that we're talking about here
Speaker 8: is a very special kind of immunity and it's a
Speaker 8: federal question. It's a constitutional issue. It's a federal question.
Speaker 8: There is a principle of law that New York has
Speaker 8: recognized and many states have recognized that when there's a
Speaker 8: federal immunity type issue there, we apply federal rules, and
Speaker 8: federal rules would have required a state to be imposed
Speaker 8: here the invocation of a Supreme Court called Johnson versus
Speaker 8: Shan Kelvin says state's not required to do that, but
Speaker 8: New York State has sat in an opinion or two
Speaker 8: that that's an appropriate way to handle the case. I
Speaker 8: also think they made a mistake in the Supreme Court
Speaker 8: by focusing on this presidential transition period. There's very little
Speaker 8: or no authority about what the rights are during that period.
Speaker 8: The problem here is by entering the conviction, they've done
Speaker 8: exactly what the OLC opinion in two thousand said, as
Speaker 8: the basis for giving immunity, that is, this creates a
Speaker 8: stigma hanging over the head of the president, and it's
Speaker 8: a distraction while he's in office, not just the transition period.
Speaker 8: But you're right, John, you asked a good question. We
Speaker 8: always ask good questions, but one you asked earlier was
Speaker 8: is there a silver lining? That's right, he had a
Speaker 8: choice to make it. The president was right to try
Speaker 8: to litigate the immunity issue. First. It's a narrow issue,
Speaker 8: but to me, it's a huge bonus. Now he gets
Speaker 8: to finally appeal, put all of this thing to bed,
Speaker 8: throw it out, and get it overturned on the real
Speaker 8: issues in the case.
Speaker 1: I appreciate both of you, thanks for being one of us.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred and nine to four one. Shawn is on number.
Speaker 1: If you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 1: we'll see what happens. I do think that the silver
Speaker 1: lining will come into play a lot sooner than many
Speaker 1: people think. David Showing, Greg Jarrett, we always appreciate you
Speaker 1: being one of us.