Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Host
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:05]
Energy Trust of Oregon Representative
At Energy Trust of Oregon, we understand that energy isn't just what happens when you flip a switch, it's what happens afterwards.
- [00:11]
Podcast Host
It's a home that can provide both.
- [00:13]
Energy Trust of Oregon Representative
Shelter and peace of mind.
- [00:15]
Podcast Host
It's a business that can run more efficiently and keep their dream alive.
- [00:18]
Energy Trust of Oregon Representative
And it's communities that can thrive today and flourish tomorrow. That's energy. And that's why we partner with local utility companies to help you save energy and lower costs. For cash incentives and resources that can help power your life, visit energytrust.org the.
- [00:35]
Clay
Team 47 podcast is sponsored by Good.
- [00:38]
Buck
Ranchers making the American Farm strong again.
- [00:43]
Clay
Team 47 with Clay and Buck starts now.
- [00:49]
Buck
I think this is really interesting, Clay, because I wanted to do a little research on this on my own. Last night, Trump spoke about not only is he taking a. Taking a bow and, yeah, I think if you help negotiate the end of carnage that is taking human lives and maiming people and, you know, war is a terrible thing. It truly is a terrible thing. Sometimes a necessary thing, but it is still a terrible thing. I think taking a bow is fine, and I think that Trump deserves that and then some. But it's not just on Israel and the end of this conflict with Gaza. This has cut 33.
- [01:22]
Clay
He lays out the whole, or he.
- [01:24]
Buck
Gives you the whole number. Listen to this.
- [01:26]
Trump Audio Clip
You remember we settled seven. This is number eight. We settled seven. Wars or major conflicts, but wars. And this is number eight. And the one that I thought would be maybe the quickest of all would be Russia, Ukraine, and I think that's going to happen, too. But in the meantime, they're losing about 7,000 people a week, and that seems pretty bad. They're losing mostly soldiers, young soldiers. They go out to war and they're getting killed. And while it doesn't affect us in a lot of ways, where we've got a big ocean in between, you don't want to see that happen. It was a big mistake. That war should have never happened. It would have never happened if I were president.
- [02:06]
Buck
Trump doesn't want wars, which is a very good premise to start with. So, Clay, can I. Can I give you the list here? And you can.
- [02:11]
Clay
Yeah.
- [02:12]
Buck
The list of conflicts that Trump was involved in bringing to either a ceasefire or some kind of an agreement to end the fighting. We have Armenia and Azerbaijan, two former Soviet republics. Trump signed a peace agreement between them on the 8th of August. That war had been going on for decades, and the leaders of both countries were very much thankful to Trump for helping to Negotiate this one Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. That was back in June of this year. A ceasefire announced on June 23 between Iran and Israel after the bombing of the nuclear sites. India and Pakistan on a border dispute. Cambodia and Thailand, they had a ceasefire July 28. They fought for five days, but people were dying. And then from the first administration, I think Clay, he adds, oh, Serbia and Kosovo, he helped get an agreement with them. And I think he did something. Oh, yeah, and Ethiopia and Egypt, Trump dealt with a dispute between them over a hydropower dam. So it was more of a conflict than it was a war. But that, that is the list. That is quite a world tour that he has put together.
- [03:38]
Clay
Yes. And again, it goes to the point that I had, which is the criticism of Trump. That would actually, it's not a good criticism, in my opinion, but the one that you could make is he's too focused on bringing peace to the world. And how does that actually impact America in any kind of significant way? I'm not saying I sign off on it, but that's the criticism of Trump. He's too focused on world peace. And many of these conflicts don't directly involve the United States. So why is the President spending his time on them? That is the criticism you could levy. It's the exact opposite criticism they spent a decade on Trump, which is he's a modern day Hitler or World War 3 is going to ensue. Let me ask you this, Buck. The clip you played, I think is interesting because I think Trump thought that he would be able to solve Ukraine and Russia faster than he has. I think he would say that if he came on with us. And I think he thought that because he felt as if he had a relationship with Putin that he could use to bring peace there. And again, unlike in Israel in the Middle east, where you have, let's be fair, an intractable, in many ways, conflict between Jewish and Muslim religious faiths, not to mention the Christian component, rolled in as well. Russia and Ukraine is basically a civil war. Again, I understand the lines of the battle and everything else, but the Russian and Ukrainian people historically have much in common. And there doesn't seem to be any real gain to speak of that's being fought over now. I think he's frustrated over the fact that he can't get peace there. And what does it say about that conflict that a true religious war is getting peace before a border dispute between two historical, historically connected people?
- [05:42]
Buck
Well, the reason that there's not a ceasefire in Russia, Ukraine, I think, is pretty straightforward. Unfortunately. And it's that Putin thinks that he's winning and will keep taking territory with the status quo. I mean, that he's gonna get more and more. So why stop? In his mind, because the casualties, the humanitarian cost, he is absolutely willing to pay that price on both sides. Something that is particularly jarring about Putin is he certainly has no. Is not losing any sleep at night about Ukrainian casualties. He's not losing any sleep about Russian casualties either.
- [06:15]
Clay
Yeah.
- [06:16]
Buck
This is unfortunately the mindset that he operates with. So that means that that conflict is likely to continue on unless there's a real change in that Trump has at least started to push in that direction publicly with. If Putin starts to feel like they are losing some territory inside of Ukraine, maybe then there would be more of a willingness. But that's a tough ask for a lot of reasons.
- [06:39]
Clay
How much do you think is this is cultural in that the way Russia defines itself in the modern era from a positive perspective, is by the sacrifice that the country was willing to make during World War II. And so if you go back in time, historically, Russia, obviously the collapse of communism and the Cold War that they lost is not something that is a point of pride in that country. But how much of the willingness of Russians to accept, frankly, huge, huge casualty numbers is a function of that patriotic connection to the past where basically the entire country giving up the flower of youth is seen as one of the true bravest moments and most sterling moments in all of Russian history.
- [07:27]
Buck
Well, this is how Russians fight wars, just with throwing manpower at it. They've. They've generally had. They had really weak. Speaking of generally generals in World War II because of the Soviet purge. So they had a lot of, A lot of problems with that. Now, some of the, you know, people talk about, like General Zhukov, some of the generals in Russian past have, have been talented, but they generally throw a lot of bodies at the problem, and that's what they're doing in Ukraine as well. So, yeah, I don't know how Trump, that's the big one that is on the list next and could bring us back to Trump the peacemaker if he can. I would say this. And people might already feel that way, and that's fine. They might be saying if he doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize for this deal, it's effectively a meaningless award anyway because it's just some partisan tool of the global elites. I think that's probably already true. But if he were to end the Russia Ukraine war too, and it was clear that he had a central role in that and after this and didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, then it's a total joke. Yeah, maybe it's already there, but it definitely would be a total joke. At that point.
- [08:37]
Clay
Somebody just texted me or emailed me that once Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, it had become a participation trophy and in many ways, as opposed to an award for what you actually accomplished. I do wonder if peace in the Middle east, if he suddenly is able to pivot in many ways directly to Ukraine, Russia. I still don't understand how this gets resolved in meaning Ukraine, Russia, because to your point, Putin basically knows that long term he has the ability to lean on Ukraine. And we still don't know exactly where that line is, where if he gets this amount of territory, he's satisfied. And it just feels kind of intractable at this point to me, because if Trump can't get it solved negotiation wise to your point, it seems quite clear that Vladimir Putin just will not end this war. So how do you in any way end it when Putin just refuses?
- [09:41]
Buck
Well, see, this is what I meant by he doesn't lose sleep at night over the casualties. There's no moral or humanitarian imperative that is at work with Vladimir Putin at all. This is, it's pure force. You know, I think the Israelis, I think the IDF for a while have just wanted, look, we're willing to stop. We don't want to have to keep doing this, but we have to know that they're going to stop on the other side. You know, you have that with Israel.
- [10:09]
Clay
And we have to get the hostages, which is what the Hamas refused to release them for two years.
- [10:14]
Buck
And I know that we're very pleased, as of course we should be. I mean, people I know, people who are tearing up at the news about the hostages going, that some of the hostages are going home. But I just can't forget that a lot of hostages are not going home alive.
- [10:30]
Clay
Yes.
- [10:31]
Buck
And that is an active decision that was made. They had civilians in custody and they let them die or they killed them, one or the other, which is the same thing. They're in your custody. So they killed civilians that they were holding as hostages. So the moral calculations here should be very clear to everybody about who the good guys are, who the bad guys are. But I do think that Trump now turning his, there's going to be some focus on this, of course, but turning his attention to Russia, Ukraine issue, it has to be what are the incentives for Putin to stop. Yes, you have to change incentives with him. He is a. It is like dealing with a rattlesnake. You cannot say, hey, don't bite me. That's mean. It has to be you. Back off or I'm going to take your head.
- [11:18]
Clay
Which I think Trump gets. Because Trump's new focus has been let's keep Russia from being able to sell their oil through India. We're going to put a penalty on India. And he's given Ukraine the ability in theory to actually threaten Russia in a way with armaments and weaponry that has not occurred so far. The risk there obviously is you accelerate the war as opposed to decelerating it. So but I think you're right. I mean, Putin has to fear something. And ultimately I think that's what Trump has come to realize, that otherwise there is no way to actually end this.
- [11:59]
Energy Trust of Oregon Representative
Life's messy. We're talking spills, stains, pets and kids. But with Annabe, you never have to stress about messes again. At WashablesOfAs.com, discover Annabe sofas, the only fully machine washable sofas inside and out starting at just $699. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics, that means fewer stains and more peace of mind. Designed for real life, our sofas feature changeable fabric covers allowing you to refresh your style anytime. Need flexibility. Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa effortlessly. Perfect for cozy apartments or spacious homes. Plus, they're earth friendly and built to last. That's why over 200,000 happy customers have made the switch. Upgrade your space today. Visit washablesofas.com now and bring home a sofa made for life. That's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.
- [13:00]
Clay
You're listening to Team 47 with clay and Buck.
- [13:05]
Buck
Update here on the James Comey trial. I believe it is going to be happening January 5th. It is set for. So that's pretty quick. They're moving pretty fast on this one. And here is FOX News's Bill Hemmer. This is from this morning. Just with that breaking news and laying out some of what's going on here for Sankt Comey. Play it.
- [13:29]
Bill Hemmer
Here is the breaking news. The former FBI director James Comey in front of a judge moments ago in a hearing that we did not think would last long and apparently that is the case. He has entered a plea of not guilty to two charges federal level. Now our producers inside the courtroom say the former director accused of lying to Congress, obstructing a congressional proceeding, end of the plea moments ago in front of the judge, Michael Nachmanoff appointed by Joe Biden, not guilty on both federal charges. He's accused of lying in front of Congress back in 2020. So that is the update inside the courtroom.
- [14:07]
Buck
So now he's going to trial. One of the most hilarious arguments against this that I keep seeing all over the place from the libs is, oh my gosh, the precedent that has been set here. What would you do, Republicans, if people started to use prosecutors offices as weapons of politics? And to this you just want to say, have you been asleep for the last decade? Do you have any idea what has gone on with four different criminal cases brought against Donald Trump, all of which were bogus civil cases brought against Trump by the state of New York in one case and by a woman who claims from 30 years ago, 30 something years ago, Trump grabbed her in a department store. The stuff that they have done, the lawfare they have done against Trump and his family alone has done tremendous damage to the public's faith in all of these different facets of our criminal justice system or just our justice system of the courts, too, because some of it was civilization. This is atrocious. I mean, the things that have gone on here, the precedents that have already been set, now they want to tell us we should be worried about going too far in the other direction. No, they already did this. In fact, what they have done, what the Democrats have done specifically with the targeted lawfare against Donald Trump, among many others, it's really Trump and Trump world, everybody who is Trump adjacent, all the way to January 6th. Defendants, right? It's the whole Trump movement that they have used the prosecutor's office, they have used lawfare as a tool, as a weapon to ruin lives, to put tremendous pressure on people, to financially drain them, to undermine them, to malign them, to defame them. All of that they have already done. They sent an FBI team to Mar a Lago and they went through Melania's sock drawer. And libs want to lecture us about James Comey, who allegedly lied under oath facing the music. I'm sorry, is there some special carve out for being a, you know, 6 foot 10 jerk who uses the law in order to puff himself up and as part of his own just malignant narcissism? Is there some carve out where he doesn't have to actually face the music the way that he has made so many others and I think entrapped people and abused the law, most notably General Flynn? I like to fill in these gaps too. So no one can say, well, you just said he's abusing it. No, I like to give you the specifics to remind everybody. To remind everybody that James Comey thought it was funny to use the Logan act, which no serious human being thinks anybody can or would be prosecuted under, as a total pretext. It's like the equivalent of a swatting call. It is a bad faith use of law enforcement to go after the General Michael Flynn, the incoming National Security Advisor. I know it feels like that was a long time ago, but there hasn't been. Well, maybe you don't feel that way, but they'll say that. But there's been no justice for that. That ambush hasn't been punished. And James Comey thinks that he's a clever guy for the whole thing and he thinks that. What was that book, I think was Higher Power. Is that right? Higher Power or something like that. Now, the real question you might ask is, is James Comey's book a more brutal read than Kamala's 107 days? I cannot answer that question because I haven't read Comey's book. But I will tell you that is some stiff competition that is, you know, Superman versus Iron man with the, like the super suit, you know, I mean, that is tough stuff. Really, really preposterous that James Comey would think anybody would want to read his memoir and on his book tour. But such as things are, he is now facing the music and there's the possibility. I think it's slim. I don't want to over promise and under deliver ever on this show. I think it is slim. But here's what I will tell that, that he will actually be convicted because it's a. It's a Northern Virginia jury. I was just saying how much fun, how much fun DC Is with no government bureaucrats running around. They all live in Arlington mostly. You know, they live a lot of them inside or just outside of the Beltway. It's going to be a very favorable pool for James Comey. But here's why I view this as so important. The message is received whether Comey is found guilty or not. The message is received that there will at least be an effort to hold the other side to the law and not create a system. This is really important, a system where we are held to an extralegal standard and they are held to a sub legal standard. Or rather they get to break the law and get away with it. Meanwhile, they get to prosecute us, Trump for not breaking the law and we do nothing in response. We have to at least establish that we will bring charges against People who have been involved in this lawfare, involved in using the government, the deep state, however you want to describe it, to take out people for purely political reasons. Well, if they break the law in that process, there will be some form of accountability. And now there is going to be, I think, a pretty high probability just based on the jury pool, that Comey will be found. In my mind, he'll be found not guilty, he'll be acquitted on this. But let's see, let's see, it's a pretty straightforward thing. Did he lie or did he not lie? Let's see what kind of case the prosecutor. I know, I don't want to prejudge anything here. Let's see what is produced in that court. You don't need to call me and say, buck, you're already getting ahead of the, you know, cart before the horse here. I know, but I just, I like to manage our expectations for where this is going. It's a, it's still a steep climb. This is a little bit of ice skating uphill here to think that James Comey is going to actually be convicted. But the fact that the charge has been brought alone sends a message. We are not going to just lie down and accept a two tiered system of justice in this town, Washington D.C. or anywhere else for that matter. And that is important. That is something that we all have to recognize as a necessary step because otherwise it's, you know, heads they win, tails we lose. Did I do that one right? That's always, I always feel like I'm gonna get that one wrong. It's like Bush when he's like, fool me once, can't, can't get fooled again. You know, it's tougher to say it, especially on a live radio show, than you think it's gonna be, you know, but that, that's where this is right now, my friends. That is the situation. I've been warning people for years about this Comey guy and I wish if the president at the time had pulled me aside and asked me early on in his first term, I would have shared. All you have to know about James Comey, you would know from the way he acted with respect to the Martha Stewart prosecution, a prosecution that nobody in his office but him wanted to bring, a prosecution for which there was no crime, not even any money made or lost. It was just, the whole thing was absurd. And Martha Stewart is a huge Democrat who does not like Trump and does not like Republicans. And this is just about what's, what's fair and decent. It's not about politics, but Comey really has always thought of himself as like the high priest of the doj. So much of Comey, I will tell you this. So much of Comey reminds me of Fauci. Fauci is like the, the, you know, the Lilliputian version of Comey they have. It's the same personality type. They pretend it's all about the cause in the institution. It's really all about them. And they get this, this solipsism word of the day, solipsism from all of this. And you like that one. Producer Ali likes that one. And I'm not the only one warning you about this guy or have been warning about this guy for a long time. The great Rush LIMBAUGH, back in 2019, he saw exactly who James Comey was and also knew about his past, which we should all be reminded of. Play, too.
- [22:49]
Rush Limbaugh
How many of you have heard or thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican? I have. I've always thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican. I've been told that James Comey is a lifelong Republican. Turns out not to be true. Are you aware that James Comey used to be a Communist? In a 2003 interview with New York magazine, James Comey said before voting for Jamie Carter, Jimmy Carter, 1980, he'd been a communist. He admitted, I'd moved from communist to whatever I am now. Now we know that John Brennan, Obama's CIA director, was a communist, or at least had voted for the Communist Party. But I had never heard this about Comey. Now we find out that under Obama, the CIA director and the FBI director both had histories of not just flirtation, but serious immersion into communism. And like the KGB always said, no one ever leaves the kgb. Nobody ever leaves.
- [23:57]
Buck
This way of thinking isn't that interesting. You start to see how for some of these individuals, there was an ideological foundation of communism. And these are people who are at the top of the national security apparatus in this country in recent years. Communism. And then they become some malleable chameleon in politics just so they can weave their way through the bureaucracy. But do you think they've ever really changed their collectivist foundation? Rush didn't think that Comey had, or Brennan for that matter. And he was right. He warned us about this. And now perhaps there will be some accountability for the misdeeds that were done. But we're not going to hold our breath on Comey. We're going to see.
- [24:46]
Clay
The Team 47 podcast is sponsored by.
- [24:49]
Buck
Good Ranchers making the American Farm strong again.
- [24:54]
Clay
You're listening to Team 47 with clay and Buck.
- [24:59]
Buck
New York State's Attorney General Leticia James has been indicted for mortgage fraud. Here is what she has to say about this. Clip 13. Hit it.
- [25:12]
Podcast Host
This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as a New York State Attorney General. These charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost.
- [25:35]
Buck
Player, I have a lot of thoughts on this. I'm sure you will, too. I want to start with this one. The charges aren't baseless. I mean, you know, you could say a lot about it. And I actually believe that some of these laws, and specifically mortgage fraud, unless it's systematic and intentional and over a large. I mean, the mortgage fraud laws are. Needs. Need to be reformed. I will say that. But that doesn't change the fact that she's an attorney general, Put other people in prison for mortgage fraud. Had no problem with it. Used statutes in ways they never had been used before to try to bankrupt Donald Trump. But let's just look at it this way, Clay. She broke the law based on the allegations. Unless the facts are in dispute here, which they don't seem to be, she broke the law.
- [26:19]
Clay
Well, I would go back to the same thing I said when James Comey was indicted. This was a grand jury. This was a grand jury in a Northern Virginia, I believe, Alexandria as well, courtroom. So what I would ask Letitia James, if she were on the radio with us right now, we played that clip, is why did the grand jury get it wrong? Because you can say, oh, Trump is going after his political adversaries, but it requires that a grand jury agree that there is a legitimate basis for these charges to be brought. And that is not a grand jury of your or mine peers. Buck. This is not where I live in Nashville, Tennessee area. This is not where you live in the Miami, Florida area. This is among the best possible grand jury pools that Letitia James could have. They probably voted as a group. 7030 Biden. 7030 Kamala. And they are looking at all this evidence and they are saying, we think Letitia James broke the law. I will say this. It's another one we got right. This is not a very complicated case because everybody has to fill out these forms. And if you are a lawyer and you are in charge of enforcing the law in one of the biggest states in the country. I think a lot of people out there do not give you the benefit of the doubt if there are parts of the mortgage application that are wrong that are favorable to you. This is not your average guy or gal out there who's running through a mortgage form as fast as they can. When you pass a bar exam and when you are charged with enforcing the law for, again, one of the biggest states in the country, I think that you have a higher standard of expecting to understand what you are filling out when it comes to mortgages. And so I think that she's in a tough spot. And of course, this is a delicious irony, as it were, because she went after Trump for alleged fraud when it came to the loan proceedings that he was able to get relating to his assets and the loans that he had repaid. And so this is based on a property that she owns in Virginia that evidently she has lied about what it's being used for.
- [28:45]
Buck
Well, yeah, she said that she had two primary residences. And the word primary is a problem for her there. Everybody knows what that means. You can't have two primary residences. And Clay, beyond that. So. So there's the facts of this, which are very straightforward. And, and I'm sorry, but if you're the Attorney General of New York, to Clay's point, you should understand the law really better than anybody and should be held to a standard that you've held everyday Americans to. It's a very straightforward question. Have people gone to prison for mortgage fraud like this in New York State with Tish James overseeing the prosecutorial offices that do this? Because it's all federal, the answer is yes. So if somebody can go to prison for this, she can go to prison for this. And people might say, oh, that's harsh. Well, to that I say it is harsh. But either the elites, and that includes prosecutors, live under the laws they use against us, or we are in a tyranny. My friends, the law either applies to everyone or should apply to no one. And, and by the way, here she is. This is cut 14, making that very point. Clay, play it.
- [29:51]
Podcast Host
The president of these United States is not above the law. No matter how rich, powerful, or politically connected you are, everyone must play by the same rules. Please sue him for us. Oh, we're going to definitely sue him. We're going to be a real pain in the.
- [30:09]
Buck
She said everyone has to play by the same rules. Looks like she broke the rules according to this grand jury. She certainly did. I mean, Clay, also, if she didn't do this, this wouldn't be where it is. This is a very straightforward crime. This is in fact the crime that they try to get the corrupt congressman in the show the wire on. And, and they, and they call it at that time the quote, headshot, because you can go away for years based on mortgage fraud.
- [30:35]
Clay
Yeah. She's facing up to 30 years in prison now, again, which is insane.
- [30:39]
Buck
Which is insane. And we can all, by the way, we can all agree that's insane. But change the laws, everybody. There's these, some of these federal laws are absurd. It should only be, you know, multiple counts, accounts systemic. Essentially a RICO situation. Like if you did this 50 times, OK, yeah, you should face maybe 30 years. I know she'll only probably get if she's found guilty, six months or something. But again, James Comey, we're seeing a pattern here. Comey sent Martha Stewart to prison for a little fib that didn't matter. Comey told a little fib too. Guess what?
- [31:10]
Clay
More significantly, too, I don't know how she remains the New York Attorney General if you are the chief law enforcement officer of a state and you are facing felony charges, I don't understand how you remain in that position. And she's benefited because she's in a blue state. But there have been disbarment proceedings brought against Trump related officials who have law degrees for far less than felony mortgage charges. So my question would be for everybody out there listening on war and all over the state of New York, and this would be a question that I think Kathy Hochul should have to answer. How can you have a chief law enforcement officer of the state of New York who is under federal indictment for mortgage fraud, executing the, executing the office of New York Attorney General. Because look, Buck, she's prosecuting people right now for the crime that she has been indicted for in Virginia. That feels to me to be untenable. I think she's going to have to step down. And I'm surprised that more people aren't already raising this as an issue because again, when you are the chief law enforcement official of a state and you are facing felony charges, how in the world can you be expected to be a fair and impartial ruler of the law when you're prosecuting people for felony charges that you yourself face? That seems like a tough putt to say.
- [32:41]
Buck
It's a huge problem. Huge problem. And there's more irony here. There's a lot of irony in this whole situation. Remember, she brought effectively mortgage fraud charges against now civilly, but to bankrupt hundreds of millions of dollars worth of this to bankrupt the Trump Organization, even though the banks involved with them said it was great, we would do it again, there was no problem here. Look, what are you talking. And her valuations for properties were absurd. I mean, to say that Mar A Lago is worth $16 million or something, this is, this is truly bonkers. Nobody would ever say that. But beyond that, Clay, she's going to. I mentioned Clay Davis, who's actually the guy, a different Clay, the guy from the wire who is prosecuted for mortgage fraud. That's how they get the politician. And what does he do? He appeals to the jury on sort of purely emotional political grounds. He really goes for jury nullification. Here is Leticia James. This is just a quick one. This cut. Cut 15. She told everybody she was going after Trump for political reasons. Play it.
- [33:40]
Podcast Host
It's important that everyone understand that the days of Donald Trump are coming to an end.
- [33:45]
Buck
Prosecutors should not be saying things like that. Okay? Correct. Especially when they're bringing active charges against somebody. She played with fire and now she's seeing that can go both ways.
- [33:56]
Clay
No doubt. And again, I would love team see if there's been any questioning. Of course, there probably hasn't because the New York media is mostly left wing. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about how Letitia James can stay in office given that she has felony charges against her. I mean, judges would typically have to recuse themselves from any sort of judicial proceeding if they were facing felony charges. How can Letitia James stay in the office of New York ag? Now the answer is politically, this might actually be good for Right because it elevates her profile. And in the left, if you're fighting Trump, I was laughing when Trump said, hey, we should arrest JB Pritzker. That Gavin Newsom has to be so mad. You know, Gavin Newsom's like, why won't he say he has to arrest me? You know, like Gavin Newsom was probably throwing his, his wine glass against the wall when he saw that J.B. pritzker and Brandon Johnson are getting threatened with arrest over ice and not him. But in all honesty, I'm going to, you know, I'll tweet this out, but I haven't seen anybody asking that question. It feels like a no brainer that she would have to immediately step down as New York Attorney General. You can't prosecute cases that are similar to the ones that you are facing from a felon basis.
- [35:10]
Buck
Here's where my guess, Clay, I have to look at the New York state laws about this, but my guess is that like a judge recusing himself or herself, there's some degree of, it's like up to the person, unless they get maybe pressured from the legislature in New York state that, hey, look, you either can step aside or we'll remove you. And I just think that she'll be able to. Again, I'm totally spitballing here, but my sense is she will be able to rely on the anti Trump lunacy of any Democrats. Of course, the New York State assembly is Democrat and the governor is a Democrat. So there won't be pressure on her, I think from her own party in New York State to step aside. So unless there's clear, you know, written out law that you must, which I don't think there is, or we would have already heard about it, she'll be able to ride this out in office until the actual trial happens. That's my. Do you agree with that or you.
- [36:09]
Clay
See that going a different way? I don't. I mean I'm, I'm working through in my head the legal ethics morass, for lack of a better way to describe it, on who lawyers can represent is enough to make your eyeballs roll back into your head the conflicts and the withdrawals and the mandatory aspects of things.
- [36:29]
Buck
But do you think she stays in office or not?
- [36:31]
Clay
I think that she has to. I'm going to send this tweet out, but I think she has to step down. I don't understand. Well, I understand she'll fight it and again, pull. This is political versus legal, which is two different fronts like we talked about.
- [36:43]
Buck
So that's what I mean. There's probably a good faith. Oh, you should recuse yourself in the, in the ethics, you know, the written ethics about the attorney general for New York. But my guess is it's not an automatic and if it's not an automatic, then it relies on pressure from other Democrats who can, I'm sure you know, she could be fired by the, by the governor. She could be removed from office, I'm sure by the state legislature. There's processes in place usually for things like that. Clay, I don't think they're going to do that. I think they're going to let her fight this thing out and see how it goes with a jury. That's my guess. We'll see.
- [37:18]
Podcast Host
This is an I Heart podcast.