Latest / The Mark Simone Show / Ken interviews Fox News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett.

Transcript

Ken interviews Fox News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett. · The Mark Simone Show

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Now more of the Mark Simone Show on seven to
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: ten or filling in for Mark. Here again is Ken Rosado.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: And good to be with you on your Friday. Here
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: is a news commentator, author at attorney who serves as
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: a legal and political analyst on Fox News Channel. He
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: spent many years himself as an anchor and a trial lawyer.
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: Busy man, we say good morning to you, Greg Jarrett.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Hey Cam, good to be with you. Thanks for having me.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: I've been a huge fan, by the way, forever I've
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: been you know, I was on Channel seven for twenty years,
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: but I always watched you guys over at Fox News Channel,
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: and I'm a huge, huge fan. So I'm a little starspart.
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: Forgive me, forgive it a little shaken here, Greg. First off,
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: how serious is it? Let's talk about the Jack Smith subpoena?
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: How serious is the Jack Smith subpoena? For all? Is
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: it all for show? Do you think you think there's
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: a shot that we're actually going to see a conviction
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: and jail time out of all this?
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Well, it's too early to make that prediction, but I
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: will say that there is a grand jury convenient some
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: thirty subpoenas apparently have gone out among them Jack Smith
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: as special counsel, and they're looking into an ongoing criminal
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: conspiracy how government officials weaponized the law classic sort of
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: lawfair against Trump or anybody in his orbit. And with
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: respect to Jack Smith, they're looking into the two federal
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: criminal cases he brought against Trump in both Florida and Washington,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: d C. Those were dismissed. But this Arctic Frost investigation
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: that included, you know, secretly surreptitiously obtaining phone records of
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: members of Congress, including United States Senators, and then seeking
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: a court order from Judge James Bosberg in Washington to
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: defy the law and not note the members of Congress
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: that their records were being seized and studied. You know,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: there's a provision in the federal statutes that if you're
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: going to do that, you have to give those people notice,
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: and they didn't do that, and Bozburg signed off on it.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: So you know, this is an investigation into Jack Smith's
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: conduct and whether it crossed the line into criminality.
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: Seven to ten, wo are the Voice of New York.
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: This is the Marx Simone Show. Ken Rossano went from
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: Mark on a Friday along with Greg Jarrett from Fox
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: News Channel. Look, it is amazing how much arrogance we
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: see from Judge Boseburg. And the question is, do you
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: have the authority of the judicial branch running a muck
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: right now? Because to see every little US district judge
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: imparting their opinion, where it's going to end up getting overturned.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: It seems in almost every case it gets overturned by
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. Who has authority over them? Is it
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: the Justice Department? Is it the Chief Justice of the
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court? Or does Congress have to step in? We
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: have three co equal branches, So I guess that gets
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: a little harry there. But at some point we have
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: to say enough, we have an executive in charge right now,
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: who is elected, who's doing the constitutional job that he has.
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: Why do these US district judges get in the way
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: every step of the way.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: Well, I think because they have, in the age of Trump,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: politicized their positions, and you know, they are no longer
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: many of them making rulings based on the law rather
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: on politics. And you know, both Brigant particular has been
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: slapped down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. In one notable case,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: he's surped the power of Texas jurisdiction by issuing an
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: immigration deportation ruling that he had no power to make.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: And you know, the Spring Court told him so. Bothford
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: nevertheless persists. But I think the most important authority is
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: indeed the Spring Court and the seminal ruling they issued
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: Long Overdue several months ago, when the High Court finally said,
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: you know, district court judges are not empowered to issue
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: nationwide injunctions. They have authority over their small districts and
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: that's it. And so I think that, as I say,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: Long Overdue is helping to rein in all of these
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: injunctions that have been issued. You know, why should a
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: judge in say San Jose, California, be able to issue
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: an injunction that affects the entire nation. The Supreme Court said,
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: you can't. You're exceeding your authority, and they should have
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: done it a long time ago.
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: Greg. I think in many cases, so many of these
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: judges know that they're going to be overturned, but yet
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: they go ahead and make their order. It's like they're
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: trying to throw an impediment just to slow things down.
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: Why can't they get slapped for that? If it can
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: be proven that the judge is clearly acting above and
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: beyond their jurisdiction. Then is there any kind of consequence
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: for the judge? Will there be any kind of punishment?
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: I mean, two three strikes, you're out. You do that
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: two or three times, we're going to have you remove
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: from the bench at some point. I think if that
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: happens to one judge, then they won't be issuing these silly,
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: frivolous rulings.
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: The only way to remove a federal judge constitutionally is
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: through impeachment. And it's the same standards that apply to
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: other top ten federal officials, including the President of the
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: United States. Trees and bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. And
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: the last section is sort of fungible. What does that
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: really mean? It can mean anything. And in fact, in
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the past, over the last two or fifty years, you know,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: there have been federal judges who have been impeached for
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: deliberately abusing and misusing the law. But you know, it's
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: a very difficult thing to do. You know, it used
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: to be that federal district court judges would make decisions
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: not only based on the law, but with an eye
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: to getting overturned, and nobody wanted to get overturned, so
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: they were cautious in their ruling. So all of that
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: is now gone. And you know, I think people like
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Bozburg know they're going to get overturned, but they do
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: it anyway because you know, they're stricken with a severe
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: your psychopathology called Trump derangement syndrome PDSs, and you know,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: and they just can't help themselves.
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, clearly. And it's just so infuriating because you would
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: think that if you're in that position, you understand the
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: law better than others, and instead it feels like he
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: is playing us with the law more than others. With
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: just about a minute left, and I know that should
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: we should be giving you more time on this, But
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: in the Luigi Mangoni murder trial, I've had heard so
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: many bad arguments on behalf of Mangoni regarding when he
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: was read as Miranda, riots, etc. In this case, though,
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: the argument is that some of this evidence could be
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: thrown out by the judge. What is your opinion on
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: what you're hearing?
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: Well, I doubt it will happen. You know. Look, it's
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: a standard move by defense attorneys and I used to
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: do it. As a trial attorney myself is you challenge
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: the seizure of evidence that's incriminating and try to get
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: it tossed out under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: Most of the time it doesn't succeed. And here, for example,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: you know, the arresting officers, you know, looked into the bag.
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: Well they have to, you know, the gun, the manifesto
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: was in the bag, highly incriminating. They had to do that.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: When you take somebody into custody, you know, you pat
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: them down to make sure they don't have a weapon.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: And you know, in this particular case, looking inside his
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: backpack was merited. You know, you don't know if he's
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: got a weapon or a bumb In fact, he did
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: have a weapon in that bag. So I think that'll
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: survive scrutiny and in the end be admissible evidence.
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: There you go, all right, Fox News Channel legal and
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: political analyst Greg Jarrett, thank you so much for coming
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: on this morning. Happy holidays.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: Do you thank you same to you can't thanks appreciate it.
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: Seven ten wore the Voice of New York I. Number
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: is eight hundred three to two one zero seven ten,
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: eight hundred three to two one zero seven ten we're
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: going to take your calls next year seven ten WO
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: r