Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Thirty Three: The Republic Held

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Thirty Three: The Republic Held · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and thirty three of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:05
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. Liberals
0:08
are tellingly freaking out over the Supreme Court, seemingly helping Donald Trump on two
0:14
important fronts. Meanwhile, the polls also seem to be solidifying in Trump's favor.
0:20
I weigh in on the January sixth the rest of a reporter from The
0:24
Blaze and California once again is providing a ton of evidence against the theory of
0:30
global warming. Today we begin a new era in the history of the Death
0:35
of Journalism podcast. We are now using the paid subscription format. So thank
0:41
you very much for participating in the new form of this podcast. Your support
0:47
is much appreciated and much needed, because without you, this podcast would have
0:51
already ended. I'm calling this the only fans model era of the podcast,
0:58
which I think in cads both hopefully humor, because I can promise you there
1:03
will be no nudity in the Death of Journalism podcasts, at least not for
1:07
now. We haven't quite gotten that desperate yet. But also to express my
1:14
open discontent over the nature of a paid subscription format, I have been outspoken
1:22
that I despise what paid subscription formats have done to the media, and I
1:26
feel like a massive hypocrite for participating in it myself. However, there just
1:33
was no other option to continue to buy the podcast, and so we've decided
1:38
to make a go of this now. I also, in keeping with my
1:42
total transparency, I am not all that optimistic about how this is going to
1:47
go down. I went into this, you know, with the open mind
1:51
and trying to do my very best to make this work and to exhaust all
1:56
options before ending the podcast. But I had some significant concerns about how this
2:01
would go down, and so far those concerns have proven to be valid.
2:07
And so I don't know how this is going to go down, folks,
2:09
but I'm going to give it my very best shot and we'll see what happens.
2:14
And as they say on TikTok, let's get into it. And there's
2:17
a lot to get to in this podcast episode, because the news is coming
2:23
fast and furious. In fact, just before I sat down to record this
2:29
on Monday morning, the US Supreme Court has announced their decision in the case
2:36
to decide whether or not Donald Trump should be eligible for the presidential ballot in
2:42
Colorado, but also in Maine and Illinois, because Maine and Illinois in an
2:47
active liberal virtue signaling followed the state of Colorado when they took Trump off of
2:53
the ballot because allegedly he had was an insurrectionist and that they were invoking the
3:00
Constitution to say that he would be ineligible to run for president. Well,
3:05
the Supreme Court, as every rational person presumed that they would decided in Trump's
3:12
favor. Now, what was uncertain was the nature of that decision. And
3:17
I was one of those who said, look, I think this is going
3:21
to be close to nine nothing. It's clearly at least going to be six
3:25
to three. I didn't know whether or not the liberal justices were going to
3:30
be partisan about it and try to save face for Colorado, Maine, in
3:36
Illinois, or whether or not it would be nine to nothing and they would
3:39
actually go by the logic and the law because this was not an even remotely
3:44
difficult case. I mean, Trump was never charged with insurrection, he was
3:47
never convicted. There's the whole issue of whether or not states have the authority
3:53
over a federal election for the office of presidency, and so at every single
3:59
level from a logic standpoint. Logistically, also there was a major issue because
4:03
if you set a precedent here that states are allowed to do this, then
4:09
we're never going to be able to have a legitimate presidential election. Again.
4:12
In fact, it might be the quickest recipe for secession you could possibly imagine
4:17
it, because in the deep blue states they would just take off the Republican
4:21
candidate, and probably vice versa in the red states, and so you wouldn't
4:27
even have a presidential election if you allowed this to stand. And I guess
4:31
I was probably in the category of this should be nine to nothing, but
4:35
maybe at least one of the liberal justices is going to try to save face
4:42
for their side because they are extremely partisan. I mean, the left wingers
4:46
on the Supreme Court almost always vote in unison and almost always vote in the
4:53
quote unquote liberal or pro Democrat direction. Well, that did not happen in
4:59
this partice. Well, actually did happen in one way. They all voted
5:01
in unison, but they all voted with the so called conservative majority, and
5:06
it was a nine to nothing, complete and total rebuke of Colorado, Maine,
5:14
and in Illinois. Frankly, I actually think Maine and Illinois were even
5:17
more rebuked than Colorado, because at least Colorado went through the court system,
5:23
and their Supreme Court, in a very partisan decision, decided that it was
5:27
legitimate for the state officials to take Trump off the ballot Maine, in Illinois,
5:31
basically one person in each state against a lot of other people in charge
5:38
in the state, just decided they were going to become famous for fifteen minutes
5:42
and decided to take Trump off the ballot. So this was the proper decision.
5:46
A nothing ruling is an incredible rebuke, and the nine to nothing part
5:53
of this really ought to be the headline. That's the part that every American
5:58
citizen ought to understand. How ordinary this is because it exposes the massive hypocrisy
6:05
of the entire quote unquote save Democracy party narrative that the Democratic Party, along
6:13
with their liberal media allies, have been trying to create over the last couple
6:16
of years, especially when it comes to the issue of Donald Trump. That's
6:20
literally the mantra of the liberal media and the Democratic Party. We must save
6:27
democracy. We are the pro democracy party. And yet it was the Democrat
6:31
Party in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois who, without any semblance of a
6:39
legitimate legal argument, decided to do the most undemocratic thing you can possibly even
6:46
imagine, taking the Republican presidential nominee off the statewide ballot because they decided,
6:56
they decided that he was guilty of something that he was never actually technically charged
7:01
with. And the Supreme Court said, yeah, no, this doesn't work
7:06
on any level. You don't have the authority because this is a federal office.
7:11
That was the primary rationale behind the decision. But I'm sure the fact
7:17
that Trump was never even charged with this also played into it. It should
7:23
be pointed out as an anti Trump Republican once again is showing my how objective
7:29
I am about Trump and how I do not have Trump derangement syndrome, because
7:32
I was as outraged as anybody when it came to the idea of taking Trump
7:38
off the ballot based upon the current reality of the situation. Legally, it
7:43
should be pointed out that the Supreme Court did acknowledge that Congress had the authority
7:48
to make Trump ineligible, and we should never forget although Republicans, you know,
7:56
conveniently and then the conservative media conveniently do forget about is the US Senate
8:01
after Trump lost in twenty twenty, after Trump was impeached for issues related to
8:07
January sixth, had the authority to convict Trump and make it ineligible for future
8:16
federal office. It only would have taken a little bit more than a handful
8:22
of Republican votes in the Senate to eliminate this problem forever that the US Senate
8:28
would convict Donald Trump on an impeachment charge and he would not be legally eligible.
8:35
And in my view, there was a very strong argument for that,
8:39
and logistically, from a practical standpoint, that was the only real way other
8:46
than death to get rid of the Donald Trump problem. Republicans had the ability
8:52
to do that in the Senate, and the vast majority of them wimped out,
8:58
So we should never forget about that. This whole Trump issue would have
9:03
been gone and dealt with, And frankly, I think the Republican Party would
9:05
have done extremely well in the twenty twenty two midterm elections if the Republicans in
9:11
the Senate during that impeachment trial it had some balls and followed the lead of
9:16
Mitt Romney in a couple of others and said no, this is too much
9:20
and we need to end this now. That was the legal way to do
9:26
this, and they had the votes to do it, they just didn't have
9:28
the balls. So that's why we're even here. But as far as this
9:33
case in particular, the Supreme Court made the right decision. The republic held
9:39
even the three liberal justices went along with it, and the three liberal justices
9:46
deciding in the proper manner should disgrace, should absolutely disgrace the Democratic Party in
9:54
general and all the media allies that tried to pretend that this was a legitimate
9:58
thing for co Colorado and Maine and Illinois to do. They should be humiliated,
10:03
they should be discredited, they should be exposed for what they are,
10:09
massive hypocrites, especially on this issue of democracy. You can't get any more
10:15
undemocratic than taking someone off a ballot without any legitimate reason or argument. As
10:24
far as the impact of this decision, obviously the number one impact is that
10:28
Trump is gonna be on the ballot, so that's not gonna be an issue.
10:33
I actually think that there is a chance this could backfire, not just
10:37
nationally, because it does you'll absolutely go into a lot of Trump's narratives,
10:43
and the fact that he won nine to nothing does feed into this idea that
10:48
Trump is invincible, and he's coming back for his retribution, and he's a
10:52
strong leader. And you know, here comes here, here comes the new
10:56
wave. It's going to be a red wave. And you know, even
10:58
the Liberals in the Supreme Court are, you know, backing Trump. Now,
11:03
that's a narrative I think may have some significance in some areas of the
11:07
country, but I don't think it's going to decide any states or electoral College
11:11
votes. But I have mentioned before the state of Maine, and how I
11:16
think Maine is by far the most underrated state in this coming election. We
11:22
talk a lot, and very understandably so, about Georgia and Arizona and Nevada,
11:28
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Those are the states that will decide
11:33
the next president of the United States. However, as I outlined in the
11:39
last episode of the podcast, there is a not out of the realm of
11:46
possibility. In fact, it's I think in the realm of probability. That
11:48
doesn't mean over fifty percent, but it's in the realm of very very plausible
11:54
scenarios where this thing ends up in either a two sixty nine tie or something
12:01
very close to that. And that the key to that equation. By the
12:05
way, under a two sixty nine scenario, Trump probably wins because it would
12:11
be decided by each state getting one vote that determined by their congressional delegation after
12:18
the twenty twenty four elections. And even though I think Democrats are likely to
12:22
take back the House, they are unlikely to get twenty six state delegations.
12:28
But under this scenario that I've outlined, where Biden wins all the northern you
12:35
know, swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Trump wins all the
12:39
quote unquote southern swing states Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, all of which
12:43
is extremely probable at this point and makes a lot of sense from a geographic
12:50
standpoint. Under that circumstance, the way Maine does their electoral College votes would
12:58
decide this whole thing, because Maine in Nebraska are the two states that don't
13:03
allot electoral college votes based upon just who wins the state. They break in
13:09
Mainz case, they break two votes down based upon their congressional districts. Nebraska
13:16
does it with three congressional districts, and in the second congressional district. This
13:22
is why it's so important that Trump be on the ballot in Maine in the
13:26
second congressional district. There's a poll out last week showing Trump blowing the doors
13:33
off of Biden in the second congressional district. Now, I didn't have a
13:37
lot of faith in that poll because it showed Trump winning the state as a
13:39
whole, and I don't think he's gonna win. Maine is a very odd
13:43
state because it's liberal but very rural, and they sometimes actually elect Republicans there,
13:50
but they're not traditional Republicans. But anyway, the point of all this
13:54
is there's a very very very good chance, especially after this ruling rebuking the
14:00
Democratic Party of Maine, that Trump is going to win that second Congressional district
14:03
in Maine, even if he doesn't win the state. By the way,
14:07
if he wins the state, then he wins the election clearer and free,
14:11
even under the scenario that I just outline. So there's a really very plausible
14:18
scenario that the Democrats, overplaying their hand like they always, always, always
14:26
always do, could backfire and cause Trump to be either elected free and clear
14:33
or win in this horrendous two sixty nine to sixty nine Thai scenario that I
14:39
am extremely concerned about one, because I think it's very plausible. Two,
14:43
I don't think that we could survive it as a democratic republic without some semblance
14:48
of a civil war, given the nature of Trump and Biden. So this
14:54
is a very bad situation I think for Democrats. Of course, the media
14:58
will do everything they possibly can to mute this, to not, you know,
15:05
tell Americans what really happened here, and will long ago by the time
15:09
November comes around, we will have forgotten that the Democratic Party systematically in three
15:15
states tried to take Donald Trump off the ballot in direct contradiction to their entire
15:22
save democracy narrative. Now, of course, this US Supreme Court also chimed
15:28
in or said they're going to chime in when it comes to Trump and the
15:33
presidential race, at least indirectly, when last week they declared that they will
15:39
be taking they will be taking the case of presidential immunity and Trump's claim that
15:46
he was immune to all prosecutions for things that happened during his presidency. This
15:52
is directly related to the issue of the Federal DCK brought by Special Counsel Jack
16:02
Smith and related to January sixth and the attempts to overturn the election, and
16:08
the U Supreme Court has said, yeah, we're going to hear this case
16:12
and we're not going to hear it until the end of April. And my
16:18
god, did liberals freak out about this. They completely freaked out because they
16:25
now are doing the math and they're saying, oh, my gosh, if
16:29
the Supreme Court here's the case in April, then who knows when they're actually
16:34
going to issue a ruling. And that stalls what they perceive to be the
16:40
most important and understandably so and potentially the most damaging case, especially if convicted
16:47
against Donald Trump, to the point where it may not happen before the November
16:52
election. Now, I always say, pay attention, folks, if you
16:56
keep your eyes open and your ears listening, the truth that's going to come
17:02
out. People will reveal what's really going on if you're paying attention. Now,
17:07
the media rarely is paying attention. But the reaction to this Supreme Court
17:11
decision is simply hear the immunity case. I found to be extremely telling,
17:18
extremely telling regarding what these cases are really all about. Now, to be
17:25
clear, I'm someone who generally supports the DC case. I think there are
17:30
some incredibly important issues that need to be adjudicated and resolved, and that,
17:37
if proven, there are some very significant charges against Donald Trump. So I
17:41
want to make that clear because I don't want to be perceived, as you
17:45
know, contradicting myself or or muddying the waters here. I see these as
17:51
two separate issues. There's what actually happened and whether or not Trump broke the
17:56
law and ought to be held accountable for that. But then there's the logistics
18:00
of this, and what the logistics expose about what the true motivation of liberals,
18:08
the Democratic Party, and the media actually is. And I don't think
18:15
we could come up with a set of circumstances that make it more obvious than
18:18
what we've seen over the last several days, because liberals went nuts over the
18:26
idea that, oh my god, our whole plan to convict Trump before the
18:32
election is now in jeopardy because they're doing the math and they're saying, whoa,
18:37
whoa, whoa, whoa whoa whoa. Wait a minute, hold on,
18:41
is is it possible that Trump doesn't actually get tried before the election.
18:48
This would be a travesty, This is outrageous. This is the Supreme Court
18:52
stepping in to save Donald Trump by running out the clock. Now, there's
18:57
a lot of liberals who fell into this category of freak out. I want
19:03
to share a couple with you right now. One I found to be particularly
19:07
hilarious. This is a writer from Slate, which is a liberal media outlet,
19:12
named Mark Joseph Stern. He wrote a column in reaction to what the
19:17
Supreme Court did, which he tweeted out with the following message, What the
19:21
Supreme Court did today is just plain terrifying, terrifying. He said, the
19:26
justices are actively abetting Trump's efforts to run out the clock and evague trial for
19:33
January sixth. In a choice between independence and cynical partisan loyalty, a majority
19:41
picked the latter. And now, my initial reaction to that, and my
19:48
general reaction to that, and it should be the majority of Americans reaction to
19:52
that, is okay. So what you're really saying is that the timing of
20:00
this was on purpose, was on purpose to derail Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
20:07
My question to this and has been for a long time, and I've never
20:12
gotten a legitimate answer. Okay, if it was so important to adjudicate this
20:18
before the election, why didn't they bring charges in twenty twenty one or twenty
20:26
twenty two. I'll acknowledge. You know, that's a complicated case. These
20:29
things take time. You know, there was the January sixth investigation by the
20:33
Congress, but this happened at the very very beginning of twenty twenty one.
20:38
Why couldn't you bring charges in twenty twenty two instead of the middle of twenty
20:45
twenty three, after Trump has already declared candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
20:52
That to me is the chorus you again separating this from the facts of the
20:59
case, legalities, and holding Trump accountable for what did or did not happen
21:03
surrounding January sixth. In my mind, that's a separate issue here, this
21:08
issue of timing that goes to the motivation. If this was really about justice,
21:17
if this was really about holding people accountable. We've already had an impeachment
21:22
trial related to some of these issues and Trump was acquitted. But okay,
21:26
if you want to go after him with a special counsel, I'm totally open
21:29
to that, But why not do it in twenty twenty two? That would
21:36
have given you plenty of time to go through the inevitable appeals. My god,
21:41
you're talking about an alleged multi billionaire here. He's got all sorts of
21:47
lawyers, all sorts of resources, and because he's a former president, he
21:51
has all sorts of possible appeal avenues, including this immunity argument. Now,
21:59
the Spring is not going to decide in Trump's favor in this particular case.
22:03
And by the way, part of what the liberal justices may have been thinking
22:07
about when it came to the Colorado case is holding their their you know,
22:11
keeping their powder dry, keeping their street crag, giving themselves some semblance of
22:17
credibility for when the immunity case and other cases come along where they can vote
22:22
against Trump and be taken seriously. But it's certainly my opinion and opinion of
22:30
the most And I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm no enough
22:34
to be dangerous. I can use common sense. It does not seem to
22:37
me as if Trump has a good argument. I agree this is a delay
22:41
tactic, but guess what. This is part of the legal system, and
22:48
they should have understood what they think was gonna happen. Trump was just gonna
22:52
say, sure, all right, you know, you charge me. In
22:55
middle of twenty twenty three. I'm gonna allow there to be a trial in
22:59
the mid middle of a presidential election year while I'm either running to be the
23:03
Republican nominee or I'm already the Republican nominee. And I'm just going to take
23:07
that when I have all these other potential legal options. Give me a break.
23:12
I mean, this criminally naive, but it goes to the real motivation
23:18
here. These charges should have been brought at least in twenty twenty two,
23:25
not in twenty twenty three, where they're obviously and they did clearly disrupt the
23:30
Republican nominating process. I mean Rhanda Santis has said it very clearly. Might
23:37
be a little bit simplistic, but I do think there's a lot of reality
23:40
to this. Once Trump was indicted four times, there was no way to
23:44
beat him. It sounds crazy, it's upside down, but that's the world
23:48
we live in, especially when it comes to Republican politics and the conservative media
23:52
industrial complex. There was no beating him at that point. The left shows
23:57
the Republican priorities presidential nominee for all intents and purposes, because there was a
24:02
massive rally around Trump effect, So why did you do that in twenty twenty
24:10
three. Well, it certainly seems as if you did it because you wanted
24:14
Trump to be the nominee, especially when it was clear after the first New
24:18
York indictment what the reaction was within Republican polling, and Trump got stronger and
24:23
stronger after each indictment. So they overplayed their hand like they always do.
24:30
They have no impulse control, They couldn't contain themselves. They keep indicting Trump,
24:36
and when I say they, I don't think this is necessarily a conspiracy.
24:40
But these are all Democrats. This is all obviously bragging New York and
24:45
Fanny Willis in Georgia obviously Democrats doing this for partisan reasons. Fanny Willis and
24:52
Georgia basically duplicating the Jack Smith Special Council charges in DC. So there is
25:00
a they involved in this, and they miscalculated. They thought they could have
25:08
their cake and eat it too. They could make Trump the nominee because they
25:14
thought he would be the most easily defeated, while also giving themselves enough time
25:21
to convict him, just to make one hundred percent sure he wouldn't win reelection
25:26
or be re elected to the White House. After having already served a term,
25:29
obviously that they thought there would be enough time. Well it appears as
25:33
if they may have miscalculated. And one of those that went the most bananas
25:38
on this, I could choose a half dozen. And I rarely ever pay
25:44
any attention anything that happens on MSNBC because they're just so out there. They're
25:48
so partisan, hilariously, so I don't think anyone really takes them seriously in
25:53
the mainstream, and they certainly don't have any real influence over independent or open
25:59
minded voters. But I want to play this clip from Rachel Maddow, who's,
26:03
you know, basically the Queen Liberal on MSNBC and her freakout over this
26:11
issue of the Supreme Court siding with Trump, playing on his team essentially to
26:18
delay this, and her freak out over this getting into the issue of what
26:26
this will say to Trump should he actually get elected. Now, it's clear
26:30
to me she's looking at this entire issue through the prism of, oh my
26:36
god, he might win now, because we're not going to be able to
26:38
say he's a convicted felon. But then she goes into this diatribe about what
26:44
would happen when, if, and when he does win, and whether or
26:47
not he would ever leave office. And here's the deep end off which or
26:55
into which she dives in her reaction to the Supreme Court announcing that they will
26:59
take the Trump immunity case with a hearing in late April. Now, if
27:03
you think about the Court as the Supreme Court of the United States and a
27:07
rational actor and a decent one, that was a reasonable supposition, and it
27:11
just turns out they're not that feel incremental bit of progress here. The important
27:18
question here is not whether the Supreme Court is going to decide that Donald Trump
27:25
and all presidents are immune from prosecution for things they commit, crimes they committed
27:30
while they were president. I mean, it would be fully insane for them
27:36
to actually side with Trump here. The conclusion that we can arrive at now
27:40
based on what they have done without having to wait for the ruling, is
27:42
that they are ensuring that Trump will not face trial. And when they inevitably
27:48
rule that presidents aren't immune from prosecution after they leave office, what that will
27:52
tell Donald Trump, if by then he is president, is that he can
27:59
never leave the office of the presidency. And if he is voted out in
28:04
twenty twenty eight, he cannot leave office, and he is willing to commit
28:08
He is welcome to commit any crimes he wants to as long as he is
28:12
still president in order to ignore the result of that election and stay in power
28:18
for life, because otherwise he is going to go to prison when he gets
28:21
out. Now, there is so much insanity in what Mattou said there,
28:26
and I'm not going to dive too deeply into it, but let me just
28:27
make a couple quick points with regard to this issue of Trump never leaving office.
28:33
All right, I hate to break this to you, but we already
28:37
have some data on this. We have Donald Trump being president of the United
28:42
States and losing an election. Now, he handled it horribly, horrendously in
28:52
every possible way. May have committed crimes in the process, but one ended
28:57
up happening. He left, He left, and the process it didn't work
29:06
great, didn't work even particularly well, but it worked. So now we
29:11
would have a situation should Trump win again, where everybody in the world knows
29:18
he's termed out. You can only serve two terms. It could not be
29:22
more clear cut. In the constitution, He's not gonna get any rulings from
29:26
the US Supreme Court giving him relief on this, so he can't be on
29:32
any ballots in twenty twenty eight. By the way, Mattout references somehow I
29:37
don't know whether she misspoke or what have you, but she references him losing
29:41
the twenty twenty eight election. I don't even know how that would happen because
29:45
he can't get on any ballots. Maybe a few ridiculously absurd red states would,
29:51
but that's not gonna be enough. I mean, of the worst case
29:53
scenario, that's not gonna be enough to where he could even theoretically win enough
29:59
electoral College vote in violation of the Constitution to remain in office. And he's
30:03
not going to cancel the election. The system is strong enough to prevent that
30:07
from happening too. So I don't don't even understand what is this scenario here.
30:12
He's not going to cancel the election. He can't get on the ballot,
30:15
so he's going to lose. So how exactly would he be able to
30:22
remain in office? I don't, I honestly don't understand that. And you
30:27
know, look, I mean Trump is as self centered as anybody on the
30:32
planet. I get it. I mean, I've said many times. Part
30:36
of why he's running for presidents because he's facing these charges. He knows that
30:40
if he wins, he's safe for at least four years, assuming he lives
30:45
that long. But you know, if he wins, he's going to be
30:48
well into his eighties at this point. Who knows how much longer he even
30:52
has to live. I think he's kind of just taking this one step at
30:56
a time. But there is no legitimate threat that Trump is never going to
31:00
leave office. I despise the man as much as any conservative alive, and
31:06
I just don't see this scenario where he could possibly pull that off. And
31:10
what proves that is what happened in twenty twenty. But there's maybe even bigger
31:15
issues than that here. To me, it's not just about the idea that
31:19
we now know. The liberal motivation here was all about taking Trump out,
31:26
making a the nominee, and then taking him out banking on the fact that
31:30
he's going to be a convicted felon and that Americans are never going to elect
31:34
a convicted felon as president. There's two ways in which this doesn't work,
31:41
at least based upon the traditional liberal view of the world. One, there's
31:48
the democracy element of it, right, Okay, because you have a situation
31:52
where you know, it's been accepted practice that the judicial system, especially the
31:59
federal judicial system, not be used to influence elections. I mean, this
32:04
is clear. Trump is actually right on this. This is clear election interference.
32:10
When it comes to the timing of this, that is in violation of
32:15
a basic premise of democracy. We're not going to have the federal government bringing
32:22
charges right before an election, especially when there were other options. You could
32:29
have brought this a lot sooner and this would have been adjudicated and dealt with.
32:34
So this is this goes again to the hypocrisy of the you know,
32:37
we're saving democracy crowd on the left. Bullshit. You're literally using the judicial
32:45
process to interfere in the election. You tried it with keeping them off the
32:51
ballot, that's not going to work. Now you're trying with making him a
32:54
convicted felon in jurisdictions where there are no Trump supporters, where you can't possibly
33:00
get a fair jury pull. And that leads me to the second part of
33:05
this, where liberals are massive hypocrites, and that's the issue of basic due
33:09
process. I mean, if you know anything about me, and obviously,
33:14
since you're a paid subscriber to this podcast, you do. I don't care
33:17
who you are, how much I like or dislike you. Due process matters,
33:22
Fairness matters. It is the bedrock of our entire system that we treat
33:29
people at least remotely fairly, especially when it comes to very serious criminal charges.
33:37
How in the world, and this maybe drives me more crazy than anything
33:40
else surrounding this whole issue, especially in the media, How in the world
33:45
are we playing pretend? I honestly, I do wonder whether or not these
33:51
liberals, especially in the media, actually believe this. Are they just pretending?
33:54
How in the world are we pretending that a criminal trial that could happen
34:00
By the way that I'm about to get to an article that's desperately hoping that
34:05
you know what, there's still is away. There's still is a way to
34:07
put Trump on trial in the DC case before November. Okay, all right,
34:13
let's pretend that possible. I don't know enough about it to know.
34:15
I don't think anybody really knows what the Supreme Court is going to do as
34:17
far as their calendar is concerned. But let's pretend that there's still time.
34:22
Best case scenario. Best case scenario is like a September October type of trial.
34:30
You're really gonna put the Republican presidential nominee on trial in federal case,
34:38
in a federal case in Washington, d C. Where there are literally no
34:45
Republicans. They just had a Republican primary in DC. Nikki Haley hilariously won.
34:52
Trump got literally six hundred and seventy six votes in the entire city of
34:59
Washington, d C. Three hundred and thirty six thousand people in DC voted
35:05
in the twenty twenty election. Less than seven hundred of them showed up for
35:10
Trump in the DC primary over the weekend. So you couldn't possibly imagine a
35:15
worse jury poll for Donald Trump. But how in the world are we gonna
35:20
pretend that liberals theoretically care about due process. That you're gonna make twelve jurors,
35:29
you're gonna give them the power to determine effectively the next president of the
35:36
United States, And you don't think that's gonna influence their decision in a criminal
35:40
case. I mean, my god, I mean there have been thousands of
35:47
convictions overturned in this country, some rightfully, some wrongfully, based on far
35:54
less jury bias than that. That is an inherent fundamental impossibility. That is
36:01
an impossibility to have a fair trial when every juror is going to know for
36:09
sure that their decision, and almost certainly all of them are going to be
36:15
Democrats, that their decision will have a massive impact on whether or not their
36:21
favorite candidate becomes President of the United States, and nobody in the media,
36:25
at least in the left wing, is even talking about this. In fact,
36:30
they're writing articles that seem to be completely oblivious to this entire issue.
36:36
Let me give you an example. Politico So Politico. They pretend to be
36:40
somewhat objective, but they're left wing. Like most media outlets, they put
36:45
forward I'm sure mostly for clickbait because there's a lot of liberals who are freaked
36:50
out about this and desperately want to believe that it's still possible to put Trump
36:53
on trial before November, so they want to give their customers what they want.
36:59
So political. The following this really blew my mind. The Supreme Court
37:02
seemed to drop a bomb this week when the justices agreed to hear Donald Trump's
37:07
claim that he is immune for prosecution for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election.
37:13
But the fallout may not be as clear cut as it seems. Almost
37:16
immediately after the court's order, a consensus seemed to form among the pundit class
37:22
that it will now be impossible for Trump's trial in Washington to take place before
37:27
the election. Here is the reality. Tentative and messy, perhaps, but
37:32
true. Nonetheless, Trump's trial in Washington can still start before November, given
37:38
the timetable on the calendar. Trump's trial also should should start before November,
37:47
given the intense public interest. What what so, because there to be a
38:00
lot of people interested in the outcome, we have to do it before November.
38:06
No, no, no, If that was really all that important,
38:08
the trial should have already happened. The charges should have been brought in twenty
38:13
twenty two, and the trials should have happened in twenty twenty three. That
38:16
way, Republican voters would have been able to know what the hell was going
38:21
on before they voted. Why didn't you give a shit about that? You
38:25
didn't give a shit about that because you wanted a very vulnerable Trump as the
38:30
Republican presidential nominee. So don't give me that bullshit. Don't tell me,
38:37
Oh, we got to know before we vote. Republican voters didn't get that
38:40
opportunity, and instead that's what we got. Donald Trump is the nominee for
38:46
the third straight time. But even more important than that, what the fuck
38:52
ever happened to do process because of public interest? I mean it's literally,
38:58
I mean, I mean, this is like Sam, tell him which trial
39:00
stoff. There's so much public interest. There must be a trial before November.
39:06
Well, with each month that passes, which each month that pass,
39:10
each month that passes, it becomes more and more insane to put Trump on
39:15
trial. It was already insane to do this in the middle of a presidential
39:20
election, but now you're gonna do it after he's officially the Republican presidential nominee,
39:25
after the convention. The Republicans have had their convention, he's clearly the
39:30
nominee, he's on all the ballots, and now you're gonna put him on
39:32
trial in September October. So, both from an election interference standpoint and a
39:43
due process perspective, this is completely and totally absurd. Thanks for listening to
39:50
today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the
39:53
entire show, you must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. It's
40:00
p A t R e O N dot com. Patreon dot com slash The
40:07
Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j O H N z
40:12
I E G L e R. That's patreon dot com slash the Death of
40:19
Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that. But that's how
40:24
you can subscribe.