Latest / Brian Thomas / Judge Napolitano - Killing and Indifference

Transcript

Judge Napolitano - Killing and Indifference · Brian Thomas

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Well, the Reds are eaten three, Yankees are eighting two.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Time to buy World Series tickets. I wonder which team
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: our next guests will root for in October. Judges next.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Chuck Ingram on fifty five KRC, The Talk Station eight
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: thirty two.
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: Bold expression of optimism from Chuck Ingram as we walk
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: into the time of week here in the fifty five
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: KC Morning Show when we get the privilege, the privilege
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: of talking to Judge entered Apolotona, welcome back your honor.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: I'm going with Yank. I'm going with Yankees there, buddy.
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: I think that's maybe a safe bet when it comes
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: to who you're rooting for.
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think that's a safe bet and
• 0:38
  Speaker 3: a truism. Thank you and thanks to Chuck Ingram. The
• 0:41
  Speaker 3: Yankees and the Dodgers are tied after just two weeks
• 0:47
  Speaker 3: for the best records in baseball. They're both eight and two.
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: But it's only April prior.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: I know you read my mind. It's early in the season,
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: and we here in Red's Country do realize that quite
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: awful we get let down, kind of like the Bengals
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: as well. You're honor. Interesting topic. I like your column
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: is always killing an indifference. We're still on the topic
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: of this whole constitutional state of flux we seem in
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: with regard to the war in Iran. I was pleased
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: to see that we're not annihilating the entire population of Iran.
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: This morning got some sort of pause in fighting, although
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: it really isn't. We can dive on into that, but
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: I sort of a parallel I want to try to
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: draw on the heels of my conversation with the Congressman
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: Thomas Massey, who, by the way, says, hello, Oh.
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: Thank you. I missed him. I didn't know he was on,
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: although I've been on air all morning so far.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: You're a busy man.
• 1:38
  Speaker 3: Oh. I bleed for him. I would give him my
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: blood if it would help him to be re elected.
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: Well, and he sounds like he would give his iteth
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: at least have a debate with as a primary opponent
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: who refuses to accept his offer and to enter into
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: a debate. But the point being that the law that
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: was past, the law the Epstein files ordered, They Congress
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: ordered it, Donald Trump signed in law, produced the documents.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: Damn it. Well, they're still sitting on a whole bunch
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: of them. They're ignoring the law claiming this sort of this.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: I can't remember which specific privilege is being asserted, but
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: since the law to ordering production is a newer law,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: it would supersede prior laws in conflict. But they're not
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: honoring the letter of the law. They're sitting on documents
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: and Blanche is now saying basically no, in the same
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: way Bondi said no, they're producing war. How do we
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: deal with a lawless government?
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: Well, there is no privilege because the statute eviscerated any trumped,
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: no pun intended lowercase t the existence of any privilege.
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: The only privileges that would apply are those that are
• 2:43
  Speaker 3: articulated in the statute, which would mean the identification and
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: other factors of identification like who, what, when, where of
• 2:54
  Speaker 3: victims and any ongoing criminal investigations. That's inconceivable. There could
• 2:59
  Speaker 3: still be criminal investigations on going. Epstein's been dead for
• 3:03
  Speaker 3: more than five years, and five years as the statute
• 3:06
  Speaker 3: of limitations. I don't know that mister Blanche will be
• 3:12
  Speaker 3: confirmed as Attorney General if he doesn't to comply with
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: the statute. I don't even know if he's going to
• 3:19
  Speaker 3: be nominated. He is the acting Attorney general a position
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: from which he could be dislodged by a vote of
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: the Congress. They should bring him before the Congress, put
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: him under oath. Attorneys General, you should get the privilege
• 3:32
  Speaker 3: of not testifying under oath. This is more appearance than substance,
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: because lying to Congress is a crime, whether you're under
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: oath or not. Congress can lie to you, but if
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: you lie to Congress, it's a crime, whether you're under
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: oath or not. But back to Todd Blanche, they need
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: to interrogate him under oath on national television because the
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: public has Congressman Massy knows that than I overwhelmingly supports
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: the statute.
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah. So in terms of standing, he mentioned one of
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: the victims, the Epstein victims, could go into court and
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: demand the production of the documents, and that person would
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: have standing at least to bring it up. And as
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: his point, I think it's a valiable one. It would
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: take about two seconds for a court to rule that
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: the documents must be produced because of the superseding law.
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: Well, four courts have already ruled that way and the
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: government didn't take any appeals. Instead, it claimed it produced
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: to all documents. I don't know what Congressman Massey's number
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: is that have not been revealed. The number I saw
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: as forty five thousand. I don't know if it's forty
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: five thousand documents of forty five thousand pages. The Attorney
• 4:47
  Speaker 3: General who supervised this has since been fired. The Justice
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: Department is in a state of terrific disarray. It's best
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: and most experienced prosecutors, both at the national level, that
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: as those in Main Justice in DC and also at
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: various US Attorney's offices around the country are gone. The
• 5:08
  Speaker 3: DOJ is now stooping to hiring prosecutors right out of
• 5:13
  Speaker 3: law school, which it has never ever done. It typically
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: hires as federal prosecutors people who've spent a few years
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: as state or county prosecutors, so they have the experience
• 5:25
  Speaker 3: under their belt. This is a dream for the criminal
• 5:29
  Speaker 3: defense bar, and it's a dream for criminal defendants. Because
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: of this DOJ, there have been no criminal trials in
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: federal court in New Jersey during Donald Trump's presidency. I
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: mean that's unheard of. The judges are just trying civil cases.
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: There hasn't been a US attorney until two weeks ago.
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and the whole idea of a freshet of lass
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: to law student person going into court and trying one
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: of these very complex, quite often cases. To me, that's frightening.
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: I was there. I know what it's like to be
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: a first year right out of law school and you
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: aren't worth a damn in terms of your legal skills.
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: I mean, I'd be painting with a broad brush. You're
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: on her. But they don't teach you the fundamentals of
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: actual trials and litigation and discovery. In law school, you
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: learn broader legal concepts and you got to learn that stuff.
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: Hopefully you're a good law firm with an apprentice type
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: program like I was in, so you learn on the fly.
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: You're one hundred percent correct for people that are unfamiliar
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: with what we're talking about. Law school teaches you the basics,
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: and it teaches you enough of the basics to pass
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: the bar exam. It cannot teach you to be a
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: trial lawyer. You either have that instinctually and your colleagues
• 6:40
  Speaker 3: will bring it out of you, or you don't. I
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: would imagine that only five percent of the lawyers who
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: appeared before me instinctually had those skills. Knowing how to
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: cross examine, knowing what questions they asked, knowing when to
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: stop asking asking questions. You put a young kid up
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: there against a seasoned criminal defense lawyer, most likely him
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: or herself, a former federal prosecutor, right, and the defendant's
• 7:07
  Speaker 3: going to walk.
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And good defense lawyers
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: can establish reasonable doubt. They're good at that. Well, is
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: the clock taking judgent of Politan before we part company?
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: Congressman mass who believes it is under the War Powers
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: Resolution Act sixty days plus an extension of thirty meaning
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: the deadline is five nine May twenty ninth under the
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: ninety day provision, and he explained what happens then Congress
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: must act. Is it your opinion that we are operating
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: under that timeframe? Clearly there has been no declaration of war,
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: So this sort of I'll call it a gray area
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: constitutionally and legally speaking. Where are we and what is
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: your opinion on that judge of politics?
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: Well, in my opinion, it is clearly a war because
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: of the nature of the violence visited upon Iran and
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: the extent of American assets involved in that industrialized government
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: of violence. Trump has denied that it's a war, probably
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: because one of his lawyers said, don't admit it's a
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: war because the clock is ticking. They'll probably also claim
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: to the two weeks ceasefire, which you'll find out the
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: say afternoon is not a real ceasefire. Right stops the
• 8:19
  Speaker 3: clock from running, it does not. I hope Congressman Massey
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: is right, because after President Trump's threats to annihilate a civilization,
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: I think you're going to find a lot less patience
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: in Congress than there was the last time they tried
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: to vote on this a few weeks ago.
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: I tend to agree with you on that question. And finally,
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: because you and I have discussed this before, and I'm
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: in complete agreement with you that the War Powers Resolution
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: Act nineteen seventy three unconstitutionally delegates the power of declaring
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: war to the executive branch. Will this be tested in
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: court at this moment of time, since it's never been
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: tested in court.
• 8:57
  Speaker 3: I wish it would be tested. If somebody asked me
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: the other day, can somebody sue Trump for starting a war? Well,
• 9:05
  Speaker 3: you can sue, but it's going to be thrown out.
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: The last one of these lawsuits. This is very interesting.
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: I'll be very brief. The name of the case is
• 9:12
  Speaker 3: Goldwater versus Carter. We both know who they were. Barry
• 9:15
  Speaker 3: Goldwater sued Jimmy Carter to try and prevent them from
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: giving away the Panama Canal, and the case made its
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said,
• 9:24
  Speaker 3: we're washing our hands of it. It's a political question.
• 9:27
  Speaker 3: We have nothing to do with it. Don't come to
• 9:29
  Speaker 3: us on these issues, Senator Goldwater, you should know better. Wow,
• 9:32
  Speaker 3: that's what will probably happen. I mean, let's say there's
• 9:37
  Speaker 3: an American in Tehran who was seriously injured by an
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: American bomb. Can that person sue the federal government. You
• 9:43
  Speaker 3: can file the lawsuit, but you're not going to get
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: the first base.
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: Yep. That's been typically the case standing. That's one of
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: the more complicated issues we got to deal with in
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: the practice of law. Judge Ennena Palatan will always appreciate
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: your insight, thoughts and comments. I'll encourage my listeners to
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: find your column.