Latest / Brian Thomas / Judge Napolitano

Transcript

Judge Napolitano · Brian Thomas

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Now just back from vacation. He looks relaxed, and who
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: look at that tan. Our next guest is ready to go,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Judge nep is next Chuck Ing.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: We're fifty five KRC the talk station, fifty five KRC.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: DE Talk Station. Oh boy, I love being on vacation myself,
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: and I knew Judgenent of Pulton. I loved being on
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: a vacation, but I sure miss these segments when I
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: am not able to talk to Judge of Polton or
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: we collectively, and I am not able to hear his
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: words of wisdom every Wednesday, beginning at eight thirty. Here
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: fifty five KRC DE Talk station. Welcome back, your honor.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to see whether you do of a tan
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: or not. You were in Italy correct for your vacation.
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: I was in northern Italy and Switzerland, right at the
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: Italian Swiss border. And let me just stop and thank
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: Chuck for that lovely sensible for a change introduction. I
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: did get a lot of color. I don't know if
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: it shows on the on the zoom, and my face
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: is covered with makeup, so that may maybe altering the
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: appearance a little bit.
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: Well, you got to do that when you're on television
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: all the time. And I do get the benefit of
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: seeing Judge Anapolitano through a zoom conference call, which is
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: great for me, and I did you can't read it,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: and I forgot about that because of the cutoff level.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: I wore this T shirt. Normally I don't have a
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: T shirt on, but I wore this just for you.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: It says libertarians plotting to take over the world and
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: leave you alone.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: Nicely put. You know, I did radio with my friend
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: and former colleague Brian Kilmead three hours a day for
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: about three or four years, and one of our guests
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: always put makeup on for radio. It will not surprise you,
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Hraldo Rivera.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: You know what, if you'd given me a couple of
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: seconds to think about that, I probably could have guessed
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: that as number one, Who in the hell would do that?
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: I got like Roaldo Rivera, Yeah right, I.
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: Don't know what a camera is going to show up?
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah right, a windowless radio studio.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: But you know what, real quick here before we dive
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: into the topics legal conversations. I'm having fun going off
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: topic here, but that reminds me of a story my grandmother,
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: my late grandmother, told me my mom's mom. She would
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: always put makeup on even if she was going out,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: a lipstick on, even if she was going out into
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: the yard to do yard work. And I believe it
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: was my mom. And I asked, well, why do you
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: bother putting lipstick on if you're just gonna go out
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: in the yard and do some yard work. And sure
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: comment was something along the lines of, well, you never
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: know who you're going to run into, so she's right. Anyhow,
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: pivoting over, did you have any interest in that story
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: I sent you? I was just explaining to my listening
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: audience what happened to this Samuel Tunick guy at the
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Atlanta airport when he came back from overseas. He had
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: a special cell phone, and they demanded he turned over
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: the phone and also unlock it. He was not subject
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: to his search for and probable cause anything like that,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: but the Border and Customs officials said, give us the
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: pass code, unlock the phone. They apparently he was not
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: read rights, at least according to his lawyers, he wasn't.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: He asked for an attorney, he was denied the opportunity
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: to speak with one. They told him he was obligated
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: to give it to him, So he gives them a password,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: and when he types in the password, it doesn't open
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: the phone up. It literally deletes the entire contents of
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: the phone. And so he's being prosecuted now, and there's
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: a motion to suppress evidence have been filed on is
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: by his lawyers say, listen, you had no right to
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: take him the first place, so whatever was on there,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: you wouldn't have been able to get it would have
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: been subject to suppression anyway. So this has got to
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: be thrown out. But they're prosecuting him under a federal
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: property to prevent authorities from seizing it. And of course
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: he pleaded not guilty of that, and everyone who's been
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: interviewed that I can find on this. So this is
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: a very unique and we aren't even aware of someone
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: being prosecuted along these lines under this federal statute. But
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: one of the arguments that's being made is he didn't
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: enjoy the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: searches and seizures because when they grabbed the phone from them,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: he wasn't in the United States yet.
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, even though he was in the middle of Atlanta, Georgia.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: Right that. Yeah, I think they move ultimately moved it.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: That was yeah, that's the argument apparently being made.
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: Right may The argument is that these airports on the
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: other side of the Customs and Border Patrol is not
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: the United States. That is a legal fiction. I agree
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: with your other guests have said, hey, we've never heard
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: of this, But of course, in my view, because the
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: Fourth Amendment says the right of the people to be
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: secure in their person's houses, papers and effects, etc. Et cetera,
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: shall not be violated except by a warrant. The right
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: of the people doesn't say the right of the Americans.
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: It doesn't say the American people. It doesn't say where
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: they have to be. It just says the right of
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: the people. It is clear he had a Fourth Amendment right.
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: It is clear they had no right to this without
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: a warrant. Now they didn't have a warrant. I don't
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: think they knew who he was. They just picked him out.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: In line, here's the law. If if they demand your
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: mobile devices, you should give it to them because they'll
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: take it from you by violence. You have no no
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: obligation to give them the pass code absolutely none. That's
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: their problem to figure out how to get into it.
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: I don't know that this guy was just trying to
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: protect his personal private information from a thief. The government
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: was a thief. The government stole his phone from him.
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: If they had a search warrant, they're not a thief.
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: But without a search warrant, they're a common thief and
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: should be prosecuted for it.
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Okay, Well, it's an operating system that is not your
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: normal operating system people out there heard.
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: I never heard of this operating system.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: By the way, I had not either, if I can
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: find it really quick here because some people make curious
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: about being curious about. It's graphine gr a pH e
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: and e OS described as a custom Android operating system
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: that is used in lieu of the one that your
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: phone actually came in. You can jail break a phone
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: and program it with your own operating system. My son's
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: done that. He knows how to program computers and stuff.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: So yeah, it's out there. I just thought, you know,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: a privacy guy like me who is a firm belief
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: in the constitution and doesn't think I don't like the
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: idea of the government rifling through my personal effects and papers,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: even though they'd find them very boring. I thought it
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: was kind of a neat feature, you know, four digits boom,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: the entire thing disappears into the ether. I just I
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: thought that was a code of comical element because I
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: didn't know it existed either.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, the statute under which he's being prosecuted, and
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: I got to tell you, I was unfamiliar with the
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: statue presumes the government had a legal right to that
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: which was erased. They would not be able to justify
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: what their legal right was because they just picked him
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: out at random.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: Perfect That's how I thought.
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: And for anybody, for anybody who says the government is
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: presumed right, this could happen to you. Oh, I know,
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: this could happen to anybody. When the government interferes with
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: a fundamental liberty, especially when articulated in the Constitution, the
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: government is not presumed to be correct. It's presumed to
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: be incorrect. It is the burden of the government to
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: prove why and how and what lawful basis it has
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: for doing what it's doing.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: That's exactly right. See, I need you have a clear
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: headed opinion and analysis of that one. That's why I
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: brought it up because this is the first time this
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: has happened in terms of this legal theory, and so
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: I can only imagine what happened more and more down
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: the road, unless, of course, the federal court that tearing
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: this puts the hammer down suppresses the evidence. So we
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: have that as precedent into the future. So pivoting over
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: the conflict of interest that you brought up in your column,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: why the Blanche nomination should be rejected, I comes out
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: tonight at midnight. I'm fortunate to get an earlier company
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: talking about Deputy Attorney Tom Blanche. You say isn't qualified
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: under a sort of it's a conflict of interest argument, sir.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: It's conflict of interest. He bows to the whims of
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: the president. Rule of law indicates the opposite. He authorized
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: the president to murder people on the high seas rather
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: than arrest them and charge them with drug dealing. There's
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: no legal basis for that whatsoever. But that's what his
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: boss told him to do, so he did it. That's
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: not the mentality you want as the attorney general. Moreover,
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: he orchestrated the one point seven to seven six billion
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: dollars swindle of federal tax funds to create a slush
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: fund for Donald Trump to give to his friends, and
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: he refuses to rescind it, even though there's no lawful
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: basis for it whatsoever. Federal judge found that the lawsuit
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: in which Trump sued the IRS was not a real
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: lawsuit because the lawyers for the IRS and the lawyers
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: for the DOJ work for the plaintiff and all wanted
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: the same thing to please the plaintiff. That's not a
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: real lawsuit, okay.
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: In that minded me of controversies that came up, I
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: believe it was the Obama administration. It might have been
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: the Bide administration, but I think we're going back to
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: the Oboma administration. You have a federal lawsuit, and of
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: course you get the Department of Justice on the government
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: side defending against the allegations from the plane off side.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: An environmental group comes in and says, Nimby or Green
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: or carbon or whatever needs to have this project stop.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: And of course that's right in that administration's wheelhouse. That
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: is a position that they're advocating for by way of
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: legislation changes in our whatever. But the Department of Justice
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: is there to defend the laws that are on the
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: books and apparently allow this to move forward. If they
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: are aligned from a philosophical basis on the plaintiff side
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: that's seeking this remedy to stop this project from going
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: forward on some environmental reason, they're inclined to go ahead
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: and cave not provide a strong defense, sort of half asked.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: I agreed if that happened several times in the Biden administration.
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: When it happened before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said,
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: forget about it, we will appoint lawyers to defend the
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: statute if the DOJ won't do the same. I don't
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: think that has happened yet under the Trump administration, but
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: that's the remedy for this. I get it. When the
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: DOJ thinks a statute is unconstitutional, that's not its job
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: to think that way. But if it does, it's time
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: for private counsel to commit and become a special Attorney General.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: So, under the circumstances you're referring to with Blands relative
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: to this IRS lawsuit.
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: The case should not have been dealt with while Trump
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: was in the White House. The case should have been
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: dealt with after Trump left the White House, when there
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: was real adversity when he didn't control the lawyers on
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: the other side. That would have been the appropriate remedy
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: would have been dismissal without prejudice, and then Trump's lawyers
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: could revive it after He's no longer in the White House.
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: He had a legitimate gripe, very legitimate right. An IRS
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: employee stole his tax returns and gave them to the
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: New York Times with four hundred thousand other tax returns. Right,
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: that guy went to jail. Trump has a very legitimate
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: had because he blew it, had a very legitimate ripe.
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: He doesn't have that gripe anymore because of the avaricious
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: way that he and Todd Blanche went about seeking a remedy.
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: Now, would this conduct, as you've outlined it so well
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: in the the op ed piece, why the Blants nomination
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: should rejected, would this potentially subject plans to some sort
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: of action by the Supreme Court in the state where
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: he's licensed.
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: Is this He has about five or six, including one
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: signed by one hundred and eleven retired judges, ethics complaints
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: being investigated by the New York City and New York
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: State Bar Association. My prediction is he'll be disbarred, whether
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: he's the attorney general, or not in fact that he
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: is the attorney general. If the Republicans do cave on
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: this and give Trump what he wants, that's even more
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: of an incentive for the New York authorities to disbar him.
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: Then we got a real conundrum. An attorney general who's disbarred.
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: We only had one attorney general disparred in the modern era,
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: but he was this part after he left office. John Mitchell,
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: how about that? All right?
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: Very quickly, since doctor Fauchi's queuing up his testimony today,
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: he's been pardoned by Joe Biden. So therefore anything, he's
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: been pardoned for all of his actions as he served
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: in his capacity as you know, lord and master over
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: our futures, and previously, some may argue, and I think
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: effectively so lied to Congress. So he's freed of any
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: prosecution from that. So they set him down today and
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: go back over this evidence, along with the documents that
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: they have in his own words and his own diary,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: which pretty much provides proof that he did perjure himself.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: Any possibility remains that he could assert his Fifth Amendment
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: right to be free of self incrimination, because I understand
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: it No.
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: The short answer is no. When you accept a pardon,
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: believe it or not, you can reject a pardon. I
• 12:59
  Speaker 2: never heard of any rejecting one. But when you accept
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: the pardon, you wittingly or unwittingly say goodbye to your
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: Fifth Amendment rights on the subject matter of the pardon,
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: which in his case, because it wasn't one crime, pardon
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: was everything he did in his life up to the
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: date of the pardon, which is the date of Donald
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: Trump's inauguration January twentyeth, twenty twenty five. The pardon came
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: out that morning. He has no Fifth Amendment rights whatsoever.
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: If he doesn't answer, they'll go across the street to
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: the Federal District Court and get an order requiring him
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: to answer. Otherwise he'll be incarcerated until he answers.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: And the theory that was going through my mind, although
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: I think I've rejected it based upon further analysis that
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: I did, if there is a potential some say the
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: auto pen should be rejected as a pardon, and if
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: it was an autopen that he doesn't even get a pardon,
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: that's going to be undone. If there's some argument legally
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: that the pardon could be undone in some legal action
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: down the road. That sucks, and it sucks to be
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: him time because he can't use that potential to assert
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: his Fifth Amendment. Right, Wait a second, I correct that.
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: Correct, correct, So if he before a Senator Paul, and
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: he's actually there now, but in a couple of minutes
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: admits to a crime, he can't be prosecuted for it
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: unless somehow the pardon is undone. No pardon has ever
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: been undone at the federal level. Partons have been undone
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: at the state level, but not at the federal level,
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: so chances of that are very slim.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: And he's currently not facing any state proceedings, although I
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: imagine there is some criminal theory out there that someone
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: might assert against him on a state level.
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: He's also exposed to civil liability. Remember, if he admits
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: to a crime, he loses his immunity for the consequences
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: of that crime. If a person is harmed, because criminal
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: behavior by a government official is not subject to immunity.
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: Well, that may ultimately be the pound of flesh that
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: everyone seems to want to exact that an antie auchi
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: for lying to us and causing so much damage through
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: his lies and his actions. Maybe great judgment Bolatano, it's judging,
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: judging freedom of who you going to be speaking with today,
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: and I encourage you.
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: Colonel Douglas McGregor, Pepe Escobar in the great Phil GERALDI
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: some of my heavy hitters and looking forward to it.
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian all the.
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: Best judge of Polatano. God bless you, sir. Next week
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: we'll do it again. Hey, forty five fifty five krs
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: The talk station