the growing chasm between the president and the wayward DOJ comes as more on the
radical left are calling for the president's impeachment an idea the
president's attorney Rudy Giuliani says would not sit well with the American
people I think impeachment would be totally horrible I mean there's no
reason he didn't collude with the Russians
he didn't obstruct justice everything Cohen says has been disproved you'd only
impeach him for political reasons and the American people would revolt against
that joining me now is former NYPD officer and former Secret Service agent
Dan bond Geno welcome to the show thanks for coming on tonight let me ask you
about that first one what do you think about what Rudy Giuliani just said there
Giuliani is right I mean impeachment for what for winning
an election you're supposed to be impeached
according to the Constitution for high crimes and misdemeanors not no crimes
and no misdemeanors the only crime Donald Trump committed was winning an
election I'm using crime and air quotes obviously I mean this is absurd what did
he do wrong there has been no evidence of collusion
the big conspiracy theory on the left by some figures in the media no evidence of
that at all all we've got in our taxicab confessions
and other nonsense stuff that really speaks to things we already knew about
Donald Trump he wasn't dishonest about who he was before he became president
this is an outrageous line that's gonna backfire against the Dems if they
continue with it then one more thing moderate Democrats know this this is not
a mystery some Democrats know this is a loser for them the impeachment line well
I mean if you listen to Michael Cohen or his lawyer Lanny Davis of course you
have the Clinton cleaner here defending the Trump cleaner it all makes me kind
of want to take a shower but beyond that you know he says that he pled to a
federal crime and he implicated the president in that same federal crime
it's straightforward and that's conspiracy yeah well someone should tell
the former FEC Commissioner who actually knows about this stuff who wrote an
op-ed saying the exact opposite he may know a little bit more of
these things then lanny davis he was actually the head of the Federal
Elections Commission and he said there's no way this is a crime matter of fact
it's barely a civil violation what we had here's how you have to a value I ran
for office I'm pretty I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty familiar with how these
laws work if an expense would have existed with or without the campaign
then it's not necessarily a campaign expense Donald Trump we can't get in his
head we don't know why he paid that money maybe it was because he didn't
want his family to hear about it he wanted some reputation management I'm
not I'm not saying it was a good thing I'm not saying these aren't untoward
I'm not saying Trump wouldn't want to take it back I'm just saying to claim
that's a campaign expense and it's an outrageously claim like Davis did that
this is straightforward slam dunk stuff is nonsense Davis is reaching here at
big time what do you think about the publisher of the National Enquirer now
getting involved we're hearing that he's been granted immunity in order to
cooperate in some part of this case what is the implication of that Melissa there
listen this is I've been saying this forever they're not investigating
collusion here they're investigating Donald Trump there's a difference and
having been a former law enforcement officer this stuff frightens me and it
should frighten everybody else watching today too if you walked into the Secret
Service office where I worked and said hey I want my neighbor investigated for
what I don't know you'll find something you know what you probably would but you
don't do that in a constitutional republic the National Enquirer mr.
pecker there and him all of a sudden being uh you know being given immunity
to testify against Donald Trump you have to ask yourself when is this gonna end
who's next who gets immunity next they're looking for Trump they're not
looking for a crime yeah I mean I've heard some people say that that what
David pecker might have done over at the National Enquirer is fraud because he
bought a story with the idea of burying it but in my mind you don't go to the
National Enquirer because you want your story to get out there and you want your
voice to be heard if that's what you want to do you go to the New York Times
or you go to The Wall Street Journal you go to the Washington Post if you're
going to the National Enquirer you're looking for money in exchange for your
story plain and simple which as I understand it is exactly what these
women got right Melissa this isn't National Review I mean it's the National
Enquirer I are we seriously shutting down the
country for about a year and a half now I mean not exact we're not shutting down
the car but this is unquestionably taking a deep toll on the country's
collective psyche this collusion investigation which is supposedly what's
this about is this what we're up to now Michel Cohen's taxi medallions National
Enquirer stories about about stormy Daniel I mean this is what this is is
this rig we have to ask ourselves at some point is this really worth it this
is what blew up candidly in the Republicans face during the Clinton
years they'd had enough well I'm like okay I don't know if the Democrats have
learned that lesson of other networks have learned that lesson if you look at
CNN and MSNBC they use the word in peach or impeachment 222 times around this
story it's really driving at home my thought is I wonder if this doesn't blow
up in the Democrats face in the sense that it really enthusiastic oh and vote
in the midterms thinking my president is going to be taken away that this person
that we elected you know that Democrats are going to try and impeach him and I
better go out there and vote for Republicans it could end up having the
opposite impact of what they're looking for there your thoughts on that Melissa
I'm reasonably confident that some moderate and reasonable Democrats there
are some left believe it or not it pains me to say it but it's true I'm not gonna
do what they do to us they have to know this is a complete loser what really
gets me is the first part of what you said there that media networks whose
business are this eyeballs right eyeballs they have to see it's a
business it's journalism but it's still a business you have to you have to pay
the bills CNN is losing to cat videos on YouTube their ratings are down by double
digits you would think somebody in a boardroom making editorial decisions
would be like hey guys listen is there really any evidence on this collusion
thing because we're losing two remakes of beachfront property on HGTV at two
o'clock in the morning on a Tuesday I don't know you're testing me there I
love cat video I love Beach shots you're you're attempting me here but no it is
trumped arrangement I mean some people have gotten so insane with the idea of
impeachment that they're just really frothing at the bit but
damn Pacino thank you for your time my friend radical Dems in the Senate
attempting to stonewall president Trump's highly qualified Supreme Court
nominee Brett Kavanaugh over Michael Cohen's guilty plea but Senate Judiciary
Chairman Chuck Grassley is having none of it
that's a very legitimate question but not a legitimate position for them to
take because they didn't raise the same issues when Justice Breyer was appointed
by President Clinton and President Clinton was already had a grand jury
getting documents and papers from him there's precedent to move ahead in a
situation that isn't even similar to what we have now hypocrisy in Washington
never Kavanagh confirming hearings will begin as planned on September 4th
joining me now hermit Dylan attorney and RNC committee woman for California and
Eric Beach great American Alliance co-chairman and Republican strategist
thanks to both of you for joining us I mean I'll start with you what do you
think of the holdup over Cavanaugh I mean they make the case that well look
you know President Trump's gonna have things of personal interest potentially
before the Supreme Court so the idea is he's putting someone in there who's
gonna tip the scales in his favor yeah I think it's a big stretch first of all
that President Trump's gonna have anything of interest before the Supreme
Court he's halfway through his term and stuff doesn't get to the Supreme Court
that quickly so that's number one number two I think this shows the
extreme desperation of the Democrats because from the point of view of
relative you know extremism versus being mainstream a justice Kavanagh is going
to be very mainstream justice and so you know they're not gonna get a better
justice than this out of a Republican president and this is just delay and you
know desperation they can't fight them on the merits so they're fighting him in
this illegitimate manner I think it's unfortunate because Americans deserve a
full supreme court that can hear these cases and make decisions for all of us
and so you know if they had messaging and if they had something substantive to
complain about they would be focusing on that they don't so that's why they're
reverting to this Eric I mean let me ask you the political question because to me
that seems like really dumb politics in the sense that what really energizes
folks on the right get out and vote the Supreme Court is
one of the main things and the closer they take this confirmation to the
midterms and beyond it seems like the more it's gonna get Republicans and
Trump supporters of any stripe out to the polls yeah well as a Republican
consultant I think for the Democrats it's not dumb politics keep at it all
day but here's the reality and I think our meets at best which is the messaging
they don't have a message to run on for the midterms their message has been all
anti-trump but the problem that they have is that the substance behind this
truck presidency has been pretty darn good for middle-class America so I think
what they're trying to do is bring back abortion in some form to run on some
sort of social issue because they're a party in search of the correct message I
don't think it's gonna work it's gonna play it to the Republicans hands yeah
well you know I live in liberal New York City so I'm constantly stopped by people
who are crossing their fingers and praying for impeachment and you know
they say wow it looks like they really got him this time you know it's so close
her meat I'll ask you you know the latest wrinkle that we heard about today
the publisher of the National Enquirer is saying he's going to cooperate over
those two women who traded in their stories for money what does it say to
you about the case they have what are they going after there with him in
particular and what could he possibly say that would be damaging to the
president from a legal point of view I think that what could be found in that
vault it could be embarrassing from a social point of view but legally
problematic I don't see it or even frankly politically it looks again very
desperate to be sort of rummaging through the trash to see what you know
the cat dragged in and gonna put that in the public sphere I mean the fact that
the president you know had private settlements with people who were in his
life is irrelevant in terms of his fitness to be the great president who is
cutting taxes and doing all these other great things for America
so again smacks of desperation and shows a lack of substance on the part of the
Democrats if they had something better in terms of the jobs economy border and
national security they'd be on that they're not Eric you know from a
political point of view when we're talking again about turnout which is
what the midterms tend to be all about you know they say that bringing up this
kind of a story dissuade suburban and women that there are people that are
likely to be closer to more independent or could be dissuaded from voting at all
when you remind them about these kind of issues if you remind them the president
is perhaps not a great husband that it turns off people that might have gone
out and voted to help him out do you think is that as I hear that argument
from Democrats all the time does it hold water well no because they underestimate
women I mean women care about the same thing as men do which is a better
business climate which Trump is doing they care about better jobs which this
administration is also performing on but the reality is again it's overreached by
the Democrats this is not even a campaign finance violation and so the
president as a private citizen was being extorted let's call it what it is and if
you've reached any kind of settlement with them he has a brand the Trump brand
it just so happened to be during the election but his job is to protect that
brand it's a global brand and so that's all they were doing this is something
that happens every day in the course of business life and that's what he did and
I just saw I think again it will not work for the Democrats
Hermey can I ask you real quick and lean on your legal expertise for a second so
if this was a payment that was made by the publisher of the National Enquirer
in order to help with the election and quiet down these stories that's sort of
a gift in kind to a campaign it would be over the limit or it would have been not
disclosed I mean if they characterize it like that does that spell trouble for
the president is that a campaign violation well maybe but there there are
a lot of ifs there and it still doesn't spell legal jeopardy for the president
and you know I think that we have to look at this in the big picture of this
being a unique president somebody who was in business throughout his life and
like Eric said I mean I have reached settlements for clients similar to the
ones that we're talking about here there you know prominent people rich people
successful people are regularly shaking down like this so if this is the
ordinary course of business for mr. Trump which I bet he's
to be able to prove if it comes to that no it is not a campaign finance
violation and that is just again another you know pie-in-the-sky fantasy buy you
know your New York friends you see on the street and what I see here in San
Francisco that's just not the way the law works ya know it's interesting I
mean it depends could become that he's done this a bunch in the past before so
it had nothing to do with the campaign because it was a long before he ever
decided to run for president that would be an interesting defense but it sounds
like it might work Hermey dylan eric beach thanks to both
of you for joining us
For more infomation >> CNN Thought They Convicted Trump Of A Crime But They Got Some Very Bad News - Duration: 3:25. 
For more infomation >> Key Republicans Back Trump, Give Him a Clear Path to Fire Sessions - Duration: 6:39. 
For more infomation >> Chief Financial Officer Of Trump Organization Granted Immunity - Duration: 0:22. 
For more infomation >> Double-Cross: Clinton Crony Defends Trump, Points Finger at Hillary Instead - Duration: 6:12. 
For more infomation >> Does Nat'l Enquirer Have Dangerous President Donald Trump Secrets? | The Last Word | MSNBC - Duration: 5:42. 
For more infomation >> Top Trump Organization official Weisselberg was granted immunity in Cohen investigation - Duration: 0:51. 
For more infomation >> Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg granted immunity - Duration: 0:43. 
For more infomation >> Trump Blames Sessions For Recusing Himself From Russia Investigation - Duration: 1:33. 
For more infomation >> Trump Pulls Pompeo Trip To North Korea - Duration: 0:27. 
No comments:
Post a Comment