Search Posts

Donald Trump on Media Buzz. Media scrutiny, campaign tactics, and a deep dive into his expected rematch with Joe Biden. Plus, Trump's first order of business if he wins back the White House. How he sits down with the former president. It's a can't miss interview. Sunday on Media Buzz.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining me now to unpack all of this — I'm sorry, Fonny, Fonny, Fonny, I keep saying the wrong thing, sorry about that — is David Schoen, former lead counsel in Trump's impeachment case, and Jim Trusty, another former Trump attorney. Both are intimately familiar with the cases against the former president. We're going to get to Georgia in a second, gentlemen, but I wanted to get Jim's take first on what took place in Miami today in the classified docs case. Judge Eileen Cannon has denied Trump's motion to dismiss, Jim. She said, essentially, that the various phrases that were being contested as too vague, phrases like "entitled to receive" or "related to the national defense," "authorized persons," that there were too many outstanding legal questions for her to grant the motion to dismiss. Do you agree with her ultimate finding there? Well, I do somewhat, and that might be surprising, but the reason why, she's taking a very incremental approach towards everything, towards scheduling, towards resolution of discovery issues. And that's what we're used to in federal courts. That's what we actually want from our judges, is to decide the issues that are ripe at the time they need to be decided. So what she did is she dismissed this without prejudice, saying we can circle back when we're dealing with jury instructions and decide if there's really a constitutional problem with the charges for vagueness. That's a very difficult standard to meet in general. But the key thing, I think, today wasn't that. It was that she keeps talking and asking questions about selective prosecution. You know, you mentioned weaponization. That's the real—I mean, that's an uphill battle normally, but here, the way DOJ has treated President Trump when it comes to Mar-a-Lago, that's a ripe issue that's going to land in her wheelhouse at some point, and it could be a big one. So I don't think it was a bad day for President Trump just to temporarily lose one kind of nuanced, difficult constitutional issue for the time being. Yeah. And it's pretty funny to watch, David, the reaction from some of the Trump critics. They act like they won the case today. I mean, a first-year law student knows how difficult it is to have a motion to dismiss granted when there's a dispute as to some of the underlying facts, and she essentially wrote that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still fluctuating definitions of statutory terms and phrases as charged, et cetera. I just think this was a very conservative ruling on her part. I mean, a lot of people want this to go away. I mean, I think it should go away, but I think this is actually quite smart of this judge in this case. I don't think this is a loss at all for President Trump, and I think Jim is right that she handled it in the proper way. He has, in this case, unlike many other cases, some really serious arguments for dismissal. They're going to have to confront the mens rea element here, the mindset willfully in the context of the Presidential Records Act. You know, a lot of the commentators want to say, "Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with this case," and so on. They're just wrong. If you look at the 2012 decision from Amy Berman Jackson in D.C., a real Trump hater on which she said, "The statute is silent as to who has the right to designate, except insofar as it names the executive as the only person with the right to designate personal versus Presidential Records while that person's in office." That goes, if nothing else, to the mens rea as to whether President Trump willfully violated the law, and willfully means doing something of reasonable belief was criminal. He had people telling him, people who should know, telling him that he had the right to designate these as personal records. So that issue, I think the Evan Corcoran issue, his records, the Judge Howell in D.C. ordered turned over in virtually wholesale fashion despite the attorney-client privilege. I think that ought to lead to a dismissal. I think the grand jury was tainted by that evidence. So there are many issues in this case. This wasn't a loss for President Trump. Now, it's just hilarious to watch, especially non-lawyers, and obviously we're all lawyers, but it's not that complicated, really. When you boil it down to the facts, I just want to play one sound bite for you, Jim, because this made me scream laughing. This was the media in mourning when they realized that some of the charges against Trump were dropped in that Georgia case, and then it ultimately kind of is foreboding for the future of Fonny Willis watch. I just wonder if he would go there, if he would dismiss charges if he's planning to throw out the case or remove it from Fonny Willis to try to look on the bright side. In many ways, this potentially could streamline the case. We're having this conversation against the backdrop of her potential disqualification. This could be sort of death by a thousand cuts. I mean, Jim, they are just trying to find any little thread to kind of try to give some credibility, which is obviously a disaster of a case that was brought by Ms. Willis and her paramour. Yeah, I mean, they may be watching the last few bubbles escape the Titanic on the way down when it comes to Georgia. I mean, I think that this judge did a very, very cerebral job of addressing a challenging motion and he had an elected district attorney perjuring herself in court, disrespectfully doing so. He kept this calm. He waded through the facts. He's wading through the legal issues. And the beauty of this one from President Trump's perspective is if it's dismissed without prejudice, which is usually almost a Pyrrhic victory for the defense because they go back to the grand jury and they recharge it. But if he dismisses it without prejudice and the disqualification kicks in of the entire office, which is what Georgia law says happens under the circumstances, nobody is going to pick this thing up if they have any sense at all. No other DA is going to say, Oh, let me jump into that, you know, morass and handle the same case. David, you agree it's a dead cat bounce at that point? I think so. I really don't know. It depends on who they select and who does the selecting at the end of the day. But I'm going to tell you, this judge is onto something with the charges that he dismissed. His problem with them was one can't really know how to defend against them because they're not specific enough. That's a real issue in the New York case. The New York case is a cockamamie felony by charging a misdemeanor to commit a target act. The grand jury never specified what that target act is. Is it to affect the election? Was it for tax purposes? That can't be cured by a bill of particulars. I think that's fatally defective to the New York case. I hope the lawyers will latch on to that. Oh, that's fascinating. The bootstrapping isn't going to work for them. David and Jim, thanks so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

with us. You know, I was a little surprised. I know you were on with Tucker, and I'm open to anybody's opinion, but you kind of, what you're doing here is saying about Nikki Haley, is you're saying that her concern for Israel is driven by financial and a corrupting influence, and your explanation that this disproportionate focus on rape, kidnapping, and murder of the Jewish people in this attack, and that there, and your quote, that there are frankly financial and corrupting influences that lead them exactly to speak the way they do. Sean, that is, Sean, that is a shameful characterization. Wait a minute, stop right now. I'll read the exact, you do this in every single interview. You say stop and then you deny it. You deny your own words. So, you know, why don't you just own what you say and stand by it and stop playing these games? I am owning what I say, Sean. Well, I'm just telling you what you say. I am owning what I say. Well, I'm telling you, you're a smart guy. I want to assume you remember what you say. Anytime they want. Yeah, I absolutely do. And so Sean, maybe we have a debate that we need to have in our party. What's happening in Azerbaijan and Armenia was a separate discussion that I had. And I do believe that it is shameful that Azerbaijan is getting away with what they are because they have a powerful lobby in the US. But it is shameful to extrapolate that to the comments in Israel, where to be honest, I have been crystal clear that what's happened is barbaric. It is medieval. It is wrong. And Israel absolutely said this since day one, say it now has the right to defend itself to the fullest extent. Where I differ from other candidates in this field is that I also believe that this is Israel's decision to make the US should stand with Israel. But we need to be very careful not to enter a broader regional war in the Middle East. I have not heard a single Vivek. I've not heard a single Republican call for that. But I really want an explanation here. Actually, I don't know. I want an explanation to the truth. Can I finish? I want an exact explanation for your exact comments that there are frankly, financial and corrupting influences that lead them exactly to speak the way that they do. Now, why would you say what are the financial corrupting influences that Nikki Haley is taking your position on? We've got pictures of dead babies decapitated, burned babies bodies. We've got the equivalent of what would be population wise in the US over 37,000 dead Americans. So how much more evidence do you, what are you talking about? Sean, what I'm talking about is what's happening in Israel is an atrocity and the US absolutely should stand with Israel. Answer the question which is the corrupting influence on our politicians. Well, the fact of the matter is I think anybody who has been a military contractor, anybody who has made eight million dollars, including on serving on the board of Boeing, collecting stock options while running for US president on corporate boards, has money made money from military contracting through a family business, is disqualified from being the US president in a time of war. I think we cannot see our march to World War III in this country. My top priority from a foreign policy perspective is avoid World War III. Let me be straight. Let me come and let me, because what are you accused her of? Secure the US homeland. Why use your words if you want me to answer the question. No, I've given you plenty of time to answer the question. I'm going to now restate your words. Frankly, financial corrupting influences that lead them exactly to speak the way that they do when they talk about atrocities with Israel. Now you're telling me that if somebody in some capacity, when they talk about atrocities from Israel, Sean, don't mislead your audience. You are saying that there are frankly corrupting influences that lead them exactly to speak the way that they do. Now, if you're saying in with those exact words of yours, you're not denying them again, are you? Those are your exact words. If that's what you're saying, my question is simple to you. You're saying that if somebody works for a defense contractor, that that is a financial corrupting position when, when national security and defense is critical to the cause of freedom and has been throughout human history. I want to, why would you accuse me of being corrupt? I don't believe. Well, I don't believe that somebody should be able to be the next commander in chief if they have monetized their time in government, going from being in debt to making eight million dollars through military contracting businesses, through service on the board of Boeing. Frankly, it is shameful for somebody to be collecting stock options from corporate boards while they're running for US president. We already have one family in the White House, okay, who I believe has sold off our foreign policy to advance their private interests. The Republican party needs to be better than that. Needs to be a party where, if your campaign is principally being run by super PACs, people who can give unlimited amounts of money to your campaign, I don't think that befits the Republican party. I think we need to be better than that. So Sean, you and I may have a different view on that. But my view is, if you're making money off your time in government, then I don't think you're fit to be president of the United States. More importantly though, what's our policy? Stand with our allies while avoiding World War III, and that's where I'm at. A lot of people don't think you're qualified because you weren't even a Republican or voting Republican until what, 2020? Well, Sean, I think it depends on what your objectives with this interview are. I voted libertarian in my first election. I voted Republican in 2020. You're right. I'm not a partisan hack. I come in from the outside. I'm an independent-minded patriot who speaks to truth. It sounds to me like you just want to jump from the private sector yourself where you made a lot of money. By the way, I applaud capitalism. I applaud successful people. Sean, I applaud you for being so transparent about your objectives. I actually think that people working in the defense of our country and the defense industry are playing a vital role for the cause of freedom. So I don't really call it a corrupting influence. It suggests that somehow that's a corrupting influence. I actually like the experience that goes along with working for defense contractors. But I've got to listen. One of the things I loved about that interview with Tucker, one of the things I loved about the interview with Tucker was we were actually able to have a thoughtful conversation and go deep into issues rather than this kind of political gotcha. The point is this, you go on these interviews. Yeah, I have nothing but nice things to say, but here's your problem. People still watch it on these shows. People quote your exact words and you deny your own words. And I'm saying if you're going to be a presidential candidate and you're going to spend, I'm going to give you your exact words, either on Sean, you have been sitting here for years talking about the fake news media that you played this all the time. I'm enjoying this. You have been laughing about the fake news media how many times for the last several years and now you're buying the mainstream media narrative when you know how corrupt it is. I am following you. I am quoting your exact words are a problem. Did I not quote your exact words? Did I not quote your exact words? Did I call your exact media? Absolutely. Thank you. I'm not trying to go about a different topic, where people should actually get their own information rather than filter through centralized. I think it's asinine to think somebody that worked in the defense industry should not be qualified to be present. I think people that never held public office like you maybe shoot. They're not qualified to be president. Anyway, we'll come back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

[Music] Mr. President, thank you so much for joining us here on the National Pulse. Thank you. Ask me about Mike Pence. He's being a bit of a dick about you at the moment. Desanctomonius, when you first used it, a lot of people kind of didn't get it. They love it now. People don't care whether or not he was loyal to you. I said, "I think it does matter now." I think most of the media is quite hostile towards you. They're globalists. Who knows why? They put everything against Desanctomonius, and he's not a talented person. Our country's going down, and if we don't win this election, if this election's not won by us, I don't think our country makes it. Who do you miss the most? My other brother, Robert, I was very close to, passed away two years ago. He was so proud of the fact that I became president. Do you look in the mirror and see, you know, the most famous man in the world, or have you just always been the same guy? I'm not. The most famous person in the world is... [Music]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.