19 Burst results for "Andrew Mccarthy"

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

02:37 min | 3 d ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"About what about a month ago were saying he's going to go after all these people to try to destroy their credibility and it's like, it doesn't matter the laptop is there and everybody knows the laptop is yours, so how are you going to destroy their credibility? And now that you say it's that it's not your laptop, it was basically admitting it was your laptop then a couple hours later your lawyer coming out and saying what's not this doesn't mean that it was his laptop, then what case do you have against these people except for defamation of character and I think it was I don't know if it was Andrew McCarthy or David harz Andy, somebody pointed out if you're going to hit him with defamation of character, you don't want to do that because that goes to trial. The discovery is going to just absolutely destroy you. That's the first thing I thought of was let's get this out there. Let's have everything all in the open. This was such a bad move on so many levels. There's no way you can convince me this wasn't pure. And I mean pure desperation. Yeah. On a huge level. Think about it. The timing. Why now? Why? Why why is this happening just now? And the move, how did nobody in that room say, well, guys, if we do this, and then walk through this legally, discovery is going to kill us. And if we don't go the full measure, politically, this is a boomerang and coming right back at us, why would we ever ever do this? And then the consequences of initially stating that by saying what they said that he's admitting it's his laptop, then having to back off on it, didn't somebody figure that out? Well, then they're going to say, well, you knew it was a laptop all the time. Right. You knew from the very beginning, which means your father knew from the beginning, which means when the 51 intelligence agents came out and stated that it was probably Russia disinformation, everybody knew in The White House even that it was not. Right. We'll continue the discussion. It just gets worse. It just horrible. Just terrible. But then again, they really have no, they had no other option. Well, yeah, they did just shut up. Just shut up, do nothing. 8, 6, 6, 90 right eye. Surviving and thriving as an owner operator has just as much to do with managing costs as it does with generating revenue. Like the chief financial officer of any company, you have to be concerned about rising costs, especially without increases in revenue. Trying to reduce costs

David harz Andy Andrew McCarthy White House Russia
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

07:00 min | 2 months ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Of their power to bring it to the American people's eyes. You know, that kept playing out over and over again. While you just wait, well, you just wait. We're going to show you, well, wait a minute. If you've got something, you need to show it to the American people now. Oh wait, you don't actually have anything. And we said it. For those who broke the law that day, the prosecution is going to happen. And it started and we're seeing this play out the way it was always going to play out. But the January 6th committee wasn't a real committee. It was a whole facade. And he writes it was worth observing that the jury in the case did not hesitate to convict the defendants of those charges which the government had sufficient evidence, three of the defendants were found guilty of interfering with police as they tried to respond to a civil disturbance, all 5 were convicted of tampering with official documents and proceedings. The jury, however, rejected the contention that a right-wing militia had waged war against the government because the government could not prove it. Right. And as he talked about before he prosecuted the last successful seditious conspiracy case Andrew McCarthy did back in 95. Right. So he's somebody who has been involved in all of this, but we had said it early on. There has never been. As you said, I hate to say it, but it's the same, seems to be the same storyline, the same thing that you dealt with with Russia collusion. Right, right. That now the two aren't the same because as we found out through the whole Russia collusion investigation, the only party that colluded with the Russians or were communication with anyone who had who was a Russian who had ties to Russian intelligence was a Hillary Clinton campaign. Right. So yeah, but it was interesting. I just thought I would bring that up because that really nobody's paying attention. Nobody was really paying attention to the specifics of it. And the fact that because the Democrats are going after Trump for this and it was ridiculous because they never had any evidence. Trump at all. Well, that's a point we had stated this from we stated this from day one that the evidence exists And that's one of the points that he makes Andrew McCarthy makes and as you mentioned, you know, being on the team that prosecuted the World Trade Center bombings in 95, he said, look, we weren't any more capable than any of the prosecutors here. We just were more confident in our evidence and we weren't politically motivated. We didn't have the political motivation. It was about basically presenting the evidence and during the job. As prosecutors should be doing. Well, this was always going to be in everybody knew it. It was very clear. It was just like with Mueller, it was a fishing expedition. If we could just find one thing, that would possibly serve as evidence. Anything. That we could morph into something that resembled evidence. Well, it just wasn't there. As he writes, riots are terrible, but a riot is not a war. The capital uprising was a riot. It was over in a few hours. Congress reconvened in the capitol to count the votes and President Biden was confirmed as the winner as it was inevitable that he would be. Of course, that's not the story you'll hear, the Justice Department's press release does not mention the word acquittal. It reads is that the prosecutors pitched a shutout echoing that storyline, the media democratic complex would have you believe that the prosecutors won sweeping seditious conspiracy convictions against militants who plotted to keep Donald Trump in power, you'd never know that the DOG DoJ mostly lost on the main charge that the verdicts overall were a mixed bag and that Donald Trump whose name doesn't appear anywhere in the Department of Justice press release was not even alleged to be criminally culpable. History is written by the victors that doesn't make it accurate. Yep. No, I think well put. So, you know, we had stated from day one, though. Politically, what you saw in that day, you can't win. The imageries of those of that day, you can't win. And we knew that the Democrats would use it, and they were partially successful in using that. The whole thing of the democracy will be destroyed and using the images of January 6th, we knew that they would use it in the 2024 midterm election, and they did. Yeah. And they went after those candidates who they believed were most susceptible to that and in every case they either won or those candidates, for example, JD Vance. Performed way under what other Republicans did in the state of Ohio. Yeah. And so they view it as a success. That imagery is succeeded for us. Right. As we said, they would do. From the beginning, we were saying this is exactly what they're going to use. And they'll use it again in 24. Because it was useful to them in 22, then why won't it be useful to them? And if it turns out where it's not useful, then you quit using it. But I guarantee you, it will be used to some extent in 24. It'll probably be used either way if Trump runs or Trump. Well, he's running now, but if Trump is the nominee, if Trump is a nominee, it definitely will be used without question. If Trump is not the nominee, will it still be used to maybe used in particular cases? In particular races, but it would not be used as much. You could not use it effectively against desantis. No. The only thing you could do is the media will ask him things like, do you believe the 2020 election was stolen and things like that? Now who you could use it against? Who they might use it against would be pence or Pompeo because they were part of that administration. So ten, even though Democrats will look at Pence and say, oh, Pence, he was the savior of the country at that time, they will reverse it if he is actually the nominee. At that point and say he was a part of the administration. Right. They will completely change the story. And their opinion of Pence. If he decides to run. Yeah, yeah. He may have done some things that were useful, but he should have used his power to a greater extent. Yes. And that will be that will be the play. Pence should have been more vocal about it at the time. As Vogel

Andrew McCarthy government Trump Russia President Biden Donald Trump Hillary Clinton World Trade Center Mueller JD Vance Justice Department DoJ Department of Justice Congress Ohio desantis Pompeo Pence Vogel
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

03:58 min | 5 months ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"They have laid out what they're what they're going after Trump for. I have laid out that out. By the way, I think I confused the 15 boxes with assigned that to the number of witnesses. But Andrew, I'm not sure. Andrew McCarthy pointing out that it seems it appears that they have more than one witness. At what, but that was clear when the judge was going over the information on the affidavit. That was made clear during that hearing. So, but I don't know what the how many witnesses, which is a good question. But only to satisfy a curiosity, the fact is, is that those witnesses have to produce something that is material. And I wonder, again, what that would be. I don't know. We talked about it from day one. There's no way the DoJ didn't have eyes inside. There was no way. Given what we had learned in the early hours after this raid. And the question is, how many witnesses did they have? And what are those witnesses providing? Yeah, I don't know where I got the 1450% said they have several. Yeah, right. But this is the, but I think this is it. And look, there should have been an effort by the legal team. For the former president from the moment that they showed up at Mar-a-Lago. To seek a special master. And for the life of me, I can't tell you why that didn't happen. Because at that point, you're not putting up the defense that you should put up. And how in the world can you not be advised to do that? How in the world can that not happen? I don't know. I can't think of a good reason as to why you didn't act on that to begin with why you're legal team didn't act on that. From that moment, I can't tell you. And I think, you know. This next step of whether or not there's going to be a special master here. Or whether the judge, you know, because that's the other side of it is the DoJ is said no. We don't think it applies here because here's the thing. If they're going for obstruction. And it's about the behavior during the serving of the subpoena and everything else, does it make the need for a special master at this point a moot point? Well, my point because McCarthy is making the point that there would be obstruction of justice and causing false statements. So you really wouldn't have to get into any of the documents themselves. Right. Or the classification of them because the document well, I mean, it's based on the fact of because the obstruction of justice he doesn't want to give you classified information, but you don't have to do it. All they have to prove is that they obstructed the behavior in that process. They obstructed the subpoena. Right. So the documents don't matter anymore. Right. So is it a moot point seeking a special master? I don't know. 8 6 6 90 red eye. Hi, I'm Jed Loomis, a transport safety expert at JJ Keller, and I'm here to share a tip on transport security. Each year, thousands of drivers are injured and millions of dollars are lost in thefts and robberies. The key to staying safe is recognizing and avoiding potentially harmful situations before they occur. Well thought out trip planning and communication between the carrier and the shipper can assist in recognizing and avoiding these potentially harmful situations.

Andrew McCarthy DoJ Andrew McCarthy Jed Loomis JJ Keller
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

06:11 min | 5 months ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"This, this, and this with Hillary Clinton, and what they had so far doesn't meet that level. And if you don't have the level, you can't indict Trump because then you show that for Democrats, there's one law and Republicans there's another law. Right. And but if it is if he can't, if he doesn't, if he can't prove that and doesn't have witnesses that I declassified these and then the process started even if the process was late or never for some reason never continued, that's a problem. That's a problem for the president if that's true. That's a problem for the former president. Right. I want to make sure people don't think I'm talking about. So the next big move is later today, the judge on the special master request. And then what happens from there? And now the speculation that, well, he's just now requesting the special master because he's trying to delay the process. I don't know why you would want to delay the inevitable Andrew McCarthy made the point. We've talked about it. That the request for special master should have come for the first day. The moment they served that war. Yeah, we said on that day. Why aren't they filing suit to why aren't they filing suit at that moment saying we couldn't understand that? And the request came and when the request came, it was what? A day or two later in the DoJ responded saying, we've already gone through all the documents. I want to throw this out here because it was an interesting thread from our colleague Mark Levin. Who said, so the FBI Department of Justice claimed that documents at Mar-a-Lago may have been moved, and they were told they could not access them when they were executing a subpoena. And to them this raises questions of obstruction. He goes, well, I have some questions for them. And this is interesting because this would all come out if there was ever an indictment on it. In discovery because the former president and his staff are free to look through the boxes or even move them if the former president seeks access to them. So when you say they may have been moved, what do you claiming? Yeah, that's a question that I had. That they were moved for the purpose of concealing them from you, how so. And then I would ask, why? What's the intent? As I said, we knew the intent of Hillary Clinton, that clearly came out. She was trying to hide documents from the freedom of information act. And which is criminal to believe that that was if he moved those documents that he was doing that to be evasive. Yeah. Which would, you know, which adds to how do you prove that that was his intent. And my question would be, is it a witness or they would have to answer that question? Where would they have moved the boxes to hide them from you? If the subpoena you sought and received allow you to review and remove documents, the idea that one or more of the lawyers prevents you from doing so is crazy. Right. Were the lawyers armed? Were they threatening to rescue you to the ground or what? How could they possibly prevent you from reviewing and removing documents if you have a lawful subpoena? That doesn't make sense. So there it is. Well, and we have to keep in mind the new safe. They brought a safe cracker, went into an open the new safe. And there was nothing in it safe. According to the claims by Trump's team. There was nothing there that didn't find anything. They also went through other parts of the residence portion of Mar-a-Lago. And again, because they say they have, I don't know, what they say, 15 witnesses, the DoJ. I think it was 14, I thought. And so if that's the case, then again, the question is, how do you prove intent? Is it based on what a witness said? And if they deem that cash Patel is not a reliable witness, then how are we to trust that any of their witnesses are reliable? Unless the witnesses providing things that are in writing or pictures or videos or things like that, these are all questions. And I don't know. We don't know what the DoJ has. And then if the judge later today says, yes, we are going to assign a special master. Now do you go back to the drawing board? I'm assuming that because the special master goes through the documents and says, these don't apply, these don't apply these don't apply. And so the question comes up if you have, if you have what you are promoting to the public through selective redaction, if you have what you claim you have on it, then why are you objecting to a special master? Why have you lied all along? About what you could release to the public and continue to lie because the lie continues every time they release more information. Because they said they could release any of it, otherwise national security might be harmed. When we know that's a lie. Why is the Department of Justice lying about that? If you have such a strong case, why wouldn't you have been willing to have limited redaction when you've already leaked that material? You know the material has already been leaked from the Department of Justice. Those are the things that don't make sense in this. Will you go, it doesn't make sense. But

Hillary Clinton FBI Department of Justice DoJ Trump Andrew McCarthy Mark Levin Patel Department of Justice
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

06:49 min | 5 months ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"You want. This isn't really hard right now as to where the Department of Justice is going against Trump. And there is a growing belief that they will go after him. For obstruction of justice. Of classified materials. And it gets down to this. And I'll just read from Andrew McCarthy, who has been covering this. He said on June 3rd, the Mar-a-Lago meeting occurred pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. Which demanded the surrender of any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald Trump and or the office of Donald J Trump bearing classification markings. And as they write and you skipped on a couple of different paragraphs in its submission, the Justice Department drops a footnote that pointedly refutes the claim that Trump is the one who determined a search for the classified material should be conducted instead the search was conducted because a subpoena demanded that it be conducted. This is what the Justice Department is arguing. Beyond that, the Justice Department's filing offers a significant point about classification. The subpoena required the production of any classified records in Trump's possession and Trump through his representatives. Produced documents on the recognition that they were classified documents responsive to the subpoena. Neither Trump nor his representatives ever claimed that he declassified any of the documents, this is what the Department of Justice, this is what their argument is. That neither Trump nor is representatives ever claimed that he declassified any of the documents at that point. They never claimed that he did not need to comply with the subpoena. Because any documents in his possession were no longer classified. His compliance with the subpoena was tantamount, according to the Department of Justice, to an admission that he had been retaining classified documents in an unauthorized location in violation of federal criminal law. Yeah, it's an implied admission. And you're cooperating here. There was no, there was no pushback from the Trump team. That these documents have been declassified. Right. And don't belong in the archives. And what they said was we want the classified and they gave them and didn't say they weren't. So it's an implied admission that nothing was ever declassified. The other point was in the redacted affidavit, cash Patel's name was in there. And reference to the breitbart article, where he said the president declassified, I heard him declassify. Now he's been all over conservative media screaming that why did they put my name in there? And the thought is that they put his name in there. Because he is the one person that said, I, you know, I heard Trump declassify it. And we don't know anybody that's been forthcoming and very vocal about it. Nobody has been talking about as much as he has and the DoJ looks at that as if you're willing to talk about that in public, then we look at you as a potential witness and at this point, we're going to use what your words are and we're going to take them apart and with the belief because everything after that was in redacted. And what they're saying is that's the Justice Department in essence letting Trump know we believe that witness is bogus. Right. That that witness did not hear you say that. If true, this is a problem for the president. And you can take everything and you can cut through everything else. The picture yesterday, how the Department of Justice is handling this in a horrendous way in a way that looks like they're up to something. Nefarious, it does. Everything they've done doesn't make sense. We know the Department of Justice has lied. We know the picture that came out yesterday was done just for public relation purposes. We know they've lied about number one that they couldn't redact anything. And they continue to give out more information that wasn't even in the affidavit and claims that they can't release anything because it would affect national security, yet they keep releasing, so we know they've lied on it. Why did they do that? Why doesn't the Department of Justice you would think that they would readily accept, you know, the, what do they call the document master? I forgot what they call it. Special master. Special master. Yeah. You think that and that's the one thing that legal experts are saying, wait a minute. If you believe you got it, why would you do it? Again, making no judgments because there's so much left out of it. But if that is the case, if that's the case that the Department of Justice believes that they can prove I do believe there is a great chance they will indict him on it. Because then it's not anymore, it's not, well, okay, this is about the, just the public records act. Right, the presidential records act. Right. And so, but you look at this and you say, okay, but why would there be, you know, what is the, what is the obstruction of justice? Why would there be obstruction of justice here? What are you trying? Why did you take these and what is the intent to do that? And by the way, intense very intense important. Yeah. We saw with Hillary Clinton. And by the way, you can sit there and say, but it's not fair because of Hillary. That's not we're not discussing the fairness of it. And the president that they said, I think it was The Wall Street Journal that brought that up the other day. Saying, look, this is the president they

Trump Department of Justice Justice Department Donald J Trump Andrew McCarthy Donald Trump breitbart Patel DoJ Hillary Clinton Hillary The Wall Street Journal
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on Mike Gallagher Podcast

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:34 min | 8 months ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on Mike Gallagher Podcast

"Andy McCarthy with Bill hemmer yesterday talking about what this January 6th select committee witch hunt is really all about. Yeah, this is not the committee that you're going to have suddenly Liz Cheney. You say, wait, this seems unfair. Maybe we need to look at other evidence. It has to be introduced as well. So it really brought a sort of an odd conclusion because it sort of emphasized, there isn't anyone to object. Same question, Annie McCarthy. Well, it was a much tighter presentation today because it was centered around one theme, this whole idea of stop the steal. And what they're trying to emphasize obviously is that the point they want to make is that Trump must have known that there was nothing to this because everybody around him who was credible was telling him it was nonsense and there was nothing there. As I've said from the beginning, they've got a very good story to tell. The problem is they've set it up in a process that is not a fair process that's aimed at getting to the truth and giving whatever contra arguments there are their day in court. And as a result, it's more like messaging than it is like a real investigation. And if you would try this in court, I could have been very impressive in court if there were no defense lawyers, you know? If you liked it. If you liked the government put on its own case, own witnesses own exhibits and then no cross examination and no defense arguments. I'd have been a thousand and

Liz Cheney Andy McCarthy Adam kinzinger Mike Gallagher Bill hemmer Annie McCarthy Mike G Trump national association of realto Adam Schiff Jonathan turley Schumer White House Pelosi Afghanistan Mike Supreme Court roe V wade
Andrew McCarthy: Jan. 6 Committee Did Not Set up a Fair Process

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:34 min | 8 months ago

Andrew McCarthy: Jan. 6 Committee Did Not Set up a Fair Process

"Andy McCarthy with Bill hemmer yesterday talking about what this January 6th select committee witch hunt is really all about. Yeah, this is not the committee that you're going to have suddenly Liz Cheney. You say, wait, this seems unfair. Maybe we need to look at other evidence. It has to be introduced as well. So it really brought a sort of an odd conclusion because it sort of emphasized, there isn't anyone to object. Same question, Annie McCarthy. Well, it was a much tighter presentation today because it was centered around one theme, this whole idea of stop the steal. And what they're trying to emphasize obviously is that the point they want to make is that Trump must have known that there was nothing to this because everybody around him who was credible was telling him it was nonsense and there was nothing there. As I've said from the beginning, they've got a very good story to tell. The problem is they've set it up in a process that is not a fair process that's aimed at getting to the truth and giving whatever contra arguments there are their day in court. And as a result, it's more like messaging than it is like a real investigation. And if you would try this in court, I could have been very impressive in court if there were no defense lawyers, you know? If you liked it. If you liked the government put on its own case, own witnesses own exhibits and then no cross examination and no defense arguments. I'd have been a thousand and

Andy Mccarthy Bill Hemmer Liz Cheney Annie Mccarthy Donald Trump
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

07:21 min | 11 months ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"It's morning edition from NPR news I'm Steve inskeep in Washington D.C. And a may Martinez in Culver City California A marathon day is ahead for President Biden's Supreme Court nominee katangi Brown Jackson Jackson is expected to spend about 12 hours feeling questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee In her opening remarks to lawmakers Jackson pledged to be independent I decide cases from a neutral posture I evaluate the facts and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson has been covering the hearing carry So what are Democrats emphasizing about judge Jackson and her record There's a real focus on the trailblazing nature of this nomination chairman dick Durbin of Illinois pointed out that a 115 people have sat on the Supreme Court by judge Jackson would be the first black woman Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey couldn't contain how happy he was at the site of judge Jackson her parents her husband their two daughters all of them except for the daughters really seemed to be on the verge of tears at different points Monday Here's more from senator Booker It's a sign that we as a country are continuing to rise to our collective cherished highest ideals I just feel this sense of overwhelming joy as I see you sitting there as I see your family sitting behind you Now Jackson's been on the bench for nearly a decade What kind of clues about how she would rule on the court Did you find her past decisions Well she's ruled both for and against the government in different cases There have been almost 600 of them in that tenure In one high profile dispute she said presidents are not kings She said former president Trump's White House counsel did have to appear before Congress to testify about possible obstruction of justice in another case judge Jackson turned back a challenge from environmental groups and allowed the Trump administration to proceed with building parts of a wall along the southwest border earlier in her career Jackson was a public defender She handled appeals for people too poor to afford a lawyer including a detainee at Guantanamo Bay She also worked on the U.S. sentencing commission which sets federal policies The U.S. sentencing commission That's where Republican senators have focused on some of their harshest criticism What are we likely to hear on that today We're going to hear a lot about that I think senator Josh hawley of Missouri unleashed an argument that judge Jackson has been too soft on crime too soft on defendants and several child pornography cases here's what he said What concerns me and I've been very candid about this is that in every case in each of these 7 judge Jackson handed down a lenient sentence that was below what the federal guidelines recommended and below what prosecutors requested And so I think there's a lot to talk about there and I look forward to talking about it Holly's gonna dive deeper today He got some support from senator Lindsey Graham who called that issue fair game but other conservative lawyers say the attack on judge Jackson is misleading Andrew McCarthy who wrote in the national review said it was meritless to the point of demagoguery because Josh hawley he says is not distinguishing between the people who produce child pornography and the people who share it online Now many legal experts and most federal judges think the penalties for distribution are too harsh they tend to sentence just the way judge Jackson did according to data from the sentencing commission Now Cary I'll admit I'm waiting to see how hot the room gets today You know it's day two after all So what's the overall outlook though for Jackson's confirmation If all 50 Democrats in the Senate stick together Jackson will be confirmed and make history The White House had hoped for some bipartisan support maybe three or four Republicans to cross the aisle It's just not clear how many shall attract this time around That's NPR's Carrie Johnson Carrie thanks a lot My pleasure If katangi Brown Jackson is confirmed she'll replace 83 year old justice Stephen Breyer for whom she previously clerked I spoke to the person who recommended her for that job judge Bruce selim He's a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and a longtime friend of the Supreme Court nominee Judge selja katangi Brown Jackson is no stranger to congressional scrutiny as she's appeared in front of the judicial committee before earning bipartisan support This time around however is very different So how do you think she'll handle congressional partisanship I think that no matter what a particular senator's political beliefs are I think that the members of the judiciary committee will not be able to help themselves They will be impressed by her by her directness by her responsiveness and by the fact that this is a woman who exudes competence I think she will come across that way which I believe will make a favorable impression not only upon many of the senators but also upon the wider television audience that will be watching And that's the difference right That's the difference this time around in that other confirmation hearings are typically not on national television where millions of people will be watching and the stakes aren't as high because you don't have senators trying to make some kind of political statement or make some kind of early run for some kind of nomination down the line That's going to be different this time around for a judge Jackson Oh it will And it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court confirmation process Has become highly partisan but I think that what we have in modern times some of those Supreme Court confirmations are ugly and others are really ugly And I think Cruz is likely to be in the former class mainly because I see absolutely nothing in her record for background for a character that puts any basis for a fear attack on her Now I think it can be expected that Republicans will go after Jackson in the coming days of GOP senator Josh hawley showed a bit of a glimpse of that when he tried to discredit her on Twitter saying that she is soft on crime A judge what would you say to senators who want to go that route on her attacker record on crime I think a fear assessment of judge Jackson's record on criminal justice issues would not lead a fair minded person to conclude that she's soft on crime But I think the members of the committee are well within their rights to inquire about her position non criminal justice issues and to record on criminal justice issues I just don't think she's got anything to shy away from Now Jackson is also poised to be the first former public defender to sit on the Supreme Court How do you think that would add to what the court already does Well I think diversity in every way is important and part.

Andrew McCarthy Carrie Johnson Stephen Breyer U.S. Court of Appeals Senate Judiciary Committee Congress Washington D.C. Bruce selim GOP Cruz Lindsey Graham two daughters 115 people New Jersey three Monday 7 judge Democrats Republican Josh hawley
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

AM 970 The Answer

02:42 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

"Exactly what that we never find out and that the families never find out and then and now doesn't that just breeds distrust in current government when when they admitted, especially this is frustration with this thing stuff and by saying stuff about the vaccine, for example. John, I got to tell you. I don't believe a thing that's coming out of the government, the CDC the NIH anything anymore. I mean, it's a warrant. Another one of those moments this weekend where Fauci couldn't answer on television. Why it is that we're making people who have natural immunity to the virus still get a vaccine. He said He couldn't He didn't have a good answer. Um, I think of that constant failure that constant double speak that constant ambiguity in our government agencies that we saw it all through the Russia collusion case where We would get these kind of weird answers and congressional testimony that was really covering up for the fact that they knew from the beginning that there was no uh um collusion going on. And so, yes, you know, the government has earned a lot of this distressed by its Performance in the last last many years. Yes. John Solomon at John before we let you go appreciate your valuable oversight on all of this, Uh, what's going to happen with this Joe Biden character? I mean, he can't hold off between a half years. And it camel coming in what it will there be a special election. We've been talking, so we're just hoping for something, John. It's Yeah, I know. A lot of conservatives are talking about that. Well, right now it's you know, Joe Biden is acting like he's not going anywhere, but You see the frustration? You see his thinking numbers? I think today you should watch Capitol Hill. And this afternoon, Uh, Secretary State blanket is going to be on the griddle. And I think you're going to learn some new revelations about what the president knew and what he instructed his top aides to do in the bungled Afghan exit. I think we're going to learn more and more about the way this Biden administration, um has been operating and it you know, it's going to drive some concerns, particularly among those who are trump supporters and conservatives. But right now, Joe Biden is actually like someone who's not going anywhere. All right, John. Salma. Appreciate it, John. Thanks for joining us Always all the best. Can't wait to see in person, My friend. Thanks so YouTube take care. Thank you. John Solomon Award winning investigative Journalists Objective journalist? Yes, they probably one of the last remaining objective journalist, founder of just the News. Jen Kearns is going to join us. Andrew McCarthy is on the show as well. Lee Seldon's on the show. And we got that, Jonah Carbo, my friends going to we're going to get into it with Jonah and the nine o'clock hour at 7 36 on a m 9 70 the answer. And Bill Diggins got the news in for alga Tula this morning on am 9 70 the answer dot com Use opinion. Passion. This is am 9 70 the answer..

Andrew McCarthy Joe Biden Jen Kearns Jonah Carbo Bill Diggins Lee Seldon John John Solomon Jonah Biden NIH Salma today Fauci YouTube this afternoon Tula CDC Capitol Hill this morning
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

AM 970 The Answer

07:53 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer

"13th already and we've got a great show for you. We're going to get into it with John Solomon is going to join us. Jen Kearns. Is on the show. Andrew McCarthy on the show. Marty Macari is that John Hopkins physician What's going on with the vaccine mandate? Congressman Lee Zelden will join us Johnno Caldwell is what I want to know that he's a general, you know, He's a guy that really walks the walk. Just talk to talk. And there's more deaths of Children in Chicago by shooting by shooting this and that outnumber covid death. But they're using this whole covid thing. And I'm watching by the way as I try. This is the best because as I do my show like Last night. We do the Frank Sinatra show right with our with our friends across town. And they have they have, unlike us, other humble little studio here where they have, like little monitors from 1978. You know, they've got these huge monitors, you know? And Jon Katz built this great this really great studio there and and so And by the way, I'm just busting chops because they everybody else, everybody else at a M 9 70 as a great studio, except for yours truly, I have no, it's like they have the rank. Take Matt Simbolon running the board. Do you see that thing hanging in the AM myself? What is that a rug that they're hanging on the walls. It's just am 9 70. Can we fix it? Can I get a nice studio? Kevin McCullough, who can give him a go? Big sigh. My Gallagher's got the bob his own studio that you're locked. These are medically sealed in his studio. You can't go by there, you know, And the only reason they come by us as the steal our talent that we have. That's what we hide Carol. We had character. To the great job doing. We hide behind the rug. As a matter of fact, we didn't say Don't don't Don't talk to the national hosts. By the way. One day one day I walk in and 11 nice studio for for Daddy over here. Maybe we can print out. Maybe we can print out on a piece of computer paper will just type Joe Piscopo show times, New Roman and will paste it on the door. Everyone will know that that's your studio. It's got a picture He's got like a four ft picture, hide covering the window to pay. He's got a mike pillow logo with me. What do we got? Got got Nothing. You got to Columbus statue and you've got me holding a sandwich board. I'm wearing a sandwich. A couple of dirty napkins. Uh, did we fix the mother? We did, Mother, Cabrini. The surgery was successful. She's back together. Um, my Lord, a failure. What? I got the respect at all. No respect at all. I'll tell you, it's all right. It's okay. You know? So we're here anyway, We're here and we got some great guests for you. And we're here on this crazy crazy Monday after 9 11, But when I'm over at The other station. They have all these beauty, beautiful big monitors, and I see in front of me CNN and then I see at another monitor. They have fox. Then they have MSNBC. And they and they and I watched MSNBC and I watch CNN. I got to see them. They're living in an alternative universe. They really are so weird. And then just now, I just flipped around just to make sure I got a you know, feel for everything that's going on. So I watch Fox News and I know you criticized Fox News Fox News. This fact. I tell you, they're doing a good job. And Newsmax two. I was with Chris Ready over the weekend. The gentleman that actually started Newsmax and Newsmax doing a great job, And then I keep hearing about one American news network. I can't find it anywhere. My TV. It's like they won't block it. You know, they want their blocking it. They won't let it out there. So I guess I got to go online for that. But in the meantime, when I watch what's being portrayed and broadcast by the stations, and I was watching MSNBC, I happen to just see it. It's so funny. I swear to God, I'm telling you the truth here. They did a special It might have been. CNN did a special arm on Donald Trump's big Lie about the election. They listen to me here it is winners and September 13th all these months later. Joe Biden. This whole Joe Biden fiasco this puppet Manchurian candidate. My opinion, it's working out so poorly. It's a big the biggest fail of anything, and I'm hoping that somebody writes about it that somebody's got the guts to do an investigation about what happened with this election would happen. How did this guy end up? You know if they can use a puppet candidate? I keep saying Couldn't you have chosen Tulsi Gabbert that objectively submitted by the way does he gathered at least can put two sentences together. She's a She's a major in the military that somebody like that. Meantime, you got Bernie Sanders who and I saw a picture of Bernie with with, you know his biggest UV pulling up to a private jet. Going around. That's yes. That's burning. They're so full of it. There is so full of it preaching us. Oh, the great new dealer all flying around on their own jets. They're all taken. They have the specialist U V s. They bear the blockages got a caravan. He travels around and And now and now now, so, so MSNBC and I guess CNN doesn't have they don't have any materials. So they go into Donald Trump. They say Oh, what Trump said how Trump lied about the election. I swear to God, that was that was like a documentary last night on a Sunday night on and I guess it was CNN or MSNBC, one of those network Okay. Got to get a handle on. You have to remember Joe that now that Trump is out of office, you know that you're right. They've got a lot of material about it. They also got bigger ratings out of Trump. What little that they had, as it is, and without trump. I mean, who's watching? I mean, you want to go watch Joe Biden waddle around and forget where he is and make it pull out his no card. There's nothing to that. I guess I guess so. But they and their but you think that objectively, they would say They would say. You know what this is that this was a mistake. We got a situation. This is a guy that shouldn't be called President. Something. Give us something You can't keep attacking the past President who actually did things that when you look at and again I understand the personality that you know the personality. Uh, problem that you had. People don't like Donald Trump. Gosh. The person I understand it, But look at the accomplishments. Look at the policies every single one every single one, and they just abandon everything. And what gets me really crazy is that the Democrats don't care about Uh, domestically. They don't care about what's happening at the southern border of the United States and and those meat news media outlets will not report it, and nor will they report. What's happening. In Chicago and all East ST Louis, Illinois. And what's happening everything New Orleans and all these cities that the black on black crime they will not acknowledge it. They just won't acknowledge it. And Biden. The opens his mouth and he says, Oh, these government these governors with the this, uh, this vaccine mandate if they don't back it up there being cavalier with the Children, more Children but sadly have died from suicide. And from drug addiction, And there's more problems in with our with our youth, because they're pushing this. This covid thing. This covid thing that is like just it's like a political weapon for the way left is is exactly what this is. And pretty and for Joe Biden said, Mandating this Excuse me. Help me out here. I'm trying to be objective. What is happening? What is happening with the border? Why are you allowing people illegally coming into the country with this Wuhan virus and then strategically strategically placing them in different cities for voting blocks around the country? You're letting Afghans come in. You're not getting them properly. They are coming in. Are you testing them for this Wuhan virus? Cuban American Cubans who are running into trouble You're not allowed in because apparently you don't vote the way the Democrats want you to vote. What is wrong with these people? Where is their heart where the humanitarian give me started Monday?.

Andrew McCarthy Matt Simbolon Kevin McCullough Jen Kearns Joe Biden Johnno Caldwell Jon Katz Marty Macari Trump Lee Zelden Donald Trump Bernie Sanders New Orleans John Solomon Monday CNN Tulsi Gabbert Joe Piscopo Biden 1978
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on The Patriot AM 1150

The Patriot AM 1150

09:59 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on The Patriot AM 1150

"In 2000 and two beginning of a four year stay at CIA black sites. The defendants also include a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of Transferring money to the hijackers on his uncle's behalf while working as a computer tech in Dubai. Mohammed has been in U. S custody for more than 18 years now, like the others, he was captured in Pakistan, and they've all been at Gitmo for 15 years, now charged with crimes, including terrorism, hijacking and nearly 3000 counts of murder. But the case now on judge Number seven has yet to make it to trial after a variety of legal challenges and a high profile fight years ago over the setting the Bush administration Controversially, but I thought at the time correctly try to move the cases out of civilian court. Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant U. S attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Fox News contributor, at least against, uh, the category of terrorists that we called alien enemy combatants. And to move them into a military commission proceeding instead. And that effort which I which I think people should have cooperated in. Was instead turned into a real, uh, hot partisan football and the to make a long 20 year story short. There is that you have the problem. Both that The Democrats. Attacked the Propriety of the commissions from the beginning and and really hammered them relentlessly. And you had a lot of lawyers who volunteered their services to our Enemies in order to to try to dismantle and undermine the commission system. And then to be fair. The commission system didn't work very well. It hasn't worked very well. So in 20 years, we've never gotten a single trial. To completion. I think there's been either eight or nine Guilty pleas and in a lot of those cases, you know, frankly, I say this as someone who prosecuted terrorists and the civilian system sentences in the military system where an absolute disgrace I mean, guys who would have gotten hammered in civilian terrorism trials were virtually given a walk in some of these military commissions. And in the case, particularly of KSM and four other terrorists who were directly responsible for the 9 11 attacks. There's a big issue about Statements that they made to particularly the CIA. And how much of that information is admissible in court. Yeah, and you mentioned the things they may have said to the CIA. This, of course, goes back to the enhanced interrogation techniques. Uh, Eventually Brandon is torture and a limp stopped by the Obama administration. Um could that really him string this case Could that end up throwing Lot of evidence out. I mean, how much of this will end up being a battle centered on that? Well, in the first instance I want to push back a little bit on the common labelling of this questioning is torture. Because I don't think it ever was. The fact that people on the left and in the Obama administration labeled a torture doesn't make it so and I don't think these people were tortured. That's not to say that their statements were not Elicited from physically aggressive tactics that would not be permitted in any court. Whether it's a military court order for civilian court, you cannot Get put in evidence of a confession that's derived by overriding somebody's will to resist, Um, questioning, but I don't think it was torture. But there is a A big problem in that you could lose evidence of Confessions and I should be clear on this. Lisa that Um you can't admit a statement that was directly Elicited by waterboarding or some other form of enhanced interrogation. Or or, you know, physically coercive interrogation. Anything that overbear somebody's will. The issue here is To compare it to a normal civilian trial. The law is if you give if you failed to give somebody Miranda warnings in a civilian Context. And he makes a an incriminating statement. And then subsequently you give that person Miranda warnings and he makes the same statement. The second statement can be admitted even if the first statement is inadmissible because the second statement is deemed Voluntary. So the issue in the, uh, KSM case with respect to the guys who were waterboarded is do the statements that they made under circumstances where they weren't being coerced. Do they get to be admitted in the trial? No one is trying to admit the statements that they made while they were being water boarded. The question is even when the government says they gave their subsequent statements voluntarily. Did they give those statements under circumstances where they should get? The cat was out of the bag because they had talked while they were being waterboarded, And at that point, it didn't matter whether they spoke or not, So that's the that's the legal issue. You are the lead prosecutor in the convictions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and a plot to blow up other landmarks to is. How is this different? How is this trial? Different? Of course, The setting of it is different. But are you Are you optimistic that this will also lead to convictions that could hold up? The setting is different. Charges are different. The times are different in the sense that what was miraculous about the World Trade Center bombing was that despite Detonating £1400 chemical explosive at high noon during a period of time when we proved that there was in that area, very densely packed area of lower Manhattan there could be anywhere from 60 to 120,000 people. At any one time in the immediate area of the explosion. The miracle was that only six people, including one woman, who I believe was almost may have been seven months pregnant. But only six adults were killed. There was a lot of damage and there were people who were injured, but the number of the number of people who were killed compared to the thousands that they hope to kill. Was really minimal. And miraculous If you look at the at just the sheer destruction, so it's a very you know, it's a different thing. It's it's different. Not only because it's a military justice system proceeding rather than a civilian justice system proceeding, but also because the country is so different and and the feeling that we have about terrorism, and the aftermath of these terrorist attacks is so different. In 2021 than it was in 1993 94 95. We've seen KSM and the others as pretrial hearings resumed this week for the first time since the pandemic started. We've seen the smiling waving at each other. Um, They appeared just to be happy to see each other in court. But it makes you wonder. You know if they're convicted, and even if they're sentenced to death, um is it going to matter to them? And should it matter to us whether or not it matters to them? I mean, I think part of the reason that they're smiling and waving at each other is because they should have been executed 15 years ago, and they're still alive. So When 9 11 happened, and particularly when KSM was apprehended. If you had told someone that it would be 2021, he wouldn't even his trial wouldn't even be imminent yet because we don't even know when this trial is going to start. I don't think anybody would have believed that so in a sense, these guys are, uh are cheating death and they have good reason to think they've made fools of us. But will it matter to them? I don't know. If we should care so much, whether if they get put to death, it'll matter to them. I think what we need to be concerned about is the national security of the United States. And whether they care about whether they get put to death or not. I think it's important that they do. With the 20th anniversary of 9 11 upon us Have you done a lot of reflecting about the origins of the war on terror, the rise of radical Islam? And whether we've learned the lessons we need to learn from those past cases, including the when you prosecuted leading up to 9 11. Yeah, I've thought of it a lot. And I think the biggest frustration on my end is I feel like We proved in court What the ideology of the jihadist is and the fact that there is a kind of a straight line of causation between Verses that they focus on in Scripture mediating figures like whether it's an Al Qaeda type organization or someone like the blind Sheik who inspire people using these scriptures to commit terrorist acts..

Andrew McCarthy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Pakistan Dubai 15 years Al Qaeda eight Obama 2021 Brandon 20 year 1993 Mohammed 20 years Islam 2000 thousands CIA KSM one woman
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

11:23 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Later captured no raid in Pakistan in 2000 and two beginning of a four year stay at CIA black sites. The defendants also include a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of Transferring money to the hijackers on his uncle's behalf. While working as a computer tech in Dubai. Mohammed has been in U. S custody for more than 18 years now, like the others, he was captured in Pakistan, and they've all been at Gitmo for 15 years now. Charged with crimes including terrorism, hijacking and nearly 3000 counts of murder. But the case now on judge Number seven has yet to make it to trial after a variety of legal challenges. And a high profile fight years ago over the setting the Bush administration controversially, but I thought at the time correctly tried to move the cases out of civilian court. Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant U. S attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Fox News contributor, at least against the category of terrorists that we called alien enemy combatants. And to move them into a military commission proceeding instead. And that effort which I which I think people should have cooperated in was instead Turned into a real, uh hot partisan football and the to make a long 20 year story short. There's a you have the problem, both that The Democrats. Attacked the propriety of the commissions from the beginning and really hammered them relentlessly. And you had a lot of lawyers who volunteered their services to our Enemies in order to to try to dismantle and undermine the commission system. And then to be fair. The commission system didn't work very well. It hasn't worked very well. So in 20 years, we've never gotten a single trial. To completion. I think there's been either eight or nine guilty pleas. And in a lot of those cases, you know, frankly, I say this as someone who prosecuted terrorists in the civilian system sentences in the military system or an absolute disgrace. I mean, guys who would have gotten hammered in civilian terrorism trials were virtually given a walk in some of these military commissions. And in the case, particularly of KSM and four other terrorists who were directly responsible for the 9 11 attacks. There's a big issue about statements that they made to particularly the CIA and how much of that information Is admissible in court. Yeah, and you mentioned the things they may have said to the CIA. This, of course, goes back to the enhanced interrogation techniques. Uh, Eventually branded is torture and a limp stopped by the Obama administration. Um could that really him string this case? Could that end up throwing a lot of evidence out? I mean, how much of this will end up being a battle centered on that? Well, in the first instance I want to push back a little bit on the common labelling of this questioning is torture. Because I don't think it ever was. The fact that people on the left and in the Obama administration labeled a torture doesn't make it so and I don't think these people were tortured. That's not to say that their statements were not Elicited from physically aggressive tactics that would not be Permitted in any court. Whether it's a military court order or a civilian court, you cannot, uh get put in evidence of a confession that's derived by overriding somebody's will to resist. Um, the questioning, but I don't think it was torture. But there is a big problem in that you could lose evidence of Confessions and I should be clear on this. Lisa that Um you can't admit a statement that was directly Elicited by waterboarding or some other form of enhanced interrogation. Or or, you know, physically coercive interrogation. Anything that overbear somebody's will. The issue here is To compare it to a normal civilian trial. The law is if you give if you failed to give somebody Miranda warnings in a civilian Context. And he makes a an incriminating statement. And then subsequently you give that person Miranda warnings and he makes the same statement. The second statement can be admitted, even if the first statement is inadmissible because the second statement is deemed voluntary. So the issue in the KSM case with respect to the guys who were waterboarded is do the statements that they made under circumstances where they weren't being coerced. Do they get to be admitted in the trial? No one is trying to admit the statements that they made while they were being water boarded. The question is even when the government says they gave their subsequent statements voluntarily. Did they give those statements under circumstances where they should get? The cat was out of the bag because they had talked while they were being waterboarded, And at that point, it didn't matter whether they spoke or not, So that's the that's the legal issue. You're the lead prosecutor in the convictions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and a plot to blow up other landmarks to is. How is this different? How is this trial? Different? Of course, The setting of it is different. But are you Are you optimistic that this will also lead to convictions that could hold up? The setting is different. The charges are different. The times are different in the sense that what was miraculous about the World Trade Center bombing was that despite Detonating £1400 chemical explosive at high noon during a period of time when we proved that there was in that area, very densely packed area of lower Manhattan there could be anywhere from 60 to 120,000 people. At any one time in the immediate area of the explosion. A miracle was that only six people, including one woman, who I believe was almost may have been seven months pregnant, but only six adults were killed. There was a lot of damage and there were people who were injured, but the number of the number of people who were killed compared to the thousands that they hope to kill. Was really minimal. And miraculous If you look at the, uh, at just the fear destruction, so it's a very you know, it's a different thing. It's it's different. Not only because it's a military justice system proceeding rather than a civilian justice system proceeding, but also because the country is so different and and the feeling that we have about terrorism and the aftermath at least terrorist attacks is so different. In 2021 than it was in 1993 94 95. We've seen KSM and the others as pretrial hearings resumed this week for the first time since the pandemic started. We've seen this smiling, waving at each other. Um, They appeared just to be happy to see each other in court. But it makes you wonder. You know if they're convicted, and even if they're sentenced to death, um is it going to matter to them? And should it matter to us whether or not it matters to them? I mean, I think part of the reason that they're smiling and waving at each other is because they should have been executed 15 years ago, and they're still alive. So When 9 11 happened then, particularly when KSM was apprehended. If you had told someone that it would be 2021, he wouldn't even his trial wouldn't even be imminent yet because we don't even know when this trial is going to start. I don't think anybody would have believed that so in a sense, these guys are, uh, are treating death and they have good reason to think they've made fools of us. But will it matter to them? I don't know. If we should care so much, whether if they get put to death, it'll matter to them. I think what we need to be concerned about is the national security of the United States. And whether they care about whether they get put to death or not. I think it's important that they do. With the 20th anniversary of 9 11 upon us Have you done a lot of reflecting about the origins of the war on terror, the rise of radical Islam? And whether we've learned the lessons we need to learn from those past cases, including the one you prosecuted leading up to 9 11. Yeah, I've thought of it a lot. And I think the biggest frustration on my end is I feel like We proved in court. What the ideology of the jihadists, tins and the fact that there is a kind of a straight line of causation between Verses that they focus on Scripture mediating figures like whether it's an Al Qaeda type organization or someone like the blind Sheik who inspire people using these scriptures to commit terrorist acts. And then you have to use young Muslim men who committed these terrorist attacks. We proved all that you know more than 25 years ago now and Then, if you were paying attention to the news this week, what you heard was the Biden administration. Coming out and saying things like, um, the Taliban have given us assurances on, you know, respecting the rights of people and they've given us assurances on counterterrorism, and they think that maybe we can work with them in conjunction against, uh, Isis K. Which is just a break off faction of Al Qaeda. As if the Taliban and us have more in common than the Taliban and Isis K. I mean, what? What ties out the Taliban and Isis K together is that they abhor us, no matter what they may think. Of each other. So when I hear people say he's really Uninformed, ignorant things. It makes me wonder like what on earth will we doing in court? This was a nine month trial that we had in public where we proved all of this. In court and flash forward 25 years later, and we still have a government that saying the same kind of ignorant stuff that was being said a quarter of a century ago, so you can't help but ask yourself..

Andrew McCarthy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Dubai 15 years Pakistan 20 year Al Qaeda seven months eight 2021 2000 1993 Isis K 20 years Islam CIA Mohammed Taliban Isis K. Lisa
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on KTLK 1130 AM

KTLK 1130 AM

05:05 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on KTLK 1130 AM

"Silver from experience. True story. Always make mistakes failed upward. Um, so a couple of a couple of former President Donald Trump Things. I know you've got a piece up at town Hall President Trump reacting to the to the New York disastrous election, But Donald Trump also put out an opinion piece I built the wall, Biden built a humanitarian catastrophe. It's It's interesting to see and I think this is part of what we've been expecting from from from the former president from from President Donald Trump that he did say he was going to stay active, especially heading into the midterms next year, but It seems like suddenly he's starting to, you know, make himself a little bit more prominent within the media once again. Yeah, It's interesting to see him placing op EDS. At various, um, spots. This is he thinks the op ed this time was in the Washington Times. The the previous one, um, was in a different outlet. Um, yeah. I mean, he certainly is. Then on the road. He's been held a rally last weekend. Um, the idea that you know he's still not on Twitter is just absolutely insane. So He's using other outlets to kind of get his his voice out there. Um, there's obviously especially speculation about whether he'll run again and 2024. But, yeah, I mean, it's really interesting to watch this new phenomenon of a previous president. You know the in the mix because usually they kind of quietly go build their library or, you know, do their foundation thing. But the fact that they're not working on the library necessarily, I think is Maybe a tell for 2024. If they're not really moving forward very quickly with plans for that. So, um, we'll see. But you know, it is true that Joe Biden has completely destroyed any kind of progress on the border. It's inhumane situation as you guys know, we talked about this for years. Um, and I think that him going there and embarrassing the current commander in chief and the vice president who just basically did a lay over there. Last week. Uh, is something to watch because we've never really seen it before. We're a little short on time I knew we wanted we do want to touch on this and I'll frame it this way. Um, Andrew McCarthy had a really interesting piece. Um, basically saying Republicans don't get Hoodwinked, too, by the spin The left is doing when it comes to defund the police and the point that he was making in the piece was Look, the left is going to want to fund the police. But what they're doing is trying to reshape the way that police can go and conduct law enforcement. And there is an attempt right now from the left to spin because the polling is showing that the public is worried about crime is to try to spin Defunding the police onto Republicans. They are so good at this gas lighting. Yes, well, the word to fund you know, obviously, you think about money, But money is not the only way you quote defund the police. You defund the police by not prosecuting criminals by police seeing the same people on the street and over and over and over again that they keep arresting. You defund the police by destroying their morale. You defund them by making them think if they make one mistake, or, uh, you know, actually do their jobs. They're going to end up in a tweet by LeBron James falsely after they save someone's life, right, So that is a bigger, comprehensive issue than that. And you know, they're saying they're trying to pin it. Can this all on the money from the American rescue plan last year? Uh, by saying Republicans voted against that and not providing money for police. The bottom line is that Joe Biden and Senator Tom Cotton brought this up, but I believe it was yesterday, the day before. Personnel is policy and the two people he has in charge of policing and police reform. At the Department of Justice. Kristin Clark and Benita Gupta are rabidly anti police. Kristin Clark wrote an op ed calling for the defunding of police and doing exactly We just talked about reshaping policing in a leftist vision of what they think it should be. When you have those kinds of people in charge of the federal response to policing police departments all over the country are going to feel completely demoralized. And people aren't going to sign up to be police officers. Exactly what we're saying. And I'm in New York right now. I've been here all week and let me tell you It is a mess. I mean, Times Square. Is violent people getting shot in the middle of the day. I've watched people go into Walgreens the other night and just take stuff and leave. Um it's a disaster. And so You know, there are people everywhere, doing drugs in the open air and on the side of the street, And so you know, defunding doesn't have to be necessarily just about money. It's about the overall attitude these people have had towards the police and for them to turn around now and tried to pin this on Republicans. Gaslighting shows is a bad issue for them. And in that process, they're like, Oh, no, we didn't defend the police say, defended the police. They're actually inadvertently admitting that the funding the place is a bad idea, Right? Kenny winner where we are. We're at a time when you're gonna be on TV. I will be on sometime tomorrow Newsroom tomorrow morning. Thank you so much for the time. Katie, We'll talk to you again Real soon. Take care. Good holiday weekend. Thank you. All right, Sam. Yes. What did you learn.

Joe Biden LeBron James Benita Gupta Katie Kristin Clark Donald Trump Andrew McCarthy Sam tomorrow morning Last week Times Square last year yesterday 2024 Republicans Senator tomorrow Department of Justice next year two people
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

News 96.5 WDBO

05:44 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

"It's Brian Kilmeade. He pioneered all of the ways of manipulating the system and perhaps gaming the system and dealing with banks and tax authorities and slippery ways. So he knows all of the techniques that have been used. He knows all the potential crimes that they have been committed. He must be feeling just like one of the family. And what's interesting is that he is probably the one person outside the family that Donald Trump trusted. That is Michael D. Antonio and Michael is the author of This book, The Truth about Trump and his his observation of what he saw about Alan Wisenberg. Who was, I guess a rain today or indicted today, officially along with the Trump organization. What does it actually mean from the legal perspective, especially with the Manhattan district attorney's office doing it? Andrew McCarthy would know. Here's the former assistant U. S attorney for the Southern District of New York. And Fox News contributor. Andy Was this a bad day for President Trump. Could this be a day that he was expecting? That could have been worse. Yeah, I think it's I mean, it's never a good day when, when something that's called the Trump. Company of the Trump Organization is going to be charged along with its CFL. So you know, you know in viewed in that lens. It's never a good day when something like that happens, but given What was expected here and the fact that you know this is side Vance's white whale as I've been writing about at National Review today, um, in the sense that he's been pursuing trump, not white Silberg, not the Trump organization, Donald Trump. For years and you know, with with respect to Mr D. Antoni, Um, you know, it's one thing to have someone like y Silberg who can tell you're all of the ins and outs of how the Trump organization. Of operates in terms of its financial practices. It's quite another thing to have What, uh, so advanced as the Manhattan D A. Which is the records? You know if there's a case against Trump, he spent three years going up and down to the Supreme Court twice to get years of Donald Trump's financial record, And that's on top of having an investigation, which has been geared toward decades of the Trump Organization's criminal practices. And so far, they've the only thing they've been able to come up with. Is that they didn't pay taxes on corporate parks, like, you know, tuition for for kids and company cars and that kind of stuff. It's no wonder Brian that the federal prosecutors didn't seem Interested in this case when I was in the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, Um, we would never have set by and done nothing while the Manhattan Da's office Went after a big fish case that involves supposed You know, federal felonies like bank fraud and tax fraud and the like. It's no wonder they weren't particularly interested in this guy. So naive question. Having not done your job, But could you be ramping up? Do you ever start slow? Do you ever start low knowing where you're going? Knowing what Or is it? Do you have more in your in your quiver? In other words, Every case is different. But you know the thing with Trump Brian, I don't want to say that you never start that way. But, you know We've We've kind of been there done that. What they're doing to Weisberg is not from what I could detect is not even a little bit different from what Mueller did with Paul Manafort. The idea was to get somebody who is in the middle of everything and must have the goods on trump and will squeeze him until he finally says uncle and gives us something and, you know, they squeeze them as much as you could, you know, try to squeeze of stone and they got nothing. And that doesn't mean that Donald Trump is a great guy. But you know, Trump's had good legal advice his whole life. He talked about Roy Cohn all the time when you know Roy Cohn was a notorious figure, but he's a very good, very sharp lawyer, and I think Trump knows how to do sharp business practices. Without necessarily getting himself into, you know, Felonious. Bad behavior kind of conduct. So the problem the Democrats have inside Vance is no different, Uh, is that they want to have the trump of their imagination rather than the Trump, who exists, which is the Trump will exist simply is not a master criminal. That doesn't mean he's nature's noblemen. But he's just not What they imagine them to be, And I think the real danger for Democrats here is the district attorney's, including Vance's office of New York are turning a blind eye while the city is going up in flames. Violent crime is skyrocketing. And they won't even prosecute the people who were involved in the violent rioting last summer, which where cops got assaulted badly and business has got destroyed and the like, And yet they're scorching the Earth to make a tax case on Trump's CFO. Pure politics, spending three years. Unbelievable. Financial Andy. I feel the same way. If they were going after Clinton, Obama or Bush, for things had nothing to do with them being president. This is pure targeting. They're saying I'm good from my point of view. And you're you're not shy about stopping me if I'm mischaracterizing, so I don't want you to get shy now, But from my my point of view Just saying I got to find something wrong with him because we hate him. Don't want to run for president. I hate this guy. We've got to find something wrong. So who what would my Michael Cohen's back and forth eight times. Eight times minimum, he says. It's just beginning really, just beginning. All right..

Brian Kilmeade Paul Manafort Andrew McCarthy Alan Wisenberg Obama Michael D. Antonio Bush Clinton Michael Donald Trump Roy Cohn Michael Cohen Brian three years Andy Eight times Mueller President Trump today twice
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on X96

X96

07:09 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on X96

"Because on this day 1961 English musician Curt Smith from tears for fears. Had a number one hit with that song. Everybody wants to rule the world the day he was born, and it reminds me, Hm, Um When you when you were here, the tears for fears. Mostly you think of, um Of the eighties and eighties. Movies and the eighties so last night because my husband wasn't here. Um, my I've been taking my daughter on a tour through movies of my childhood. Why would you subject her to that? Just cook like I enjoyed this when I was your age kind of thing. Really, Mom got? Uh, No, she doesn't talk to me their way. She's like, Yeah, I'd like to see what and normally we, It's gone. Well, she's liked. So what? We're going to show her last night. So last night, I'm like Have ensured you pretty in pink you We should watch pretty in pink, very problematic Film. And I haven't watched pretty in pink in a long time. Well, there's that hillbilly rape scene that is just underway. That's deliverance. I'm sorry. That's what your family want just together. But it it was not good. It did not hold up. No, that's not. It was not when I saw it. When it first came out, it was not good and did not hold up. And you know what? That's one that I have not seen. Ever. No. I have not seen that one. I have fond memories of it, and we watched and she just She thought everything and it was hilarious. The the clothing and the music and the But it's just not. It is not one of Johnny were treated. It's not one of John Hughes best. I don't think it's one of John Use. Best breakfast breakfast club. Think Ferris Bueller's Day off. He's got Ferris Bueller. Yeah, I would say, And she loves those, But, Yeah, six. It's not. So the narrative is not. I mean, you know you got the racial stereotypes in there. You got that? You know she's willing to do anything to to be with the most popular guy. You know. It's like Greece. Shut up! We're not talking Greece. That's a different conversation. That's a different movie that doesn't help hold up in this kind of offensive. But it reminded me of the story that Molly Ringwald that John Hughes that obviously he loved her and wanted her and everything she didn't want to do pretty in pink. I don't want an And she said, I'll do it if you let me pick the music. And so she had all of her favorite bands. And so a lot of them we played a K. J. Q. And the next 96 like I forgot the rave ups was in this. I like the music in it, Um And, uh, the butler brothers when we're not thinking of not These are like for no psychedelic first. Oh, yeah, There's psychedelic furs and the music's good in and I was telling my daughter that because there's a couple scenes when they're in a club and there's a band playing and I'm like Molly Ringwald said she wouldn't do this movie. Unless she could get her friends. Orchestral manoeuvres in the dark. So that was a positive about it. I thought, but not no, It's not a good and it was terrible at the time. I mean, she was She was kind of it was it was not a good Role model for Young women. Yeah, Here's a Here's a text. We watched 16 candles with our son when he turned 16. The shower scene was over before we could turn it off. Yeah, 16 candles is whore like Kerry was saying racial Stereotypes and and yeah, how women are portrayed, and that's not so much in pretty in pink. Oh, he didn't directed. Apparently, he was the producer. At least that's what a texture is telling me. Well, it's a John James. James Spader was in it, though. Yeah, he's the best part of it. Because he because he plays a jerk, and James Spider is Bill age. Yes, yes. And he's a real jerk and age of Ultron, but that's another, says Andrew, Dice. Clay was in it as well. He was. I forgot he was in it. Um, now, here's a suggestion from a texter. Some kind of wonderful still holds up because Leah Thompson standing up for herself is very empowering. Okay, and that's and I so that's one. I don't think we've watched, so maybe out, Or maybe she's going to give up reasons. Apple wasn't Jeez, I didn't write. Forgot that and any pots. Whatever happened to Andrew McCarthy? Whatever happened to that guy? He got a drinking problem and went away for a while. He directs a lot of episodes of the black list. Oh, does he? So his friend James Spader? Yeah, keeps him employed. But Harry Dean Stanton. Oh, yeah, that was Yeah. Yeah. With a dad like that. You know why she Is willing to do will understand why Molly wants to be with most popular guy Don't understand. Gina Gershon on. Uh huh. Yes, my darling. Gina Gershon. There was Ducky and then duck at Yet. Jon Cryer. I mean it. It had things in it that that we're moments, but on the whole it was not a texture. Molly Ringwald once said that she wished that she didn't think that she didn't think Andy would have chosen either guy. She should have chosen neither and stood up for herself in a later interview. Yeah, there you go. Alright, Well, we'll take a break. We'll be back. Boehner fight is on the way. A reasonable amount of news. All that and more coming up, Scott. Hail, plumbing, heating and air. Er yeah, you know, get your air conditioning tuned up, man. It's uh when, when it's working right. It's cheaper. And it'll keep you cool during the summer and work. Just in the beginning of the summer, and I think the hot weather is going to continue on and through August we'll be back up into the hundreds next week. So this is just a tiny blip in Yeah. So call Scott. Hail, they will come over. I don't know if I don't know if they're changing this special at the end of the month, so don't don't take this. You know, after after June, it may be over, but $39 for an air conditioning tune up. I like can almost guarantee the price is going to go up so called Scott. Hail right away and get your air conditioner tuned up for just $39 Keep cool. Get peace of mind knowing that your cooling system is reliable..

Curt Smith Molly Ringwald Andrew McCarthy James Spader Leah Thompson Andrew Gina Gershon Harry Dean Stanton Jon Cryer John Hughes Andy John James $39 Kerry 16 candles James Spider 16 1961 Molly Ferris Bueller
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on Happier with Gretchen Rubin

Happier with Gretchen Rubin

06:08 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on Happier with Gretchen Rubin

"Or insights about the book. Share them on social media. Using hashtag happier podcasts book club and we will incorporate them into our interview when michelle's joins us and speaking of books. this try. This at home suggestion was inspired by a book and listen. It was inspired by a book that i read. Because of you you told me about andrew mccarthy's brat and eighty story written by the actor andrew mccarthy and because he liked it i read it yes. I loved his memoir so in this memoir bra. Andrew mccarthy is writing about getting ready to do a scene for the movie saying almost fire which turns out is one of the most famous movies. He's in an in this scene. His character was alone and singing along to the aretha. Franklin song respects and andrew mccarthy was feeling very very self conscious about doing the scene and here is a lightly edited version of what he writes about his preparation. He says i needed something now. There are two kinds of actors those who love props and those who hate them for those who disliked props interaction of any kind with objects can be awkward and intrusive while for someone like me a lifeline. A cup of coffee. Or a watering can or the queen of then a cigarette could help to ground the work and take the internal focus away from the self place it on behavior liberating the performance during the course of the shoot. I had been reading about marlon brando and learned that. He played the bongo drums when he was a young actor. I bought myself a set. As i was walking out to work on the morning the scene was to be filmed. I grabbed them slapping on those bongos. No matter how poorly liberated me suddenly i was flopping around with aretha a private moment of freedom joy. my character would never allow others to witness gretchen. I remember that scene. So yes yes. It is an insight into that character that you don't get anywhere else in the movie. It really adds something very different and makes the character much richer and reading about the way. Andrew mccarthy felt about a prob-. I was thinking well in everyday life i think it helps to give yourself a prob in maybe see saying for some people it's distracting but for some people it's really grounding and like i've noticed for myself even on like zoom meetings and things i really liked to have a pen in my hand even if i'm not actively taking notes and i always thought oh i want to be ready to take notes but actually i like holding a pen in my hand. The way people like to hold a drink at a party. Yes and it's funny grachev. Because since you and i had this conversation i've noticed on tv. That a lot of new interviewers hold pens even if they're not writing things down which is probably the same instant somehow. It's comforting item. That helps ground them well and it's familiar. It feels like preparation. Listen to have to ask you work with actors all the time. Have you noticed that being before apart from the tried this at home of it. Have you noticed that. That's true about actors. Oh yes and he's absolutely right there those who want props and those who do not like props like we've had actors who literally couldn't walk and talk at the same time and then we've had actors who are like i wanna be floss my teeth during the scene or something know so it really ranges but what we have learned over. The years is work with what the comfort level of the actor. You do works for that person. Better to lean into the strength. But i do think a lot of times using props also can be character revealing but that goes into a whole other thing about television and building character but for the comforts sake. Here's something funny. We went time. We're talking to a director and we were worried about an actress. This was years ago and we said what do you think you can do to help her. And he said well. I can give her a pen to hold and she'll be ten percents better and that's all i can really. Yes because he knew that that was something that would strengthen her just any person. i mean. it's the same thing that you're talking about holding a pen somehow makes people perform better. Yeah i think some people fiddled with their glosses like they take them on. They take them off. They clean them. It was interesting. I remember that a friend told me she said you know what if phones had been around. When i was a teenager. I would never have started smoking and i thought that was interesting because we think of like teens being on their phones all the time as bad but i can see that fussing with a cigarette like she said. Oh you know. I'd be like sitting on the sidelines at a party. And i wouldn't know what to do with myself so i get out of cigarette and fuss with it and everything and she's like i could just been like scrolling through my phone. Wouldn't have had the feeling of needing to do something to occupy myself. So i thought that was interesting because i had never thought about the positive aspect of how it is it is a prop and maybe it's too much of a problem because it can be distracting but it can fulfill that role. Yeah loan. I think this is why some people fidget spinners in those things right. It allows your attention to go somewhere else but not to the point where you are too distracted. Yeah but i think it's maybe it's some nervous energy that's taken up by holding something. Well listen i remember when we were doing our live shows we would be holding things like i play the ukulele or we had the things that we did with the dog poop bags and there really was something nice for at least part of the time to be handling a physical object. I didn't think about it at the time. Because i didn't think those props. I thought of them more like showing tell. Yeah that people like to have something to look at how we thought about it. We thought about it in terms of the audience being interested keeping them engaged thinking back on it now. I think it actually helped us. Yes i think it gave us a place to focus in something to do. And that was helpful also props mark time. I mean for us..

Andrew mccarthy andrew mccarthy eighty story two kinds Franklin marlon brando one of years ago michelle most famous ten
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

02:19 min | 1 year ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Over President Biden is grappling with his first foreign crisis is a U. S envoy is dispatched to the region. Also, Andrew McCarthy talks about his years as part of the Brat Pack, Plus a nine year old is one of the world's top DJs. She just ranked in an international competition, and, you know she's about as pleased about it as a nine year old can be. I feel like like, really super duper, where excited and we're super duper excited to have you with us this morning. It's Sunday, May 16th news is next. Line from NPR News in Washington. I'm Louise Give Oni on online summit of the 57 Nation. Organization of Islamic Corporation met in emergency session about the week long confrontation between Israel and Hamas. The group condemned what it called Israel's brutal aggressions against Palestinians. The U. N Security Council convened this morning with U. N Secretary General Antonio Good Terrorist calling the exchange of fire appalling. Israeli military's campaign of airstrikes on Gaza is now in its seventh day. As Palestinians fire more rockets into Israel. The death toll in Gaza has jumped to more than 180. Since the fight began. The dead include dozens of Children and thousands in Gaza have been made homeless. Israel has reported 10 dead, including two Children. Killed in Palestinian rocket attacks The Israeli military says it targeted the home of the top Hamas official in Gaza. MPR's Ruth Sherlock has the latest. The Israeli military says it hit the home of yes, yes, and while one of Hamas, his top officials and its most senior leader in Gaza, he's believed to be in hiding. The strike was part of a barriers that took down buildings and destroyed Maura Infrastructure. Garza, residents and journalists shared photographs online showing a large crater in the main room. Road that, they said now blocks a key access route to Gaza's largest hospital. President. Biden has called for de escalation but is also backed Israel's campaign theme You N Security Council is meeting to discuss the crisis. Theo US blocked this meeting from happening last week, saying it wanted to give time for diplomacy. But both sides have continued their military campaigns with Israel's Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Last night bearing to continue airstrikes on Gaza for quote as long as is required..

Andrew McCarthy Ruth Sherlock Washington Hamas U. N Security Council Sunday, May 16th Louise Give Oni 10 dead seventh day last week Gaza nine year Last night Israel thousands Palestinian more than 180 both sides MPR Prime minister
"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

03:46 min | 2 years ago

"andrew mccarthy" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Yeah, sure. I think that you know, we heard a lot of sweet sounding rhetoric from President elect Biden about the importance of getting divisiveness behind us being president of the whole country, not just his base and trying to bring the country together. Seems to me that the way that you bring the country together is not by doing a gratuitous impeachment of a president who's not going to be in office anymore again. I think if we were, you know, eight months or even eight weeks rather than eight days away from the end of the president's term, there'd be a strong case on the basis of this kind of conduct. For impeaching him. But since it's as a practical matter, you can't remove him. From power at this point before he's going to be gone anyway. That is to say before the end of his term on January 20th. There's no good reason. To do this, so you're doing it gratuitously, And that's only going to alienate further of people who are supporters of President Trump's and I don't mean just the kind of people who you know, ransacked the capital last week, I'm talking about good faith Trump supporters. Who already feel like the deck is stacked against them, and that there is two tiers of justice in this country. This would just be a further confirmation of that. I know that the Trump presidency is a bit of a portrait of Dorian Gray at this folk point. Uh, Secretary Wolf Homeland Security after making sharp statements about the president's conduct, has now resigned. So the acting secretary of defense's departed We know that the secretary of Education is already too part of the secretary of commerce, Others air falling off routinely. A Mulvaney, the representative to Ireland resigned last week. So the question here Andy is is this enough to isolate the president? People resigning rather than chastising more impeaching him or in some fashion confronting him. Using the constitutional mechanisms is people is the fact that people are walking out of the room before he's done. Just that way on his legacy. Well, yeah, I guess I mean, I think marginally, so I think what happened on Wednesday is going to be much more something that redound to the detriment of his legacy than What Historically, people will forget, which is which members of the Cabinet dwindled away in the final days. But I also think, John that the president himself Doesn't really have much of a policy agenda at this point what he wants to do. I understand. I'll be in Texas tomorrow. I think you're doing an event of the Alamo. I heard. I think what he wants to do is go out and In his last days remind people of the good that was done in the administration. Maybe that's for his future political purposes. Maybe it's just legacy shaping of type that all departing presidents engage in, but I don't think the president is thinking in from a policy standpoint. Moving the ball up the field anymore. That's that's done. Andrew McCarthy. National View Online Fatties McCotter American Greatness. There is a new president. There will be a new president in a few days time a few hours. So when we come back this new president's put together national security team and a team at the Department of Justice that is old and new again, and is it substance of enough to change the subject? Country now very much dominated by stories and gossip and allegations and denunciations over January. 6th I'm John Bachelor. This is the John.

President President Trump president Biden John Bachelor secretary Andy secretary of Education Dorian Gray Texas John Mulvaney Department of Justice Andrew McCarthy Cabinet Ireland representative
Ignore the hype — this is not an impeachment inquiry

The Ben Shapiro Show

05:22 min | 3 years ago

Ignore the hype — this is not an impeachment inquiry

"New Developments arise in the connection between the trump whistleblower and house intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff the State Department inspector general opens another mess and president from goes off in front of the head head of Finland. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Ben Shapiro show. I mean I do have to say you have to feel a little bit bad for the foreign leaders who sit there while president trump goes because man when president trump does these press conferences and goes off on the press and then goes off on the Democrats Democrats and you are like the president of Finland the Prime Minister of inland and you're sitting there looking like you just cannot wait to get out and Jim from the office. It's pretty it's pretty spectacular. Alerts stuff well a lot breaking in the news. I I think that it's important to make a note that Andrew McCarthy makes today over at the hill he of course is illegal correspondent for National Review and he gives them important Gordon information about the background of this whole impeachment inquiry and that is that so far it is basically Kabuki theatre meaning. It's not an official impeachment inquiry for all the talk about impeachment inquiry and we're supposed to put all of our focus into impeachment. Nothing has actually fundamentally changed. Here's what Andy McCarthy writes today. He says there is no impeachment pitchman inquiry. There are no subpoenas. You're not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is underway and the legal process has been issued the misimpressions completely understandable if you've been taking in media coverage in in particular reporting on a Haughty September twenty seven th letter from House Democrats presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike pompeo on pain of citation for obstruction to cooperate in their demands to should oppose State Department officials and review various records. The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairman. Remember your elementary math. Oh Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three what what is portrayed as an impeachment inquiry is actually just a made for cable TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting formal impeachment inquiry to the contrary Sandy McCarthy Congressional Democrats are conducting the twenty political campaign. The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry while we have here are partisan theatrics preceding under the Ipse Dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi raises the profile but not the legitimacy of the same impeachment inquiry and they're no subpoenas a secretary pompeo observed in his fittingly tart heart response on Tuesday what the committee chairman issue was merely a letter. It's huffing and puffing. Not withstanding the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally it has no compulsive the power if anything it is rife with legal deficiencies and McCarthy is pointing out here that all the talk of impeachment inquiry Democrats have actually utilized the power that they have in Congress in order to subpoena members of the executive branch why will because then get litigated in the courts because that's the way this stuff works you subpoena somebody in the White House. The White House has no and then it ends up in court and the court. Hashes it out but that leads to delay instead what the Democrats are doing is they are issuing fake subpoenas basically request for people to show up. If the White House says hold up a second they then accused the White House of obstruction. This appears to be manufactured. I mentioned this yesterday. The Democrats are now using a wide variety of theories in order to justify their push for impeachment as it turns out that the quid pro quo arrangement supposedly evident from the trump Ukrainian presidents Lewinsky's phone call falls apart as it turns out that allegation doesn't make any sense in the absence of any information that Ukrainian leadership believed that the president was withholding military aid as that becomes clear the Democrats are now shifting the narrative on impeachment. Maybe the impeachment is not about pro after all. Maybe it's about President Trump mouthing off. Maybe it's about President trump yelling at the whistle blower. Maybe it's about obstruction of justice well. What if if the Democrats basically boxed themselves in here what of Nancy Pelosi went off half cocked because she believed that it was important to get her base on board because she couldn't hold them back any longer because Nancy Pelosi isn't actually in control of this process. Remember earlier this year. Nancy Pelosi tried to take out the squad earlier this year. Nancy Pelosi tried to marginalize the radicals in her base and president trump basically prohibited her from doing that by attacking the radicals in her pace forcing her to rally around them well that meant the Nancy Pelosi is now subject to their whims and that means ironically the president trump unifying Nancy Pelosi with the radicals in her base led to this fo impeachment inquiry was anti McCarthy writes standing committees. He's do have subpoena power so why not use it well because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show inquiry on on television they don't want to defend its Bona Fides in court and they certainly don't want to defend their letter threatening obstruction the Democrats media grabs note the chairman's admonition that any failure by pompeo Oh to comply shall quote constitute evidence of obstruction of the houses impeachment inquiry what a Crock as McCarthy points out in criminal proceedings prosecutors constantly demand information and defense presumptively resists and then ends up in court he says Congressional Democrats know all of this. Many of them are lawyers. They're issuing partisan letters. That pose was legally offensive threats rather than subpoenas because this is a show not impeachment inquiry subpoenas that don't require chest-beating obstruction. Everyone knows their compulsory but everyone also knows. They may be held up in court so what this really looks like. Overall is the Democrats basically trying to drum up something something upon which they can get trump in the public doc mind and that became an eminently clear when it became clear that the whistle blower in this particular case was probably coordinated with Adam Shifts office before the whistleblower complaint was even elevated to the level of the Inspector General of the intelligence community.

Democrats President Trump Nancy Pelosi Chairman Donald Trump Andy Mccarthy Mike Pompeo Congressional Democrats Ben Shapiro Adam Schiff Andrew Mccarthy State Department White House Finland Sandy Mccarthy House Of Representatives Prime Minister Of Inland National Review