Bernie’s Weekly Q&A (8/18)

The Trump indictments, Suzanne Scott, the GOP debates, and more!

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for paying members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me.

Let’s get started:

---

[Regarding Suzanne Scott], Does anyone recall Rebekah Brooks? Seems to me that Rupert Murdoch has a tropism --unfortunately destructive, it appears-- for such women. Possibly the quick $800M settlement reflects Murdoch’s reluctance to relive such events on this side of the Atlantic. — Andrew M.

We’ll see if Suzanne Scott survives … after Rupert finishes paying off everyone who’s suing Fox.

Both DeSantis and Christie are currently pushing hard the message that Donald Trump is “afraid” to debate them. DeSantis’ PAC even has a very good ad they made on it. I think it’s a very smart political move, with only upside for non-Trump candidates. What do you think? — Ben G.

First, Ben, I think Donald would be foolish to join the debate, on strategic grounds only. He has more to lose than to gain. But … he may take the bait to prove he’s not afraid. That would be his ego talking. For the sake of the country, he should be in the debate; the frontrunner has that kind of obligation. But let me end with a question, Ben: When did Donald Trump ever put the country’s interests before his own?

Trump has now been indicted four times, and I have a thousand questions. I'll just ask one here for both of you - How much of this is Democrats trying to jail and endanger their primary political opponent, and how much of this is Trump not being able to shut up or get out of his own way? — Steve R.

From John: I’ll break my views down by indictment:

1. I think the New York indictment is clearly political (and the weakest of all four cases). I don’t doubt Trump did what he’s accused of, but there are some legal acrobatics at play in that one.

2. I think the Florida indictment, related to the illegal retention of classified documents, was entirely brought on by Trump himself; the DOJ went to great lengths, over a long period of time, to settle the matter outside of our legal system, but Trump refused to cooperate, forced their hand, and clearly obstructed the investigation. I think this indictment is probably the strongest — as in the most open-and-shut — of the four. And before anyone replies with “But what about Hillary?”, I addressed that a while back.

3. I don’t believe the January 6-related indictment to be inherently political, but some (not all) of the charges seem a bit legally challenging. I'm interested to see how this one plays out, as I'm guessing there's more evidence that we haven't yet heard about.

4. As for the Georgia election indictment (which, like the New York one is local, not federal), I’ve heard some criticism of D.A. Fani Willis doing what looks like grandstanding. Maybe that criticism is valid, but the charges don’t feel political; there seems to be a ton of evidence of legal wrongdoing under Georgia state law (not just from Trump but several of his associates), and much of that evidence was provided by Republicans.

I think an important point regarding all of these indictments is that very few people, even on the right, are arguing that Trump didn’t do what he’s being accused of. His supporters seem primarily upset that he’s being charged for doing them, especially given that he’s running for president — a choice Trump consciously made knowing (and some believe because) he was being investigated for crimes, and would likely face criminal charges. Also of note, Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr recently said that Trump was repeatedly told by his lawyers, while he was still president, that if he continued with his efforts to overturn the election, he would “spend the rest of his life tangling with the criminal justice process. And that’s exactly what’s happened. He shouldn’t be surprised and no one else should be surprised.”

From Bernie: For the most part, Donald has brought all this ca-ca on himself. But you have to wonder if there’s politics involved given the timing of the indictments. Take Georgia, for example: Why did it take so long to indict the former president — and why did the indictments finally come down as the campaign is starting to kick into gear? The New York City indictment was definitely political. That said, I’m not big on conspiracies, but I’m starting to wonder if there was — as the hard right is contending — some nasty politics involved in all of this. Just wondering at this point — nothing more. But before I end, let me go back to the beginning: For the most part, Donald has brought this mess on himself.

When every stretch of reasonable logic is exhausted to explain why Fox is doing what they are doing, then maybe it's time to move on to the fringe and even crazy. How about that Suzanne Scott has squirreled away, out of reach of the network ownership, irrefutable information so damaging it would bring them all down and crash the network? — Scott K.

Would make a great thriller. And the movie that would follow. Who do you want to play Scott? And Carlson?

Curious about the ratings since all these horrendous happenings [at Fox]. Are they where they were before— or did they take a hit? — Phyllis C.

Fox is still leading the others. Who knows, maybe all those “horrendous happenings” have helped Fox. And why not: All those “horrendous happenings” to Donald Trump haven’t hurt him.

But … just got this for you from Drudge: MSNBC WINS INDICTMENT NIGHT WITH VIEWERSHIP LEVELS OF FOX AND CNN -- COMBINED!

Greetings Sir Bernie and Sir John. Two racial incidents have recently reared their ugly heads:

1. A group of white scum bags in Alabama attacked a black dock worker who was doing his job by untying their boat, which the white aggressors had illegally docked and would not move. This turned into a brawl with several black (and some white) bystanders coming to the aid of the outnumbered dock worker. The white aggressors were thankfully arrested and now the racial aspect is being exploited.

2. On a New York subway ride, an Asian family on vacation was physically assaulted by three black teenage girls who told them to go back where they came from (which happened to be Nevada). The black teens have been correctly charged, but the family was very forgiving afterward, and the husband even mentioned how the black girls were likely “not as privileged” as his Asian family. Okay…fine if they want to be forgiving.

However I wonder: If the situation were the same but the races were reversed during the Alabama boat incident, what do you think the response in the court of public opinion and mainstream media would be? And just how forgiving would this Asian family (AND the mainstream media) have been if the aggressive teens had been white? Would we be hearing “Stop The Anti-Asian Hate” all over the place… like we are NOT hearing now? —“Diversity & Inclusive Acts Of Aggression” regards from The Emperor

From John: Emperor, this is the first I’m hearing about either story, and I don’t know if there are relevant facts that have been left out, but as I’ve stated before, there are definitely racial and societal double standards that exist in our country. I obviously can’t read the minds of these particular individuals, and theorize with confidence how they would react under different racial scenarios.

From Bernie: Since you already know the answer, Your Royal Highness, I’m not going to take up your time telling you something you already know.

You may choose not to comment but I believe there is a nexus between the failure to prosecute obvious criminal behavior while law enforcement resources are used to go after “radical Catholics” as was recently the subject in a House hearing with FBI Director Wray. The World is upside down when Michael and Kitty Burke cannot become foster parents because they are Catholic. (See recent William McGurn WSJ editorial “No Catholics Need Adopt.”) Note: I am not Catholic. — lensattic

You may be right, of course, but I’m not clear on what that nexus would be. The DOJ has enough people to do both. It can’t be a manpower issue, right? And they didn’t actually go after “radical Catholics” — no FBI agents were deployed. It was a dumb idea that was put down before it got any momentum. I’m not defending anti-Catholic sentiment, if that even needs to be said. I’m just not on the same page with you when it comes to linking that sentiment with the failure — as you say — “to prosecute obvious criminal behavior.”

One thing that I have in the back of my mind Is the constant referral to the “polls” showing Trump considerably in the lead. I’m an ex Trumper (voted for him twice). Nothing could ever convince me to vote for him again. My husband and I live in CT and Florida….. all but one of our neighbors and friends who were former Trumpers are vehement that he should get out of the race .I follow a twitter group “Republicans against Trump” — thousands. I’ve never been polled- have you? A commentator in Iowa said that despite what he’s hearing he wasn’t seeing evidence of this huge lead on the ground. Am I just a wishful thinker? — Phyllis

Maybe, but I think you’re picking up on something, Phyllis. And it’s that there are a lot of GOP voters who simply will not vote for Donald Trump. As for the polls, they tell us that he has the support of something like 50 percent of GOP primary voters. That means there’s another 50 percent who don’t want Trump. If I had to be right now, my money would be on Trump to win the nomination. But let’s wait for the debates, and Iowa, and New Hampshire. I’m guessing Donald won’t have 50 percent after all that — he may not even have the lead. But I admit, they may be the wishful thinking you’re talking about, Phyllis.

Larry Elder was on Bret Baier’s show Wednesday night talking about his presidential campaign. Bernie, did you, as I did, completely forget he was running for president until that appearance? — John D.

Let me put it this way, John D aka Mr. Smart Alec Wise Guy: I’d vote for Larry Elder in a New York minute. I know that’s not what you asked but I wanted to say it anyway. I’ve been on Larry’s radio show. He’s a good guy. Here’s a ticket I could get behind: Chris Christie/Larry Elder … white/black … east coast/west coast … heavyset/not heavyset. Come on, Man … it’s a winner!

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment under this column.