Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – guest host Gulbransen welcomed original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio for another edition of Crom’s Crommentary.
I spent a week on vacation with my family, but I paid attention to the news. And it’s really interesting, Aaron, what has happened since the last time I was in the studio.
A jury in Washington, D.C, concluded that [Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael] Sussmann was not guilty of lying to the FBI, even though the foreman of the jury, after the trial was over, acknowledged that Sussmann did lie to the FBI but said that what he said really shouldn’t have even been brought to trial.
He shouldn’t have been indicted because of one reason or another. And so what you have is, you now know that a Democrat is unlikely to get convicted of something that’s political in nature in Washington, D.C. And this gets back to so many countries in the past that have had terrible internal conflicts.
What always precedes that is an inequality in the way the law is applied. And so that’s what we’re beginning. That’s what we’re seeing now. And that was followed up by Peter Navarro, who was apparently strip-searched, and they did a body-cavity [search], if that’s what they call it, at the [Reagan] National Airport when he was trying to board a plane.
His residence is 50 feet from the FBI. And he told somebody at the FBI, if you want me to come over, I’m happy to do that. I’m happy to walk over. But they didn’t do that.
They wanted to make a public spectacle of this. When you have this type of disparity in how the law is applied … on one hand, you have somebody who did lie to the FBI.
All of the people on trial, all the witnesses acknowledged that Sussmann lied to the FBI. Robby Mook, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, even said that Hillary Clinton had approved what the strategy was.
And yet you have a jury that rules that they’re not guilty. So the question becomes, as a society, how do you handle that? My answer to that is I don’t know that there’s any particular reason that a court case must take place in Washington, D.C.
It seems to me that if you brought the case in another jurisdiction in the country – I mean, it’s all America – and you would argue that it’s impossible to get a jury pool that is not tainted in Washington, D.C.
And you just cite the political numbers, that Trump got four percent of the vote from Washington, D.C. And if you look at the size of the population of Washington, D.C, that four percent literally are all the people who are involved in Republican politics who live in Washington, D.C. It’s not any citizens.
They are all Democrats, and they’re so partisan in their nature that they are unable to apply the law equally. And that’s a real problem. And we’ll be seeing, I think, more and more of that as we move toward the election.
And it’ll be up to the courts to give us as free and fair an election as possible. I think it’ll end up being the courts that have to step in. Because you asked Senator Hagerty what he thought might happen, what kind of surprises.
And I’m concerned that they’re still trying to make COVID such a national issue that they’re going to try to federalize the election laws, and I don’t think that will work. I think the courts will say no.
The states determine what the laws are for the elections, but there’ll be varying attempts in this January 6 hearing, I actually think that that will backfire.
Then we’ll see what happens if it doesn’t do what Democrats hope it will do, then we’ll see what they then try to do next, and it’s just a battle between here and the election, and then after that.
Listen to the Crommentary:
– – –