What if you could navigate the stormy seas of today's political climate with a non-partisan compass? Picture yourself engaging with the deep-seated narratives around election deniers and dementia deniers, the political prosecutions of Donald Trump, and the impact of age on voters' preferences. We also highlight possible alternatives to Trump, like Gavin Newsom, and the intriguing proposition of DeSantis and Christie banding together to challenge Trump. Join Richard and Robert Greenfield in the second part of a three-part conversation.
Step with us into the controversial arena of social media censorship, as we light up allegations of Democrats stifling dissenting opinions. Ponder over whether social media giants should possess the power to censor content and the implications of such control on public perception. We also explore the question of qualifications in politics, paying particular attention to the offspring of Trump and Biden. As we wrap up, we shift our focus to Joe Biden's responsibilities and Trump's conviction with a keen eye on the politicization of the justice system.
Finally, we plunge into the world of social media and blogging, emphasising the value of dialogue and open conversation. Joined by our esteemed guest, Robert Greenfield, we explore ways to cultivate meaningful dialogue and civil discourse. Introducing the Common Bridge, a platform created for non-partisan discussions, we invite you to participate and add your voice to the conversations happening there. Prepare for a thought-provoking journey as we navigate today's political landscape with a fresh, impartial perspective.
Engage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!
What if you could navigate the stormy seas of today's political climate with a non-partisan compass? Picture yourself engaging with the deep-seated narratives around election deniers and dementia deniers, the political prosecutions of Donald Trump, and the impact of age on voters' preferences. We also highlight possible alternatives to Trump, like Gavin Newsom, and the intriguing proposition of DeSantis and Christie banding together to challenge Trump. Join Richard and Robert Greenfield in the second part of a three-part conversation.
Step with us into the controversial arena of social media censorship, as we light up allegations of Democrats stifling dissenting opinions. Ponder over whether social media giants should possess the power to censor content and the implications of such control on public perception. We also explore the question of qualifications in politics, paying particular attention to the offspring of Trump and Biden. As we wrap up, we shift our focus to Joe Biden's responsibilities and Trump's conviction with a keen eye on the politicization of the justice system.
Finally, we plunge into the world of social media and blogging, emphasising the value of dialogue and open conversation. Joined by our esteemed guest, Robert Greenfield, we explore ways to cultivate meaningful dialogue and civil discourse. Introducing the Common Bridge, a platform created for non-partisan discussions, we invite you to participate and add your voice to the conversations happening there. Prepare for a thought-provoking journey as we navigate today's political landscape with a fresh, impartial perspective.
Engage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!
Welcome to this episode of season 4 of the Common Bridge, where policy and current events are discussed in a fiercely nonpartisan manner. The host, richard Helpe, is a philanthropist, entrepreneur and political analyst who has reached over three and a half million listeners, viewers and readers around the world. The Common Bridge is available on the Substack website and the Substack app. Just search for the Common Bridge. You can find the program on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. The Common Bridge draws guests and audiences from across the political spectrum and we invite you to become a free or paid subscriber on your favorite medium.
Speaker 2:And welcome to the Common Bridge. This is part two of Rich's Conversation with Robert Greenfield. It's part two of three parts. If you'd like to go back and listen to the first part, that is episode 221, and you can find that at thecommonbridgesubstackcom or you can find it on YouTube or you can find it on your favorite podcast channel. So, without any further delay, we join Rich and Robert Greenfield in conversation.
Speaker 3:But you know, look, this leads us to our now very interesting political situation. We have I like to caption it, it's the election deniers versus the dementia deniers, Just to keep things simple.
Speaker 4:Oh my God, that sounds like a great one.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's you know name your poison. You've watched I'm sure great interest the serial prosecutions of Donald Trump. What do you make of this?
Speaker 4:Well, if you listen to Donald Trump, his latest gallows humor is one more dikeman, and I guaranteed my reaction.
Speaker 3:And if you look at the polls, it's pretty much there.
Speaker 4:So I try to look at it from the basic. Today I asked a question on my blog of will the age of either Trump or Biden change your vote right? All the polls say no, the age is not going to. Essentially, what people are locked in on is they either hate Trump or they don't always hate Biden. They're just like well, if it's going to be Trump, I got to go for Biden. The Democrats, as you've already said, they've locked in Biden. They're not going to push him out the door.
Speaker 4:Biden, in my view, should have had his four years, did a great. Hey, I did this. And bring in somebody like Gavin Newsom or somebody like that, okay, somebody who has youth and has got. I know you're going to say he was California, which is, but it's not all. He's not all bad in California, but somebody that is an alternative to this situation Trump is. I think I have been pushing very hard through my blog that all of the persons that are running for on the GOP side not named Trump should be attacking Trump. They have to not attack each other, but they cannot support Trump every time he gets an indictment. It doesn't matter what they think. If they want to win, they got to go all Chris Christie. In fact, the other day I made a proposal that DeSantis and Christie should join together, should do town halls together and should mock Trump, just like Trump mocks everybody else. Between the two of them they could do a real fricking frack kind of back and forth because somebody has to break the lock.
Speaker 3:Right Now you know how that would get reported. Right. Gop brings two white dudes into Sistendors Right. Yes, to sustain the patriarchy. Look, they're both qualified. Again, whether Chris Christie or Brian DeSantis is your favorite candidate or not, no one can argue that they're not qualified. They prove and they know how to run a government At the executive level.
Speaker 3:Yeah, at the executive level, they're good people. Chris Christie I just saw yesterday he's up 13% now in New Hampshire is overtaking him and Christie's doing that. He's attacking Trump. As you know, he was a big supporter of Trump. He said, yeah, I backed him at that time because I thought it was the best choice. But since that, here's the things he's done, so he has to go. Good for Chris Christie.
Speaker 3:It's interesting that you mentioned well, democrats replaced Joe Biden with someone like Gavin Newsom. If I'm a Democrat, I'm looking. Is that the best we've got? Gavin Newsom's track record in California you just got done saying is abysmal. Can't, you, can't, you can't find a policy that Gavin Newsom did not do well on the environment, on education, on taxes? How about reparations? Yeah right, you talk about going down the woke tunnel On the other side, gavin Newsom run against. I mean, actually I'd love to see that Brian DeSantis against Gavin Newsom or Gavin Newsom against Chris Christie Change match, bro. Well, desantis would win a decisive victory. I've been to Florida many times. No, lots of people in Florida. Florida's doing really well, People like it. Desantis was reelected with huge amounts of independence and Democrats. The media system's trying to beat him down, trying to make him look like something that he's not. But once I think he gets out there, he's going to do okay If if people are looking for a seasoned executive with reasonable policy ideas.
Speaker 4:But you're, you're okay. My feeling about DeSantis is this I say you're right, but you can't do by baby steps. You can't do it. That like yesterday he said well, of course Trump lost in 2020, which of course, got a media blowback from the MAGA crowd he's either got to be all in about. Donald Trump is not our guy, I'm our guy.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think he is in there, but it's the same people that are running around wearing the COVID masks. They were told that at one time and they're still going to run around with that. Donald Trump said the election was stolen and there are people that will go to their grave believing that. Now, where our media system failed, it would have been to me fairly easy to say. Here's the assertion that Donald Trump made about election not being done properly. Here's the people that we're bringing on that will explain to you what they saw. Those stories were never written, never produced, so it leaves this lingering doubt out there. Now I mean, I would say something about that, the one that I know and I've said this before on my show in the state of Michigan in 2016, 75,000 ballots were Democrat down ballot that either voted for Trump or left president open, wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton, but clear Democrats down ballot. Donald Trump won the state by 10,000. Surprise, fast forward 2020. Democrats, come home. You have the reverse of that, where down ballot it's all Republican and president Biden or blank. So from my lens, there's no doubt Donald Trump lost state Michigan in 2020.
Speaker 3:The numbers bear that out. It's easily explainable. They want to make this deal about Atom County. Atom County is like up here there's like 6,000 voters and within 12 hours they realize they had loaded the wrong parameter file. They've corrected it, but people still want to talk about that. So Trump, perpetuating this notion is all about the worst parts of the narcissistic Donald Trump. It's all about him. I frankly think he believes it. I think that's part of his personal issues is that he can't bring himself to look at himself as a guy that got beat. I just think he just can't do it.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I wrote about this also last week about him and his personality. The way I look at it, he's like the kid that nobody ever said no to. Every time he had a problem, his dad came in and fixed it. Dad would even maybe buy a school or whatever. He's always been cobbled his whole life and I think that he has built into his own mind, going to what you're saying, that he can't lose. He can't lose Once he won 2016. He's almost like he's a messiah kind of thing in his own mind. He can't lose and it's only about him, absolutely that's the only thing that it's about. But I want to go back, not to let's let's, let's stay on this, this topic.
Speaker 3:So look, yeah, biden is the is the Democratic National Committee's nominee, because they're not going to learn anything about them, they're not going to put him out there for any debates, they're not going to let the country see him and evaluate again. Okay, yeah, exactly right. Um, that's a given. Will Donald Trump be the nominee? Will see when Iowa, new Hampshire, south Carolina start to see if he actually has the votes. We will find that out. I think we're all going to learn that together. But given those two choices, doesn't it make sense, coupled with the growing of independence, that we have a third party or maybe a fourth party?
Speaker 4:Yeah, um the what's the Chinese American guy Yang?
Speaker 3:You know, I haven't heard from him a long time.
Speaker 4:Yeah, well, yeah they have the founders party or something for the forward party, forward party, that forward party. I think this. The answer to that is yes, I think so. As somebody pointed out in one of my things that I wrote, the weak party disappeared and the Republican Party resulted. You know, from that Pretty much around. Anti-slavery was, the was the reason why Republican Party was formed and they almost instantly won an election.
Speaker 4:Lincoln lost in 1856 to Stephen Douglas. By 1860 he won the presidency. So things can change, can change very quickly, I think. Are we at that tipping point in US history where one or two of the parties will Disappear, or whether a third party is viable? I don't know, but I.
Speaker 4:The problem with the third party, as you know, is we're not in a parliamentary system, which means that they can't take their votes and then add it to the other guy to create, you know, majority. You got to win an outright. You got to win, you know, state by state. And the closest guy that came to that was a man of personal conviction, ross Perot, and he at least had personal conviction and he got. I think he's the one and reason why Clinton won, as you know, yes, right kind of thing. So there's a spoiler side to this that if it was done right, but it's going to take a really strong candidate, it's not going to be, you know, you know yang and his Forward party talking values and systems. It's got to be somebody who says I don't think that either of these two guys Represent us and, like Ross Perot, stand up and say I represent you well, perot would have probably won the election, having not dropped out.
Speaker 3:But there's now that no labels party, with Joe Lieberman central to this. They're trying to get on the ballot in 50 states and I have been an eternal optimist, so my belief would be that if that no labels party got on the ballot in 50 states and they ran and reasonable people that they're going to give independence a place to go.
Speaker 4:Yeah, not Ralph Nader.
Speaker 3:Yeah, right, no right exactly. And look, there's always been those parties, right, that appeal to a certain fringe of your element, little popularity, but I think there's such a demand for better government that there really is a chance for 270 electoral votes. And if you think about it, a third party could run well in let's just presume it's Trump and by California, new York, texas and Florida, when two of those states you're on your way at that point, and I think here in the upper Midwest, I think people would welcome an opportunity to vote other than For Joe Biden, because what it does, to your point earlier, the only reason people want to vote for Joe Biden is to stop Donald Trump. That's it. You can't make a case for Joe Biden based on his vigor, on his vision, on his ethics.
Speaker 4:What's the number one reason?
Speaker 3:that's for sure nobody's making a case for Joe Biden and Making a case for Donald Trump is very difficult. I mean, if I was running against Donald Trump I'd say you saw what you got for four years. I pledge to read my presidential daily briefing. I pledge not to give a crap about the size of my inauguration crowds. I pledge not to Fit a lot way today watching Fox News. I pledge not to be a narcissist when the countries faced with issues. That's how I'd run against him.
Speaker 4:You won.
Speaker 3:Yeah, oh, but again. But right now there's no place for your independent voter to go. It's either the extreme, yeah, trump, or it's the pathetic, joe Biden. That's where we sit.
Speaker 4:Constitutionally is the question for all this, and I don't I'll have to look it up, but let's say there's, you know, there's 435, you know total sort of 500 535. Yeah, electoral votes. So let's say Trump and Biden each had 200 and somebody else has 170. Right, there's nobody who has 270. So constitutionally how's that going?
Speaker 3:to goes into the house or representatives to then, and each delegation gets one vote, so I don't know what happens in the event of a 25 25 tie but Then it goes to, I think speaker, you know the house does the time breaking vote. Yeah, but under that scenario, here would be the challenge to the Congress. The challenge of the Congress would be You've got the two entrenched parties on equal footing.
Speaker 3:Yeah and it's going to be a partisan measure. If let's say the Republicans, who have a slight majority now I don't, I believe they have a bigger majority now with the delegates you know delegations that that would look like completely partisan or In a past era it would be. You know what? Democrats we didn't win. Republicans we didn't win.
Speaker 4:Let's give it to the third party and let's all so it's interesting you say that obviously the Democrats are terrified of this because the small states have the same equality of California. So you know, montana gets one vote, california gets one.
Speaker 3:I mean Montana's got Democratic senator up. So it's test your look. The Democrats have shown they're not the party of democracy. They shut down any Competition in 2016. They shut it down in 2020. You're talking about internal tip. Yeah, they've shut it down. And well, let's talk about external, and During the Biden administration, they censored people off of Facebook. They censored people off of Twitter people that actually read the reporting that Matt, I've he's done. They said we don't like this person's opinion. Not only take down the post, take down the person. This is the kind of power that we're seeing the Democrats Exercise when they're in power, as if this notion is, we're going to create one version of the truth, eliminate any other discussion, and that's going to be saving democracy. It's an outrage, but if you bring up that wait a minute we don't like the censoring well, you must be a Maga Republican.
Speaker 4:Yeah, okay. Well, I've read from that tiny bit stuff. I think you know Matt takes certain things and then he Twists it to what his belief is.
Speaker 3:Okay, so any good example that, because I've read him thoroughly and objectively and it could be no mistake. Stop this post. This person needs to be eliminated, and a lot of times like a retired guy in Springfield, ohio. So I went in looking for that, but that was the spin that the Democrats and that was the spin that the media Complex came up with. Oh, he cherry picked Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Congress, accused him of cherry picking. That cherry picking story is Complete bullshit.
Speaker 4:Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I mean, come on she. She blew Hillary Clinton and and you know she was running the Democratic National Committee at the time. So let's not mention. What I'm saying is that, by way of?
Speaker 3:example. That's. That's who they sent out. I know that's to try to oppose Matt Tybee sworn testimony, because that's how much of a loser that cherry picking story was that's like arguing with that Shapiro.
Speaker 4:It's not easy. Oh, you know I'm talking about yeah but?
Speaker 3:but Tybee had the facts. Here's the email. Yeah, here's the result that happened. There's no question that Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook and Pre-Alan must Twitter, censor people at the request of the administration. And here's the two Comebacks that well, twitter and Facebook aren't the government, so it's not a first amendment violation if you're doing the bidding of the government my understanding of what they did.
Speaker 4:Let's say Twitter as an example which, by the way, I do not agree with any of the previous way that Twitter was running, even though my daughter works for another Jack Dorsey company right now, which is you know kind of thing but I think that and he was in charge at that time, as you know.
Speaker 4:So what my understanding what Twitter did was this so the people that they put in charge we're not actually born in this country. They were all Immigrants who were had a strong bias. Let's just leave it at that. They put them in charge and they made them. They were even more biased. So I agree with you on that. What they then did was they had a represented, not a representative. They had a weekly meeting with people in the administration or Not Biden people, but people in the administration who talked about wow, what are the? You know, what are these kind of guys saying? What are these guys coming? Guys say what are these kind of guys saying? And their spin on it is that these were extremist people. Right, that's what they they say now. I don't agree with that. I also feel that when he bought the company, elon Musk bought the company. I mean it's. It's taken a massive nosedive, but he bought the company.
Speaker 3:Okay, that's the one thing about capitalism in this country Is, if you got enough money, you can buy somebody and you can do what you want the point is that the Biden administration Did meet regularly at these social media Companies and the evidence is clear that it was for a political purpose because, by way of example, the New York Post accurate reporting about the hunter Biden laptop was Throttled and shut down in a coordinated basis on social media and people said that would have changed their vote. This is where we first heard about the big guy. And look, can we stipulate that hunter Biden has no qualifications to be on the board of an Energy company or any other company?
Speaker 4:nor do any of the Trump kids. Okay, so well, I don't know what about is I want to talk about.
Speaker 3:Does he does not? Okay, he does not. So now here comes this truthful story out. If that's not Absolute election interference, I don't know what it is. But if you say, wait a minute, that you shouldn't have done that, we must be a Trump guy, because Throttling the story helped Biden, untrottling the story helped Trump. If you believe in a free press, you must be in the in the tank for Trump. That's the logic that we're at right now. It's an insane place to be.
Speaker 4:Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Okay, I think that. What?
Speaker 3:has the Twitter of a loud, the New York Post, the oldest newspaper in the United States, with a factual story. Should they have stopped that story the way they did?
Speaker 4:the answer that is no, but anything. That's a Murdoch thing. You know people it feels.
Speaker 3:I guess you're coming back and again, this is how people are demonized. It's that guy saying it, versus whether it's true or not. And this is where you talked about civics yeah, the pledge of allegiance and we need to be able to, for God's sake, say that's wrong, not, it can't be right because a Rupert Murdoch there.
Speaker 4:So, looking at things in hindsight, let go back 120 years. We have what we're called, from Horace Greeley to the Hearst family, muckrakers, yeah, and they put out whatever the heck they've wanted to put out to push their Political persuasion. This has been. That's the first amendment, right? You know you say what you want to say, that kind of thing, especially we're talking about, that's media, right? The flip side is over on Twitter with this section 230. They are supposed to pretty much govern themselves, you know kind of thing. So how that's been handled, I think that's a definitely a place for people to look at how that's handled. First of all, facebook. Outside the United States, none of that stuff goes. The local governments all censor, okay, because they want to control the message. In China, you don't have Facebook, okay, they have other Social media and it's all government related. So social media has a particular problem and there needs to be.
Speaker 3:In my view, it needs to be looked at the far as you're making a case that the Biden Administration and the Chinese Communist Party are of one mind when it comes to censoring Facebook. All right, and that's that's looking. That's just not a good argument to make.
Speaker 4:And when we have was not making that.
Speaker 3:Well, it's it. Well, it did sound like that and and you look at, it's from within the Biden administration. Let's get 50 former intelligence directors to say that this looks like Russian disinformation. Joe Biden knew it wasn't Russian disinformation when he stood in front of the American people and Said what Trump's accusing me of is Russian disinformation, and I'm listening for.
Speaker 3:Okay, who's calling him on this? And again, I don't like Donald Trump. I don't want Donald Trump to be my president. I don't want Donald Trump to be a nominee. I just want Donald Trump to tell your quietly, someplace, go away. But the answer can't be. Trump is so bad that our only answer is Joe Biden. And we've now had this emerging story of corruption and and the bank accounts, the money transfers, and the same people that believe that Bill Clinton just happened to run into Loretta Lynch on a tarmac. They also believe that Joe Biden is the highest paid weatherman in the world, because for stopping by and talking about the weather on a speakerphone, millions flowed to his family. Now Does anybody really believe that's what he did? Hello, it's radio today, the test. Remember? I never talked to hundreds business people.
Speaker 4:Oh well, maybe I did, but it was only about the weather the best Reply that I had to that was recently also on my blog. The guy wrote the Biden family does not own any Helicopters, golf courses, they don't own any resorts, they don't own any hotels, they don't enter any big build buildings and he said they must be the worst Crime family in the history of the world.
Speaker 3:So my answer is I don't know by no, seven houses and he and his work for the only work for the government for 50 years, and Contrast that with Harry Truman.
Speaker 3:Okay, and I hear you as the story I know it's a great example of you have to be a crook to get rich and politics. And look at Jimmy Carter. Okay, jimmy Carter may not have been a great president, but I don't think anybody can question the man's integrity and his humanness. So lives in the same, still lives in the same house and Harry Truman's a better story.
Speaker 4:Yeah, go ahead, tell that, sir he went home by train and he didn't have a place to live. He lived with his mother.
Speaker 3:Yeah, exactly. And if you want to say that, you know Trump's owns casinos and whatever part, he was a real estate developer, okay, and he made money doing it, all right, and and then he went to politics. Ronald Reagan was an accomplished, wealthy guy when he went to politics, and likewise his home, in the Sanctuary and as mountains, was a very rude, crude little cabin. That's what he liked to do. So Nobody wants to connect the dots that a Joe Biden who's never had a job Besides public servant. How did he acquire all this stuff?
Speaker 4:I don't know so far from what I've seen and I'd rather not just keep going down this one, because to me it's more important is where are we going in the in the future? But so far what I've seen with Biden and I've tried to watch Fox there's a lot of vitriol, a lot of anger, a lot of Conjecture, but I don't. I haven't seen any. You know records. I haven't seen anybody. You know not reports that I can find, that I could read.
Speaker 3:I do want to mention some well, look the bank, the bank records are up there, and it's not about vitriol, it's about the future is, at the moment, two crappy choices, donald Trump.
Speaker 4:I want to mention Hunter Biden, which I have written Also on my view on Hunter Biden and a lot of people talk about. Are you know? Should Joe Biden be responsible for Hunter Biden? Okay, that's a huge issue on the right, and the right says absolutely, hunter Biden is a, in my view, a despicable character, right, he's not just a coke guy. He did a lot of bad things. Whatever is on that laptop is is really horrific. Kind of Weird stuff that I'm not I would be proud of if I was a father at all.
Speaker 4:Should you know, joe Biden? The stood so-called stood by. A lot of people say that's a good thing if I were in Joe Biden's position when I stand inside my by my son. You know Joe Biden tries to thread the needle, as they say, but that's you know. Sometimes you got to say your son was a bad guy. You know he was not a good guy, and Joe Biden doesn't say that. So I, what I fault him for is that you always talk about coming clean, right? So I think what Joe Biden has not done is did not come clean about his son in his son's problems, which are more than just drug problems.
Speaker 3:Well, look, we can't be responsible for our relatives and you know, I've got relatives that wish they were related to me, I'm sure. But the situation is this, though with with hundreds, not about hunter and hunters behavior and his many problems. That's a distraction and that's what the, the left and the media systems want people to focus. Hey, come on, the guys got issues, but it's not Joe. But here's the problem hunter Biden flies back from China on Air Force two with Joe and You've been a brown private equity and in hand he's got a huge sum of money from the Chinese government to invest. That happened, no question about that.
Speaker 3:Joe Biden says I never talked to my son about business. Really, you flew back from China After he just bagged this big deal and that never came up. It's just complete bullshit. And then it's like oh well, now that there's evidence that you did talk to him. Well, yeah, I did, but I was never in business with him. Oh, okay, now it fast-forwarded. Well, I did talk to the Business associates, but it was, it was nothing of consequence, it was just about the weather. Okay, it's that Changing story. If you see somebody arrested for a crime and they said I wasn't there, oh, but someone saw you there. Oh, you know what? I was there when I was only there for a minute, okay, well, someone else saw you there an hour later. Okay, it's drip, drip, drip, that the story changes. So it's not about hunter, it's about Joe Biden, and we're not asking those questions and that the jealousy over that. Donald Trump is done well in business.
Speaker 4:Okay, I think you know Republicans have several of investigations going on about Joe Biden, hunter Biden, kevin McCarthy is considering impeachment, so they have the power to be able to investigate, find that and present it to the American public. If that comes out that that is actual fact as opposed to Immuendo, then it'll come out and then if that affects the, that's up to the report. So if you watch the hearings.
Speaker 3:They've got the data, they've got the documents, they've got the sworn testimony, but it's not getting reported. That's the difference. But let's, let's shift a bit to what's getting reported. Here's Donald Trump and now it's like he's twice impeached, five time indicted or whatever the ball score is right now. That is what you hear front and center. It's this next wave of conviction by media. I will preface this by saying I think Trump will get convicted on obstruction charges, just because obstruction is a very, very low bar to reach. But after hearing, for now, what is this? Seven years, kuhn, armed insurrection we're going to lose our democracy.
Speaker 3:After the Mueller investigation, after the bogus story about the connection to Trump Tower to Russia, after all these stories have gone away, now they get another special prosecutor, jack Smith. Does he say there was a Kuhn? Nope. Does he say Trump was involved with Kuhn? Nope. Does he say it was involved in armed insurrection? Nope, he interfered with the process. Now I think anybody that viewed Donald Trump's action on January 6 should be horrified and should never consider him for the presidency of the United States. Period of full stop. His behavior was despicable, but it was. But according to the law it was not a Kuhn. It was not an armed insurrection, but that's not the way it's being reported. I call it Trump horn.
Speaker 3:They put out the latest thing, I swear there are people pleasuring themselves over the notion that Trump's going to go to prison.
Speaker 4:Well, okay, Anyway, what I watch is basically Jack Smith is a pretty boring guy.
Speaker 3:right, he's been overturned by the Supreme Court eight, nothing before. Okay, he's this guy. They had to get a guy willing to do the dirty deed, anyway.
Speaker 4:Obstruction and conspiracy, obstruction and conspiracy right those are the two real charges, according to my understanding. I think it's pretty obvious on obstruction, nobody is going to say that, asking Mike Pence to do the right thing or whatever. These are all things we all watched in real time.
Speaker 3:That's not the obstruction charges. The obstruction charges, those. For the Michigan no no, no, the obstruction is about at the records case that he, after getting subpoenaed that he moved records or didn't give a oh, that one.
Speaker 4:That's the Florida case. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:So the DC cases, the DC cases conspiracy, because suppose we talked to other people, they'd say what about? Yeah, and that obstructed justice by trying to cover it up after the fact. Again, I think they're specious and fairly difficult charges. They're clearly timed to interfere with the political process, and what I think we need to take a deep breath, think about as a country is this we're now faced with only one of two outcomes. One outcome is Donald Trump's convicted, and the other one is that he is exonerated. Okay, found not guilty. Now what? Let's just chat about that. You're a smart guy. What happens if Donald Trump is convicted?
Speaker 4:Well, okay, I'm, we're going to have to agree to disagree on some of that.
Speaker 3:But if you and I agreed on everything we'd be worried. Exactly so well, we at least like the Tigard and Al-Imam's. And don't give me start on the red wings, because we don't have enough video here to get all of this. Yeah, exactly, see you guys.
Speaker 4:So my my feeling about all of this with Donald Trump and Jackson Smith. I don't share what you were saying about Jackson Smith and being a loser.
Speaker 3:I tried to look it up, okay.
Speaker 4:He's a hero.
Speaker 3:Now, remember, robert Mueller was a hero and Robert Mueller was. He's got Trump in his sights. The walls are closing in, and then it was a big nothing. And then they got him to testify and well, I don't think if you knew how to tie his shoes, that point. And now they're doing the same thing for Jackson. That's the thing that I. I I'm astonished. People are falling for the same shtick. It's the exact same script. It's like let's look at what actually is being charged. Yeah, I, they're. They're difficult, very specious claims. They're clearly politically motivated, but but they're there. Now let's go to the next thing. Donald Trump's convicted Jerry comes back and he says and then he's elected. Well, let's, let's think about, let's just, let's just say that in, uh, before the election Donald Trump is convicted.
Speaker 4:Now what the question is is he's. The answer is he's not going to go to jail. Okay, that's for sure.
Speaker 3:Well, there's a lot of people who want him to jail.
Speaker 4:Well, that may be true, but he's not going to go to jail. If he ever had any kind of uh, two-tiered justice, then because if you, obstruct and you don't go.
Speaker 2:Wouldn't you have any two-tiered justice.
Speaker 3:I know I'm sorry the answer?
Speaker 4:the answer is that, as everybody knows, there are appeals and the appeal process will go on this kind of stuff Five to seven years. There's enough kind of of uh different I don't want to call it holes, but there's enough kind of information that could be asked and re-asked about. Donald Trump is never going to go to jail. If he in fact actually, if it goes to the Supreme court which, as you know, he asked recently to throw out everything because it's election interference he will try anything to. You know, just keep throwing stuff in the game, you know kind of thing. I think that what will happen if he actually was convicted and loses on appeal? He'd have some kind of house, you know arrest type thing, almost like a young sushi or something where you sit. You know you got to sit there and you can't go out and say anything, which of course he would violate.
Speaker 1:So the the idea that Donald Trump.
Speaker 4:Actually, you know people. They show him in the orange and you know orange is the new Blackford for Trump. That's not going to happen ever. If you want to ask what's going to happen in terms of of uh inside the country, I actually think that the United States is much more resilient than um. It can handle and can survive Donald Trump. Donald Trump right now is uh, I don't want to see. He's a distraction, but he's primarily a distraction If he becomes president again. He's not a distraction. He's already said he would like to do. He wants to be. I am your retribution. I am this. I am that he's looked very carefully this time, not like last time. Very carefully.
Speaker 4:And how can I consolidate executive power? You know these kinds of things, that Congress is hopefully hopelessly divided, right, so it's very easy for Trump to be able to move into the executive I am in charge. You know Obama made one of the worst statements he ever did and he was lauded for it at the time is I have a pen, you know that whole thing and he could write executive orders. Well, that left-handed guy, you know, and at that time, you know Trump said okay, well, obama can do that, I'll write executive orders. I'll write more executive orders. I'll change this. I'll change that.
Speaker 4:I think the real reason why I could never vote for Donald Trump is I'm actually afraid of. I'm afraid of what Donald Trump, unbound, could do. His own daughter says she doesn't. You know, she's moved on. A lot of people have moved on from him. He goes through people, he goes through lawyers like their toilet paper, you know kind of thing. So you know, the problem with me, with Donald Trump, it's not. You may be right, you may not be right about Biden. My problem, and I think for the majority of the American people, is that they look at Donald Trump and say they're terrified.
Speaker 3:They're like, oh my god, if this guy actually does half the things that he says he's gonna do, we're in, like I don't want you to mistake my concerns about the justice system, which are very real, and my concerns about the media complex, whipping people into a frenzy, as any kind of support for Donald Trump. I think you and I agree. If we were on an executive committee and a search team brought back if, to run our enterprise CEO Donald Trump, we'd say no, go find another candidate. We'd do that. We'd do the same thing with Joe Biden. So I don't want to see Donald Trump anywhere near the Oval Office period, full stop, and I'm very consistently about saying that. That doesn't make Joe Biden a moral man, an uncorrupt person or a man that has got us full faculties together.
Speaker 3:So let's ask you that we need to look at those things and say is the best we can do as a country, joe Biden and Donald Trump and, by the way, 70% of the voters say no.
Speaker 4:No, well, let me ask you this this is a real serious question for you, which is the common question there I have been asked over and over of okay, joe Biden is old. Franklin Delano Rosa was not only old but dying, okay, kind of thing. What happens? And if you say 70% don't want Donald Trump or Joe Biden, I'd probably say 90% don't want to call him Kamala Harris, yeah, okay. So that's to me, is the number one concern I have about Joe Biden is Kamala Harris, because she has not progressed or shown that she's ready for prime time, and that really concerns me a lot. And Joe Biden has made, I think, a massive all in the state and I talked about this last year with you when we talked about, you know, being the black women vote. Okay, the black women vote is six and a half percent of the population and they don't vote in the numbers. That has white women vote okay. So it's a real. He's all in on one.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah. It would have been a much better if you would have said I'm finding the best candidate. Oh wow, it just happened to be a female of color. Much better way to put that.
Speaker 3:But I'm afraid, if she yeah, no, I don't think there's anybody at the right left center that thinks she's capable, period. And I asked a lot of people and people you know on the. But he won't dump her, he can't. She would have to be pointed to the Supreme Court or resign for health reasons or something like that. I don't want to.
Speaker 4:She's far too ambitious.
Speaker 3:Yeah, but see, this would mean that if it's Trump Biden who Trump gets as his VP and people try to vote on the VP, but nobody's gonna become VP for Trump. No, that's worth anything. So this is why I think that we're stuck in a really bad place and why I hope you know my audience. If you're in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, any of the early primary states, please go out and vote and vote, not Donald Trump, so that we get a better choice.
Speaker 3:Robert, this has been a great conversation. It's always far ranging and you're so well read and so experienced where you get out there and you do things, and I can't tell you how much I enjoy speaking with you. So our audience loves hearing from you. They love it when we're together talking like this. We're gonna be back in a little bit. We're gonna talk about Indigenous peoples. We both have an interest in that. Maybe DEI and affirmative action. If you wouldn't mind, Love to. Okay, great, We've been talking today with Robert Greenfield very accomplished man, very well read. You can follow him on Reddit and Quora, and where do you find your blog?
Speaker 4:Okay, mostly my work is on Quora. I do a little bit on Substack. My goal is to actually produce dialogue, very similar actually to what Rich is doing. But I don't do a lot of podcasts, I do a lot of writing, so happy to see you follow me if you have time.
Speaker 3:And I know that a lot of people will, because popularity of these specific episodes. And so, with our special guest, robert Greenfield, this is your host, rich Helpy, signing off on the Common Bridge.
Speaker 1:Thanks for joining us on the Common Bridge. Subscribe to the Common Bridge on Substackcom or use their Substack app, where you can find more interviews, columns, videos and non-partisan discussions of the day. Just search for the Common Bridge. You can also find the Common Bridge on Mission Control Radio on your Radiogarden app.