 Welcome to American Issues, Take One. I'm Tim Appichell, your host. Today's topic, today's title is, MAGA GOP Defines Control of the House. We just had our midterm elections and the predicted red title wave didn't occur. And that's for two reasons. One reason is the moderate GOP, I think was burned out on Trump fatigue, the burned out on the election deniers. So they decided either not to vote or they voted for a Democrat party. And the other reason is the independents felt the same way. They just felt it was too much for all these election deniers, particularly in the swing states and all the Mishigas and rhetoric they were throwing out in the primaries and certainly leading up to the midterm election. So you would think that the GOP had learned a lesson, although they probably haven't fully discussed what happened and why the red title wave didn't occur, but they pretty much know that, again, independents and the moderate GOP didn't go their way. So what do they do in response to that? Well, immediately, various members of the House of Representatives, now knowing it's gonna be in GOP control, they take to the microphone. Specifically, James Comer from Kentucky, he's out there talking about how the House is gonna vote for impeachment of President Joe Biden. That's where they're going. And you would wonder why is it that they're taking such extreme measures when they just received the vote not to be so extreme. So that's the topic of the day and I'm gonna introduce our guests. Today, we have our special esteemed guests, Chuck Crumpton and my co-host, Jay Fidel. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Jim. Good morning, Jim. Jay. Jay, I'd like to read a quote from a representative, Don Bacon, a Republican representative from Nebraska and get your reaction to this quote. He says, I wanna warn our colleagues. There may be activists in our party that want impeachment, but I can tell you that the swing voters and the independent voters don't want that. We wanna change leadership by elections, not impeachment. Impeachment is the outlier. Your response to that quote and is that something that other Republicans should pay attention to? Yes, I agree. I would state it more stridently, but he's right. And it's good advice to the Republicans, but the Republicans are not likely to take it. It's funny, every time I look, I think it's Marjorie Taylor Greene is running the house. She's running the Republican caucus and of course she's serving at the pleasure of Kevin McCarthy, who is serving likewise at the pleasure of Donald Trump. So the inmates, how do they say this, Chuck? The inmates are running the proverbial asylum and they're not likely to stop. They don't care what this fellow said. They got their own agenda and they have no interest in serving the public or even serving those voters who sent them a message a couple of Wednesdays ago on election day. So is it the leadership that let them get away with this or the leadership is ineffective and can't stop them? Yes, to all of the foregoing. But the reality, which is what we should address is are they gonna be able to get away with it? Are they gonna do it? I think it's a fair chance that Kevin McCarthy is gonna stay in position or be in position, although it's not certain but it's likely to be in position as a speaker and he'll let them get away with it. And I mean, I know people who have spent some time in Congress and they say that the public including us three has this sort of legacy feeling that the people in Congress are smart, they're educated, they understand, they understand their obligation, they trust their oath to the country and they walk around understanding that they are an important governmental institution. But in fact, that's not true. In fact, some of them really can't hold a candle to an elementary school degree. They have no idea what's going on and they're held ransom to people who don't have an idea about what's going on. And I think that's what I would say right now with the GOP Republicans who are the inmates, so to speak, running the asylum. And so I think they'll probably do it. They'll actually probably take a vote, maybe even succeed in that vote. Why do I feel that Shruck is not gonna agree with me? And they'll start an investigation of Hunter Biden and maybe some impeachments. And it's all completely absurd. It's absurd in the sense that don't we have business to conduct here? Don't we have policies inside? Don't we have important legislation that's pending right now that has come from the Democrats? Don't we have to preserve and protect democracy and the country and the people? But no, they're gonna do their own agenda. I wouldn't even say it's political. It's some kind of strange, grumpy and punitive, divisive and completely negative hostile experience. And it has no benefit for anyone. All right. Chuck, just to take from Jay, I mean, he's right. I mean, is this a Trumpian wish list that they are marching to and dam the voters, dam the independence, dam the moderate GOP voters that didn't give them the red tidal wave? And now we have the house at margin of a very thin margin as far as an advantage of representatives. What, as Jay likes to say, K-PASA. Why are they not learning the lessons of the vote? And they're going down this pathway that only Donald Trump would really be happy with. Well, if you look at the people who were involved, all of them are power-based people. Whether it's McCarthy or Gates or Green or Boebert or any of the rest of them. And they care more about getting and wielding power than they do about coordinating effective leadership or governance or decision-making with each other. So you're all still having people like Matt Gates come out within the last day saying, McCarthy doesn't have the votes to get his leadership. He's in a position where he's gonna have to broker deals for committee assignments, for legislative packages. There may be a Hunter Biden chase just to satisfy people in there if they can get trade-offs that will give them committee control or legislative act control. But the Republicans are gonna be bargaining and dealing with each other. Their factions are not unified. And the way that the leaders of those factions approach them are divisive, not unifying. That's worked for them. Why would we expect them to give that up, whether it's McCarthy or Gates or any of the others? Well, I question whether or not it has worked for them. I mean, on the last show, I said if the Republicans wanna start winning elections, they're gonna have to stop following a personality, that personality being Donald Trump. So if Donald Trump handed them the loss in 2018 midterms, handed them the loss of the 2020 presidential election, handled them the loss of the special election in 2021 in Georgia, and now handed them the most recent midterm or loss of 2022, at what point do they kind of knock themselves in the head and going, hey, following this guy is not winning election for us. What's their next step? You know what? I think you're making the assumption that Donald Trump does not learn by his mistakes. You're making a mistake. No, he has nothing to do with it. Donald Trump will be Donald Trump. I'm talking about the moderate GOP that's still basically running the show, the mega GOP still on the wings, but even the moderate GOPs are still saying, we don't have a platform, we don't have a policy platform, our platform is Donald Trump. Well, all I'm saying is that things change. And I think in some corner of their minds, these guys are thinking that they can do this now and they can do what I call entertainment government, where if you can get on the headlines and be first on Sinclair radio or Salem radio, there have been articles about those radio stations how influential they are. Then, you know, you can entertain me, people. And they can wait, they can wait a year or more before they try to make the case that there's serious representatives of the people. I guess they feel they don't have to make that case right now. The only thing they gotta do right now is have power, as Chuck says, and have entertainment value. Okay, Chuck, do you think without a policy platform that they clearly don't have, will that serve them well in 2023 and 2024? Why should that change either? Right, it didn't work well for them in 2020, 2021, or again in 2022, the new media word is underperformed. So we're not seeing leadership on the Republican side that is in any way unifying, that is any way party over faction, party over individual. We're still seeing the opposite. Why would anything change? We're seeing potential candidates other than DeSantis, say Chris Christie, I mean, he certainly gets it. He said it a hundred times, you know, if we don't start focusing on the economy and things that are important to the American, you know, kitchen table, we are going to lose again. So there's other candidates like Chris Christie. Even Mike Pence knows that you've got to have policies that are important to the American people, whether they're GOP or not. So these other candidates that may come out later, do you think they focus in on the bread and butter issues around the kitchen table, or do they stay on the extreme wingnut side of the party, which is mega GOP? Well, two things, one, they always follow the money. And as long as Trump dominates the donors and the money as he has, maybe not to the extent that he previously did, but still more than any other one person, you're going to see Rubio and Cruz and the rest of them still performing in pretty much the same manner. That's the pocket that they want to tap. We don't see anyone, as far as I can tell, and I'm open to your insights on this, both of you. We don't see anyone like the old Ev Dirksen's or Bob Dole's or people like that, who had any respect or any sway at all on the other side of the aisle. We don't see people who can deliver. The closest they got McConnell could marshal all of his 50 troops to vote against something, even if 60, 70% of the American people wanted it to happen, whether it's infrastructure support or whatever. Well, let's look at Mitch McConnell, minority leader of the Senate. He's no fan of Donald Trump. We all know that, yet he has admitted that the GOP does not have a policy platform. Does that change? Does that change because, one, he can't stand Donald Trump? Two, he's acknowledging that without a policy platform, the Republicans will continue to lose these elections in so many ways. Do we see a change, a more strident change out of Mitch McConnell? I think we know the four corners of Mitch McConnell, and he's not capable of leading on policy. He hasn't, and he's not going to. Whether he has the power or not, the second part of that is there's still plenty of MAGA Republicans in the Senate. He's got to keep them under control, and that's his focus. So I don't think you're going to see a change in Mitch McConnell. Pray as you might, it's not going to happen. Chuck, do you agree with that? Yeah, why should McConnell change? He has no reason to think that what he's been doing for decades has not worked for him. He's pretty much a one-trick pony in terms of, I'm here to keep the Democrats from passing anything that might give them any leverage in elections at all, or any other gain. And he's done that to some extent, relatively effectively, with some help from people like Manchin and Sinema who broke ranks. Yeah. Well, we heard this week, we heard this week, you know, former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, explicitly in an interview say, I'm never Trump-er. And his rationale was, it's not that I wasn't proud of the things we did as far as judge selection and some of the policies we did on tax reform. He said, I'm proud of those accomplishments. He said, the bottom line is Trump can't win anymore, and he's going to force the GOP party to lose. He was that explicit. Now, you know, Paul Ryan's not in politics anymore, at least for now, but do other candidates pick up on that? We know that Chris, excuse me, that DeSantis won't because he just got elected governor. So he's going to have to be pretty silent for at least, I would think, eight months to a year. Otherwise, he voters aren't going to be happy that he's switching out of the governor seat, trying to get into the presidential seat. So are there other candidates, Chuck, that pick up that baton that Paul Ryan has left now on the stage? I don't see any, I'm open to you folks, but I just don't need anybody out there. Paul Ryan is not in the house. He's not there. And a lot of the names you mentioned, Tim, they're not there. They're not running it. The people in the house are running it, and the caucus is running it. And we'll see about Kevin McCarthy, but the likelihood is he will run it. And Marjorie Taylor Greene's running it. All these people are inmates in the asylum. The guys on the outside, the guys who are former, the guys who have had a stroke of conscience now years later, they don't mean much. And by the way, I'm no fan of Paul Ryan. He's the guy that ran through the tax quote reform act of January, 2017, only a couple of weeks after Trump got in office, a tax reform act that favored the rich and dumped on the poor. We all know that. And Ryan became Trump's lap dog. And so for him to criticize Trump now, it doesn't mean too much. It's hypocritical as it is for so many of them. All right, well, let me get to my next question on this, Jay, for you. The mega GOP, both in the house and Senate, they seem to be rattling a lot of chains about investigations on Hunter Biden and how that connects to Joe Biden. Is there motivation, again, a strategy of years of distraction until the election of 2024? As was the Benghazi Senate Committee hearings, is that their strategy of distraction or they really think there's something to it? All they know to a man and woman, there's nothing to it. It is merely a distraction. It is that entertainment I was talking about it. It'll make headlines, everything they find about his drug usage and so forth. They're never gonna hit any pay dirt on it. And it's worse than Benghazi. In Benghazi, at least there was a threat of possibility that Hillary Clinton did some wrong. But there's nothing that Hunter Biden did this worth spending our taxpayer money on and distracting Congress this way and avoiding the need to actually address policy. This is only a political, okay, well, not sideshow. This is the part that just throws me off my chair and I don't understand it. If you know, a week ago, you just lost a major election where you had the greatest of opportunities and you lost it for these very things, these wackadoodle approaches to governance, i.e. impeachments and investigations of things that are not even close to being a reality. Why is the leadership of the GOP not stepping in and putting a stop to it? Don't forget, they're also talking about impeaching Merrick Garland. Yes. That has more moment to it in the sense that he's the attorney general. I think it's just a way to attack Joe Biden, a way to attack Joe Biden's government. They never lose an opportunity. They don't get credit for anything, but they attack him on these irrelevant points. Is this the leadership of the GOP that's allowing it or they're just not managing the store at all? Well, we kind of covered that early on. I know, but I'm not getting the answers. I know you're fascinated with that question, but why don't we move on to Merrick Garland? I would really want to talk about Merrick Garland. Let's move on to Merrick Garland. Chuck, Merrick Garland punted. He got brought into special counsel. Why did he do that? I think one of the things that you got to look carefully at with somebody like Merrick Garland and his team is he's a long-term player and he's a strategist. This move has been out there for a long time. Trump dropped the other shoe and Garland was immediately ready for him, said, fine, I've got a special counsel. And look who he picked. Jack Smith, who's a really experienced, really highly respected war crimes prosecutor with neutral political reputation. The people who know him best say, he doesn't play it for one side or the other. So if you are gonna pick a strategy or a person to diffuse it, he's also positioned himself because if the GOP goes after Hunter Biden, and that's their attack on Joe Biden as opposed to the January 6th plus Mar-A-Lago documents, DOJ investigations on Trump, it either cuts no weight with the voters or if it weighs it all, it weighs in favor of Biden and against Trump because his offenses are far more personal, far more serious, far more characteristic of his way of dealing with people and power. Well, with all the appeal processes available to Trump and his attorneys, do you feel that this potential delay will run up against those deadlines before the 2024 election? I think two things. One, as we talked about a little earlier with whether the GOP leadership in the house lets some of its people go off after Hunter Biden or off after impeachment on Joe Biden or whatever. If they get trade-offs for that, that enable them to get power out of them, that enable them to get power in committees or power for legislative action, that will be the underpinnings of those moves, but it doesn't get them any stronger position for the 2024 election. So the real question is exactly the one that Jay brought up and you're inferring is who's gonna do the most to connect with what really concerns the American people between now and the 2024 elections? It's not gonna be Hunter Biden, it probably will not be. January 6th, we've learned what we have to learn about that or Mar-a-Lago, we've learned probably most of what we have to learn about that. But what's gonna happen between now and November 2024 that may appeal to independents and to young voters who are the two groups who made the biggest difference in the 2022 election midterms? Alrighty, thanks, Chuck. Jay, what are your thoughts about the appointment of a special counsel from Merrick Garland? Yeah, first I wanna say that whether the American voting system and American democracy works is an open question. The jury's out on that. And I'm watching Kerry Lake very carefully because if she prevails on the absurd arguments that she and Steve Bannon are making and Mike Flynn too, oh, God, they're back, you know? They're back, yeah. It's like the monsters on television, they're back and here they are arguing the same points that Trump argued before. It's all the lie in Arizona, unbelievable. Well, we still have two counties in Arizona, Cochise County and I don't remember the other one that are gonna refuse to certify their election results. It's, you know, the problem is the system may be broken. And it's not only Arizona, you know, there are other states that Trump set up before he left. And where Republican legislatures, you know, adopted and governors adopted legislation that was anti-democratic and that is still in place. And the Supreme Court is not likely to fix it and Congress is less likely to fix it. So we make the assumption for 2024 that they'll be a legitimate, you know, true and fair vote. I'm not making that assumption just yet. I wanna see what happens. But going back to Merrick Garland, first of all, I wanna be a kind of classic about Jack Smith. You know, we, when these guys have been nominated and brought into, you know, the winner's circle there, the press and the people around them said in the past, over and over again, they're really good guys and they have a great, you know, background and credentials and they'll be fine, you know? It's like Bill Barr. Everybody said, oh, he's a great choice. He was a terrible choice. I'm here to tell you, he was corrupt from day one. But all these fellows, including a lot of, you know, Democrats were saying, no, he's a good choice. You'll see it'll work out fine. Bob Mueller, he was a great choice. Mr. Chicken Mueller, it didn't work out fine, did it? But everybody said, you can't find anybody better than Bob Mueller. Bad appointment, I'm sorry. And they knew in the Department of Justice. I mean, we've had a lot of bad appointments. And look at some of those crazy appointments that Trump was making, actually successfully making at the end of his term. They're still in office, including in the Department of Justice. So now looking for Jack, Jack Smith. I love that name, Mr. Smith goes to Washington. He was doing war crimes, prosecutions. I'm here to tell you that Think Tech has a regular show called Transitional Justice. And we talk to people in Ukraine all the time, every two weeks, who are familiar with the war crimes prosecution in the same court that Jack Smith has been associated with. And I wanna tell you here on American issues, take one. Okay, that so far in nine, now 10 months of full global acknowledgement and recognition of all the war crimes that have been taking place and are still taking place, guess how many war crimes prosecutions, guess how many indictments have actually been achieved in the court of criminal justice in The Hague? You get one guess. You first, Chuck. A very tiny number. How about zero? I might get a guess, Jake. You disagree. Yeah. How about nada? Nada. So I'm saying, well, okay. You know, everybody's tripping on this thing about how it is a war crimes prosecutor. Does that, should we jump up and down about that? He hasn't been successful in the most critical period of war crimes in our lives. How about that? And I guess it's good that he's not associated with Washington Beltway and he's not a politician. He's a quote prosecutor. But A, so I'm not so sure about Jack Smith. And I just refer back to some of these other appointments where everybody's got so excited about the appointment and it turned out to be a gold plated dud. The jury's out on Jack Smith. Sorry, sorry. I know I sound like an iconoclast. Okay, then there's Merrick Garland. I'm really the big question of the month anyway. Is why did Merrick Garland feel at this point it was necessary? From a legal point of view, and Chuck will agree with me, it makes no difference whether Trump put his hat in a ring or not. Merrick Garland could have, should have, set a grand jury for an indictment a long time ago. He didn't need anything more than the three of us read in the newspaper to make that indictment on both of these cases. They still have a thing called circumstantial evidence. It's still part of American law. What are they waiting for? Waiting for Godot to write in from Mexico? What is it? He could have had an indictment months ago on both of those cases. What is he waiting for? I submit to you that he's a chicken and he doesn't wanna do it. And for reasons of his own reluctance or lack of confidence or political concern, he is not moving. He hasn't moved in two years on January 6th. So this is a way to defer it. Arguably, this is a way to get him off the griddle. And the ironic point is that at the end, he's gonna have to sign off on it anyway. And when it gives him a layer of protection, it gives him deniability. I'm only signing off because Jack Smith told me to. That sort of thing. It's not my decision. So I'm very concerned that Merrick Garland is not the right man for the job. He was also great credentials, but he's not the right man for the job. He's been sitting behind the bench too long, I'm sorry. The other thing and we've discussed this about 10 times is are these indictments gonna make a difference? You know, I remember so many mayors in this country have actually been indicted, prosecuted, punished and go to jail. And then they come back and win elections. Trump has 50 ways to avoid all these indictments and all these prosecutions and delay them until it's right up the crunch in 2024. I do not believe that any of those indictments or potential prosecutions are actually gonna stop him. He's gonna be back, he's gonna run, he's gonna re-activate the base. And I think, you know, look at the way he got Kevin McCarthy to spin around 360. Look at the way he got Mitch McConnell to spin around 360. And Cruz, you know, the great story of Cruz and his non-endorsement in the 2016, you know, convention, Republican convention, how he spun around and began to, and he refused to endorse Trump and Trump attacked him. And this is in the frontline movie called Trump and U.S. Democracy. And it's very clear that he's just another one of these guys that spun around. Oh, and Graham, Lindsey Graham, watch him spinning like a dervish. So if these guys, and Trump is thinking about this, we're thinking about it, he's thinking about it. And he's gonna try to, every single one of them, he's gonna try to spin them around and corrupt them somehow and threaten them. All right. And make those 11 o'clock calls. You know, have his acolytes make those calls to threaten them over us. So what I'm saying is I don't think that Merrick Garland's gonna get home on this. I'm not sure at all that Jack Smith is gonna help Merrick Garland get home on this and go back to my earlier point. Trump has lots of possibilities, he's gonna play them out. We do not live in a time where we can be all that optimistic. Okay. Thank you, Jay. You know, this last October represents my six years working with Think Tech Hawaii. And certainly a big part of that has been, you know, talking about politics, Trump week, shows like that. And it was six years ago, I asked a question, I never got an answer to, and I like to answer it again. Jay, what brand of coffee are you drinking and can I get some? It's really funny that you asked me that question because last night, my wife was watching a movie she'd never seen. And it was, don't look up. Oh. And that's where that comes from. It's the last scene as the comment is about to destroy the earth. It's really Leonardo DiCaprio sitting at the table with the families, and it's like Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving, right? And they're talking about what brand of coffee you buy at the market when the whole world has only a few minutes to live. And they discovered the comment, they know about it, but they're completely distracted because they can't stand the reality. And don't look up as a profound movie. I urge everybody to see it. And it's not funny. It's not funny at all. And I think we live in a world where we abuse ourselves. We do not recognize the reality. We do not recognize what would happen if we lost our democracy. And the comment of the loss of our democracy is coming closer every day. No, that is a good point, Jay. I always appreciate when you make it. That is an important point to make. Chuck, we've run out of time, but Jay said that, I'm sure Chuck will agree with me on this. Do you? And number two is, what are your last thoughts cause we're out of time? Well, to respond to the first question, there is a first time for everything. So. Thank you. Good. As many judges told Jay and me many times, it's taken under advisement, right? But I don't think the point is whether indictments or trials or verdicts or judgments take place before the 2024 elections. This is gonna be a point-by-point strategy war and whichever party manages to come up with and convey to people some sort of unifying leadership strategy may be the one that appeals to those swing voters, the independents, the young voters and the others. We'll see. Okay, we'll see. Jay, you get the final word for today's show and let it roll. Okay. Aside from everything we've discussed today and with respect to that five year period you described, we have been concerned with the possibility of what happens when you lose your democracy. People don't think about that, they don't think about the comet striking the earth. But the reality is if you don't have government and you don't have public safety anymore, if you don't have an orderly transfer of power, you have chaos and chaos means chaos in the streets. Okay, I mentioned that because I have always wondered just how that evolves, how that happens, how you see it present itself. And so far in the past what, 10 days we've had half a dozen mass murders in this country. If you charted out, you would see that the number is increasing dramatically. Over the period of the past year, 2022, there have been dozens and dozens of mass murders around this country. Violence, like for its own sake, people who are really unhinged and feel that they have permission somehow to do mass murder and suicide and what have you. And it's not just COVID, it's the political environment. It's the political virus. And I think we may be seeing a forerunner, a canary in the coal mine on what will happen if we don't, if we, all of us, including the electorate and the right thinking officials, if we don't take steps and reverse the trends that American issues take one and take two have identified. Well, that's what I like. Think Tech, that's why for the last six years I've been volunteering my time for Think Tech Hawaii is to encourage anyone and everyone to step up and speak out. And Think Tech is a great opportunity and an avenue to do such things. So I want to thank Jay Fidel and Chuck Krupton this morning for their thoughts and opinions about this important topic. I wish to say to everyone, happy, great and happy Thanksgiving. And we will see you shortly. And until then, thank you for tuning in for American Issues, Take One. I'm Tim Appichelle, your host. Happy Thanksgiving Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com. Mahalo.