Join us on an intense exploration of the US political landscape, with our special guest - Thomas Hicks, a dedicated voter from Atlanta, Georgia. Thomas brings his unique perspective on the voting process in his home state, where recent elections have been nail-bitingly close. Amid the swirling controversy around the integrity of Georgia's voting process, he stands firm in his faith in the system and passionately advocates for the implementation of secure online voting.
From the legacy of the Trump presidency to the spectre of a Trump-Biden rematch, our conversation traverses a vast political terrain. We delve into the changing dynamics of union votes, the pervasive influence of lobbyists and the dark shadow of money in politics. The repercussions of Trump’s judicial appointments and the spiralling national debt, are some of the high stakes topics we grapple with. We also contemplate how the two main political parties can truly champion the cause of the middle class and society's less privileged.
But, hold onto your seats because the ride gets even bumpier as we lay bare the recent disturbing events that have shaken the foundation of US politics. We pick apart the multiple legal troubles Trump is currently embroiled in, including the shocking attempted siege of the US Capitol. Discover how the Presidential Records Act could potentially lead to espionage charges against Trump. Lastly, we reflect on our work on the Common Bridge, a platform for productive, non-partisan dialogue, and our ongoing commitment to involving our listeners in these compelling, timely discussions. So gear up and join us in this extraordinarily riveting journey.
Engage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!
Join us on an intense exploration of the US political landscape, with our special guest - Thomas Hicks, a dedicated voter from Atlanta, Georgia. Thomas brings his unique perspective on the voting process in his home state, where recent elections have been nail-bitingly close. Amid the swirling controversy around the integrity of Georgia's voting process, he stands firm in his faith in the system and passionately advocates for the implementation of secure online voting.
From the legacy of the Trump presidency to the spectre of a Trump-Biden rematch, our conversation traverses a vast political terrain. We delve into the changing dynamics of union votes, the pervasive influence of lobbyists and the dark shadow of money in politics. The repercussions of Trump’s judicial appointments and the spiralling national debt, are some of the high stakes topics we grapple with. We also contemplate how the two main political parties can truly champion the cause of the middle class and society's less privileged.
But, hold onto your seats because the ride gets even bumpier as we lay bare the recent disturbing events that have shaken the foundation of US politics. We pick apart the multiple legal troubles Trump is currently embroiled in, including the shocking attempted siege of the US Capitol. Discover how the Presidential Records Act could potentially lead to espionage charges against Trump. Lastly, we reflect on our work on the Common Bridge, a platform for productive, non-partisan dialogue, and our ongoing commitment to involving our listeners in these compelling, timely discussions. So gear up and join us in this extraordinarily riveting journey.
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:Hello, welcome to the Common Bridge. You know, we often say on the Common Bridge when you hear about a group of people well, how many people do you know like that? Well, guess what? I kept hearing about Georgia voters this and Georgia voters that. And I said well, you know, I know some Georgia voters and here today, not representing all Georgia voters or all Atlanta voters, but an engaged man from Atlanta, georgia, thomas Hicks. Thomas, welcome to the Common Bridge, thanks for being with us.
Speaker 3:Thanks, Rich. I appreciate the opportunity to come on and share my views with you and your audiences.
Speaker 2:Look, it's been a really newsy period over the last several years in Georgia and in recent weeks, of course, we've had the mugshot of the former president. He's claimed that he's shot a 67 to win the club tournament. He claims he was six foot three, weigh 215 pounds, which compares favorably, by the way, to Muhammad Ali, who was six, three, two 36. But I think the best quote I heard this week was Stormy Daniels saying if he's six, three, two, 15, she's 110 pounds and a virgin. So tell our listeners, our readers and our viewers a little bit about you. Where'd you grow up, what were some of your early days like and what your career arc been, and what are you up to today?
Speaker 3:Well, thanks, rich, and again I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Born and raised in Atlanta, educated in the Atlanta public schools, when I graduated from high school I decided I wanted to go out into the role. But I didn't go directly to college, but a few years later I went back, earned a Bachelor of Arts degree at Georgia State. Communications was my area. I actually had from my work at the radio station at Georgia State, 88.5 WRAS. I was contacted by the management team at Atlanta's NPR affiliate and worked for a few years as an announcer and producer at the local NPR affiliate. While working my way through school I was working in healthcare and that eventually led to my meeting you when I came to Superior back in 1996. So, born and raised in Atlanta, I have worked now in healthcare IT for 30 plus years, looking at retirement possibly in the next decade thereabouts Enjoyed myself now Mostly traveling.
Speaker 3:I've seen four continents. I have a bucket list of setting foot on every continent. Folks ask me well, what will you do when you get to Antarctica? I'll say say that I stepped on Antarctica.
Speaker 3:So let me know that trip as well, but definitely appreciate the opportunity to share some general thoughts on my view of how politics is playing out across the country and specifically how it's playing out here in Georgia.
Speaker 2:Do you vote and have you voted regularly, since you were eligible to vote?
Speaker 3:I have, I think when I became of legal age. I have voted in every local elections for mayors, for governors, folks going to Congress and, quite obviously, every presidential contest. So, yes, I am always willing and determined to let my voice be heard. How do you?
Speaker 2:cast your ballot. Are you an in-person mail-in absentee? How do you cast your ballot?
Speaker 3:I have traditionally always cast my ballot in person. Even in the last presidential contest, when COVID was still a concern, but took safety measures and cast my ballot in person. That has been the standard for me. I will probably always cast the ballot in person. I think you and I have had one brief dialogue and I think it was an area where we were in agreement with all that can be done online and my way of thinking. There has to be a very secure means of allowing people to cast their ballots online. I cannot see any reason why I should not be able to cast a ballot from my laptop at home.
Speaker 2:We can track lottery numbers, lottery registrations, with great precision, know where the person is located when they're buying that ticket. The technology is there and it could all be counted and do it on a Sunday afternoon and we'd know before Monday morning came with great precision how the vote turned out. So, under the current situation, how do you feel about the integrity of the voting process in Georgia today?
Speaker 3:I never had any reservations about the integrity of the process. I'm of the firm opinion that the folks who questioned the integrity did so for obvious reasons. The Trump campaign, after the presidential contest, asked for a recount. It was done. There was a machine recount and a hand recount and I don't have any issues with what those findings were, from the initial voting of ballots to the electronic recount, to the hand recount. I don't have any reservations about the integrity.
Speaker 2:It wasn't like Trump through the first punch either, of course. Stacey Abrams, in 2018, claimed that she had won the governor election, continued to say that. She said the election was stolen. She told the New York Times that she won. She said the election laws were rigged, it was not a free and fair election and while she acknowledged that Brian Kemp was the governor, she refused to say he was legitimate and she claimed that the election was stolen from the people of Georgia. And I'd like to highlight that, not to debate Stacey Abrams, but it kind of sours the mood, if you will, that we've had close elections. We've had the 1960 presidential election, the 2000 presidential election. I mean, what we haven't had is the amount of contesting. But in your voting, have you ever felt that you were blocked or intimidated or in any way, anybody trying to prevent you from casting a vote?
Speaker 3:I've not felt that I was personally targeted or that anyone tried to deliberately prohibit me from voting.
Speaker 3:I recall actually doing the last presidential contest the polling place that I went to at very long lines that were moving extremely slowly, and there were reports that other polling places in my county had fewer people and lines that were moving very quickly, and so it sort of I suppose it may call into question well, why is a given area where the voting base is largely black having extremely long wait times versus not so long a wait at a place where the voting base is predominantly white?
Speaker 3:That was a sort of discussion I heard while I stood in line that day. Wanted to circle back to Stacey Abrams, she called into question and I believe she had a legitimate reason for doing so when running against Brian Kemp in 2018, he was running for governor while serving as Secretary of State essentially overseeing the election, and I don't know if there is any opportunity or scenario where it might appear to be justified to stand back or step away from your position as Secretary of State when you're in the actual contest. That looked like a good opportunity to have done so and he did not.
Speaker 2:Hey, listen the optics on. That would be horrible, right yeah?
Speaker 3:they were. And the only other thing I'll say relative to Stacey she did refuse to concede, but in her defense I won't use the term defense, I'll say, to add some weight to, maybe, her credibility she did not take steps to try to illegally overturn the election. She said she felt some of the reasons that he was in office. The fact that he was a Secretary of State while in the same contest, I think raise some eyebrows. Like you said, that the optics were not good.
Speaker 2:You guys have had a couple of doozies on the Senate, both Senators Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff. They won by runoffs Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker. How'd you feel as a Georgian and Atlanta voter with that contest and as close as it was to?
Speaker 3:I will never understand how it was as close as it was. I will just be brutally honest. I felt that Herschel Walker had no qualifications for the office he was being proposed to. He had no record of public service. It was a clear scenario where folks wanted a person in the Senate seat. They wanted that seat to such an extent that they would send anyone to occupy that seat. So I was personally embarrassed. It was difficult for me to watch the debates that he participated in. It was difficult for me to watch his press conferences. That is certainly one contest where I believe the best person won.
Speaker 2:I think both of your Senators were surprise winners and the Republican challengers were dragged down by the machinations of Donald Trump. Now you tend to be a Democratic voter correct, Correct and Rich.
Speaker 3:I did want to say one other thing. It was one of the few times in my life where I actually agreed with something that Mitch McConnell said. He said as long as we're putting forth bad candidates, we're going to lose elections, and he made that specifically regarding some of the other Senate contests, but also specifically regarding Herschel Walker. It was one of the few times I've ever agreed with Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 2:I think you and Mitch and I are going to be in agreement. And today we have a situation where three-quarters of Americans do not want to see a repeat of Biden and Trump. Yet it looks at the moment and there's a long way to go. Yet there's not even been the first caucus, but it looks like that's what we're going to get and it seems to me that the processes need to be looked at. Have you ever voted for?
Speaker 3:a.
Speaker 2:Republican.
Speaker 3:I have not. I'll add sort of a disclaimer. Traditionally I have voted for whoever I felt presented ideas and policies that made the most sense. I also have traditionally voted for candidates who I believe were advocates for the working class. Born and raised in Southwest Atlanta middle-class neighborhood, my dad worked and went to school, my mom worked and went to school, I worked and went to school. I just like those candidates who propose policy and implement policy that benefit the middle class, the working class, and so, generally speaking, that has me traditionally aligning myself with the Democrats.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and again, I agree with that tradition. We've seen the split in the union vote, where the union leadership remains the Democratic policy, but I'll tell you, a lot of the rank and file are Republicans and a lot of them are strong Trump supporters. I know, when the Trump phenomena was beginning leading up the 2016 election, the first people that ever told me that they were in the camp for Trump were UAW workers, teamsters, police officers. That was the folks that felt like they didn't have a responsive government. I'm sure you know the same data. I know that the Democrats' funding tends to come from the coast and from fairly wealthy people, and I think that is a phenomena that we need to deal with.
Speaker 2:Who's looking out for middle America and who's looking out for the less fortunate, and I think there's a growing sense that we really don't have anybody at this point. The amount of lobbyists writing legislation and the amount of PAC money that's in and the dark money that's in. We're trying to figure out whose government is it, and I think it's a dangerous time, and dangerous time can lead to dangerous people, and we are going to be talking about a guy that I don't think you have much good to say about. Are there any accomplishments that you would point to of Donald Trump's presidency, good or bad? Here's the things people talk about. For what it's worth.
Speaker 3:Actually, I think I know how I want to respond. Okay, and I'll go back, not so much to looking at his legacy or what he left behind coming out of his presidency, but I'll look to what I think possibly or probably led to his presidency. America has a fascination and a preoccupation with celebrity. He was a celebrity. He had been on network TV and the apprentice Macy started carrying a line of ties. I lamentably admit to this, but I at one point owned a Donald Trump tie. I no longer own it. I don't want to have anything associated with it now.
Speaker 3:I think he ascended to that office based largely in part because America is obsessed with celebrity. I also think folks wanted a change. They said someone who does not have a background in politics maybe will bring something new and fresh. That was disastrous because he had no concept of anything that's in the Constitution. He had no concept of how anything within DC politics works, and that was abundantly clear. All you had to do was watch from day to day when he tried to enact policy via Twitter.
Speaker 3:I think so much of his four years in office was disastrous. At the top of the list for me was the bigotry immediately imposing a ban on Muslims making references to African countries being I think we know the term he came up with were African countries. So in hindsight, no, I don't really see anything good that he did. From my general knowledge of the GOP and ultra conservative culture and the idea that it promotes fiscal responsibility, I hear very few folks in the GOP referencing the fact that the debt were spiked to $8 trillion during his four years in office. So I can't say that anyone could say that represents fiscal conservatism. So I think that has pretty much gone out the window. So I knew it was a very roundabout way of addressing your question.
Speaker 2:Well thought out and I wrote a column this past week, published on August 26th, where I said that the greatest threat is RETOS, which is Republicans, if Trump only and one of those subgroups. In there are people that just feel disaffected by the non responsive political system that they said we got to try something different. There's still a group of those. There's a course the I'll call the disciples, the personality cult folks, which is weird because the guy's running on the same stuff that he couldn't do the first time. There's the people that are upset about the weaponization of the judiciary and then there are Democrats that are crossing over in the primaries to vote for the most extreme candidate that they can In this case it would be Trump in order to have an easier time in the general.
Speaker 2:Some of that, by the way, went on in 16, because it was obvious that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee, people crossed over to vote for Trump, figuring like she's going to beat him. But I think the Democrats if I can steal a word from George Bush mis underestimated the antipathy for Hillary Clinton. My home state of Michigan Democrats wouldn't vote for her. She never went to Wisconsin, she lost that, and I just don't know enough about Pennsylvania, and so we have this fluke president that didn't know the job, didn't seem to want to know the job and had massive personal issues. I try to imagine if I was ever the president of the United States and on the first day you have this incredibly humbling responsibility, I'm pretty sure my first thought wouldn't be how big is my inauguration crowd?
Speaker 3:Absolutely. It started immediately. Everything that could go wrong started at the very beginning.
Speaker 2:There's a couple of things I would give Trump credit for. So, first of all, the tax reform, which, at long last, capped the deduction on state and local taxes that we had people like you and people like me in our states subsidizing these high tax states. So putting a cap on that, I thought, was good. There were no wars, and what people won't talk about in terms of the spending is that that spending was really COVID response. I thought that the response from a policy basis was better than the response to the great recession. The great recession, of course, there was a lot of money was given to banks, the people that caused the problem, and the poor guy that lost his job through no fault of their own and had their credit rating destroyed. They got nothing. At least this time they gave the money to the people. I mean COVID relief, and that's where that spend came from. And again, that was generally regarded as good spend, not so much the inflationary act so Trump identifies a split from the norms, but also there were some other things that split from the norms. So, by way of example, jerry Nadler, very senior member of Congress, on day one said we're going to impeach this guy, not we're going to give him a chance. We're going to work with them. We're going to impeach them.
Speaker 2:We know that Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee funded the steel reporting. We know that they floated the story about a line between Trump Tower and the bank in Russia. We know that information around COVID was suppressed. We know that the situation in Lafayette Square was misreported. We now know that Anthony Fauci was just making stuff up about lockdowns, masks and the six foot rule. So now we've got dueling sets of lack of integrity and, in my humble opinion, that gave a lane for Donald Trump just to lie his ass off and say whatever he wanted to say, because he could always point it the other side and go oh, these guys said this. Of those hoaxes, the Russian collusion, the line between Trump Tower and a bank in Russia how many of those did you buy into before they were dismissed?
Speaker 3:Probably not most of them. I reached a Trump saturation point very early on where it was just more than I wanted to look at or listen to. I will very openly admit, I quite literally don't like the sound of his voice, such that when I see him on the television, I change the channel. I hate that he's still sucking up so much oxygen in every room. So much of that just struck me as nonsense. Now I did believe that there needed to be a thorough investigation of the extent to which Russia did or did not interfere in the 2016 election, so I probably lent more credence to that story than any of the other ones that you just wrote.
Speaker 2:I'm not very well-referenced, so did I, and I'm well-published. I'm like, get to the bottom of it and bring us the facts.
Speaker 3:One of the other areas where you and I have split, or perhaps looked in slightly different directions, is where the media is. I won't say the role of the media, but more specifically, what media can and should be trusted. I was a communications major, so one thing that's abundantly clear to me I think probably as to most reasonably prudent citizens is that ratings drive revenue, and so cable news, network news, is going to do whatever they can to drive their ratings to build up their revenue. I can accept that, but you and I have split over some other media outlets that are not even for profit, some not-for-profit outlets, such as the AP, reuters, npr. I recall in one of our discussions you said NPR has lost its way and I said well, this is certainly going to be one of those instances where it's going to be very difficult for us to come to terms or to come to an agreement.
Speaker 3:You can't assail all media. There has to be somewhere, a middle of the road, where some facts make it in, and in those instances, in these not-for-profits the AP, npr, reuters there's some others that come to mind BBC they're not ratings driven, they are gathering and disseminating information. For folks like me who work nine and a half 10 hours a day and, at the end of the day, want to have some idea of what happened, and so I think that was one area, politics aside, where we did not come to an agreement.
Speaker 2:I appreciate that measured response and I've had a number of journalists on my program and I've read many books on this and it's not like somebody at NPR or the AP sets out to falsify a story. But they're human beings. It's not like they decide they're going to leave out this fact or that fact. And kind of my proof statement is this If I said to you there's an NPR story about Joe Biden, do you think it's going to be a positive or a negative story? If there's a Fox News story about Donald Trump, what do you think you're going to get? You can go down the line and they all have their techniques. The New York Times, by the way, is really adept. Their two favorite techniques are they leave out a key fact and then they put the actual other argument, like 40 paragraphs, down. That changes their whole narrative. That's how they're doing that to your point, because they need the clicks and the eyeballs and the reactions and the reposts and such, and it's very difficult to get a full picture in today's media model.
Speaker 2:And we've had, again, experts that are well credentialed, that continue to work as journalists, explaining why that's occurred. And it kind of brings us back to Trump too, because all the airtime Trump's been getting lately about these trials. Every one of those news outlets needs the guy. If they weren't talking about Trump, what would they be talking about? You're in the middle of a historic heat wave. It seems kind of important to me, absolutely Now. A place that's very dear to me, the Lahainatown, being wiped out is a big deal. There's a lot of things going on in the world that are being pushed to the side, so now we've got these four trials going on. So let's just start with New York. The core here is that Trump paid off a porn star. Would you be surprised it was brought to light that Donald Trump paid off a porn star?
Speaker 3:Not at all. He would probably venture to think that he's probably paid off many porn stars. Any that would have anything to do with him anyway.
Speaker 2:To me it's like, yeah, he's a slime bag, not a good person, and yeah, so like that doesn't surprise me, let me say this that New York has invented 34 counts of falsifying records for one act of paying off a porn star. It may not even be illegal because it has to be tied to a felony, which prosecutor Bragg hasn't even said what the felony is. Yet now you have people with the sound bite. There's 91 counts against Trump, 34 of them. It's like here's the check, that's one count. Here's the entry in the accounting books, here's another one. Oh, the check cash, that's a third one. Police, all the crap this guy's being accused of it's just makes him sympathetic. Any fundraisers, off of it, I think.
Speaker 3:I've read that since the mugshot was released Thursday that he's raised $7 million from proceeds from the mugshot.
Speaker 2:That doesn't even begin to describe it like oh, another indictment, good, like not good, no, not good. But it's again that what I call one of those categories of the retos, the Republicans of Trump. Only there is a constituency that says I think the Justice Department and the judiciary is being perverted and I'm voting against that, and that's horrible because I don't want to see Donald Trump back in the Oval Office. Okay, florida, the Mar-a-Lago case, the claims that Trump hid documents wouldn't give him back. His own ex-Attorney General, bill Barts, says he's probably in trouble for this.
Speaker 2:I'm old enough to remember when all this dispute began in the Nixon administration and there was a fight about what belonged to the President and what belonged to the United States. So the Presidential Records Act came into being in 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. God bless the man as he's in hospice. Do you know the first person that had issue with the Presidential Records Act? It was Jimmy Carter. And now we find hey, biden had documents and he wasn't even the President, and so did Pence, and he wasn't the President. So they're going to try this espionage act thing and I'm thinking really, if this guy is this bad, and that's your best case. And so here's the problem. I'm kind of like the parable of the boy that cried wolf. Tell me enough times from a pee tape to hide documents and it all turns out to be bullshit. It makes me less willing to believe the next thing. How's it affecting you as a politically engaged, democrat leaning guy in a very important part of the country?
Speaker 3:The case with the classified documents, as I see it, is much more significant. It's much weightier than New York and paying the porn star. Joe Biden had classified documents. When it came to his attention, he turned them in. Mike Pence had classified documents. When it came to his attention, he turned those documents over. I think they all turned them over to Nara. When it was identified that Trump had classified documents, he didn't turn them over, he hid them. He took steps to ensure that when the boxes were being moved to be hidden, that footage of the moving of the boxes was to be destroyed. Everything about it is just nefarious. He kept what he was not supposed to have. The US government asked for it back. He refused to give it, took steps to cover up his attempts to hide it. We don't know what the classified documents are. We don't know how sensitive the materials are nuclear secrets who knows it? Just to me looks a lot weightier than what we saw in New York.
Speaker 2:Biden and Pence should have had them in the first place. How do we know that they actually gave them all back? We don't know. There's no way of knowing because it was never told exactly what they had. We now have the January 6th things being filed in Washington DC.
Speaker 2:My preface to this. I thought the president's behavior was abhorrent. I was listening to it in real time. I was in California when he was talking about Mike Pence needs to do the right thing, which meant violate the Constitution. Mike Pence, thank goodness, stood tall and the Constitution was protected and the election proceeded.
Speaker 2:I thought President Trump pouting like a big baby and not welcoming the incoming president at the White House was a very low point in our history. But I look at what the media reports that he did and what the charges were and I'm like huh, there's nothing about a coup, nothing about an armed insurrection. So I'm going to try to go through this quick Four things in Washington Conspiracy to violate civil rights, conspiracy to defraud the government, corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to carry out such obstruction. And, as the left wing media pundit said, doesn't really matter. He has to face a Washington DC jury, which lets you question the even handedness. I don't know very many people In fact, I don't know anybody personally that thought what occurred on the 6th of January 2021 was a good thing. I wouldn't imagine. You know anybody either. I don't.
Speaker 3:I watched it in real time. I was working from home, tv was on and in looking up I saw what I usually term a siege taking place at the capital and in the days that followed, learned more about how it was coordinated I'll just use that term. It has to be prosecuted such that it doesn't happen again, and I will not try to ever get into the head of a prosecutor. I work in IT. The law is not my area of specialty, but I say the charges that were brought there has to be, or I'm of the impression that there was a strategy for bringing those charges, and I will see how the trial plays out.
Speaker 2:At the time of that happen, I said this needs to be investigated and needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But let's get into Georgia. This is your home area and I know this has got to be a difficult time. Have you looked at what Mr Trump's being charged with?
Speaker 3:I've not read the full indictment At the simplest level, conspiracy meaning that he engaged with a broad network of other people in an attempt to overturn the election. That's what I'm aware of, on its face, I suppose. What I find fascinating is that the prosecutor, who presented the evidence to two grand juries, specializes in RICO cases. My thought is she looked at the statutes, she looked at the evidence as it was gathered, presented that to the grand jury, and they agree that there is a RICO case here to be tried, one of the things that I am pleased with in Georgia. We don't know how this is going to play out, but I'd like to believe that the trial will be televised, and I think that will make it much more meaningful for everyone to get to see those goings on in real time Back when we had court TV and we had the cases in Florida with Travon Martin and George Zimmerman watching.
Speaker 2:That, I think, was a good thing. The case in Kenosha being able to watch that. Of course, the OJ Simpson trial I think it lowered the temperature because people didn't have to rely on a knowingly slanted reporting from one side versus the other. So I would like to see that occur. And Trump thinks everything is about him, so he thought the COVID briefings was about him. So apparently he's going to look at this as a reality TV show. Here's my experience with RICO. By the way, for what it's worth, it's normally a trailing charge. It's like we caught all these guys doing something selling drugs, running guns, whatever it might be and they've been doing it for a long time. So we're going to lay RICO over the top of this thing. Okay, that's not like one guy went out and did this. It was you and I set up a business enterprise to do that.
Speaker 2:Barbara McQuade, who is a far left legal analyst on MSNBC. She lives here in Ann Arbor. She was on a local television station and she said the case in George. She goes. It's not a slam dunk. This may result in a quiddle, or it may not. I don't know what she said on MSNBC, but she gets paid differently there. There's a recall of the prosecutor and I believe she pronounces her name as Fani Willis that Georgia Senate Bill 92 says that conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute, you can bring a prosecutor back and then the House Subcommittee is investigating Fani Willis to see if she was influenced by anybody from DC. Are these recalls good assurances that there's a clean process or more dirty politics or something else?
Speaker 3:I think it's playing politics, trump or anyone else, and he uses this very often. First of all, if anyone can be tracked as a history of being a Democrat or a Republican, he will immediately use that as a means of attack. You'll say it's a lunatic far left Democrat who's prosecuting me. It's a Democrat far left judge who's overseeing the case. So that has become part of the standard play. Any judge, any prosecutor, has every right to embrace the political ideologies that they want to embrace and have embraced, and that can't be used against them just because the person who's being prosecuted or who's going on trial is of an opposite political party. That's what, seemingly, is happening with much more frequency now. If you can prove that this person is not a Republican and they're prosecuting you, or they are the judge who's to oversee your case, attack them for that reason alone, and it's spiraling. I think it's why the two investigations that you referenced into Fani Willis. I think it's the only reason they exist.
Speaker 2:You mentioned spiraling. Is that what happens? When the shoe goes on the other foot and it's a Republican leaning prosecutor and a Democrat leading state house? Do they then get in the middle of the judicial branch of the government? I want to see a clean process. There's been a history of election challenges and I think this will be part of the defense.
Speaker 2:Coming aside, 2016 and Hillary Clinton, 2004,. Senator Kerry, who lost the election, challenged in Ohio and talked about having a different slate of electors. Of course we have 2000. Can you imagine Al Gore was going out to concede when they told him wait a minute. There's been voter intimidation in Florida and we had all of that going around and I think it was a 500 vote difference and it had been recounted multiple times. Gore lost every undercourt. He won one thing in the Florida Supreme Court and the Chief Justice said that they could not validate that decision based by statute or by precedent, went to the Supreme Court and they said, yeah, it's the circuit. Courts had voted right and of course we've had recount after recount and it turned out Bush won. Thank goodness, not thank goodness, that Bush was the president. I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying thank goodness that we didn't have one of those recounts done, that said ah, we missed it, you know. So here we have now this charges with Trump. What happens if he's acquitted?
Speaker 3:I personally have not envisioned a scenario, any scenario where he makes it through these four trials without a conviction, and at least one of the four, and that's not to say that more aren't coming. I mean, I'm hearing that there's the potential that a similar case in Arizona might be brought to the case here in Georgia, all based on putting forth slates of fake electors. So there could be many more trials for him to face, but quite literally rich. I have not envisioned any scenario where he comes out clean from these four different trials.
Speaker 2:Let me just tell you something not to do then or maybe you need to do it, because I actually went back and I listened to the entire transcript of the call that he had with Mr Raffensperger. Yeah, and of course we have the media saying all I said was go find 11,788 votes. Right, the whole world knows that. But when you go through the transcript now, by the way, I believe Trump the same guy that said my inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's couldn't get his head around the fact that he had lost to Joe Biden. But he went through kind of chapter and verse about why. You know, there's 300,000 ballots here, vacant addresses out of state, signatures that weren't matched to prior voting records, military ballots coming in, which was also mixed with state department. So there was an explanation for that and kind of, when you look at it, if I'm thinking, if I was a juror, would I have a reasonable doubt? And based on that alone now again, I haven't heard all of it I would say that kind of sounds like a guy saying, statistically, in all of these things and based on our polling, going in, there's got to be an error someplace. But here's the kill shot that defeats that.
Speaker 2:In 2020, 28,000 Georgians skipped the presidential race and yet they voted down balance in every other race this is from Mr Raffensberger Republican congressmen ended up getting 33,000 more votes than President Trump, and that's why he came up short. And, by the way, that happened to Hillary Clinton in Michigan in 2016, that Democrats wouldn't vote for Republicans in 2020 and Georgia weren't going to vote for Trump, and that was really the difference in the election. And so it's not as it's being portrayed, and that's why I would encourage all my readers, listeners and viewers to, when they hear a conclusory statement, listen to the whole thing. That might give them context. I'm not saying it would change necessarily what they think, but at least they have context. So you can't imagine that he escapes at all. What happens if he's found guilty?
Speaker 3:Then maybe the GOP can start the healing process and maybe the country can start the healing process. The reason it's so troubling to me is it's just this ongoing spread of toxicity, like he's just poisoning the air. He's angry, he spreads his anger. In my view, he's a bigot he spreads his bigotry. He's a misogynist he spreads his misogyny. I'm just ready to not have to hear or see his toxicity.
Speaker 2:Think about those four voting blocks that he still has the disciples, the people that still haven't had an answer to their populist urges, the people that think that the judicial system is being weaponized, and then the Democrats cross over to strategically vote for Trump. It seems to me three of those four groups aren't going to be happy on a conviction unless it's both done convincingly and that there's further investigations into the Biden side of things. So I don't believe a conviction is a cleansing thing and I'm curious if maybe just getting beaten in an election is a better thing. Why go through all this weak legal stuff when you could just keep running the tape of what he was saying on January 6th? I don't understand all the time, money, effort being put in to this stuff.
Speaker 2:I mean, I want my president to be not a criminal. I want them to be a people of integrity, whoever the president might be. Because you know there's a quote and you probably know it better than I do about if you shoot at a king, you better kill him. I have a real fear. What would the Democratic left and all the people that were rioting in 2020 say if Trump's acquitted? You think they're going to go? Ah, my bad, I'm sorry. I guess he really didn't do anything.
Speaker 3:That's a daunting one to try to answer, but first of all I'll start to sound repetitive now. Of the four trials that he's facing, I think he'll be convicted in at least one. I see him being convicted possibly in two the January 6th trial and the Georgia Reco Charge. I see convictions there.
Speaker 2:You know, I had a column that I wrote and said he's either going to be indicted or not indicted, convicted or not convicted. So now we've already gotten through that gate. He's been indicted. Let's just play this out, because we don't know, if he gets acquitted, what's going to happen in the country.
Speaker 3:This is where my mind goes next. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is where my mind goes next. So far, anything and everything he has said since the indictments have been handed down has been about it being a witch hunt, prosecutorial misconduct, election interference. We have heard absolutely nothing from Mr Trump regarding what his next term would be seeking to accomplish.
Speaker 2:Here's three questions what happens if he's acquitted, what happens if he's found guilty? And what do you think the Republicans are going to do to the Democrats at the first time they get the chance?
Speaker 3:If he's found guilty and you and I possibly are probably split because I think I went down this road just briefly a few moments ago I think the healing process can begin. I think not being subjected to his ongoing toxicity allows for that healing to start.
Speaker 2:Again, that's with the presupposing that there are people that think it's been a fair process and it's a just decision, because I agree with you If the populace can be convinced that, yeah, you know what bad guy. We've heard that, by the way. That's why I like the trial being televised. Everything we heard on the trial yep, this guy needs to be punished, and let's just leave out whether it's house arrest stories, incarceration someplace else.
Speaker 2:Where I see the risk is that people don't feel like, as of today, the country is not united in the idea that these are going to be fair trials. There are people that have already convicted them. There's people that have already acquitted them. There's people that are saying it doesn't look good and there's people that say it looks good. Let's see what comes out. We're going to remain divided. I don't believe that an acquittal or a conviction does anything for uniting it. If he's convicted, it's going to have to be convincing a lot of people. If he's acquitted, it's going to have to have people perhaps like you. Could you ever imagine yourself saying it was a fair trial and he was found not guilty?
Speaker 3:I wrestle with the question of will there be that jury out there, that where 12 people can agree, and yeah, that's a tough question. I believe the trial would be fair. I think the evidence is going to be laid out In an ideal world. The absolute best case scenario for me is when he decides to represent himself. I say bring it on.
Speaker 2:Well, he is running out of lawyers. You brought up another conundrum too what happens if he's acquitted 10 to two? What do you think the Republicans are going to do when they get the chance? Because I have a philosophy that says this the person that starts a fist fight, a lawsuit or a war rarely is the person that gets to decide when and how it ends. You know the GOP is going to punch back. It's common.
Speaker 3:If they regain power, rich? I honestly believe that they're. I hate to use terms like they them granted the country's divided. I think the GOP is coming down on the wrong side of history on a number of issues that Middle America is pretty set on. I think women want the right to decide to make choices with their doctors, control of their bodies. I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of that. I think most Americans want common sense gun reform. I think Republicans are on the wrong side of that. I think everyone well, I think most reasonable, prudent people want some kind of acknowledgement of climate change to be able to take practical steps to address it. And this might sound insignificant, but I get completely enraged when I hear Mr Trump referencing that he would pardon those who participated in the January 6th riot. He said there were some. I believe he used the term. I think he said there were a couple of people who got violent. But I just think the GOP knows that it's unpopular.
Speaker 2:So your answer to would the GOP do something? You're saying they're never going to get in power?
Speaker 3:I hope you watch the debate because there is a consensus forming around the abortion issue.
Speaker 2:The Republicans are way ahead about the border and immigration. The Republicans are ahead on the economy. The Republicans are hugely ahead on censoring and this is a Republican in general, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump's not even a real Republican. They're good people that could run a government. I'm not saying they're going to be your favorite candidate, but if you watch that debate, you saw there were five or six of them that these guys are executives. They know how to run a government.
Speaker 3:I saw two adults in the room that night. The two adults in the room that night for me were Chris Christie and Nikki Haley. A lot of other folks for me were just jockeying and trying to score a few punch lines, but Christie and Haley for me.
Speaker 2:Look, I wouldn't expect, by way of example, you would agree on very many policy positions with Mike Pence, but there's no question he's a capable guy. He's been a vice president, a governor and a representative and he's not an idiot and he stood up for the Constitution when his very life was being threatened Again. I can't imagine you getting behind him policy-wise, but he's a capable guy.
Speaker 2:And so are some of the others. And Nikki Haley. I happen to have been following her since her first run for governor. She's a high-quality individual and has handled some tough things. I think she'd make a great president. Now the question is is the process going to let us get there? Are we going to get served up another Biden and Trump thing, which three quarters of Americans don't want? But, Thomas, this has been a great chat with you, my friend, and I dearly appreciate you coming on and you're one of the most reasoned and measured human beings I know and I do appreciate that you're willing to sit down and chat.
Speaker 3:I appreciate the time.
Speaker 2:And sometimes with all my guests, I have to because of a nonpartisan view of this show. I have to say well, what about this? What about this? Is the other side of this thing, and one of the things that perhaps you and I could come together on would be to have a discussion maybe we invite some other folks about what happens under a quiddle, what happens under if he's found guilty, because I don't see a path out of this mess right now. If there's going to be a conviction, I hope it's clear and convincing and enough to have people go. Yeah, you did all that, and if he's acquitted, I hope people would go. Yeah, I got excited about the Russian conclusion. I got excited about the P-tape. I got tricked. You know my bad. I'm not going to listen to those news programs anymore. That got me so excited. That would be a great outcome, but remains to be seen.
Speaker 3:Do you have?
Speaker 2:a last word, my friend what didn't we talk about that you'd like to mention to the audience of the Common Bridge, our readers at Substack, our listeners at Substack and of podcast outlets every place, and our viewers on Substack and a few of them on YouTube as well? So I would know 100,000 plus people are going to see this and hear this.
Speaker 3:I would just share with your audience that Rich and I have a history that I worked for not one but two firms that he has founded and presided over. So in my three decades of IT consulting I've had the pleasure of working for two of those companies and have had the pleasure to have good dialogues like this one with Rich, where we go into the discussions knowing that we're not always going to agree In fact, knowing that we're in all likelihood going to disagree more than we agree but always fascinating dialogues. And I certainly appreciate today to have this time to share my thoughts with you and your guests.
Speaker 2:And based on that sentiment I'll take the final word. And in the thousands of people that were members of our companies over the years, if you stand out and, thomas, you're one of those guys and I think this, hopefully, is an example that friends and colleagues can think about things differently, but we can all want the same thing for a better future. Absolutely, and with our guest, thomas Hicks. Voter in Atlanta, voter in the state of Georgia, thoughtful man this is 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 nonpartisan discussions of the day. Just search for the Common Bridge. You can also find the Common Bridge on Mission Control Radio on your radio garden app.