Episode 18- Rich Helppie Quick Take on Impeachment

The mics were still on after our podcast with Nate Kaufman (which airs tomorrow) and I forced Rich into talking about the Impeachment hearings that wrapped up two days ago.  He wasn't ready for it, but delivered all the same.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:04

[inaudible].

Speaker 2: 0:05

Welcome to the podcast, the common bridge with Richard helpy. Rich is a successful entrepreneur in the technology, health and finance space. He and his wife, Leslie, are also philanthropists with interest in civic and artistic endeavors, but with a primary focus on medically and educationally underserved children. My name is Brian Kruger. And from time to time I'll be the moderator and host of this podcast. Hello everyone, and welcome to the common bridge. But this isn't common bridge. We just recorded, um, a really, really good interview between rich and, uh, Nate Kaufman. You're going to get that tomorrow. It's on, uh, uh, healthcare. I've cornered rich here though. So since we're here and the microphones are on rich, I gotta ask you about impeachment. I know you weren't expecting this, this isn't about policy, but just what do you got?

Speaker 3: 0:52

Yeah, yeah. Thanks. Um, you know, look, I, I don't think I have anything to add that, uh, hasn't been said. Um, well, it's, it's, it's just, look, it's just another exercise in partisanship. Um, I think I said on one of our recordings like in October that yeah, the house is going to impeach and we knew the Senate was going to acquit and this colossal waste of time, um, has advanced, let's see how many policies checking my list. Oh, none. And as long as we keep consuming that stuff, we're going to keep getting it. Um, but it's, it's nonsense. It,

Speaker 2: 1:48

well, let me ask you a few questions then, and you can throw things at me from across the studio if you want, but, um, was do you think that, uh, that Trump was, uh, was seeking dirt when he started this whole thing? I mean, do you think that was his motivation?

Speaker 3: 2:03

W I, I'm not going to guess the motivation of this president, um, that the Democrats certainly assumed he wanted dirt. He clearly asked for an investigation. Um, the Democrats immediately leaped to, he wants dirt. And I'm thinking, Hmm, what do they know that we don't know? I mean, things you didn't hear said, why didn't anybody name Biden, Hunter, Joe, or whomever, say, investigate us all you want.

Speaker 2: 2:40

We're, we're clean as it can be. Yeah. I think they want it. And then when you think about, that's the thing that lit this whole thing.

Speaker 3: 2:48

It wasn't like Trump called up and said, make up something about this guy. He said, here's this video of then vice president Biden saying I'm holding back a billion dollars unless you fire this guy who is investigating entities and things around his son who's making a boatload of money that he doesn't appear to be qualified for. And I'm kind of curious about that because I think it speaks to track record in public office, but I'm not assuming that there is dirt there, but based on the reaction, I think a lot of people are and I'm just wondering what they know.

Speaker 2: 3:37

Yeah, fair enough. So there's a lot of discussion about, uh, the Bolton book. Um, and we haven't read it. It hasn't, it hasn't been expert excerpted for the rest of us to look at. But, uh, they did look at it. I was certain that somebody would come in with that because it looked like it was an amazing smoking gun. Somebody's just going to just start reading off of it. Why not bring in Bolton, not as a witness, but just bring in the book, say, look, let's, let's, let's look at this.

Speaker 3: 4:04

Well, they could have done that. Um, look, if anybody believes that the manuscript just happened to show up the night before, the Republicans were putting their defense on, they didn't watch the Kavanaugh hearings very closely. Um, and so it would have been real easy for the house committees, either one of them to subpoena the manuscript. And I have to believe the New York times would give it to them if there was something damaging in there and they didn't. And it's kind of held back. And then, um, the evening before it steps on the news cycle. And then you have Chuck Schumer in every single media that he can get. Bolton, Bolton, Bolton, Bolton, Bolton, Bolton, Bolton. You know, I would have been a lot more convinced if Chuck Schumer was holding up a copy of the manuscript and saying right here in this manuscript that I'm going to read into the record shows the president misbehaved. He didn't do that. Okay. So all he's doing is playing politics. This whole exercise, I, it's been a partisan nonsense. It's just, I doubt it's changed anybody's mind. I don't think it brought anybody into the Republican camp. Uh, did the Democrats rally their base? I mean, who knows, but

Speaker 2: 5:32

did the Republicans re rally their base?

Speaker 3: 5:35

Um, where if I was, and by the way, I'm not a political pundit. I'm a policy guy, but I will tell you that's a lot of P's in there isn't. Um, there's, uh, the, the, um, I think that if it benefited anybody, it probably benefited the Republicans because it's just, they're throwing more stuff at Trump. More negatives, which is work. Let me check my notes here. Oh, never. And now it's old news and people go, yeah, well we heard that. All right. So, uh, you'll see two weeks from now, all this stuff's going to be out of the news cycle. Oh yeah. It's, it's over. You're not going to hear Bolton. You're not going to hear it. There was no witnesses called I think a week from now because I don't think the Democrats are going to need to have this hanging over there, you know, going into the election. I think it's going to, it might smell bad when this, well, no, I think they'll shift to, Oh, there's been constant scandals and like I like, I like my government to be clean. All right. And, but I, I'm kind of old fashioned. I like, like my Russian collusion to have like either Russians in it or collusion, I mean one of the two. And they looked really hard for that and then they want it. It was a distraction. We're going to shift gears that maybe there's obstruction over there. Well, we can't really say that it is, but we're going to kind of say it might be there. I mean, give me a break. Who you feeding right here and, and you know, clearly, uh, uh, the Democrats were intent on impeachment from 2016 during the Adler. Um, wa told Molly Hemingway the day after the election on the train from New York down to Washington that they were going to impeach the president. I mean, they wanted to impeach the president in the worst way they did it. And I think they did it to their own detriment. Um, that would be unfortunate. Yeah. But I mean, just, it's, I don't know who it serves. That's my bike. I bought it and you know, look, if the president did something that he shouldn't have done, they need to be held to account. Um, if you go back and the things, most recent history, bill Clinton perjured himself, he lost the ability to practice law. There's no question. Bill Clinton perjured himself. It was up to the Senate to say, all right, is that enough to remove him from office and the Senate at that time? So, no. Right. I was democratic controlled Senate, but they said, no. So fine. Richard Nixon clearly obstructed justice and the Republicans and the Democrats went in and said, look, you're going to get impeached and you're going to get removed from office when the Republicans walked into the oval office and said, look, you're gonna need to leave. Right. So that was clear. It was clear. Now fast forward to this, and I would have been a lot more convinced if there would have been a first person whistleblower comes in and says, Hey, I heard this and the recording or transcripts of the call aren't accurate. Nope. No first person is saying that anything was inaccurate. I would have been a lot more convinced of Adam Schiff would have said, yeah, the guy approached my office and we worked with him and I'm willing to put my hand up and testify. What we did didn't get that. What did we get a parade of people saying, well they just presumed something or second hand. Okay. They reported those out. They sat on them for a month and now they come over to the Senate. Right. And you don't think it was a full case that came from the house? A case that said, here's this, here's evidence, here's, um, everything you need, you know, let's, you know, want you to look at, do you think it came over half bait? Well, all I like to do is apply the personal touch, right? If someone accused me of doing something and they said, well, I heard it from a guy who said he was there, who assumed that it happened and I'm going to be convicted on that. I think I have a problem with it. Sure. Um, it just seems that there should be more compelling information. Um, and it struck me as puzzling that there was this, it's a compelling case, overwhelming evidence. And then the next breath we need more evidence. I come on, I mean, and the risk, Brian, for me talking like this is that I am about policy. And if you give the president a fair shake, you can lose half the people instantly. And look, he's not a likable president. Nobody came in and said, Hey, I know we need this. We need a guy who careens around. We never know what he's going to do overnight. You realize a whole country is waking up every day going, my God, what did he tweet? Could you imagine being as chief of staff? Anybody? It's it, you know, it's, uh, the whole country though is because, and it's not like it's a mystery, right? It's not like, you know, well, if his chief of staff said, well, let me tell you the real story, right? We see it at firsthand, he does it, you know, it's, there's no question about it. Um, so right now we, we've missed a lot of important stories. Um, you know, we now have the, a second FBI director exposed as someone serially lying about the most sensitive matters, isn't it? That's just, that's so troubling. We've had orchestrated line to the foreign intelligence surveillance courts, the federal deficits ballooning. We have, we haven't saw healthcare guns, student debt. Immigration remains on address. And by the way, this is February 1st that we're recording this. Brexit starts today. Um, and, uh, you know, England only has like 800 years as a independent country,

Speaker 2: 11:54

not part of the European union. So obviously they won't know what to do as an independent now. Yeah, exactly. Say they lost their lost, what were they do exactly. They listen, I put you on the spot and I apologize. I figured we had the microphones going. We had tape rolling. And you know, it's not taped, but it still makes me laugh. Um, so I apologize. And so w w w we should be looking forward to is tomorrow. And your, in your discussion with Nick off. Yeah, exactly. Let's get back to

Speaker 3: 12:19

policy. I think that, uh, I don't think this whole impeachment charade, um, change one mind. I think if you were a partisan that thought, uh, Adam Schiff, uh, should be you. Coronated and, and Donald Trump's the worst human being, you still think that. And if you were a person that really thinks that the president is unfairly attacked and beleaguered, you still think that all the polls show that, that the needle didn't move. Yeah. Because it was so predictable. Right. And you know, we've seen the movie, um, I actually made a list just for grins and there's like over 40 times 40 people that had so-called bombshells that fizzled. And I dunno, maybe I should probably give those to somebody who wants to political podcasts. Yeah. I want us to focus on policy. We won't get policy until we demand it. So tell your legislatures and tell your news sources the cut, the partisan fear-mongering and the character attacks. And let's talk about the issues of the day. And let's get off the notion that some compelling argument is going to bring a dyed in the wool Trump advocate all the way from that polar extreme, all the way across to Bernie Sanders or a, you know, died in the wool anti-Trump or two into putting on a maggot hat. It's not gonna happen. So what can we, can we agree to disagree and then can we try to find something workable? Policy-wise, that's at least better than where we are today. And tomorrow's broadcast, by the way, Nate Kaufman, a real treat. Knowing the guy for years, one of the most educated and insightful guy in the front lines of healthcare. Don't miss it.

Speaker 2: 14:20

You have been listening to Richard healthy's common bridge podcast recording and post-production provided by stunt three multimedia. All rights are reserved by Richard helpy. For more information, visit Richard helpy.com.