Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Will Trump Face Any Trial Before Election Day 2024?; WAPO: American Males In "Widespread Identity Crisis"; San Francisco Chronicle, City's Drug Trade Driven By Honduran Migrants. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 15, 2023 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: So when will trump be tried? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. We're in uncharted waters. And for the first time a former President faces indictment, two of them actually, with the real possibility of more on the horizon. But the Presidential Campaign is now well underway with the first debate occurring 38 days from now. And from that moment until Election Day, November 5, 2024, the calendar is littered with campaign milestones debates, caucuses, primaries conventions, raising unique questions as to whether Donald Trump can be tried without conflicting with the election schedule, and the answer is no.

Trial in the state case brought by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg that's been set. It'll be March 2520 24 in Manhattan. Trial in the Federal action brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith was initially scheduled for next month but in reality, has yet to be determined. Smith requested the end of the year, December 11, but lawyers for Trump asked for postponement until all substantive motions in the case have been presented. They said this, "The Court now presides over a prosecution advanced by the administration of a sitting President against his chief political rival, himself a leading candidate for the presidency of the United States. Therefore, a measured consideration and timeline that allows for a careful and complete review of the procedures that led to this indictment and the unprecedented legal issues presented herein best serves the interests of the Defendants and the public."

The New York Times coverage by Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman said of the request, "If granted, it could have the effect of pushing Mr. Trump's trial into the final stages of the Presidential campaign in which he's now a Republican front runner or even past the 2024 election." Jack Smith's office push back against the filing writing, there's no basis in law or fact proceeding it's such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion at the Defendants provided none. Look, no doubt Trump wants to run out the clock, you know, try to win the election then pardon himself. But he's not wrong in saying his case raises unique questions that need to be litigated pretrial, including the approval of the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, the piercing of the attorney client privilege, and the impact of the Presidential Records Act.

Many will say treat them like anybody else. Election be damned. But there's a long tradition at the DOJ of not wanting to act in a way that might be perceived as political. Consider this. In the past two decades, four Attorneys General from both parties, Republican Michael Mukasey in 2008, Democrats Eric Holder in 2012, and Loretta Lynch in 2016, and Merrick Garland just last year wrote very similar election year memos about the importance of keeping politics out of investigations and criminal charges. And all four have the same language, including this paragraph, "Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of the Federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department's mission and with the principles of federal prosecution."

The U.S. Attorney's manual has similar language. And in 2020, A.G. Bill Barr went a step further. He said that no investigation may be opened of a declared candidate for President or Vice President, a campaign or a staffer without first clearing it with the A.G. and relevant U.S. attorneys. Now there's no specific DOJ guidance that applies to the timing of trial, when a candidate is facing charges whilst appearing on the ballot and after all, trial dates are set by judges. Still, and you can see how sensitive matter investigations and elections is for the DOJ not to mention the court of public opinion. So when might Trump be tried?

The first Republican debate is August 23. That's a little more than five weeks from now. Not that he's likely to participate. The first ballots are scheduled to be cast in the GOP, Iowa caucus that's January 15, six months from now. There will then be primaries every month through June. Then the GOP convention in Milwaukee, that's July 15, through 18 Democratic Convention Chicago, August 19 through 22nd. Then comes the horse race to the Election Day which concludes on November 5 and I say concludes because early voting starts way before that in seven states as much as 45 days, 45 days before November 5, that's September 21.

[09:05:11]

Of course, if Trump somehow fails to win the nomination, then he's going to have plenty of time on his schedule after the July convention in Milwaukee. But right now, he's got a commanding lead in all the GOP polls, a lead which grew after his second indictment. And all of this grows even more fraught, if Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis indicts Trump next month as some speculate or if Jack Smith indicts him again.

In a Friday filing, the Trump lawyers move to dismiss the Georgia case on many grounds, including that quote, letting the investigation proceed, which leads to "a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights while he seeks his party's nomination for the presidency of the United States." Here's the possibility a former American President might soon be facing indictment in four different cases to state to federal in the midst of his bid to reclaim the White House. And if recent history is precedent, that status might move him closer to winning his party's nomination. But it will not ensure that any jury determines his fate before the American people do.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website@smerconish.com. Answer this week's poll question, will Donald Trump face any trial before Election Day 2024? Joining me now to discuss CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. He's a former Federal Prosecutor. Elie thanks for coming back. Is there any such thing as too close to the election when it comes to setting an actual trial date?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: There is such thing as too close to an election, Michael. There's actually a long-standing tradition, not necessarily in writing, but tradition inside the Justice Department called the 60-day rule. And the idea is you don't bring charges or take some sort of investigative step within 60 days of an election. And just to show you how sort of fluid that is, some people understand that as a 90-day rule. So it's sort of urban legend or long standing informal practice within DOJ. But the reasons for that are exactly as you just read in those A.G. letters.

DOJ can never do anything that either is intended to or appears to be intended to influence an election. Now they're in a very difficult spot now because unavoidably Donald Trump is very likely to be part of that election.

SMERCONISH: And Elie, it's like a law school exam. What is an election? Because six months from now is the first election and then there's a steady drumbeat of other elections all the way up until November. The point I was trying to make and obviously you get it is if you look at the calendar between now and November of 2024, there's no time where you can try him that's not going to be fraught with political considerations.

HONIG: I agree with you. I think that's part of the complication here. Donald Trump makes all the law school hypotheticals come to life. But if we play this through, in a practical sense, when are you going to try him. If Donald Trump has to stand trial, that's going to take minimum a month on any of these cases or pending cases. He has to physically be in the courtroom for that trial. This is not a civil case where you can skip out as he did in the E Jean Carroll. So there is going to be every month from now until November either primaries, debates, conventions, or actual ballots being cast. And that's why DOJ is in such a bind here.

And by the way, I don't even think this 60 or 90 day, really rule really applies because the concern is well, you can't do it too close to an election. I mean, if Donald Trump gets tried in, let's say, February of 2024, people are still going to remember that come -- come November when ballots are being cast, that's still going to absolutely impact the election.

SMERCONISH: Elie, you know that some are watching this and they're saying treat him like anybody else, you know, election be damned. OK. Let's pursue that. If he were anyone else with these facts, and the voluminous document discovery that has just been made, would this case get tried before November of 2024? HONIG: No, it wouldn't. And I think that's a really important point here, Michael, if Donald Trump was just any old person charged with the classified documents case, here's the argument his lawyers made in briefs they filed this week. They said, we have been given 800,000 to plus documents in discovery. We have extensive motions to make, and you just laid them out. We have a constitutional right to prep for trial.

Now DOJ came back with what I think was an unconvincing response. They said, sure, we've given them over 800,000 documents. But we told them which 4,500 are the most important. Trump's team, your response to that is going to be thanks for the courtesy. But with all due respect, it's up to us, the Defense, to decide which documents we're going to use in the defense, and they have an obligation to go through all 800,000.

There's another really important point here. If we look at recent classified documents cases in the Federal system, Donald Trump's team cites to one took three years to get to trial. One took a year and a half to get to trial. Now DOJ cited two others on shorter time mainframes but none of them remotely close to the six months that we give Donald Trump between now and December. So if this plays out as DOJ is arguing, you've got the most important documents case we've ever had. And Donald Trump would be given the least amount of prep time anyone's ever been given.

[09:10:16]

SMERCONISH: Right. Bottom line, it will not be indicative of special treatment much to the contrary, if the case were to get to trial before Election Day. Quick answer if you if you can, how will Fani Willis impact that which you and I are discussing?

HONIG: Well, she seems very, very likely to indict. If she does that could factor into DOJ has calculation. There's a long-standing policy at DOJ that if conduct has been charged elsewhere, it doesn't mean you cannot charge it. But it is something you should consider in deciding whether it's necessary to bring a second charge that covers largely the same subject matter.

SMERCONISH: And one wonders if that is then in turn putting pressure on Jack Smith to hustle if he's going to do something anything relative to January 6.

HONIG: Right. Yes, lots of moving parts here. And by the way, if Jack Smith charges first, would Fani Willis would have to think about that. Gee, do I need to pile on the state charge now if he's already been charged federally for something relating to January 6th. It boggles the mind.

SMERCONISH: Oh, my God. Well, you couldn't -- you couldn't make it up. Hey, stay here for a second. Catherine, what do we have in terms of social media? I may need to lean on Elie for a little response here.

"We're as likely to have a trial as to who left the cocaine in the Whitehouse as to Trump facing a trial before the 2024 election." Obviously, Kelly Anne thinks there's not going to be an election -- a trial before 2024 November Election Day. And you agree with that your bottom line in answering my poll question is this isn't going to happen?

HONIG: Well -- well, let me -- let me throw this also into the mix. Let's not forget Manhattan. They actually have a trial date. This is the hush money pay out case, State Court, New York County. They have a trial scheduled and trial dates move but scheduled for late March of 2024. So that could go and -- and look, as much as I think it's very fraught for Jack Smith to try a case before 2024's election. It still could happen, Michael.

SMERCONISH: OK. Well, you're going to have to be more definitive when you go to smerconish.com. Thank you, Elie in answering today's poll question because this is the poll question. Will Donald Trump face any trial before Election Day 2024? Go vote.

Up ahead, can anything be done about the identity crisis among young American men? A recent Washington Post article on the topic was the site number one story for several days earlier this week. Its author Christine Emba joins me next along with a frequent guest of mine, who she quotes on the topic Professor Scott Galloway.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:36]

SMERCONISH: The most read piece at the Washington Post website for several days this week was not about our record here. It wasn't about the President's NATO trip or the election. It was an article by my next guest Christine Emba called Men are lost. Here's a map out of the wilderness. While admitting that yes, men still dominate business and politics and many other spheres of American life, Emba documents what she calls a widespread identity crisis.

Among her supporting statistics, men now receive only about 74 bachelor's degrees for every 100 women -- awarded to women with women becoming increasingly selective, more single young men now live with their parents than a romantic partner. Men account for almost three of every four deaths of despair either from suicide, alcohol abuse, or overdose. The person whose own this issue both on this program and most other forms of media is Professor G, Professor Scott Galloway, as Emba puts it before quoting him in the Washington Post piece, "On his podcast and in his newsletter, the author, entrepreneur and professor at New York University's Stern School of Business has made a specialty of talking about the crisis of unattached, rudderless young men, and helping them aspire to more."

Well, joining me now are Christine Emba, ideas columnist for the Washington Post. By the way, she wrote the recent book rethinking sex, a provocation. And Scott Galloway, his most recent book is Adrift, America in 100 Charts. Scott, when we first talked about this months ago, here on CNN, you actually thanked me for my willingness to discuss such you said controversial subject. So now I'm wondering whether Christine's coverage and the enormous reaction means that the nation is ready to have this dialogue. SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: This is -- this is a master class and how powerful journalism is. There's a lot of us out there and a lot of mothers and a lot of young men themselves and people such as yourself who had felt something and have been talking about it, and Richard Reeves really moved the ball forward with his landmark book of boys and men. But this one article, this sort of to -- to tour de force has inspired more dialogue, and emails and real serious conversation than anything that I've been exposed to over the last year.

So Christine, and her good work speaks for itself. And let me just say over the last couple of years, the conversation has gone from one that immediately inspires a gag reflex, where people sort of see compassion as a zero sum game and feel that if you're advocating for men, somehow that's misogynistic, or not recognizing the immense obstacles that non-whites and women still face to something much more -- much more positive. And also, we're beginning to crowd out the terrible, quite frankly, unproductive voices that fill this void that was created because people felt the problem and were talking about it but no one was addressing it. And then some terrible voices entered this void in Christine's work. And I think other work is starting to crowd out some of those thinly veiled misogynistic voices and have a more productive conversation. A long way of saying I agree with you, Michael, and Christine's done us all a real service.

SMERCONISH: Christine, what drew you to the subject matter and speak to the enormity of the reaction?

[09:20:00]

CHRISTINE EMBA, OPINION COLUMNIST, WASHINGTON POST: Yes, first of all, thank you so much for having me and thanks You Scott for your kind words I mean I'll speak to the enormity of the reaction first.

I have been overwhelmed by how quickly the piece is taken off and you know how many people seem -- it feels like people were sort of waiting for someone to finally say it so that they could begin to have the conversation that they had been worried about for months for years. And as Scott was saying, people are worried about their sons, their brothers, in some cases, their husbands, I get a good amount of email but I've never gotten this much email from a single piece before.

And, you know, we run our comments section, usually for three days. And the comments were shut down early because there were 10,500 comments on this one piece, which I cannot think of another article that's had that sort of response.

So it really does feel like people are -- are experiencing this in their lives. They're --they're seeing their male friends and loved ones struggle, look for direction and not know where to find it. And, you know what?

I -- I'll say that I -- I started thinking about this piece, actually you mentioned in my book, Rethinking Sex. That book was sort of an investigation of sexual and relationship culture after Me Too, trying to figure out whether sort of our changes in norms had worked for us if they had delivered what they promised. And I talked to a lot of young women for that book. But I also spoke to young men too. And it was from them that I found the most curious and saddening response. So many of them just seemed totally confused, you know, the sands had shifted beneath them, as Scott lays out frequently, the economy has shifted in a way that doesn't necessarily favor manual labor or skills where men used to dominate.

Women are succeeding more in college and elsewhere, which to be clear is a great thing. But young men didn't know what they were supposed to be doing or almost what they were for, should I talk to women, maybe I shouldn't talk to women anymore because that's seen as toxic somehow. So instead, they were just retreating. They were, you know, staying in their rooms. They were instead of trying to ask real personnel on a date, they were watching porn, to feel like they were, you know, getting their power back. They would begin to look up to these figures like, yes, Andrew Tate, for instance, or Jordan Peterson and they just -- they just don't know what to do.

SMERCONISH: Scott, a part of this that you've addressed is the lack of sex, right? These guys are not having the type of relationships that young men of a different era would be having.

GALLOWAY: Look, we don't like to talk about it. We hear the word sex and our brain fires a bunch of different places. But think of -- I mean the whole shooting match, the whole reason we have an economy, the whole reason we're focused on creating a more prosperous, secure nation is such that we can all recognize what is the key to a rewarding life. And that is a series have deep meaningful relationships and core to that are anchored to that. And I'm not saying you have to have this to be happy is a productive loving relationship with a partner. And you can look at the most unstable violent societies in the world and they all have one thing in common. They all have a disproportionate amount of young men who have no -- no economic opportunity and also have no opportunity for relationships.

And if we're going to have an honest conversation, we need to have an honest conversation. Sex and companionship are huge motivators and guardrails for young men. They put on a shirt, they blow dry their hair, they get their act together, they get a job. So the -- the attributes, the peanut butter and chocolate have behaviors between masculinity and femininity make for a better world. And again, that's not to say that people along the middle of that continuum don't deserve the same respect and the same dignity. But most households prosper when there are risk aggressive, rambunctious, more prone to action attributes of masculinity, in concert with more thoughtful and more loving femininity.

And when men aren't engaging in relationships with women and women can't find men they find, quite frankly, sexually attractive, we're in trouble. The greatest innovation in history wasn't the computer chip. It wasn't the iPhone. It was the middle class. And the thing that gave birth to the middle class was 7 million men returning from war who are given jobs and money and low interest loans, and quite frankly, demonstrated the heroics and the economic security to be very attractive to a lot of women and we had the baby boom. And the inspiration and the formation of the greatest enemy of good in the history of mankind, the American middle class.

Sex and companionship are key and one in three men under the age of 30 in the United States has not had sex in the last year and quite frankly, that as an adult is when they become bad citizens. It's no one's obligation to service them but we need more economically and more emotionally viable men such we can have more household formation.

[09:25:05]

SMERCONISH: Christine, you wrote a book on this a year ago. Is he right?

EMBA: I mean, I do think there's something to that. You know what? I think that one of the push backs that I've heard to this piece, and to this conception of, you know, men being last men needing more care, is the idea that there isn't anything specific, excuse me, about men, that, you know, we should all just be good people. That there isn't a particular sort of set of masculine attributes or something called manhood that men specifically should aspire to. And, you know, so they say, well, why are we focusing on them, we should -- we should kind of focus on -- on everyone. And I think that's -- it's a nice thing to think. And I do believe that everyone is equal. But we have to think about, you know, what we see in real life, realistically. There are attributes to being embodied as a man that are different than those that you see being embodied as a female and actually being a good person means paying attention to those attributes, cultivating them where they're necessary, and figuring out how to channel them into pro social roles. And we can be clear and say that there are many models for how to be a good man. There's not one kind of good man, you know.

But to actually aspired to be a good man is a good thing. And I think one of the places where, you know, sort of the progressive movement, especially has -- has sort of lost footing here is by constantly saying that masculinity is toxic. By constantly talking down to men, and you know, sort of suggesting that men are trash or men are scum, which is not aspirational, makes them feel resentful and eventually drives them to seek role models who, you know, sympathize with them, and give them a path forward. It might not be a good path, in the case of someone like Andrew Tate. But when it comes to looking for a model, if the choice is between nothing being offered or you're a bad person being offered. And hey, you're great men are great. They're definitely going to choose the latter.

And we're seeing this in polling actually, especially in Gen Z, and we can see how this is going to become a political problem. Right now fewer than 50 percent of Gen Z men say that feminism has been a good thing for America. So we're already seeing this resentment coming from lack of relationships, lack of support, lack of positive role models, and it is really going to rip down -- down the line.

SMERCONISH: Christine, thank you for writing the piece. Scott, take 30 seconds and talk about solutions give me -- give me a note on which to end.

GALLOWAY: Red shirt young man start them at six in kindergarten, they mature later, their prefrontal cortex matures, 12 to 24 months later. More vocational training. 50 percent of Germans have vocational certification. It's 5 percent in the United States. More freshmen seats such that we can have not only more non whites, more women but also more young in terms of the great opportunity our elite universities offer. More third spaces so people can meet national service so people can meet other people from different -- different economic backgrounds, different sexual orientations, and also different romantic partners. Also, also, men like you and me, Michael getting involved in young

men's lives. The single point of failure, we can reverse engineer all of this, too, is when a young man no longer has a male role model. So in sum and where I believe it is if we want better men, we need to be better men and get more involved in our lives.

SMERCONISH: Thank you both. That was excellent. I need to go home and watch the tape because you offered so much that I don't want to miss a thing. Thank you, Christine. Thank you, Scott. Good to see you both.

Social media reaction, Catherine quickly, what do we have from the world of Twitter? Why don't men spend the precious time they have on earth working to make the world a better place for all rather than obsessing about their delicate manhood and their masculinity?

Peggy, you're kind of kicking sand in the face of -- of some of the deep seated issues that the men they were describing our deal with. I get the impression you're not taking seriously the feeling of being adrift or how they feel they've been left behind. And by the way, there's another whole conversation to be had on a different day about the political implications of what we just discussed and who exactly is filling this void. But I don't think that this is an issue limited to just any one sector of men, among us. To be continued, as I like to say.

Please make sure you're going to smerconish.com this hour and voting on this week's poll question. By the way, there's a poll question every day, register for the newsletter when you're there, and you'll get it every day in your inbox. Will Donald Trump face any trial before Election Day 2024?

[09:30:00]

Still to come, everybody thinks that America's homeless population is out of control but with too few beds to house them all. And nobody seems to know how to solve the situation. OK. I'm going to step forward with a proposal in just a moment. And 3,500 miles from San Francisco is an area of Honduras, where public displays of support for the American Bay City are common place. But might that affinity be tied to drugs and not sport franchises?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Last week, I discussed a contentious decision from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which limited a city's response to homelessness, where there is not an available bed for those lacking shelter. This is one of the most important and fraught issues of our time now too often associated with resignation despite many good intentions. [09:35:04]

Roughly 600,000 Americans are homeless on any given night, perhaps 200,000 of them are in California but just about every big city in the United States has a significant homeless population. While every story is different, there are common denominators. Many homeless are mentally ill, many are drug addicted, some are both, some are neither mentally ill nor drug abusers but simply cannot afford a place to live because they have no job or because the cost of housing is so high that even with a job, they can't afford shelter.

The Ninth Circuit requirement that there be a bed before cities can remove homeless from public spaces, it presents a practical issue. When cities have announced that they will shelter all the homeless, they become a magnet for more homeless, that was Portland's experience. Perhaps, as a result, cities won't announce a public policy of housing every homeless person. And so, we're left with the Catch-22 where cities and states are locked at a relentless cycle of being forced to accept the unacceptable. By now it's clear that homelessness will never solve itself.

So, here's a proposal, one that requires national will and investment. Every major city should offer shelter to those who live on the street. Not a big home, not a Manhattan hotel just basic shelter be it a tiny house, a converted apartment, dormitory style living or a converted correctional facility or otherwise. But it comes with conditions.

The formerly homeless person must accept drug counseling if they are addicted, they must accept mental health services if they are mentally ill, and they must work or look for a job if they are able-bodied. And if they don't do these things and they returned to the street, despite the availability of shelter, they can and should be arrested for they will no longer be homeless.

No one should be allowed to live in the public spaces of our cities. Yes, it will be expensive but still probably cheaper to provide supportive housing and treatment than to permit homelessness and all that goes with it from medical emergencies to long hospitalizations, from violent crime to lengthy incarcerations, and the decline of our downtowns.

If just a few cities sign on, then each will bear a huge burden and other cities will be relative free riders. So, this is only going to work if all our big cities and their states agree to join a compact. Ultimately, it might be cheaper and certainly it will be more humane to solve this problem now and together. So, who will be first?

I want to remind you to answer today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will Donald Trump face any trial before Election Day 2024?

And up next, a recent investigation by the "San Francisco Chronicle" reveals why at least this one American sanctuary city is proving attractive to foreign drug dealers. Here's what Mayor London Breed said answering a question about the city's spike in overdoses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR LONDON BREED (D), SAN FRANCISCO: Unfortunately, a lot of people who come from a particular country -- who come from Honduras, and a lot of the people who are dealing drugs happen to be of that ethnicity.

Recently, my words were very hurtful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:27]

SMERCONISH: A visitor might easily mistake Siria Valley, Honduras, for a sister city to San Francisco. Because, after all, there are children sporting Steph Curry jerseys, cars with bumper stickers promoting the baseball Giants, even some lavish gates on mansions emblazoned with the 49ers' logo. But the relationship between this cluster of villages 3,500 miles southeast of the Bay City, is far more unfamiliar.

According to a voluminous report this week in the "San Francisco Chronicle" -- quote -- "The valley is also the hometown of a high concentration of people who, fleeing poverty and a country with one of the world's highest murder rates, migrate to San Francisco, where they ultimately sell drugs, according to an 18-month investigation by The Chronicle."

In San Francisco, since 2022, more than 200 Honduran migrants have been charged with dealing drugs. Roughly the same time period in which overdoses fueled by fentanyl claim more than 2,200 lives, 346 this year as of the end of May. That number does not include Honduran dealers who were previously convicted or never arrested.

Many of the Hondurans responsible for dealing drugs in San Francisco come from the same families and have often grown up together. Quote -- "While some current and former dealers said they struggled to eke out a living, others who sell drugs successfully told The Chronicle, they can make as much as $350,000 a year or even more if they help run a local operation. At least some of that money is then sent back to the valley's villages, where it is fueling a real estate boom."

The sophisticated and wealthy drug dealing network from Honduras has taken advantage of San Francisco's sanctuary city status befuddling local law enforcement and contributing to the scourge of a city in decline. What to do about the Honduran connection? That's a key issue as a major city election now looms in 2024.

Joining me now is "The Chronicles'" lead writer and co-author of this piece, Megan Cassidy. Megan, we show that photograph of the Honduran gate, the 49er gate. How prevalent is San Francisco, what would I say, insignia, or iconography, and why?

MEGAN CASSIDY, CRIME REPORTER, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: It's very prevalent in this area, particularly in one village that we went to called El Pedernal. When my partner Gabrielle and I were there, it really became, you know, kind of an I spy game that, oh, there's a Warriors t-shirt. There's a 49ers gate. There were -- every once in a while, a few other logos from the Denver Broncos or the University of Utah but San Francisco was by far, the most prevalent.

[09:45:08]

SMERCONISH: OK. So, is it an acknowledgement of sorts that, you know, they are involved? It seems rather braggadocious.

CASSIDY: It is an acknowledgment and we know this because we spoke to some of the people who have built these houses and who own them. There is one that actually has the word civic center on it as well. And civic center is an area where a lot of the open-air drug dealing takes place.

SMERCONISH: Earlier in the program, I ran a clip of Mayor London Breed, initially talking about -- openly talking about the Honduran connection and then kind of taking her words back. What did you make of that? It seems to me like she was right the first time.

CASSIDY: Yes. You know, I talked to Mayor Breed for this story and I talked to some of her critics for this story. And from my understanding is that, you know, she had a very limited amount of time to speak in that interview, and didn't include all of the context that was needed.

It's kind of been very -- it has been acknowledged in this city for a few years now that a large concentration of people who deal drugs here are from Honduras but it really has never been deeply explored before. And I think that, you know, her saying that was kind of an impetus for us to really try to explore this issue as well.

SMERCONISH: Look, it's a -- it's a two-part writing, and it's complicated and there's a lot going on. But certainly, one of the takeaways is that they are exploiting, the Hondurans are exploiting the sanctuary city status of San Francisco. So often the United States gets cast as the imperialist, the colonialists who are taking advantage. In this case it's like a reversal, at least that's what I took away. What do you make of my reaction?

CASSIDY: That honestly was not my takeaway. I saw this as so many issues combined and kind of just creating this perfect storm. You know, when I talked to most of the dealers, we talked to 25 of them, that most of the people just say, oh, I came here because my cousin was here or I came here because my sister was here. And a lot of the dealers are pretty young. And so, the infrastructure is just there. It's setup.

What we heard though from some of the older dealers, some of the veterans, who were -- you know, had had the time to think about this big picture, that is what they said. Is that, yes, in San Francisco, we have these sanctuary policies. You know, we -- like in other places we may get picked up by ICE and then go to jail for longer and then maybe get deported. But we do -- but we get out of jail after -- we go to jail for -- SMERCONISH: Right, I mean they operate -- tell me if I'm wrong but they operate with impunity. They operate with the knowledge that there might be some punishment but it's going to be short-term, and not severe if they are caught dealing in San Francisco.

CASSIDY: Sure, I mean, that is -- that is true of any dealer in San Francisco. We are -- San Francisco is a really progressive city. They've enacted a lot of criminal justice reforms. And some of them do -- like bail reform, people do typically get out of jail while they await trial. And sometimes, people do use that opportunity to commit more crimes.

Many don't. Many also go to diversion programs but we have -- I think it's either six or seven percent of the people who are charged with drug dealing crimes get convicted for drug dealing crimes. The rest go to diversion programs, or take a plea bargain, or they (INAUDIBLE).

SMERCONISH: Megan, well done. Gabrielle Lurie gets a shot out, too. Your co-author on this piece did a terrific job. And I hope there will be more, and I encourage people to read it so thank you.

CASSIDY: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction. Quickly, what do we have on this story? Without a buyer this all comes to a screeching halt.

Yes. I mean, I get it, but unfortunately there are a lot of buyers out there. You know, push rewind and watch what I had to say about the homeless issue in the last segment. No doubt, they deserve treatment.

But -- like to look at the images of the Steph Curry jerseys and the Giant bumper stickers and the, you know, San Francisco, it's not that they just love the San Francisco 49ers, it's that this is their gravy train and they are brazen about it. Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments.

[09:50:01]

And we will give you the final result of this week's poll question. Have you voted yet? Please go now to Smerconish.com. Sign up for the newsletter and cast a ballot. Is Donald Trump going to face any trial before Election Day 2024?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: All right. There's the result of this week's poll question at -- interesting. Decisive. Will Donald Trump face any trial before Election Day 2024?

Let's call it two-thirds say, yes, of more than 28,000 at least as of now who have already voted. I'm in the minority. It might be Manhattan. Let's see some social media reaction.

[09:55:00]

What do we have, Catherine? Real quick. Why shouldn't all defendants be treated the same?

OK, Eric Swenson, here is the thing, and you heard this from Elie Honig. People say -- many people say election be damned, treat them like anybody else. Well, if it were anybody else, according to Elie, given the complexity of the federal action, that case wouldn't get to trial until beyond November of 2024.

So, if you -- if you hold Trump accountable in a court of law before that time period, you're probably treating him differently in a worse way. That wouldn't be right, either.

Bottom line is this, maybe the Manhattan case gets to trial, the federal case will not, or cases, we'll see, and that's probably the right answer. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)