Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Is Jack Smith Accelerating Cases Due To Election Calendar?; Reconstructing Gaza in Post Israel-Hamas War; Sex Scandal Embroils Florida GOP. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 16, 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]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Roberts show at the Stephen Freidman Gallery in New York City runs through December 23. Finally, today, two new teams facing off in the celebration bowl, actually right next door right here in Atlanta. This will be the eighth year of the game featuring top football programs at historically black colleges and universities. This year, my Howard Bison are going against some team in Florida. I shouldn't say it.

It's Florida A&M. So, fam congratulations to you for making it. But you know who's going to win. They are now at the celebration bowl making their debut. Good luck to the rattlers. But when it comes to the winner, hey, it's you. If you know, you know.

Thanks for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 08:00 a.m. Smerconish is up next.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: There's an election coming, but you'll never hear Jack Smith say so. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

The Supreme Court is about to have more influence on the outcome of a presidential election than at any time since the 2000 decision in Bush versus Gore. And that's for a couple of reasons. First, Monday, Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the court to bypass the appellate level and make a decision now about whether Donald Trump is entitled to immunity for alleged criminal acts committed while he was president. And separately, this week SCOTUS agreed to hear a challenge to a law used to prosecute hundreds of January 6 defendants for obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, which could impact Smith's prosecution against Trump on those charges. Here's what's interesting to me, nowhere in the government's petition is there any specific reference to the 2024 presidential election, but that's clearly what is driving Smith's request.

In making his case, here's what he told the court, quote, "This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy, whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

The justices have already agreed to fast track Smith's request that they decide if a ruling is now appropriate. Trump's lawyers have until next Thursday to respond. As noted in the petition, Trump is scheduled to begin trial before the Honorable Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. District Court on March 4, 2024. Well, the following day, March 5, is Super Tuesday. Republican voters in 15 states including California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia will cast their nomination ballots on that day. If that trial date stands, it means Trump's case will be heard seven months after his indictment in contrast to many January 6 defendants who will have had nearly two years to prepare for trial. And in Trump's case, his lawyers estimate that there are 13 million pages in the discovery process.

Here's how Smith justified his expedited request. There was a heading in his petition. It said this case warrants this court's immediate review. And he offers this argument in reference to Supreme Court rule 11, "A writ of certiorari before judgment is appropriate when the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this court."

As to why the rush? Here's what Smith wrote, "If appellate review of the decision below were to proceed through the ordinary process in the court of appeals, the pace of review may not result in a final decision for many months, even if the decision arrives sooner, the timing of such a decision might prevent this court from hearing and deciding the case this term." What does that mean? It means Trump could win the election and order all charges be dropped or self-pardon ending this prosecution forever. Which explains why the coming election is the Voldemort of the legal request.

Smith no doubt recognizes that there's already a perception among many voters that this prosecution and the other three criminal prosecutions as well as the New York civil fraud case and the several efforts to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment are all providing Trump with a political benefit. How else to explain that in the latest Iowa poll from the Des Moines Register, Trump has 51 percent of the Republican vote. His next competitor is Ron DeSantis, with only 19 percent followed by Nikki Haley with only 16 percent. Or that according to CNN polling in a head-to-head with President Biden, Trump leads by 10 points in Michigan and five in Georgia. A core principle of the DOJ is to never act in a way that will be perceived as political especially within 60 days of an election.

[09:05:02]

Question, is Jack Smith being political when he acts with an eye toward the election calendar as is plainly the case here? Or is he simply fulfilling his role as a prosecutor who wants to ensure that a case that he's worked up actually gets to a jury? That is the Rorschach test. And now Smith faces a bigger obstacle than accusations of politicization, the delay and even possible dismantling of his case while SCOTUS reviews the immunity and obstruction charges.

As "The New York Times" reported this week, "The obstruction count was never a good fit for what happened on January 6. It was originally passed as part of a corporate governance law that forbade things like destroying documents or tampering with witnesses. But prosecutors used it in lieu of more politically contentious charges, like insurrection or sedition to describe how the mob disrupted the election certification at the Capitol. If the Supreme Court rules that the statute was improperly stretched to cover Trump's involvement in that disruption, it would be bad news for the government. Indeed, it could cripple Smith's attempts to pin the violence of January 6 on Trump."

Amidst the dispute about the timing of the immunity case, Judge Chutkan has issued an order that, quote, "Further proceedings that would move this case called (ph) trial will be paused until the appellate issues are resolved," which is exactly what Donald Trump wants. Like so much else in this election cycle. It is complicated. It is unprecedented. It is unpredictable.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Will Donald Trump face any criminal trial before Election Day?

Joining me now is Elie Honig, the CNN legal analyst, former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and author most recently of the book "Untouchable, How Powerful People Get Away With It."

Elie, so great to have you here. Do you agree with me that Smith and judge Chutkan are acting based on the election schedule?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I do agree with you, Michael. And I think any fair-minded observer has to agree with that as well. Just look at Jack Smith's conduct in this case, the motivating principle behind every procedural request he's made has been speed, has been getting this trial in before the election. Let's take a couple examples. The trial date, the average federal conspiracy and fraud trial takes about a year and a half to two years between indictment and trial.

In this case, we have dozens, hundreds of January 6 rioters caught on video straightforward cases they two were given about a year and a half to two years between indictment and trial. Jack Smith originally requested a trial date for Donald Trump a far more complex case five months out, he wanted a January trial it was set for two months later. So Donald Trump was being given far less time to prepare than other defendants. And the actions this week, Jack Smith won an argument on immunity in the district court and then went right to the Supreme Court. I think the right move, I think the smart move.

The only reason you ask the Supreme Court to do that on an expedited basis is if you're racing against the clock and Jack Smith clearly is doing that here.

SMERCONISH: OK. I referred to the election as the Voldemort of the petition that he filed. Why not say that? Why not simply say there's an election on the horizon, and I'm afraid this guy's going to get away.

HONIG: You will never hear either Jack Smith or Judge Chutkan utter the E word, election. They will not specifically say it. Instead they use this sort of euphemistic language about the need for resolution, that kind of thing. Here's why I think Jack Smith is not willing to do it. Two reasons, first of all, DOJ rules unwritten and written both say you are not supposed to do anything that could impact an election. In fact, you're supposed to affirmatively try not to take steps that might impact an election. And the second thing and I think Jack Smith is right about this is if he is to say, OK, judge, we really need to try this case before the election. Donald Trump is going to seize on that aggressively.

He's going to say, see, folks, when I tell you this is political, Jack Smith is now admitted that he wants me tried before the election and that's political. So I think he's very wary of that.

SMERCONISH: OK. So then evaluate the -- we agree, we agree that he is acting, Judge Chutkan is acting with an eye toward the election calendar. Now I want to hear Elie Honig assess the propriety of him doing exactly what he's doing. Because on one hand, you could say, well, he's being political. On the other hand, I guess you would say, Elie, like you probably back in the day, he's an aggressive prosecutor. He's worked the case up, he wants to get before a jury.

HONIG: Right. I don't like the artifice here. I don't like the game playing the wordsmanship that we're seeing. I think Jack Smith ought to just come out and say it or not. Here's the arguments both ways.

First of all, if Jack Smith is trying to get this case tried before the election, and he clearly is, look that is political. I mean, the counter argument would be, well, Jack Smith just wants the American voters to have resolution before they go to the ballot box. And I understand that. As a voter I would like to know.

[09:10:08]

But here's the problem with that argument, Michael, Jack Smith doesn't just want to get this trial done and let the chips fall where they may and let the consequences be what they can be, he's the prosecutor. He believes this case. He wants this case, to result in conviction. And so, his position isn't just, well, I want this case tried before the election. His position really as a practical matter is I want Donald Trump convicted before the election.

I have no problem with the first part of that it's his job to want and try to convict Donald Trump now that he's indicted. But the second part of that before the election, that's where it crosses the line to the political in my view.

SMERCONISH: Elie, ChatGPT tells me, so take it perhaps with a grain of salt that between January 6 and today is 1074 days, the point needs to be made, that if Smith is now racing against the clock, I argue he had a big window to bring his case a hell of a lot sooner than he actually did, and wouldn't now be facing the time constraint.

HONIG: So I don't see this as Jack Smith's fault. It took him about seven, eight months to indict. I see this as Merrick Garland's fault. Merrick Garland, waisted --

SMERCONISH: OK.

HONIG: -- about a year and a half, two years before he got serious and appointed Jack Smith. But you're absolutely right, Michael, we are now in this calendar crunch. DOJ, we're about to turn the corner into 2024. They're trying to cram in these trials. And it's looking increasingly like we're only going to get maybe one trial. If that, the analogy I would make is this for what DOJ did, if you lived a half hour away from the airport, and you had a 04:00 flight, it's like leaving your house at 3:15 p.m., you are leaving yourself with no wiggle room if things go wrong, and things always do.

This is what happened with DOJ, they waited two years before they got serious and appointed Jack Smith. He moved fairly quickly. But the fact of the matter is, by the time they dropped this indictment, they had wasted two and a half years leaving themselves with almost no wiggle room.

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: And now we're feeling that crunch on the calendar.

SMERCONISH: Speaking of time crunch, I'm limited on time, but say something about the merit or lack thereof of Trump's immunity claim.

HONIG: I think Trump has what we would call a puncher's chance to succeed here in the Supreme Court. I think he's less than 50 percent likely to succeed. I think he's got more than a 10 percent chance to succeed. He could get lucky. Look, this is a six to three conservative Supreme Court, they've ruled against him in the past.

I think he's going to have Thomas and Alito and maybe Gorsuch in his corner. I think the three liberal justices will be against him. And it's going to turn out what Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts do. And they've shown an ability to sort of go either way on these type of issues. So, I think Trump has a chance. I think he's unlikely to succeed.

SMERCONISH: I'm so glad that you were here today, because, A, I always enjoy your expertise. But I wanted to frame this and just let people know, because I don't think it's been sufficiently addressed what's coming. There is potentially a Supreme Court decision. We don't know yet if they're going to make a decision on the merits. But come what, January or February that potentially is going to rock this election. Final word from you.

HONIG: Yes, two of them. Michael, there's the immunity decision. There's also an obstruction decision, which could badly cripple Jack Smith's case going forward.

SMERCONISH: Yes, yes.

HONIG: Could knock out the two top charges in this case. So you're right. I think we are going to see decisions that are going to be right up there with Bush versus Gore in terms of importance. It feels like procedural wrangling, but it's so much more than that.

SMERCONISH: Elie Honig, happy holidays. Thank you, as always.

HONIG: You too. Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Make sure you're voting@smerconish.com on today's poll question. Will Donald Trump face any criminal trial before Election Day? I think now that you've heard Elie's analysis, you're in a better position to go and vote.

From the world of X formerly known as Twitter, what do we have Katherine (ph)? Any criminal trial won't matter unless Trump loses in 2024. So it's up to the voters now. Why? I think it will matter. I mean, the odds are stacked so overwhelmingly against there being a camera in the courtroom because the federal courts typically don't permit it although a request has been made.

I think CNN is a part of that petition. I'm not sure. But if there were cameras in that courtroom and all networks, which I'm sure they would, clear the deck and showed that trial, it could then have an impact on the outcome of the election. Otherwise, I agree with your observation.

OK. Still to come, two of Ron DeSantis's Florida GOP allies were exposed to a participated in a three way, I'll say, liaison that some see as being at odds with their promotion of family values. DeSantis called for Florida GOP chair, Christian Ziegler, to step down, he refused. And his wife, Bridget, refuses to step down from the Sarasota school board. Will the governor who endorsed her remover?

Plus, even if Israel succeeds in eradicating Hamas and ends the war, Thomas Friedman of "The New York Times" just back from the Middle East is worried about what comes the morning after the morning after. He's here to explain.

[09:15:11]

The war is the subject of Rob Rogers's exclusive editorial cartoon for smerconish.com, the newsletter. Check this out, The cartoon legends are one of the favorite subscriber Benny's that you get if you sign up and it's free.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: If Israel fulfills its mission in eradicating Hamas and puts an end to the war, then what? Who pick up the pieces and rebuild a functioning government? CNN's Clarissa Ward filed an amazing insightful report from inside Gaza this week after bearing witness to the devastating wreckage of buildings and infrastructure destroyed from the war and visiting a field hospital established by the United Arab Emirates.

And on Friday, the IDF said it accidentally shot and killed three Israeli hostages who were shirtless and waving a white flag in Gaza. U.S. officials say Israel is transitioning into another phase of the war that's focused more on precise attacks against Hamas leaders. This comes after President Biden warned that Israel is losing international support. [09:20:05]

As the destruction and civilian death toll in Gaza continues to rise, it's unclear how much it would cost to rebuild Gaza with no ceasefire in sight. My next guest argues that no Arab nation, European Union member or lawmakers on Capitol Hill will support funding a reconstruction of Gaza unless Israel has committed to a two state solution. Here's what the Israeli ambassador to the U.K. said on that issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK AUSTIN, SKY NEWS REPORTER: With it without offering --

TZIPI HOTOVELY, ISRAEL AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED KINGDEM: Mark --

AUSTIN: -- state to Palestine? How can --

HOTOVELY: Mark.

AUSTIN: -- there be peace in Israel?

HOTOVELY: Israel knows today and the world should know now. The reason the Oslo Accords failed is because the Palestinians never wanted to have a state next to Israel. They want to have a state from the river to the sea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So without the foundation of a two state solution, what is there left to build from the rubble and ashes inside Gaza? In his latest piece, "New York Times," Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas Friedman writes, "Israel has skilled (ph) and wounded -- has killed and wounded 1000s of innocent Gazan civilians. Hamas knew this would happen and did not care a whit, Israel must. It will inherit responsibility for a gigantic humanitarian disaster that will require a global coalition yours to fix and manage.

Joining me now is the three time Pulitzer Prize winning "New York Times" columnist and author of seven bestselling books, including, "Thank you for Being Late. And from Beirut to Jerusalem," Thomas Friedman.

Tom, thank you for coming back. I read the most recent column couldn't help but conclude that this is all going according to plan for Hamas. Am I right? And please explain.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, 3-TIME PULITZER PRIZE WINNER: Well, thank you for having me, Michael. Yes, I believe from the very beginning, Hamas's goal, Iran's goal has always been to enmesh Israel as deeply as possible in Gaza, and the West Bank, in fact. They think as long as Israel is enmeshed in Gaza and the West Bank, it will be an economic disaster, a moral disaster and militarily huge problem. They want Israel overstretch. That's the Iranian objective here, morally, economically and physically. Obviously, Israel faced a huge military dilemma after the attacks, the barbarism of the attack. But you know, from the very beginning, I argued that Israel should ask what its worst enemies wanted to do, and do the opposite. But unfortunately, it went in now it's in extremely deeply. It's committed to ultimately taking over all of Gaza.

And what I was arguing the last piece is that if you're going to control, if 7 million Jews are going to control 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza, without any a political horizon, we're not talking about a new state tomorrow, but without a political horizon, you will never get the international support. You need to maintain that. And you'll be isolated, and ultimately, economically, militarily, and morally overstretched. So, that's been my concern.

SMERCONISH: I found very interesting -- you are having just returned from Saudi Arabia to share the perspective that you heard from the Saudis that they worry a whole new generation is being radicalized. I wonder whether the Biden administration has that as a paramount concern.

FRIEDMAN: Well, I would say two things, Michael. First of all, let's start from 30,000 feet. What's actually been going on in the world? What's happening in the world is that Ukraine has been trying to join the west and Israel was trying to join the east through normalization with Saudi Arabia, which would open the way to the rest of the Muslim world. Russia and Iran and Hamas understood that, and they've been seeking to block both.

So that's the sort of the geopolitical frame here. And it seems to me that we need a counter strategy to that. Now the Saudis are ready to go ahead. Obviously, you know, it depends how the war ends, but they're still committed to a security alliance with the United States and normalization with Israel. But they understand, you know, this is the first sort of omnichannel war, it has a deep military component, it has a deep digital component.

And I would argue that while Israel may be winning on the physical component, Hamas has basically lowered it into radicalizing a whole new generation around the world that was not either emotionally or politically involved in this issue, including in the Arab world. Now in the Arab world is very complicated, because you also have a lot of young Arabs who are really focused on developing their own countries now. They're fed up with the Palestinian question, but they also are deeply wounded by emotionally what's going on in Gaza and they're affected by it. And so you've got all these conflicting emotions going on today, you know, across, I would say, the Arab world.

SMERCONISH: Tom, given the current composition of the Israeli war cabinet how much leverage does the Biden administration even have today? This growing rift continues to garner more and more headlines. It seems like Netanyahu has completely, my words, not yours, sold out to those extreme forces that around him. What position does that put Biden in?

[09:25:22] FRIEDMAN: Those are my words, not yours, I would say, because I totally agree. Look, Israel cannot win this war with Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister holding the position politically that he's holding, which is that he will not talk about any kind of, forget Palestinian state, any kind of political horizon for the Palestinians after this war. And again, no one expects a state to be born tomorrow. But it's sitting down, figuring out what the Palestinians need, they need to get their act together. The PA is a corrupt, ineffective organization, for both Palestinian reasons and Israeli reasons, quite frankly, things Israel has done, but also much more with Palestinians have done.

We need a new PA. We need a new legitimate moderate Palestinian Authority. That can only come I believe, with help from Israel, from the UAE, from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt, from Jordan. That effective PA can be the answer to a lot of questions, Michael. It can be the answer to who can govern Gaza, first in partnership and then later alone with Israel, they're not going to withdraw overnight.

And ultimately, who can be the partner for a two state solution? It's not going to happen overnight. But if your position, which is Netanyahu's position, he is to run against Joe Biden. That's what Netanyahu is doing. He's running against Joe Biden, because Biden is calling for that kind of PA.

You're never going to have the American partner, the global partner, you need Israel for transitioning out of Gaza. You will end up with 7 million Jews controlling 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank, 2 million in Gaza alone, and that is politically unsustainable.

SMERCONISH: And Tom, finally, I have a Colin Powell Pottery Barn question. I'm going to put up on the screen. A lot of comments were appended to your most recent column, as is often the case, this was the number one column when I read. And this is how -- this was the number one comment, and it begins this way, "Let's be real. Israel broke Gaza, Israel should pay to rebuild it.

Why should they expect American taxpayers or Gulf oil states to pay to repair what they have broken." In the end, who pays?

FRIEDMAN: Well, in the end, I'm sure everyone's going to have to pay something. Israel is going to pay something, the U.N. is going to pay something, America is going to pay something. You know, I'm the author of "The Pottery Barn Rule" not Colin Powell. And Israel did break it, but actually they broke it after Hamas broke it vis-a-vis Israel. So I think getting into that infinite regress isn't really helpful.

My point, Michael, is the focus right now is not to describe the problem, it's to think about creative solutions. There's a lot of people ready to invest. It's not just donation, invest in a creative solution. And Israel at peace with Gaza in the West Bank would it be a huge economic, political, social boon for the entire region. It could be the keystone to a new Middle East.

SMERCONISH: OK. Going forward, I'm going to say as repeated by Colin Powell, the Tom Friedman Pottery Barn Rule says, you broke it, you bought it. Thank you, Tom.

FRIEDMAN: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Happy holidays. Appreciate your being here.

FRIEDMAN: You too, Michael. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Let's see what you're saying via social media. Katherine, what do we have from the world of X, I think? The Israeli war is never going to end in our lifetime. There's no -- I hope that's wrong. There is no scenario where either side, or more importantly the powers that feed off the conflict will allow anything, but an immediate cessation of hostilities -- but an intermediate cessation of hostilities. So plans for peace are irrelevant and pointless.

PAPAJACKSDCA, what I found most encouraging about Thomas Friedman's most recent column, which I recommend everybody read is that, despite all that's transpired since 10/7, despite all the images that we're seeing, despite all of the bloodshed on both sides, and I'm not establishing moral equivalency, the Arab world loosely defined. Still wants to see a two state solution and get this all behind us. There might actually be opportunity amidst all of the ugliness. So let's hope that he's right. But that requires a two state commitment from Israel. That right now is not forthcoming.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com. Vote on today's poll question. I addressed this with Elie Honig earlier in the program. Will Donald Trump face any criminal trial before Election Day?

Up ahead, in Florida, the head of the state GOP Christian Ziegler and his wife Bridget who co-authored, by the way the state's Parents Bill of Rights, were exposed to be in a three way arrangement with a woman who now accuses Christian of having separately her. He has not been charged. Will the ongoing scandal force Governor DeSantis to remove his close political ally from the Sarasota school board?

[09:30:00]

And I want to remind you, when you vote on today's poll question, sign up for the free newsletter at Smerconish.com. You're going to find exclusive content from award-winning political cartoonists. How about this from two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Breen? Poison Ivy, it's titled.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: So, how will Ron DeSantis respond to calls that he fire a school board member who participated in menage a trois and happens to be married to the chair of the state Republican Party?

This week all four of Bridget Ziegler's fellow Sarasota school board members called for the resignation of Ziegler who is, by the way, co- founder of the conservative group Moms for Liberty.

[09:35:01] The reason relates to circumstances surrounding an investigation of her husband, Florida GOP chair Christian Ziegler, who is being accused of rape by another woman. He has not been charged. And Bridget has not been accused of any criminal wrong doing.

Here's the back story. According to an affidavit obtained by CNN, a woman told police that on October 2nd, there was a planned sexual encounter between her and both Christian and Bridget Ziegler. Bridget cancelled leading the other woman to also cancel, but Christian still showed up at the woman's home.

The woman says that she told Christian she was -- quote -- "Not in a place to consent because she had been drinking tequila all day." But she says he nevertheless had sex with her and she later called her sister and said that she had been raped.

Christian Ziegler says the encounter was consensual and has refused requests to step down including from Governor Ron DeSantis. His lawyer says that he will be exonerated. So, why has this one-time private life choice touched a particular public nerve?

In Bridget's interview with detectives, she admitted that the couple had a previous three-way sexual encounter with the woman over a year ago and that it only happened one time. And her group, Moms for Liberty, has led efforts in the state and beyond to remove books from classrooms they deem inappropriate for kids including those with LGBTQ themes.

Bridget also helped author Florida's Parents' Bill of Rights, which Governor DeSantis signed in 2022, and DeSantis appointed her to the board that manages Disney's special tax district. In the past, Bridget has said this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIDGET ZIEGLER, CO-FOUNDER, MOMS FOR LIBERTY: Know who their candidates are for school board, know where they stand and hold them accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: At this week's Sarasota school board meeting outside of which one protester held up a sign reading don't say three-way, Bridget rejected calls to resign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZIEGLER: As people may know, I serve on another public board and this issue did not come up, and we were able to forge ahead with the business of the board.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: She can't be recalled and the board doesn't have the power to remove her, only Governor DeSantis can do that. And it's unclear whether he will take action against his longtime ally. I should mention, we reached out to Bridget Ziegler to appear on the program and did not hear back.

Joining me now, however, is Tom Edwards. He's the only Democratic member of the Sarasota school board. He sent a letter to the governor warning Bridget Ziegler's continued presence on the board is going to be a profound distraction from their work.

OK. On what basis do you think that Governor DeSantis, Tom, should remove Mrs. Ziegler?

TOM EDWARDS, SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER: Well, quite frankly, the details of the investigation are reason enough to justify the distraction that he himself feels his party chair brings to the state of Florida.

I am focused solely on student achievement and academic outcomes, and this distraction that Mrs. Ziegler and the details of that investigation bring are exactly a distraction, even though she's not being accused of anything illegal. Nonetheless, the hypocrisy joined into the details of the investigation just clearly means that the school board is going to have great difficulty trying to do the work for the students.

SMERCONISH: OK. Not to be too prurient, but is it necessarily hypocrisy?

EDWARDS: Listen, I'm not in the business of judging what people do in the privacy of their homes. I am in the business of overseeing academic achievement and student outcomes, as I mentioned. Everything that Mrs. Ziegler will say moving forward will fall under the scrutiny of, can it be trust trusted? Is it hypocritical or is it political?

And then the next thing is that her colleagues on the board who voted side by side with her in just about every instance really brings into question the trust of the entire board. And so, my fear is that it will be a constant distraction from what we're there to accomplish.

SMERCONISH: There is a perception that I want to discuss with you. I talked about this on my radio program. And I was surprised by the number of callers who said, well, those books ought to be banned. And the perception is that there are books widespread, accessible to students all across America depicting, among other thing, oral sex.

Are there books that we need to be worried about our kids having access to at a young age? Is that what she has banned?

EDWARDS: OK. So, let's back up a second. I think everybody is in agreement that in the initial Don't Say Gay bill, the law was drafted to say, we didn't want to discuss sexual orientation or gender in K-3. I don't think anyone has an argument about that, but frankly, that was never, ever happening.

[09:40:04]

And we didn't need a law to prevent that from happening but it created the chaos and the dust-up around the LGBTQ plus community. And furthermore, here's what I really want to say is the hypocrisy of what Mrs. Ziegler has done is the low-hanging fruit.

What really has happened is that students' self-esteem and their mental health has been seriously wounded and damaged. Because while they are in the formative years, they heard Don't Say Gay. And so, while you're discovering your identity in the world, you're attacked by that very entity.

And, by the way, that happened to Black children. Whitewashing Black history, stop WOKE, the benefits of slavery. And if you're Black and gay you have it to the third power.

SMERCONISH: Tom, I want to make sure I ask you this. I watched a local Florida report. I think, it was your local Fox affiliate. And it was you being heckled, and I think that's a kind word, in a public setting at a school board meeting.

And I'm going to say it. Someone shouted out that you were a groomer. Correct me if I'm wrong in terms of the allegation.

And when I watched it, I said to myself, who the hell is going to serve on a local school board other than some fringe type? Because the decent people that I can think of are going to say, I don't need it. You know, I'll go give to my community in some other respect.

So, my point is larger than Sarasota. I'm worried that decent people are bypassing community involvement.

EDWARDS: Well, that's a very valid question. And that's what I'm really trying to explain to you about the mental health element. I was that adolescent, that young person in the '70s, trying to figure out their identity. And it was a very different world at that time. And my self-esteem was constantly challenged.

Now look at what has happened to those communities, those marginalized communities across the United States. And your point is so valid. It didn't just happen in Sarasota. It didn't just happen in the state of Florida.

Governor DeSantis took those policies on the road deliberately and deliberately harmed children with Mrs. Ziegler only for their own personal political gain. And many of it, as you know, is being rejected as Mr. DeSantis is on that political trail.

People are very angry. And you can look at the public comments that happened just recently in our school board and grandparents and parents and students came out to chastise Mrs. Ziegler for that very damage and that very real pain that was done.

SMERCONISH: It's going to be very interesting to see what, if anything, Governor DeSantis does about her position on the Sarasota school board. Tom Edwards, happy holidays. Thank you so much for being here. I appreciate your time.

EDWARDS: Thank you so much for allowing me the ability to showcase what has gone wrong. SMERCONISH: Thank you, sir. Checking in now on social media reaction that has come in during the course of the program. Catherine, what do we have? From the world of X. By the way, I never say it. Follow me on Twitter. Follow me on X, as it's now known.

Bridget Ziegler is a hypocrite but what you do behind closed doors is your business. Is it bad that she doesn't want kids to know about threesomes?

Interesting, Kelly Ann. I don't have time. This is not the forum. Is she necessarily a hypocrite, I mean, if you really think it through, or not?

Not that I'm comfortable with a person who is as politically motivated as she has become in opposition to LGBTQ issues, then I don't think she's fit to serve in that capacity. My two cents. But is there a question of hypocrisy? I think is more complicated, actually. And that's all I'm saying.

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will Donald Trump face any criminal trial before Election Day? While you're there, sign up for the free daily newsletter.

By the way, Jack Ohman, Pulitzer Prize winner, look what he sketched for my daily newsletter this week. The newsletter is free and it is worthy. Now, that is well done.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:48:36]

SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, I'm told we have got a lot of social media reaction. I should say, I'm involved in all the usual places on social media. Follow me there. Like me. Do whatever you normally do. But send in your comments because I love addressing them during the course of the program.

All these lawsuits are nothing more than election interference. Real election interference.

OK. So, this is a reference to my conversation with Elie Honig talking about the big picture, where are we in the election. That's the perception.

I mean, whether that's the reality, that is the perception by MAGA and some who are not in MAGA. And how do we know that? Because with every passing indictment, Donald Trump's numbers have increased such to the point that he's really got a strangle hold now on the nomination.

So, your point is that's election interference. Someone else would say, what are you going to do? Let that conduct go unresponded to? You can't do that.

Here's another reaction from today's program, so far, so far. Looks like you are coming out publicly full Trump devotee. So much for you claiming to be unbiased. Sad.

OK. Why? I'm a Trump devotee because I sit here having read the legal documents and explained to the audience something that candidly I have not heard anybody else say with clarity. Which is that Jack Smith is operating in accordance with the election timetable and so too is the Judge Chutkan, in so far as they want to get this case to trial, because they know that Donald Trump might otherwise bring it to a halt and self-pardon, and/or self-pardon.

[09:50:12]

So, for explaining that to the audience and then putting in front of all of you, front and center, the fact that come January or February, we're going to have a Supreme Court case or two, the likes of which we haven't seen since Bush v. Gore, that makes me a Trumpie? No, that just makes me calling balls and strikes and doing, frankly, a solid for the audience in presenting an issue, that come 2024, is going to drive the entire news cycle. But you're welcome.

Still to come, the final results of the poll question. Go to Smerconish.com and tell me, will Donald Trump face any criminal trial, any trial before Election Day?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:17]

SMERCONISH: All right. There's where we stand so far, 28,921 votes cast. Will Donald Trump face any criminal trial before Election Day? Sixty-five percent say yes. Two-thirds are saying yes, one-third say no. My hunch is that part of those two-thirds is wishful thinking.

The correct answer is probably not. It rests largely in the hands of the Supreme Court. He'll face one and only one if he faces any at all.

And I go back to something that I said to Elie Honig earlier in the program. Two things, quickly, if I may. One, more than a thousand days have elapsed since January 6th. Everything that Trump did, most of what he did was in the public domain. Merrick Garland should have moved more quickly than he did.

And the second observation is, think of this. Seven months from indictment to trial for Trump, two years for January 6th, other defendants, does that seem fair and equitable? Mull it over. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)