Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Why Are Libertarians Hosting RFK Jr. And Trump?; What Will Be The Closing Arguments For Hush Money Trial?; Flying The Flag Shouldn't Be Partisan; Global Fertility Rates Plunge At Alarming Pace. Aired 9- 10a ET

Aired May 25, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

EDWARD DWIGHT, FIRST BLACK ASTRONAUT: And so I served a purpose, and I was very proud of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: The space program would have to wait until 1983 to see its first black astronaut in space, but this week's flight Dwight is also now the oldest person ever to go to space. Mr. Edward Dwight, I see you.

Now if you see something or someone I should see, tell me. I'm Victor Blackwell on socials. And thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 Eastern. Smerconish starts right now.

[09:00:39]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: A Republican and an Independent walk into a Libertarian establishment, you're going to have to wait for the punch line. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. Thank you for joining me this Memorial Day weekend.

In an unusual move, tonight former President Donald Trump will address the Libertarian National Convention in Washington D.C. And Independent RFK Jr. spoke there on Friday after having flirted with running as a Libertarian earlier in the cycle. This morning the Drudge Report leading with his appearance saying "RFK Jr. slams locked down standing-o from Libertarians." He spent a lot of his hour long speech criticizing both President Trump and Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., (I) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: President Trump said that he was going to run America like a business. He closed down 3.3 million businesses with no due process, no just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. With lock downs, the mass mandates the travel restrictions, President Trump presided over the greatest restriction on individual liberties this country has ever known.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Still, it's the DNC that attacked RFK Jr. speech first saying, quote, much like his campaign for president, RFK Jr. speech today was a bizarre and poorly received exercise in narcissism. There's no support for RFK Jr. and he has no path to victory. He's just a spoiler for Donald Trump."

Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan, speaking on Sunday, she tweeted that her topic will be, quote, "Medical freedom and protecting American farmers from government corporate capture." You could say this is a win for the party to get both a former president and the leading independent to address them trying to win their votes, but is either of them really a Libertarian. On the Libertarian side, Trump did back tax cuts, he spoke critically of America's involvements abroad. On the other hand, he signed off on massive budget deficits, imposed tariffs on imported goods and championed more restrictive immigration policies. And while RFK Jr. appeals to many Libertarians, thanks to his activism against vaccine mandates following COVID-19.

On the other hand, his history of Energy and Climate activism runs counter to the Libertarian ethos of limited government. He also was supported Israel student loan debt forgiveness and affirmative action. In five election cycles, the Libertarian Party has successfully appeared on the ballot in all 50 states including in both 2016 and 2020, ballot access remains a high hurdle for RFK Jr. In 2016 the party won its highest historical result, with former governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld coming in third with 3.3 percent of the national vote, but in four states that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by less than Johnson's total number of votes being Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

In 2020, the Libertarian ticket of Clemson Professor Jo Jorgensen, and entrepreneurs Spike Cohen won just a third as much as Johnson-Weld 1.1 percent of the vote. But given the closeness of the polls between Biden and Trump, the Libertarian ticket could have a huge impact on this election.

Also appearing during this weekend former GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, the keynote speech will be delivered by a Libertarian stalwart Ron Paul. The top five vote gathered in a straw poll early in the convention are people whose names are not familiar to the general public. According to Gallup, voters who identify as Libertarians range from 17 percent to 23 percent of the American electorate. So, why is the party ceding the spotlight to Trump and RFK Jr., instead of elevating candidates of its own?

Joining me now is Nick Gillespie. He's the editor at large at Reason, the Libertarian magazine. He's the podcast host of "The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie."

Nick, great to see you again. Is it conceivable that RFK Jr. or Donald Trump could be the Libertarian candidate? And if not, then why are the Libertarians being so hospitable?

NICK GILLESPIE, EDITOR AT LARGE, REASON MAGAZINE/HOST, "THE REASON INTERVIEW WITH NICK GILLESPIE": Well, it is conceivable and the head of the party Angela McArdle, as recently as yesterday told News Nation that, you know, if anything is possible, it seems highly unlikely given the fact that RFK Jr. has said he doesn't need the Libertarian Party for ballot access. And Donald Trump is not the type of person who's going to share the spotlight.

SMERCONISH: I know that RFK Jr. said that relative to ballot access. In fact, he said it to me But something has changed and that's something is we're now a month away from the first debate and he's not getting on that stage unless a miracle happens. It occurs to me that the Libertarian nomination would give him that ballot access that he so desperately lacks.

[09:05:15]

GILLESPIE: Yes, it would definitely boost him. The Libertarian Party is unlikely, according to my Reason colleague, Brian Doherty, is unlikely to reach 50 state ballot access this time around, but it's going to be in something like 47, 46, 48 states. So that's a huge win.

The other question though, is whether or not the Libertarian party faithful, the delegates there will actually vote for somebody like Kennedy. And that goes to your, you know, your larger point, why is the Libertarian Party doing this? Two years ago, the party was taken over by a faction, you know, that was very successful in organizing and arguing against the status quo saying we need -- we, the Libertarian Party needs a tighter, more anti-status message, we need to be focusing on ending wars, ending the Fed, ending COVID, lock downs and restrictions. The group that took over called the Mises Caucus has seen basically revenues from over a two year period declined by a third membership, declined from, you know, sustaining active membership from 16,000 to about 12,000. This is a party that is declining. And I think what they're doing here it's kind of a Hail Mary pass to see if they can get back into the public consciousness.

They were expecting to have a couple of higher profile people running for president, that hasn't worked out. So we're left with this unprecedented media circus where, you know, the third largest party in the country is bringing in people from other parties to make a pitch to their delegates.

SMERCONISH: RFK Jr, is a pandemic pitch, I'll use your word, win over big with this crowd. Let's watch a piece.

GILLESPIE: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: At the height of the pandemic, I traveled to Berlin, to speak to a group of about 1.3 million people from all over Europe in a peaceful demonstration and an NBC film crew came up to me during that convocation, and they asked me why I wasn't wearing a mask, which nobody was except for the NBC film crew. And I -- and they said, wasn't I scared of dying of COVID. And I said to them, there's a lot worse things than dying. And they said to me, like what? And I said, like living like a slave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Nick Gillespie, you see how he was received? How will Donald Trump be received at the Libertarian convention tonight? GILLESPIE: I think he will draw a mix of great applause and some standing ovations and then some jeers and boos, I hope because Trump, as you laid out was not a particularly Libertarian president. He did some good things that fit with the general philosophy of saying, you know, the government should be smaller, it should spend less, and it should regulate people less. But then he did a lot of things that were terrible from that point of view. And he is not an apostle of laissez faire, by any chance. He has an opinion about everything.

And he's always quick to try and get people to follow the way he thinks they should be living. So -- but he's a big star. And a lot of people in the LP are drawn to him because they see him as being anti- establishment, despite the fact that he's a billionaire and a former president.

SMERCONISH: So, it's a debate, I would think between practicality and purity, right? Like we can be purists and we're going to end up with 1 percent of the vote. Or we can cast our lot with one of these two, you know, hitch our wagon to potentially someone who's really going to take us to a new level, but we're going to have to sacrifice our principles in the process. Isn't that the issue? And what do you think those conversations will be like behind closed doors?

GILLESPIE: I don't think that either Trump or RFK will be nominated by the Libertarian Party, but you're right. And the party, which was founded in 1971, it ran its first presidential candidate in '72, who even got an electoral vote. The first -- the vice president was a woman. The first female to get an Electoral College vote was a Libertarian in 1972. They have never figured out whether or not they are an informational organization that is trying to get Libertarian ideas out into the ether and into political conversations, or an actual political party that runs candidates who are credible and can win.

The closest they came was Gary Johnson in 2016. And the current leadership of the LP sees that as an embarrassment because he wasn't principled enough. It would be amazing if they sign on to somebody like Donald Trump or RFK Jr, who are explicitly un-Libertarian, they refuse to call themselves Libertarian but maybe the party is low enough and, you know, in the doldrums that they're going to go that way.

[09:10:09]

SMERCONISH: Just one more intangible in a crazy cycle. Thank you, Nick. Nice to see you.

GILLESPIE: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction from the world of X. Catherine (ph), what do we have? Of the three candidates, these two share more Libertarian ideals since they don't have a candidate, they still want to be part of the conversation, says Kelly. Well, they do. But then the conversation ends like tonight after Trump's visit or tomorrow, when they wrap up.

You know, you want to half a loaf, or do you want to remain purists? That's really the issue.

OK. How will the Trump trial end? Closing arguments commence on Tuesday morning in the first ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president. We'll preview some of the anticipated closing arguments. I'm going to consult former federal prosecutor Elie Honig and defense attorney William Brennan. There they are.

They're ready. They're psyched. I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. How can it be anything else? How will the Trump trial end, acquittal, conviction, hung jury?

When you're voting sign up for my free unworthy daily newsletter you get editorial cartoons from the legends like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:50]

SMERCONISH: Remarkably, by this time next week, a verdict may have been probably will have been reached in the first ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president. With the defense resting this past Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchan set closing arguments for next Tuesday to ensure the final stages of the trial weren't interrupted by Memorial Day weekend. Let's get a preview of the anticipated closing arguments.

Joining me now Ellie Honig, former federal prosecutor and CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and veteran criminal defense attorney William J. Brennan, who served as co-counsel with Michael van der Veen. He represented -- they represented the Trump Payroll Corporation in a 2022 criminal case in front of Judge Merchan in the exact same courtroom.

OK, gentlemen, Billy, starting with you, as a purely academic exercise, a little role playing, give me 60 seconds that you think would work as part of the Trump defense closing argument.

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Michael. Good morning, Elie.

I think what would work in 60 seconds or less is members of the jury where I remind you when Judge Merchan will (inaudible) instruct you that the defendant remains presumed innocent. That the state always has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And they haven't done so in this matter. The state has decided to rest its entire case on the word of Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer, a liar, a thief, a man who stole from his own client, the defendant sitting in that chair there.

Judge Merchan will instruct you that if you believe Mr. Cohen lied in one matter, you may, if you so choose, believe he lies in all matters. And ladies and gentlemen, I was thinking about this case recently, and I thought about a little pond that would take my daughter to when she was little a little ice pond, and it'd be a sign when the ice was weak, no skating today. And I took her there one day and there were bubbles under the ice. But I want you to put yourself in my position, picture you were there with your child and you heard a voice from the island in the middle of the pond, come on over the ice is fine. I got here, she can get here too, and it was Michael Cohen.

Would you put your daughter on that bubbly thin ice? Of course not. And ladies and gentlemen, that's reasonable doubt and that's not guilty.

SMERCONISH: OK, Elie, as an academic exercise only, a little bit of role playing give me give me 60 seconds that you would use if you were prosecuting this case.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Man, Brennan's good. All right, here we go. Members of the jury, the defense wants your focus everywhere but where it ought to be on the actual defendant, in this case, Donald John Trump, they want to make the argument here all about Michael Cohen. Let me tell you something about Michael Cohen. He's not a saint.

He's a sinner. He told you that. He's done plenty of wrong in his life, most of it for Donald Trump. But what Michael Cohen did is he took you inside a corrupt organization, Donald Trump's campaign, Donald Trump's businesses. And you know what, Michael Cohen's not even the star witness in this case, the star witness in this case are the documents.

They're the financial documents, the checks that Donald Trump sign, the ledgers, the invoices, the handwritten notes that showed how they put this whole scheme together, the phone records, the texts, the e- mails. All Michael Cohen is here to do is to walk you through that tangible evidence.

So, if you're ever at that frozen lake that Mr. Brennan references, it's not quite the right analogy. It's what if Michael Cohen was telling you on the other side, it's safe to come across and then you look and you saw 30 other people much bigger than you and your daughter walking safely across that ice, then would you trust him? That's the real question here, folks. If you keep your eye on the ball on Donald Trump on falsification of business records, then you will find him guilty.

SMERCONISH: You're both great. Thank you for playing along.

Can we put on the screen what Ankush Khardori wrote for Politico? Well done, guys. I'm going to read this aloud from Ankush. Here it is, "In order to establish Trump's guilt on the felony charges that have been brought, prosecutors have to persuade all 12 of the jurors beyond the reasonable doubt that Trump falsified those records with the intent to conceal another crime, such as breaking election laws. In the end, this case could rise or fall on that ostensibly narrow but essential and still hotly contested factual question."

[09:20:04]

Elie, there's been no testimony in the case about a violation of election law. I'm still hung up on this. Go ahead, Donald Trump, you can name check the two of us. But how can the jury, how can they get home the prosecution in the absence of some election expert testimony?

HONIG: The charging device used here is really quite an elaborate contraption. And it looks like the way that the judge is going to instruct the jury, you have to follow me here, you almost need a visual to map this out. And I mean, this, by the way, is a criticism of the charging theory. The theory is Donald Trump falsified business records in order to violate some other law. The some other law is New York state law that says you cannot corruptly try to influence an election, which then incorporates three other laws, one of which is federal election law, the other of which is tax, which we've heard next to nothing about in this case.

And the other, get ready for this, is falsifying other business records. It's like a circular contraption. So, I think what the judge is going to do here is give a very basic, maybe couple paragraph instruction on what federal election campaign law is and is not, but volumes have been written about this, there's so much gray area. And to me, this is a real risk that the prosecution faces maybe down the line in an appeal setting, because the theory is so untested.

SMERCONISH: OK. And Bill, let me ask you, I agree with the way Elie just laid that out, I'm sure you do as well. But does any of it matter? Or will the jury disregard the intricacies and simply say, he slept with her, he paid her and it was because of the election?

Bill?

BRENNAN: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Did we lose him? Go ahead. Did you hear me? And if so, respond.

BRENNAN: No, I lost that audio, like one more time, please.

SMERCONISH: OK. Elie just laid it out. Will the jury focus on the law or simply say he slept with her, he paid her and it was because of the election?

BRENNAN: Well, that's what we discussed on radio this week. My fear is that some jurors will. I don't think all 12 will. And that could lead to a hung jury. I think people try to honor their oath as jurors, and you have two lawyers on that jury. They're not going to just do a knee jerk.

So, I think there's a strong likelihood of a mistrial through a hung jury.

SMERCONISH: Elie, if in fact it's not illegal for him to have slept with Stormy Daniels, nor to have paid or hush money, and if this is all about the way in which it was recorded, because it was recorded as a legal expense, how should it have been recorded?

HONIG: It's a great question, Michael. And I think it really points up the difficulty face anytime the criminal law collides with election law. Now, clearly there is some conduct that would violate criminal election law. For example, if a person was funneling donations from a foreign donor, no question, that's a crime, no question that can be prosecuted. But I think if you pose your question to the prosecutors, how were they supposed to log these legal on their own hush money payments?

I think the answer you'd hear from the prosecutors is, one, not our problem. And two, not like this. The prosecutors, I think, would say you can't falsely claim their legal fees when they're not.

But there's a real problem here, Michael, I mean, one of the fundamental bases of our due process here in the United States is that citizens have a right to know with specificity in advance what is a crime and what is not a crime. And I think we're in a bit of a gray area here. And again, I think that tees up potential appellate issues.

SMERCONISH: Bill Brennan, final question for you. I'm not going to ask you to predict the outcome. But a week from today, God willing that I'm here anchoring this program on Saturday morning, will it all have concluded?

BRENNAN: If they closed on Tuesday, I think it's likely they'll reach a verdict by the end of the week. But you never know. I mean, it's just -- it's hard to predict. But if forced to make a prediction, I would say yes.

SMERCONISH: Stick with me, gentlemen, let's read some social media allowed. Catherine, what do we have? I might need to lean on these two stellar attorneys. However, the trial ends, it won't end good. If he is acquitted, Democrats will cry foul, if guilty, Republicans will cry foul, if they hung jury, both Republicans and Democrats will cry foul.

I don't know, Elie, if you have a reaction to that, it's really in my wheelhouse of the politics of this. I don't think the outcome is going to move the political needle. Do you have a thought, Elie?

HONIG: Well, I agree with most of the viewers' text there or tweet that it's not going to maybe move the needle depending if there's a conviction or an acquittal. But a hung jury is absolutely a win for Donald Trump. That's not going to lead to a 50-50 reaction. Trust me, I've had hung juries. Hung juries mean the prosecutor goes and has a beer and the sad way and the defense goes and has beer in the celebratory way.

[09:25:01]

SMERCONISH: Bill, do you think that the public opinion is already baked in regardless of what the polls showed at the outset of the trial?

BRENNAN: Absolutely. And the sad part is, you know, you've got a citizen of this country, it could be Elie, could be me, could be you, could be anybody watching on trial for criminal offenses, and that's what it should focus on.

SMERCONISH: Gentlemen, thank you. That was really excellent. I wish we could do a full hour and I'd give you each 30 minutes. It probably be as good or better than the arguments that will come on Tuesday. I'll see you each soon.

BRENNAN: Anytime you want.

SMERCONISH: I want to remind everybody, go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, how will it end? Are we headed for an acquittal, conviction or hung jury?

Up ahead, this week came the troubling news that two symbolically partisan flags had flown outside the house and beach house of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, but there's another divisive flag issue this Memorial Day weekend. This day is the American flag itself has become more associated with one party and candidate causing many others to refrain from flying it. I've got thoughts on that. Make sure you're signing up for my newsletter at smerconish.com for which Jack Ohman, the Pulitzer Prize winner, sketched this cartoon on exactly that subject.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:55]

SMERCONISH: Would politics factor into your decision whether to fly a flag? I'm not talking about the recent controversial flags raised by Justice Alito or his wife, the upside-down American flag outside his home a couple of days ago before President Biden's inauguration, or the Appeal to Heaven flag over his beach house, which has also become a symbol for Trump supporters. By the way, nobody is saying that there was any dispute with the neighbors on Long Beach Island. Think about that.

No, I'm talking about the American flag. Monday, of course, Memorial Day, a day on which we honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the nation. It was originally called Decoration Day on account of the tradition of placing flowers and wreaths on the graves of those who died in uniform.

Quick history, it's been observed since 1868 when a proclamation was issued from General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, which recognized former soldiers and sailors of the union. On that first Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery, more than 5,000 attendees decorated more than 20,000 union and confederate graves. Since World War I, we've honored the dead from all the nation's wars and it has become a national holiday.

Of course, it's now also regarded as the unofficial start of summer. Along with local parades, there will be barbecues and good times with family and friends. There will be mingling and that's a good thing. But increasingly, whether Old Glory will be flown as part of our celebration has become a reflection of our partisan divide like so much else in our polarized times.

According to Fox News, a poll last year, 94 percent of Republicans -- registered Republican voters consider flying an American flag an act of patriotism, compared with 75 percent of Democrats. In 2022, NPR- Marist asked who always has a flag outside their home? Fifty-nine percent of Republicans said they did, compared with 27 percent of independents and just 22 percent of Democrats.

I worry that these divides will grow. Anecdotally, I see signs that the flag is now perceived as being associated with one presidential candidate, more so than another. That causes some to want to fly it. And it causes others to refrain from flying it. And that's a shame. The flag should be seen as belonging to everybody.

Look, I get it. If you're flying the flag on the back of a pickup truck alongside reference to Brandon, I know your politics, but that doesn't mean that everyone else should refrain from showing some patriotism because of a concern of false association.

Flying our flag shouldn't mean you support any particular candidate, nor should it imply that you're wholly satisfied with the direction of the country. You can be disappointed in the current climate and the current candidates, most are. It doesn't mean that you love the country any less. It just means that you want to fix it.

And thank God, we have a country that allows us a process to resolve our differences. Protecting that framework -- that needs to be our highest priority. And flying our flag -- flying our flag should be recognition of what we still hold in common.

A survey released last month from the Associated Press-NORC found that in nine of 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to privacy, they are extremely important or very important to the United States' identity as a nation. The survey also found that 84 percent feel the same way about freedom of religion.

In other words, there remains so much that we have in common, equal protection, freedom of speech, the right to assembly. We just disagree about how we get there. We've been told so often that our differences define us, that we're starting to act like it.

In New York City several weeks ago after the NYPD arrested hundreds of city college protesters over the situation in Gaza, officers took down a Palestinian flag that the protesters had raised and they put up an American flag. And New York City Mayor Eric Adams defended the police action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D-NY): That's not our flag, folks. You don't take over our buildings and put another flag up.

[09:35:01]

That may be fine to other people, but it's not to me. My uncle died defending this country, and these men and women put their lives on the line. It's despicable that schools will allow another country's flag to fly in our country.

So, blame me for being proud to be an American. And I thank Commissioner Daughtry for putting our flag back up. We are not surrendering our way of life to anyone. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: That was beautifully said, a good lesson for all of us to keep in mind this weekend as we fly the flag. Still to come, there's a lot out there to worry about, the economy, the war in Gaza, Ukraine, opioids, fentanyl, artificial intelligence, climate change, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And if that's not enough now the world's birth rate, which is dropping at an alarming pace. Should we be concerned? Is it good news or bad? We'll get to that in a moment.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. How will the Trump trial end, acquittal, conviction, or hung jury?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:29]

SMERCONISH: The global fertility rate, it's falling at an alarming pace. From an average of five births per woman in 1950, to only 2.3 births in 2021. And in the U.S., it's even unless. It's at the point where our population size may no longer be sustainable.

Some of the most populous nations like Mexico, India, China, first saw their birth rates begin to plummet in 1980. In the United States, the fertility rates started declining in 2007, which many assumed was due to the 2008 financial crisis. But the National Bureau of Economic Research published a study in 2021 that found unemployment, health care, housing, childcare, and student debt did not explain the drop in U.S. birth rates.

Women across all different levels of income, education, and labor force participation are having fewer or no children which could lead to serious consequences for the rest of society. Last year, the nation's total fertility rate continued to drop to 1.6 which is the lowest on record.

Joining me now is Melissa Kearney, an economics professor at the University of Maryland, and co-author of the study "The Puzzle of Falling U.S. Birth Rates Since the Great Recession." Dr. Kearney, thank you for being here. Why do you think this is happening?

MELISSA KEARNEY, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: My co- author Phillip and I refer to what we see is shifting priorities. And you mentioned a whole bunch of factors that don't seem to explain the decline. And so, the way we reconcile the evidence from both the U.S. and other high-income countries is that fundamentally young adults today are not choosing to make marriage and having kids the centerpiece of their adult life to the same extent that they did before. The conflict between career and leisure goals and the time and expense of having kids is coming into conflict and people are making different choices.

SMERCONISH: Some will hear this and they'll say, well, this is great news. This is less taxing for the planet. You're well-versed in a book that came out like two decades ago and said we were headed for catastrophe. Is it good news or is it bad news?

KEARNEY: I think this is fundamentally bad news. So, let me say most people see it is good news because they think it's good for the planet. Now, setting aside the fact that it's completely defeatist to say, well, if we get rid of humanity, the planet can survive without us.

The fact of the matter is despite, you know, the sort of alarm that some are raising about declining birth rates, population is not going to shrink. Global population is not going to shrink fast enough to address our immediate climate challenges. And so, we do need to figure out a way to decarbonize so that the population can survive with the Earth together.

But economically a falling population, and an elderly or an aging population, puts a lot of fiscal and economic pressures on society. And that's why most high-income countries now are trying to experiment with pro-natalist policies to bring about a reversal of the decline in the birth rate.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put on the screen something from the "Wall Street Journal" that drew me to this story. It reads as follows, Republican Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio said falling fertility matters beyond the economic pressures of a smaller labor force and unfunded Social Security, quote, "Do you live in communities where there are smiling happy children, or where people are just aging?" Lack of siblings and cousins, he said, contributes to children's social isolation.

There are a lot of factors at play here. And I guess, I want to ask, does it pose an existential threat?

KEARNEY: Yes. As an economist, immediately what I see is the fiscal threat it poses to social security and Medicare. I see the threat of shrinking working age population poses to our economic dynamism and our living standards. We need more people to create ideas and technological innovations that improve all of our living standards.

But fundamentally a declining human population, which is something we've never experienced in the modern world, that poses an existential threat. And before we get to that point, there are the societal questions that I think that quote you just raised mentions, which is, you know, how do kids grow up when they don't have siblings or cousins, or people around? How do people get taken care of in their old age if they don't have children?

And then fundamentally, we are looking at a decrease in the population which, you know, it sounds existential and a bit crazy but given where we are with fertility rates, it's actually the most likely scenario. And so, you know, this is something that both in the short, medium, and long run, we really need to be thinking about.

[09:45:02]

SMERCONISH: This is unfair to you, Dr. Kearney, because we're limited on time. Is there anything that can be done about it? And if so, what? KEARNEY: Look, simple economic tinkering, like a small tax credit for people with -- you know, to have kids or expansion of paid leave all of those things are great. They're not fundamentally going to solve the problem.

I think to even stabilize birth rates in the high-income countries, we're going to fundamentally need a reorientation of society towards one that's much more family friendly, that's much more pro kid.

It will take -- we've seen now South Korea is offering $70,000 -- the equivalent of $70,000 to people to have kids. It's going to take a massive infusion of support to families as well as -- let me say some survey evidence said much smaller, to micro level, we're going to need dads to pick up more of the childcare and household work in the home. So, it's going to take -- for this to change it's going to require much more than small tinkering around the edges.

SMERCONISH: That was excellent. Thank you, Dr. Kearney. We appreciate you.

KEARNEY: Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction. Catherine, what do we have? From the world of Twitter.

People worry about being able to afford a child. Health care is expensive and you have -- have you checked the cost of college? Years ago, a working person could afford a house, a car, and have kids. I think its economic concerns.

Judy, all of that obviously is true. But I think that the looming role of technology is, again, involved in this conversation. Our kids are not -- our kids are not.

Look at the data, look at the -- just so you know, I'm not pulling this out of thin air. Look at the CDC report from one year ago based on a survey sample size of 17,000 young. Americans today, they're not dating. They're not having sex. And you might think that the latter is a good thing.

No, it's not a good thing because it's actually tied to all these spikes in mental health issues. We've got to mingle. And if everybody is divided by technology, not the least of which is also politics too, they're not getting together. And should we be any surprised, therefore, that they're not having kids? It's all of these things

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. Don't forget to vote at today's poll question. It had to be this, right? How is it going to end acquittal, conviction, hung jury? Go to Smerconish.com and cast a ballot.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:51:55]

SMERCONISH: Hey, make sure you follow me on social media, Twitter X, and on all the usual platforms. Here's some of what has come in during the course of this program. What do we have?

It will end with Trump being elected again in November.

Right. Florida Truck Diver Frank says, who cares what the outcome of this is, the election outcome? Would he be in the position that he's in today, having secured the Republican nomination, but for the four indictments? I have my doubts. I have my doubts.

As to whether he gets convicted, I'm caught up in the weeds of this. Like, if it's -- if it's a conviction dependent upon violation of election law, what election law and where was the testimony?

In my world, there's expert testimony presented, somebody with credentials. In this case, probably an academic who knows, you know, the Federal Election Campaign Act or the New York statute. And at a certain point you say, Dr. so and so, do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of federal election or state election certainty as to whether the law was violated? Yes, I do. And what is that opinion?

And then they offer that. And then there's a rebuttal from the defense. But that specificity is lacking in this case.

And by the way, it might not matter. It might not matter. The jury might simply decide, he slept, whether he paid or it's because of the election. Let's go home. But that's not what I think the case really requires.

Quickly. I'm sorry, give me one more. I know I went in for -- went on for a while there.

Something is wrong with libertarian leadership. If there was a time for an alternative candidate, this is it. What do they give us? Nada. It's a shame.

Hey, Doug Leedy, it's funny that you say that because as I was speaking to Nick Gillespie from Reason, I too was thinking that and it made me think of No Labels. I mean, you know, the data. The data says like two-thirds of the American people wish they had an alternative, a choice. They look at the Republicans, and Democratic Party, and they say like, this is the best that you got?

And then No Labels, well-funded, well organized, they couldn't find a ticket. And if in the end, the libertarians, no disrespect to the five who were in that straw poll, but none of them are household names. Like the moon and the stars have lined up. You would think that this would be a cycle where there'd be choice.

OK. Coming up, the final results of today's poll question at Smerconish.com. How will the Trump trial end? If you haven't voted yet, go vote. Register for the daily newsletter while you're there.

Please sign up for it. It's free and it's worthy. You'll get exclusive content from tremendous editorial cartoonists. Check this out. It was drawn this week for us by Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [09:59:14]

SMERCONISH: OK. There is the result so far of the poll question. Wow. Whoa. Whoa, 36,493, conviction 46, hung jury 45, acquittal nine. And by the way, I think that's about right. I think it's -- I mean, I think it's very close between conviction or hung jury. Acquittal, a distant third.

I'll keep it up. Keep voting. I'm sure we're going to probably get close to 50,000. Social media. I've got time for just one. What are we have, Catherine?

Not a fan of Trump, but have major reservations about this trial. If he is found guilty, brings up the very serious question, are we so divided as a country that juries can't deliver justice without politics being in play?

I agree with you, Joe. And I think that there are a number of people -- the polling data bears this out.

[10:00:02]

A number of people who will say, I'm not a fan of the guy and I'd rather it not be him. But something is not right about this. My own take as to what's about to unfold, I don't know how it ends. And I don't know if any of the jurors ever do media.

But I won't be surprised if a week from now, there's a member of the media -- a juror who says, we just totally discounted all of Michael Cohen. We've rendered our verdict without Michael Cohen. And I think that makes it harder for the prosecution.

Stay tuned, "THE CHRIS WALLACE SHOW" is next.