Off the heels of his featured leadership at the national Faith and Freedom conference, President John Pudner took to the airwaves in his home area of Milwaukee on WISN’s “The Dan O’Donnell Show’”, which, alongside Mark Belling and Jay Weber, is the highest-rated radio station in Wisconsin and the highest-rated talk radio station in the country as of May 2024. A featured guest, Pudner and O’Donnell discuss how the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity maintains common-sense precedent on the powers of the presidency, highlights the hypocrisy and hysteria from liberal pundits, details the continued hyper-partisan failings of Jack Smith and the politicized Biden Justice Department, and further showcases the clear cover this case attempts to bring for a failing and faltering Biden candidacy.
Pudner’s interview comes off the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, a landmark case on the pivotal issue of presidential immunity, in which the Court stated a former president is entitled to absolute immunity for actions within their constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for all official acts. While the ruling was brought about by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s series of indictments against former President Trump, as Pudner notes, this isn’t the first time, nor likely the last, the Court has reprimanded him.
In 2010, the Court, in a rare, unanimous verdict, overturned Smith’s case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell who, in a similar political prosecution, was forced to spend $28 million defending himself, received a two-year prison sentence for a two-dollar crime, and was ultimately incapable of mounting an expected US Senate run that could’ve reshaped the political balance of power in the Old Dominion. So aghast was the Court at the case that former Justice Stephen Breyer, a noted liberal on the Court, had this to say of the now-Special Prosecutor during oral arguments:
“To give that kind of power to a criminal prosecutor (Jack Smith), who was virtually uncontrollable, is dangerous to the separation of powers.”
Despite this clear admonishment from the Court, the Biden Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland, once a Supreme Court nominee himself, appointed Jack Smith to lead the case against former President Trump, but as Pudner notes, this seems to be a purposeful decision to get a pre-determined result – to bankrupt, imprison, and/or get him off the ballot.
But as Jack Smith’s case against Trump continues on, so too does the case for President Biden’s candidacy hang by a thread. His recent debate performance, widely panned by critics and seen as disastrous for his re-election hopes, has resulted in a historic electoral shift, including Trump now 6 points ahead in Wisconsin per the latest polling when, four years ago, Biden was 6.5 points ahead in the Badger State – a complete inversion from 2020. This seismic shift has also grown a rebellion within Democratic circles, with 3 Congressional Democrats publicly calling for Biden to step aside, an additional 22 members planning to do so in the coming days, Rep. James Clyburn, who is credited for playing a pivotal part in Biden’s 2020 victory, outlining his vision for a post-Biden Democrat ticket, and a document by senior Democratic operatives titled, “Unburdened by What Has Been: The Case for Kamala ”, now circling big-money Democratic donor circles as they withhold donations until Biden withdraws.
One such megadonor, Abigail Disney, heiress to the Disney fortune, inadvertently said the quiet part out loud on why, despite the inherently dangerous precedent for our country, Jack Smith’s case against former President Trump remains the Democrat’s primary avenue for maintaining control of the White House:
“If Biden does not step down, the Democrats will lose. Of that, I am absolutely certain.”
The following transcript from this interview is presented in its entirety with minor edits:
SUMMARY KEYWORDS: Supreme Court, Jack Smith, Trump, case, absurd, Biden, campaign, democracy.
SPEAKERS: Dan O’Donnell and WIFFC President John Pudner.
Dan O’Donnell 00:05: Joining me now is the President of the Wisconsin Faith and Freedom Coalition, John Pudner, to talk about the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to…what…allow President Trump to just kill people indiscriminately, huh? See, America, this is the talking point. John, this is the talking point. Right before the Fourth of July, America now has a king!
John Pudner 00:31: Yes, that is it, and the Supreme Court usually rules on something when it’s been evident for years and is suddenly challenged. That’s what happened. I mean, clearly, presidents haven’t been prosecuted for people killed during World War II because they sent troops there, which reduces it to the absurd on what the left was claiming in this case.
Dan O’Donnell 00:48: Well, how about going back to World War II? Korematsu v. United States, which was actually cited in Sotomayor’s hysterical defense in the immunity case, was FDR, or his vice president, who continued the policy of interning Japanese Americans…were they ever subject to criminal prosecution for false imprisonment? Of course not. It was never even contemplated, there was always implied absolute immunity for official acts of the presidency, this is just not something that’s new.
John Pudner 01:20: That’s right, and I think the underlying issue is the left’s case these next few months has been that Donald Trump is such a threat to democracy that the end justifies any means to stop him. I think the counter underlying is, now, the threat to democracy is setting a precedent of winning an election by using prosecutors to bankrupt, imprison, or get the opposing candidate off the ballot. That’s the true threat to democracy, so I think that’s the split in the country right now.
Dan O’Donnell 01:47: I think people understand that. The fact that President Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, it was just absurd from the start, but I worried that the, as Rush Limbaugh called them famously, “low information voters”, will say they don’t want to vote for a felon, and I think that was the strategy. But, I guess I underestimated the American people a little bit, as they saw right through it, and they said they know what this is, and they don’t like it.
John Pudner 02:18: And if you look at the 34 felonies, it’s unbelievable. One is a check for a payment, two is the invoice for the same payment, three are the other time it was entered and booked, and the next month is felony four. But, I think the core of this argument is who did they pick to be the lead prosecutor on Trump? They picked Jack Smith, who ten years ago, did the same thing to mild-mannered Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. Same thing, basically that he was talking about business leaders, like every governor does, one of them was a bad apple, and he had to spend $28 million defending himself and got a two-year prison sentence on Bob McDonnell. Mild-mannered guy, couldn’t be more different than Trump, and nine to nothing, the Supreme Court threw out Jack Smith. Ruth Bader Ginsburg threw the case out. So that’s the guy you go to, the guy who’s proven to stretch the Constitution, and break it, just to get a conviction of a political opponent. That’s who led the charge for them.
Dan O’Donnell 03:15: John Pudner with the Wisconsin Faith and Freedom Coalition joining me. I’m sure you’ve got an opinion on what’s going on right now. I asked Michael Whatley, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, whether he thought Biden would be the nominee. He gave me a very political answer, “We’re focused on Donald Trump getting elected and doing the job the American people wants us to do”, but I know you’ll give me a straight answer. Is Biden going to be the nominee? Forget about by the convention, will he be the nominee next week?
John Pudner 03:48: I’m still leaning toward thinking he is, but Kamala is interesting, because, as you mentioned early on in the show, you can’t transfer all these funds. Now, there’s so many outside funds now that, remember, there’ll be a few billion spent that are not part of the official campaign, so that’s not a deal breaker to bring someone else in, but I still lean to thinking he is. But, it’s amazing people I think would be insiders there are split 50/50 and are all absolutely sure they’re correct in their perspective.
Dan O’Donnell 04:17: I mean, to me, it seems as though the narrative has shifted. I’m gonna play you a montage here of elected Democrats. These are three elected Democrats all saying they should probably pivot to Kamala, and she’s ready, and here we go….
Former Rep. Tim Ryan 04:32: So many of the different aspects of the Democratic coalition will be super excited about a Kamala Harris run…
Rep. James Clyburn 04:39: This party should not, in any way, do anything to work around Mrs. Harris. We should do everything we can to bolster her, whether it’s in second place, or at the top of the ticket…
Rep. Barbara Lee 04:53: I mean, she’s (Kamala Harris) prepared, she’s been our Vice President. Who else?
Dan O’Donnell 04:57: That was Barbara Lee, James Clyburn, and Tim Ryan, all, I think, coming to the realization that the only viable alternative, I think because of the transfer of those hundreds of millions of dollars could only really go to her, I think they’re recognizing and trying to talk her up, because they know if they’re replacing Biden, it’s really Harris or bust.
John Pudner 05:20: And I think the bigger thing is they don’t want a brokered convention. If Biden’s being removed, and suddenly, their convention, instead of being staged is going to be people fighting over three candidates to round up delegates who’ve been released while they’re having the pro-Hamas protesters all over Chicago? We’ve seen a bad DNC in Chicago before, and that’s their nightmare, so I think, at least, they want to be ready to say if they don’t do Biden, here’s where we go, and let’s not have a four-day war over this.
Dan O’Donnell 05:49: Would there be a scenario in which Gavin Newsom could parachute in? I mean, you’ve been doing campaigns for a long time. I just don’t see it. I mean, the infrastructure alone…I don’t think people understand how many people need to staff a presidential campaign.
John Pudner 06:08: Yes, that’s correct. Trump actually did with a very light staff in 2016, but I credit Reince Priebus, who had a huge RNC organization everywhere, so that’s actually probably the one time he could have done it. The party was actually in place. But yeah, generally, I mean, Hillary Clinton in 2016 have 1,000 employees in Ohio for two years leading up to the election. Now, they did her no good, but you’re right, to change that whole infrastructure over reporting…internally, campaigns are a mess, they try to make him look clean from the outside, but they’re just hard to organize.
Dan O’Donnell 06:38: He is John Pudner with the Wisconsin Faith and Freedom Coalition joining me here on the Dan O’Donnell show.
