Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

2023's Greatest Hits. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 23, 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]

CAROLYN MANNO, CNN HOST: Very inventive. Normally we see watches and that sort of things, high priced ticket items, of course from the quarterback, but I liked the four wheels idea.

AMARA WALKER, CNN ANCHOR: Happy holidays to them and you.

MANNO: Although I'll always take a watch as well, but hey, I like that he's a little innovative.

WALKER: Carolyn Manno, great to see you. Merry Christmas. Thanks so much.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And thank you all for joining us this morning.

WALKER: Smerconish is up next. Have a great day everybody.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Why not just come out and say it? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected Special Counsel Jack Smith's request to expedite review of Donald Trump's assertion of the defense of presidential immunity. And now the case pending in front of Judge Tanya Chutkan. In the District Court in D.C. will be argued in front of an appellate court, three judge panel on January 9. And likely then before that court on bonk, meaning the full appellate court before probably going back to the Supreme Court. This makes it highly unlikely that Trump will be tried as scheduled on March 4. And that delay is precisely what Donald Trump was seeking.

Last week, I commented on special counsel Jack Smith's unwillingness to acknowledge his motivation, that he's racing against the election clock in trying to get Trump to trial. The only reason that Smith had asked the Supreme Court to decide immediately whether Trump is immune from prosecution for events that occurred while in office, instead of waiting for the normal appellate review was that Smith fears his prosecution might end with a Trump election victory. But instead of saying so, Smith in his filings spoke only in generalities, quote, "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 in seeking expedited review, quote, "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 arrived sooner, the timing of such a decision might prevent this court from hearing and deciding the case this term."

What he meant was that Trump could win the election and order all charges be dropped or pardon himself ending this prosecution forever. Others have since made similar observations. Today, the Wall Street Journal, quote, "Mr. Smith didn't offer a good legal reason for the justices to break normal appellate procedure and jumped the queue over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. His plea was purely political, so that he could meet the opening trial date of March 4 and get a conviction of Trump before Election Day in 2024."

Many of you didn't appreciate when I explained all this last week. The social media was brutal. I was simply trying to detail how Smith has boxed himself in. But it did earn applause my commentary from last week. And from one viewer, that would be Donald Trump, who posted on Truth Social a compliment of my so-called honesty and understanding of a very dangerous moment in the United States.

I'm thinking he was trying to get me fired. And in their brief to the Supreme Court, Trump's lawyer cited my guest, CNN Commentator and former Prosecutor Elie Honig, who said to me that any fair-minded observer would have to agree that Smith is acting based on the election calendar. When on Thursday, Smith filed a reply to Trump's lawyers with SCOTUS, he ignored Trump's claim that the DOJ is acting with an eye toward the election. Instead, he vaguely referenced what's in the public's best interest and voiced a desire to have the charges promptly resolved.

But why not just say the public needs to know if a presidential candidate is a convicted felon before voting? Or that because a president cannot be prosecuted while in office, there's a risk that a Trump election victory will bring a potential four-year delay during which time memories fade, witnesses could die. Or that absent fast resolution any prosecution of Trump is going to run up against a DOJ rule not allowing conduct perceived as political close in time to an election. Smith won't say it because Trump would then claim confirmation that a prosecution guided by the election schedule is political. And viewed that way it might be political, not necessarily partisan.

Smith is no doubt concerned that Trump is going to win the election and either order DOJ to stand down or self-pardon. What remains to be seen is whether Smith will ever acknowledge the need for urgency due to the election or will he continue to beat around the bush and risk further delays.

[09:05:07]

The Supreme Court is about to have more influence on a presidential election than any time since Bush v. Gore in 2000. There's the matter of whether January 6 defendants were properly prosecuted under a statute for obstruction of an official proceeding. And there's the state of Colorado challenge to Trump's qualification under section three of the 14th Amendment. And there's this case, Smith's challenge of Trump's assertion of presidential immunity in the federal case pending before Judge Chutkan. Scheduled to go on trial March 4, one day before Super Tuesday, March 5 when 15 states cast ballots for GOP contenders.

It is this case, I've long said, which stands the strongest possibility of Trump being tried before the general election, but now that scheduling is in doubt. And Smith's refusal to level with the public about why he's rushing to the courthouse, I think diminishes the credibility of the DOJ. If the election did not loom large, there's no way Smith would be in such a hurry. You got to say so.

I want to know what you think. Go to smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question, Should Jack Smith openly acknowledge he wants to try Donald Trump before the election? Joining me now once again is Elie Honig, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, former federal prosecutor, author most recently of "Untouchable, How Powerful People Get Away With It."

Elie, I've always respected you. I never knew however, the things that you say to me here on Saturday mornings on CNN are binding on the Supreme Court of the United States. What did you make of them name checking you in that Trump briefing?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That was a first, Michael. Look, we do aim to make our segments fair and informative. I've never expected the Supreme Court of the United States to take what we say as gospel. Who knows what they made of that citation. But I will say this, the side that cited us won the case. So, you can draw whatever conclusion you will.

SMERCONISH: Elie, from Jack Smith's perspective, is this political? Or is this now legal as well, the very issue that you and I together have framed?

HONIG: Yes, so Jack Smith already was I think paying the price in terms of his credibility and politically for his obvious failure to say what's really going on here, which is he wants to try the case before the election. Now he's paying a price legally in the courts. And here's why, Michael, Jack Smith was asking the Supreme Court to take the case direct from the District Court. That's a rare proceeding. It's not never done, but it's rarely done.

But as such, Jack Smith legally bore the burden of proving two things. One, the case was very important. That part was easy. That part was uncontested. Of course, this case is very important.

But number two is that there's a specific need to expedite a specific need for speed. And because Jack Smith remains stubbornly unwilling to say, I want to try this case before the election. Instead, in both of his briefs, his first brief and then his reply brief. He's just left with this sort of mealy mouthed gibberish, where he says, well, delay is bad, and speed is good, upmost importance and that kind of thing. And Donald Trump's team seized on that they said he has failed. He has failed to meet his legal burden to give a specific reason why expedition is necessary.

And we don't know exactly why he lost. We got a one line ruling out of the Supreme Court, but they denied him.

SMERCONISH: Elie, what would it sound like, how would Jack Smith explain it if he were to follow the advice that you just offered?

HONIG: Yes, it's a tough position. Because in the prosecutorial platonic ideal, Jack Smith would not be thinking about the election date at all, because to consider the election date violates long standing DOJ policy and practice written and unwritten. But given the obvious reality, which any common sense person can see that he is thinking about the election date. My advice would be and he can take this or leave this, admit it. Let's just drop the subterfuge and the artifice.

Let's just say what everybody knows you're doing. And I think the most palatable way to phrase that, the least political way is to say if Donald Trump gets elected under long standing DOJ policy, he can't be tried. And that means we would have this trial put on hold for four years until January of 2029. In at which point, we would lose witnesses, we would lose evidence. I mean, a four year delay, it makes it really unpalatable to try a case in 2029.

So I think given the position Jack Smith has put himself in, he should just acknowledge it, and he should phrase it in terms of legitimate DOJ prerogatives.

SMERCONISH: OK, my belief is he is guided by a fear that then next week in Des Moines or in New Hampshire, a week thereafter, it's going to be Trump standing up and saying, I told you so, he's admitted. All of these prosecutions are political. And because they don't want Trump to have the ability to say that, instead, they say nothing. They, the DOJ.

[09:10:00]

HONIG: That's exactly what would almost certainly happen. But here's the thing, if Jack Smith is sitting in his prosecutor's office as special counsel and thinking, boy, I don't want one of the candidates to have a talking point on the trail, I don't want someone to be able to say this thing that I don't like, that's inherently political. And that I think is a perfect example of why Jack Smith has played himself into a box by the fact that he's obviously thinking about the election, but he still will not say that dreaded E word.

SMERCONISH: OK, so, Elie, game it out for me, January nine, three judge panel for the Court of Appeals, no doubt whoever loses asks for on bonk or a full court review. Tell me how you think this is going to play itself out?

HONIG: Yes, so we're going to have oral argument in the court of appeals on January 9. Clearly, the D.C, Court of Appeals wants to move as quickly as possible. Look, they've picked up on the wink-wink from Jack Smith. They're not making him say it. They're giving him expert -- super expedited review. I think they'll rule certainly by the end of January.

Jack Smith's next move is going to be to seek what you call on bonk review, meaning ask the entire court of appeals to hear it. That is rarely granted. And then Jack Smith, well, if you -- if he -- well, whoever loses there will go to the Supreme Court. But here's the thing, if Donald Trump loses in the Court of Appeals, and it seems quite clear he will, technically he has 90 days to go to the Supreme Court to seek certiorari. So that puts us out into the middle of spring, if Donald Trump's team loses, they may choose to take all 90 of those days, which completely blows out the March 4 trial date that we have right now.

Now, there's other ways the Court of Appeals can let the district court sort of start to do their work again without trying the case. But this puts Jack Smith in a real bind if he's hoping to get this case and forget about March. March is, in my view, off the board now. But even any time before the summer, and at a certain point, you just get too close to the election to try the case at all.

SMERCONISH: Elie, you said something really important that I don't want glossed over. And that is that Jack Smith did not get the expedited review that he was looking for from the Supreme Court of the United States, but he is absolutely getting it from the D.C. Court of Appeals.?

HONIG: Yes, I think this is a really important point. Both the trial judge, Judge Chutkan and the D.C. Court of Appeals completely or vibing (ph) with Jack Smith, they understand what he's saying. They are on board. They understand he wants to try this before the election. They're not putting the word to him.

They're not making him say it. The U.S. Supreme Court, though, clearly was not OK with this wink-wink. Hey, you all know what I mean. I want to try this before the election. And that's why they said no to his request to expedite. But yes, the Court of Appeals is moving at almost unprecedented lightning speed and giving him an oral argument, basically two and a half weeks from right now.

SMERCONISH: OK. Finally, you've inspired today's poll question. Stick with me. I'm going to put it on the screen @smerconish.com right now, Should Jack Smith openly acknowledge --yes. He wants to try Donald Trump before the election.

From the world of Social Media, Catherine (ph), what do we have? I might need to lean on Elie for this. Joe says I am not a Trump fan. But no -- make no mistake about it. As soon as we the people allow the courts to decide who we can vote for that, will truly be the end of democracy as we know it because it won't stop.

The point being made by this individual, Elie, is that Donald Trump criticized as being undemocratic, tried to overturn the election, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Now, plays the card and says, look how undemocratic this is. They're trying to deny the voters from an opportunity to elect me. Very, very political. It's the issue of the election, I think. HONIG: Yes, I -- but I think -- and this is a problem for Jack Smith, because if his position is, well, we're worried about what Donald Trump might do if he really takes office. Then that makes Jack Smith's position. In essence, I want to prevent Donald Trump from taking office. That is anathema to DOJ policy.

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: That is absolutely the opposite of everything that you're supposed to do as a DOJ prosecutor is worry about who's going to win the election. What are the voters going to know? Do the voters think he's going to be convicted or not beforehand? Is he going to have a talking point of that campaign? To the extent Jack Smith is thinking about any of that, he's way out of balance, he's way beyond his prosecutorial prerogatives there.

SMERCONISH: Totally boxton. Elie, Happy Holidays. Thank you for excellent analysis. Really appreciate it.

Up ahead, my next guests provocative take on Trump is that those who support him find him to be are you ready? A pragmatic, unpredictable, kind of moderate. I'll ask him to defend his case. Please sign up for the smerconish.com daily newsletter for which Jack Oman, the Pulitzer Prize winner sketched this cartoon this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:43]

SMERCONISH: Why does Donald Trump's extreme rhetoric seem to have no negative impact on his standing among Republican voters? As you no doubt heard last Saturday in New Hampshire, Trump said that migrants are poisoning the blood of America. Languages like that fuels the narrative that Trump is an authoritarian. But might he actually be more moderate than dictatorial? That's the provocative thesis of my next guest who made that claim in a "New York Times" essay.

He says that despite the rhetoric, Trump's actual record is that of a pragmatist. And as to the inflammatory quotes, there's evidence they actually are boosting Trump's standing. The Des Moines Register poll just showed how when the register read a list of eight of Trump's more incendiary remarks to likely Iowa Republican caucus goers. Well, you'll find these results shocking.

Asked about Trump's statement that immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally are, quote, "Poisoning the blood" of America, 42 percent of likely Republican Iowa caucus goers said that makes them more likely to vote for Trump. After his claim that if reelected president he would authorize sweeping raids, giant camps and mass deportations, 50 percent said that makes them more likely to support him.

[09:20:00]

As for his claim that quote, "The radical left thugs that live like vermin in the U.S. need to be routed out." Forty-three percent said that makes me more inclined to vote for. A possible explanation lies in these times essay by Matthew Schmitz, titled "The Secret of Trump's Appeal Isn't Authoritarianism," in which Schmitz writes, "During his presidency, Mr. Trump's often intemperate rhetoric and erratic behavior ended up accompanying a host of moderate policies. On matters ranging from health care and entitlements to foreign policy and trade, Mr. Trump routinely rejected the most unpopular ideas of both political parties.

Issue by issue, Schmitz then tries to delineate between Trump's rhetoric and his actual governance. By way of example, with regard to the abortion question, he writes this, "Though he championed the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, and has charged Democrats with supporting laws that make it legal to "rip the baby out of the womb," quote, unquote, "in the ninth month of pregnancy. He has also broken with a portion opponents after Mr. DeSantis signed Florida's ban on abortions after six weeks, Trump called the move a terrible mistake. By criticizing both late term abortions and the most comprehensive restrictions on access, Trump has managed to reflect the muddled views held by much of the electorate."

Joining me now is Matthew Schmitz. He's a founder and editor of the online magazine Compact.

Matthew, CNN viewers have steam coming out of their ears right now and they are saying, are you joking? We're talking about a guy who sought to overturn the election result. That's the conduct of an authoritarian, not of a moderate. And you would say what?

MATTHEW SCHMITZ, FOUNDER & EDITOR, COMPACT MAGAZINE: So as you said, Michael, and thanks for having me on, it's important to look as, you know, a lot of voters seem to do not just at Trump's rhetoric, but at his record on immigration, his rhetoric is inflammatory and seems to be getting more so. You know, recent polling has shown that voters have more trust in Trump's record on immigration than on Biden's. So one way to understand, you know, how can people be abiding this rhetoric, which sounds so crazy? They may be looking at images of the border and saying, well, you know, rhetoric that's a little wild. You know, I can overlook that when there is such a deep crisis at the border.

You mentioned those poll results from Iowa. I think one risk that there is for the Trump campaign is, though Republican caucus goers who are very committed Republicans said that some of these statements were more likely a plurality said that the statements made them more likely to vote for Trump, morality of independence set of some of those statements that they made them less likely to vote for Trump. So the political valence of this may change as we move from the primary to the general.

SMERCONISH: OK. By the way, we have up on the screen right now the Des Moines Register poll, which goes through those eight statements. And on the left in the darkest of color, are those who say, yes, I agree with him. Isn't the takeaway from the Des Moines Register poll, Matthew, that it's not as if his core electorate secretly hopes for the moderation that you write about? No, they want the guy who stood in New Hampshire last week and said, migrants are poisoning the blood of America. It's the opposite of what you advance in your piece, isn't it?

SCHMITZ: I think I can push back on that a bit, Michael. Thank you for the question. In the Des Moines Register polling, you saw that a plurality said that the poisoning, the blood comments made them more likely to support from. At the same time, a plurality of those same Republican, likely caucus goers, said that Trump's talk of possibly terminating parts of the Constitution made them less likely to support Trump. So, you know what could explain that difference?

I don't know. It's pure speculation. But we do see that on the underlying issues that voters are more likely to trust Trump and Biden on the issue of immigration. But on the issue of defending democracy, voters are more likely to trust Biden than Trump. So, I'm not sure but I think some of that, you know, may reflect voters trying to comment on the underlying issue.

SMERCONISH: Matthew, the essay in the "Times" was jarring, I think, too many of their readers, you know, especially that this opinion, which was provocative, was published in the "Times." So I paid attention to the comments. I'll put on the screen and read to you aloud.

Here was the number one comment. How many times will apologists for Donald Trump disingenuously tell us to take him seriously, but not literally? I think Salena Zito was the first to say that. Mr. Schmitz makes a shameful attempt to whitewash Trump's rhetoric and distract us from the danger Trump poses to American democracy and the rule of law. Trump, the only president in our history who mounted a coup to overturn the results of an election he lost and who openly expresses his admiration for authoritarian rulers like Russia's Vladimir Putin is no moderate."

You would say what to Stephen N who filed that?

[09:25:03]

SCHMITZ: Well, first thanks to Stephen N for reading. You spoke in the last segment about the legal prosecution of Trump. And I think that underlying those legal maneuvers is a political judgment. There's a conviction among many people, I think, including many viewers of the show that Trump, you know, represents a radical departure from politics as it has been, that he's a threat to democracy. The suggestion of my essay is that he may be less of a threat than thought.

And I ground that argument less on, you know, Trump's own intentions, which I can't really look into then on the views of your median voters who support him. So the fact that Trump is getting, you know, 40 percent plus of Hispanic voters in current polls, that he's getting 20 percent plus of black voters, very high numbers for our Republican, suggests to me that Trump's appeal for those voters who can deliver the race to him doesn't have to do with white supremacy, doesn't have to do with dictatorship, but instead has to do with, you know, response to his moderate take on entitlements. And Trump's rhetoric --

SMERCONISH: I -- Matthew, I think that's legit. SCHMITZ: Sure.

SMERCONISH: I got -- I think that's legit, I cannot imagine that the numbers that you've just cited, particularly among folks of color or Hispanics, are in response to the rhetoric. It's got to be something else. Maybe it's the record of the incumbent.

Thank you. It was provocative, and I appreciate the fact that you wrote it, and we're willing to come and discuss it.

SCHMITZ: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction. Let's see what some is coming so far. I think my blood pressure went up on this one. There's nothing remotely moderate about Trump.

Mo, I think a different approach for my guests would have been to say, what a shame that he has posed such parallel to democracy. What a shame on that issue, which you can't overlook, right? Because none of the rest of this matters if we don't honor the rule of law. That would be my starting point.

And then I would say, but if you actually look at the issues, even on immigration, is there that much daylight between Biden and Trump, especially now with the record crossings? I think it makes some very legitimate points, you know, that in many respects, he's Studio 54 Donald, you know, like the old Trump. The Trump who had Hillary and Bill at his wedding than the guy you've come to known through the rhetoric. Complicated subject. Wish I had more time.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com. Vote on today's poll question. Should Jack Smith openly acknowledge he wants to try Donald Trump? Yes, before the election. Say it.

Up ahead, every year I strive to bring you a wide range of voices and opinions from both sides of the aisle as well as insightful lessons about how we live our lives. A hopefully fun look back at 2023's memorable moments from this program, from RFK Jr. to AI girlfriends from the January 6 shaman to the great Admiral William McRaven. And please be sure to sign up for my daily newsletter while you're there. You'll find exclusive content from political cartoonist. I love this.

This is two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Bree. Check that out. Nice work, Steve.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:33]

SMERCONISH: Today is our last live show of the year. We have something really cool, really special that's going to air next Saturday. I'll tell you about that in a moment. But I want to thank you for watching in 2023.

In just a couple of months we'll celebrate our 10th anniversary on Saturday mornings here on CNN. No small feat in this industry. We really appreciate your loyal viewing.

Of course, we could not do it without great guests. Each week, we strive to bring you the very best in content regardless of political affiliation or ideological perspective.

Here's a quick look at some memorable moments from the shaman to Admiral William McRaven. A week after a fight almost broke out on the House floor over the speaker's gavel, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz came on this program to share his side of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: How much did you see of him coming at you?

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): Well, Mike Rogers and I have worked together for six years on some of the most tensed national security issues on the Armed Services Committee. So, it's not the first time we've been frustrated with one another or worked together.

As a matter of fact, that wasn't a remarkably unique incident. There are times when the pressure cooker is on when we do yell and get heated, and that's OK among colleagues. What was different about this was just that it was caught on camera.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: A little trivia, years before he was my CNN guest, Gaetz was actually a radio caller to my SiriusXM program using the alias Matt from Florida, true story.

I broke bread this year with Admiral McRaven, what an honor. He was everything I hoped he'd be when he came on the program most recently to discuss his book, "The Wisdom of the Bullfrog: Leadership Made Simple But Not Easy."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADMIRAL WILLIAM MCRAVEN (RET.), AUTHOR, "WISDOM OF THE BULLFROG": The bullfrog is the title given to the longest serving Navy SEAL on active duty. Remember, first and foremost as Navy SEALs we are Navy frogman from our World War II frogman roots. So, when you are the senior frogman, you are the bullfrog.

SMERCONISH: Do you get anything more than bragging rights? I imagine you never have to buy a beer for yourself if everybody knows like you're the frogman.

MCRAVEN: I think the hard part of it is when you're the bullfrog you've got to buy all the beers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: If he'd ever allow himself to be drafted into a presidential campaign, I'm quitting all my jobs and working for him if he would have me. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. jumped into the presidential race this year after several polls found voters did not want to see a Trump versus Biden rematch.

[09:35:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Do you embrace that label fringe? And if not, what does fringe mean to you?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I'm not running to bring attention to a particular cause. I'm running because I believe I'm going to win. I have a good chance at winning, a good enough chance of winning, to endure all the hardships that, you know, a campaign imposes on me and my family.

And I can tell you this, Michael, because I know that you're a big fan of my wife, but if she did not think -- if I had not convinced her that I can win this race I would not be in it because she's the ultimate boss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: OK. Funny thing. I think because of good staff work, he knows I love "Curb Your Enthusiasm." It's my ring tone on my phone. It has been for years. And I love his wife, Cheryl. So, RFK Jr. is like sure to work her into every interview that we do together, and I get a kick out of it.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the Emanuel boys, shocked many when he claimed that when he hits 75 he'll stop seeking any medical intervention. Well, listen to what he said to me this year at age 65.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: As you draw closer to 75, is the Emanuel clan, lobbying, putting pressure on you to reconsider?

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL, VICE PROVOST OF GLOBAL INITIATIVES, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Look, I've had discussion with my partner extensively about this, if I'm an outlier, as I think I've said in public before. If I'm vigorous, like Tony Fauci still being active, still making major contributions into my 80s, you know, then I'll have to reconsider.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, Zeke has been my guest many times, but we've never met in person until this year, last spring, we had lunch together on the Penn campus. I remember this. He ate healthy and he rode his bike. I did neither, but I enjoyed his company.

Jacob Chansley, on the other hand, infamously stormed the Capitol on January 6th. He filed paperwork this year to run for Arizona's eighth congressional district. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Let's agree on this. Maybe you should never have been in the building to begin with.

JACOB ANGELI CHANSLEY, PLEADED GUILTY TO FELONY FOR JANUARY 6/PLANNING RUN FOR CONGRESS: OK, well, there's a lot of people in Congress that probably shouldn't be in there.

SMERCONISH: This is not sounding so repentant. I'm going to -- I'm going to skip ahead to something the judge said.

I think your remarks are the most remarkable I've heard in 34 years. I think you are genuine in your remorse and heartfelt.

So, I guess, my question is, are you remorseful? Because now I'm kind of questioning whether you're remorseful.

CHANSLEY: Well, with all due respect, I don't care if you're questioning whether or not I'm remorseful. I've made it very clear on several occasions. I should not have broken the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Look, I was willing to give him an airing. Maybe I shouldn't have. He had served his time, you know, paid his debt to society. That's what I thought. And also, the judge, in that sentencing memo, said that -- the judge found him repentant. I, on the other hand, did not.

Suicide, substance abuse, and a lack of romantic partners, some of the reasons why men, young men, appear to be in crisis today. Thankfully, Scott Galloway, a frequent guest on this program, gave us the tools to address these problems.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Scott, take 30 seconds and talk about solutions.

SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS/HOST "PROF G" PODCAST: 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 economic backgrounds, different sexual orientations, and also different romantic partners.

Men, like you and me, Michael, getting involved in young men's lives. The single point of failure, we can reverse engineering 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Professor G is the total package. The guy is funny, he's bright, he's bald, he's bearded, and I admire his courage in speaking out for the plight of young men. Which now brings me to this issue, why are young men looking for A.I. relationships? I spoke with data science professor Liberty Vittert.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Are all the needs of these young men able to be facilitated, taken care of by A.I. avatars?

LIBERTY VITTERT, PROFESSOR OF DATA SCIENCE, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS: It's not a virtual girlfriend. It's an A.I. girlfriend. So, it learns from you. It learns what you like and what you don't like, what kind of pictures you like, what kind of pictures you don't like.

And while not all needs are met, that is the next step, is actual physical girlfriends. A.I. ones, for that matter. And so, the next step or the next frontier is one that can meet all of your needs. And as you said, it's enabling this entire generation of young men to continue in this loneliness epidemic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:40:07]

SMERCONISH: A.I. girlfriends, I say just a symptom of society's greatest problem, not enough shared experience. I like the way that Bill Maher says it. We've got to mingle. It's time to mingle.

And finally, back in 1990, a New Jersey man bought a lifetime pass on United Airlines for unlimited travel. Today, Tom Stuker has flown more than 23 million miles. More than anybody else on the planet. I asked him about any celebrity sightings that he has had at airports through his many travels.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Give me one quick celebrity encounter.

TOM STUKER, LIFETIME FLYER FOR UNITED AIRLINES: Bill Murray in the first-class lounge, Chicago. My brother who's a great Bill Murray fan. I even told Bill I think my brother does a better Bill Murray than he does.

Bill says, well, get him on the phone. Bill called, my brother didn't answer, left a two-minute message. That was just, just so beautiful.

(END VIDEO CLIP

SMERCONISH: I remember, after I interviewed Tom Stuker, I said to myself, now, that's a guy I wouldn't mind sitting next to on a long flight. And those are but a couple of the memories from hundreds of segments this year.

Since shows like this never do a credits roll, I want to take a moment and just thank the CNN team who toiled behind the scenes to bring you this program every week and make Ron Burgundy look good. Here we are gathered at our holiday lunch in New York City, just last week. From the left, editorial producer Corinna Lamb, writer/producer Jorge Mitssunaga, associate producer Amelia Burns, executive producer, yes, there she is, Catherine Brosseau. Everyone says, where's Catherine? Who is Catherine? There she is.

My producer and radio sidekick TC Scornavacchi, producer David Handelman, and producer Chloe Scretchings. There is also our Atlanta team headed by director David Marshall. Thank you, David. Thank you everybody in Atlanta. I thank you all.

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. Should Jack Smith openly acknowledge he wants to try Donald Trump before the election? Sign up for the Smerconish.com newsletter.

By the way, Jack Ohman, look at this, he sketched this for my newsletter subscribers without a caption. What do you think the caption should be on that Jack Ohman cartoon?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:46:45]

SMERCONISH: I promise, I put no thought into this until the last 60 seconds. So, I've got -- I've got Trump saying, you're my greatest gift. And then I have Biden saying -- and I'm going to voice this carefully because I know kids are watching. How fitting that he would play that role. You follow?

All right. That was the best I could do in like 60 seconds. Social media reaction. What do we -- I love that cartoon. I love that cartoon. There are my notes.

Should Trump acknowledge he is just trying to delay because he might be elected and run the clock out on his crimes? I feel your question this morning was really not very centrist and considering both sides.

Well, of course, that's what he's doing, right? Of course, that's what he's doing. But he's not the one going to the courthouse and trying to rush it to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I said for all the reasons that I offered earlier with Elie Honig here that I think he should just acknowledge it and say the American people need to know, are they about to vote for a convicted felon?

One more because I think I've got time. Real quick. Should Smerconish reveal he is a closet Trump supporter?

Yes. Because what? Because he cited this show? I don't know that he even paid attention to what I was saying in the block. I mean, I'm the one who is most critical but doing so in a way of presenting both sides. Like the guy who think that he's actually a moderate. You've got all sides on that, but it's a provocative discussion.

Still to come, the final results of the poll. Smerconish.com is where I want you to go. Should Jack Smith openly acknowledge he wants to try Donald Trump before the election?

If you subscribe to the daily newsletter, it's free, you get exclusively editorial cartoons from the legends like this one from Rob Rogers. Nicely done, Rob.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:51]

SMERCONISH: OK, so there's the results so far at Smerconish.com. Wow, pretty decisive. 22,614 votes cast. Should Jack Smith openly acknowledge he wants to try Trump before the election? Seventy-two percent agreeing with yours truly and Elie Honig in saying, yes, just -- this is -- this is the reason why we are rushing to get this case revolved.

It's going back to the Supreme Court any way. You know, if they decided they weren't going to make this judgment now on whether this issue has to be resolved so it goes back to the three-judge panel then maybe en banc and then ultimately back to the court. As I said earlier in the program, the court's going to have more of an impact on this presidential election, I think, since Bush v. Gore in 2000. And the only thing any of us know for certain is that we have no idea what's coming in 2024.

Now for something a little different. A look ahead to next week's special edition of this program.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: Back in 2006, after I have been appearing regularly on CNN usually as a legal guest, the network told me they liked my work but they didn't know what to do with me. I think the network brass were surprised when then I pitched my idea, hosting a weekly book club.

We filmed it beginning with me back at home on Market Street in Philadelphia. Well, that show never made it to air but today, 17 years later, a holiday gift, at least for me, I decided I would speak with five authors of books that made an impact on me this year.

David Brooks has been an opinion columnist for "The New York Times" for 20 years. His latest book explores the most important skill for people to possess and lead happy, health lives.

Free speech advocate Greg Lukianoff co-wrote the bestseller "The Coddling of the American Mind." And with cancel culture wars tearing apart university campuses all across the country, he's now back with a well-timed follow up. It's "The Canceling of American Mind."

Sheila Johnson was the nation's first female Black billionaire. In her memoire, she recounts hardships she faced along the way including institutional racism, losing a child, emotional abuse, and depression.

And Robert Rubin was the former secretary of the treasury, co-chair of Goldman Sachs. His latest is about what he has learned on how to make the best decisions in an uncertain world. [09:55:05]

And perhaps in complete contrast, Robert Sapolsky is a TED Talk phenom. He's a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University. He argues in his latest book that we really don't have any power to decide anything. That there's no such thing as free will.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: I hope you'll join me next Saturday at 9:00 a.m. Eastern for the one time airing of the Smerconish book club. Between now and then, have a very merry Christmas and happy holidays.

CATHERINE BROSSEAU, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF SMERCONISH: Hey, merry Christmas. Happy new year from the Smerconish team in Hudson Yards, New York. I'm Catherine Brosseau, executive producer of the show and this is our team.

DAVID HANDELMAN, PRODUCER OF SMERCONISH: I'm David Handelman. I'm a producer.

CORINNA LAMB, EDITORIAL PRODUCER OF SMERCONISH: Corinna Lamb, editorial producer.

JORGE MITSSUNAGA, WRITER/PRODUCER OF SMERCONISH: I'm Jorge Mitssunaga. I'm a writer/producer.

AMELIA BURNS, ASSOCIATE PRODUCER OF SMERCONISH: Amelia Burns. I'm an associate producer.

BROSSEAU: Happy new year.

GROUP: Happy new year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHLOE SCRETCHINGS, PRODUCER OF SMERCONISH: Hi, everyone. I'm Chloe Scretchings. I work here on Michael's show on CNN in New York. And I just wanted to wish you all a merry Christmas and happy holidays and all the things. I hope you have a fabulous new year. Thanks for watching the show.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)