Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

"No Labels" Eyes A Third-Party Run In 2024; Could Kids Solve The Labor Shortage?; Trump's Mounting Legal Problems. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired May 27, 2023 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:07]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: It's Memorial Day weekend and everybody's getting in the poll. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Why are so many Republican candidates now challenging Donald Trump for the GOP presidential nomination? Think about it. He's a former president, essentially a GOP incumbent who's consistently polling around 50 percent of the GOP vote in the polls. And we learned in 2016 that given the hardcore support that Trump enjoys from some, he's the beneficiary of a large field. Remember, in that cycle, there were so many running that debates they had a kid's table. This time Trump announced first, and then Nikki Haley, and then Vivek Ramaswamy, Larry elder, Asa Hutchinson, Tim Scott, and now Ron DeSantis, who by the way is only 44 years old. By Biden Trump's standards, he's got three more decades to run for president.

So why run now? Why get into the steel cage with a wrestler who always carries a foreign object? Mike Pence said he'll soon make a decision. Chris Christie sure sounds like a candidate, Sununu might get in, even Glen Youngkin, according to Axios is taking a second look. So what's going on?

Maybe that they don't think they'll have to be Trump, that that work will be done by a combination of Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and Merrick Garland. This week, Trump appeared remotely in a Manhattan courtroom in connection with the Stormy Daniels case. Judge Juan Merchan told the party's not to make any plans around the scheduled start of trial March 25, 2024. Trump reportedly reacted by shaking his head.

There's still jockeying going on regarding the caucus and primary schedule for next year. But take a look at 2016, that was the last time that we had a competitive Republican process. Look at that as a guide. In that cycle, Iowa held its caucus on February 1, New Hampshire voted on February 9, then came South Carolina and Nevada. Super Tuesday was March one. There were six more election days in March.

And then in April, came Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana. And in May, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Washington state. In the thick of that schedule, Donald Trump will spend a week or two sitting in a Manhattan courtroom facing criminal prosecution. And even without cameras in New York courtrooms, his comings and goings will all be noted. Sketch artists will have a field day, it's going to be OJ on steroids.

And that's not all, last month, Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis sent a letter to the county's Sheriff putting him on notice of charging decisions that she'll announce in connection with her investigation of Georgia's 2020 election. And she wrote these words, "I'm providing this letter to bring to your attention the need for heightened security and preparedness in the coming months." She noted her timetable was between July 11 and September 1, that granted there are more individuals than just Donald Trump whose conduct is being investigated in Georgia. But would any of the others warrant notification of the sheriff of the possibility of unrest? I doubt it. Instead, I think she tipped her hand that she intends to indict him.

And then their special counsel Jack Smith appointed by Merrick Garland, The Wall Street Journal was the first to report this week that Smith has all but finished his work. They reported quote, "In recent weeks, prosecutors working for Smith have completed interviews with nearly every employee at Trump's Florida home. From top political aides to maids and maintenance staff."

The Journal couldn't determine whether Smith has decided to charge Trump. But earlier this week, Trump's lawyers sought a meeting with Merrick Garland. Common sense suggests that there's no need for a meeting unless Trump's lawyers think he's about to be indicted.

And now "The Washington Post" reports that two of the former president's employees moved boxes of papers from within his Mar-a-Lago home a day before FBI agents and a Justice Department official arrived to pick up classified documents. So, there's a serious prospect of the former president soon facing criminal charges in three different jurisdictions and in the thick of the campaign. Some will suggest that this is all to Trump's benefit. According to his campaign, he benefited financially after Alvin Bragg charged him in the Stormy Daniels case, raising $15.4 million in two weeks, and his polls went up.

I think because at its root, that's a case about sex. And in the 1990s, we learned that Americans don't see that as warranting a presidential downfall. But what additional prosecutions have the same impact? Would some finally have had enough of the reality show?

I can think have several in the latter camp their names are Haley, Ramaswamy, Hutchinson, Elder, Scott, DeSantis, maybe Pence, Christie, Sununu and Youngkin, too. And if they're right, and Trump isn't the candidate does, that put more pressure on President Biden to step aside where in the face of polling showing that even Democrats want a change in their ticket, his retort is to suggest that he alone can defeat Donald Trump. Bottom line, none of us have any idea what's about to unfold, but it's going to be riveting.

[15:05:35] Joining me now is Elie Honig, the former federal prosecutor and author of the recent book "Untouchable, How Powerful People Get Away With It."

Elie, I want to go through the three buckets Manhattan, Georgia, the feds. Relative to Manhattan March 25, is that a firm date? Will it really happen? And does he need to be in the courtroom?

ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF N.Y.: So Michael, I would say that's a semi firm date. Usually when a judge sets a trial date in a criminal case, you would write it in your date book in pencil things happen. Defendants often ask for more time. Prosecutors sometimes find new evidence and say we need more time. But this judge, Judge Merchan, made a point this week of telling the parties put this date down, do not schedule anything around it, be ready to go to trial.

But I do want to highlight there is a possibility Trump may go to the federal courts and say, you need to push this date back because as you said, Michael, this is going to fall right in the middle of the Republican primaries. And Trump's going to argue I'm a candidate for federal office, I have a First Amendment right to free speech to run for office, and to take me out for several weeks where I have to sit in a courtroom is going to interfere with that right. So, I think that trial is conspicuously timed. And I think there's a chance Trump may try to get it changed.

SMERCONISH: You know, that "The Washington Post" and "New York Times," I should, say even "The Washington Post" and "New York Time" used words like novel to describe the theory by which this misclassification was elevated to a felony. When does Donald Trump litigate that issue before or after trial?

HONIG: Both, Michael. He is certainly going to bring a motion to the judge before trial and say this theory were under which the charge here is a misdemeanor of falsifying business records, it only gets boosted up to a felony if the records were falsified to promote some other crime. And here are the theories, the other crime appears to be interference with the Federal Election of federal campaign violation. But we're in state court, so that's the novelty here, that could be challenged before trial. And if it goes to trial, he's convicted, Trump will appeal on that basis.

And one important thing to keep in mind here, Michael, even if this trial goes off in March, and I think it will carry certainly into April, Trump is not going to be sentenced for several months after that. And even if he is sentenced to prison, which I think is unlikely, given the nature of the charges here and given the way New York State law works, even if he's convicted, he's not going to get sentenced to prison in all likelihood. And even then, even if he's sentenced to prison, he's not going to actually have to start serving his sentence until after his appeals are done, which certainly will carry way beyond the November 2024 election.

SMERCONISH: Let's go to Georgia now. You heard me say in the setup that I think Fani Willis has tipped her hand. Do you agree with me? HONIG: I agree with you and more. She has not just tipped her hand, that suggests some inadvertence. I think she has turned her hand around, put it in front of the public cameras and hype this thing up like it's a summer movie Blockbuster and with about the same level of subtlety. There is little question. There's no question in my mind that Fani Willis has every intention to indict Donald Trump later this summer, July or August. She has made that entirely clear by her very public letters, not so subtle letters, to the sheriff and to other local authorities.

And I think the question is, will the nature of those charges, which are going to be very different, going to go to the attempt to steal the 2020 election, will they be received differently in the political world than the Manhattan D.A.'s charges?

SMERCONISH: Right. I mean, you heard me make the case that I think that Alvin Bragg thus far has helped Donald Trump fundraising the poll numbers. Nothing else explains how Trump in the last 60 days has increased his lead over DeSantis.

OK, let me ask this question, because we're about to get to Jack Smith and Merrick Garland. Do you think that someone from DOJ is on the horn with Fani Willis or has been on the horn with Alvin Bragg? Any type of coordination between the three buckets as I put them?

HONIG: So there's no indication of any communication or coordination between those three prosecutors. But Michael, it's important to understand, ordinarily, you would absolutely pick up the phone. If you were any of these three prosecutors, and you found out another prosecutor's office was looking at the same person of you, we do that all the time as prosecutors. I did that when I was a federal prosecutor calling over to the state and vice versa.

There's even a name for this process, it's called deconfliction, it is the most common thing in the world. You pick up the phone you go, hey, I hear you're looking at the same person as us. Where are you in your case? Should we share our witnesses? Should we share our evidence? Should we work this together?

[15:10:05]

Are we going to do this separate? Who's going to go first? There's no indication that's happened here. I think the prosecutors are wary of creating an appearance that they're coordinating. I think they don't want to be subject to that attack by Donald Trump.

And you know, it would come. But I think they are intentionally not dialing up each other's numbers.

SMERCONISH: OK. So to recap, there's a trial date with regard to Alvin Bragg, we both think that Fani Willis is going to indict Donald Trump this summer. Relative to Merrick Garland and Jack Smith, how about the issue of we always hear about that timetable close to an election, don't go doing anything that will impact the outcome of the election. Are Smith and Garland going to be up against that window? HONIG: They are Michael. And I think DOJ deserves some blame here. Because by taking this long, by taking two and a half plus years to get around to any of this, they've played themselves into a calendar corner because there is long standing DOJ policy and practice that you do not take actions within depending who you ask 60 or 90 days of an election, the big picture idea there is, as prosecutors, we try to avoid making moves that are going to land in the public sector and have political impacts too close to an election. And if we do the calendar math here, even if DOJ brings in indictments, either Mar-a- Lago or January 6 this summer, which is we are in the summer now, realistically, you are not going to be able to get to a trial through all the discovery, through all the appeals until at least a year from now, that puts us in the summer of 2024, which according to DOJ practice is really pretty darn close, arguably too close to the general election, especially when the defendant is one of the candidates.

SMERCONISH: OK. Elie, final thought then, little game theory here, it sounds like it's possible that the only case that could get to trial if, big if, there are actually three cases is the Alvin Bragg Stormy Daniel's case where we've seen in the last couple of months, it's arguably to the benefit of Donald Trump. Theoretically, Trump could get a trial date in the midst of the primary season and regardless of the outcome have some wind at his sails. And the other two cases don't get resolved until after the 2024 election. True?

HONIG: Yes. Yes, absolutely. This is the world we are living in, Michael, where we could have a leading candidate, perhaps a presumptive nominee for the presidency on criminal trial just a few months before the actual election. We could have two other pending indictments that are sitting there unresolved without a trial on the date of the election. Then, if Trump wins, or if a Republican wins, we could be looking at the potential for pardons. We could be looking -- there's no way he's going to be tried if he wins, and he goes back into office, he's not going to get tried while he's in office.

And if he loses, then the question is, well, are we going to have these trials in 2025 after he's lost two elections now. So there's a lot of different variables at play. We are we are heading into historically unprecedented territory.

SMERCONISH: That was excellent. We're trying to see around corners. Thank you so much, Elie, enjoy the weekend.

HONIG: Thanks, Michael. All right, you too.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program.

From the world of YouTube, it looks, Can't they fast track things and get all three to trial during 2024? Christopher Style, probably not. I mean, you can't make an argument like, hey, let's hurry up and get to trial.

I mean, remember, we have this conversation, every cycle. Just think of Comey and Weiner and reopening that investigation, so close to the election, like feds are not supposed to do anything close in time to an election. But if Smith takes action, as I think he probably will on an obstruction claim at some point in the near future, map out the schedule, and that's going to drop right into the time period that we're talking about.

Up ahead, a major league baseball announcer, he's out of a job after mistakenly uttering the N word during a pregame chat while gushing about his visit to the Negro Leagues Museum. He says it was inadvertent. Should he have been fired? I'll ask the head of the museum about it.

And is the right way to solve America's labor shortage lowering the age so the teenagers can work adult jobs including serving alcohol? Several GOP led states are changing the laws. Will this benefit the economy or harm the kids?

Plus, two thirds of Americans, two thirds of Americans don't want a rematch of the 2020 election. The nonpartisan group No Labels is working hard to field a third-party alternative.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website @smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, are you open to the idea of voting for a no labels third-party candidate?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:37]

SMERCONISH: Question, should a sports announcers mistaken use of the N word cost him his job? A longtime baseball announcer for the Oakland A's was let go after he used the N word on air, which he says was unintentional. During a pregame show in Kansas City, Glen Kuiper, longtime baseball announcer for the Oakland A's was talking to colleague, Dallas Braden, about their trip to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which is in that city, but Kuiper mispronounced the word Negro and instead used the slur.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLEN KUIPER, AMERICAN FORMER SPORTS COMMENTATOR: We had a phenomenal day today. (Bleep) Museum, and Arthur Bryant's barbeque --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: At the time, neither Kuiper nor Braden offered any reaction. Before the sixth inning, Kuiper told his audience this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KUIPER: A little bit earlier in the show I said something didn't come out quite the way I wanted to. And I just wanted to apologize if it sounded different than I meant it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: He was then suspended by NBC Sports California and ultimately fired. The network said in a statement, quote, "Following an internal review, the decision has been made for NBC Sports California to end its relationship with Glen Kuiper effective immediately. We thank Glen for his dedication to Bay Area baseball over the years."

A person familiar with the investigation told the Associated Press that the decision was based on a, quote, "variety of factors including information uncovered in that internal review." We invited Glen Kuiper to come on this program today but he declined our offer.

[15:20:11]

SMERCONISH: In a written statement he called the slur an unfortunate mispronunciation. "On that day I chose to spend my personal time by educating myself and learning more about MLBs history by going to the Negro League museum. I spent nearly three hours there in an effort to better understand and more deeply appreciate the difficulties and social barriers African American players endured in MLB's early years. When the subject of the museum visit came up in the pregame show, I was excited and eager to share what I had done and seen that day. In my excitement, I rushed through the word Negro resulting in my very unfortunate mispronunciation.

I sincerely apologize to everyone who was hurt by this. I was a terrible but honest mispronunciation. I take full responsibility." He added, "Please know that racism is in no way a part of me, it never has been, it never will be. I wish the Oakland A's and NBC Sports would have taken into consideration my 20 year career, my solid reputation, integrity and character, but in this current environment, traits, like integrity and character are no longer considered."

Then the president of the museum, Bob Kendrick, created a bit of a ruckus when he tweeted out a statement saying "My heart is one of forgiveness," and that he hoped others would find it in themselves to do the same. I recently spoke with Bob Kendrick to ask them about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Mr. Kendrick, what struck me when I watched the tape is he said he'd had a phenomenal day. Obviously, it was in praise of the museum, right?

BOB KENDRICK, PRESIDENT, NEGRO LEAGUES BASEBALL MUSEUM: It was. I had met -- I had met Glen and his broadcast partner, Dallas Braden, here at the museum. We had a wonderful time. I'm telling stories as I traditionally do, and particularly satchel page stories because of satchels connection to the A's franchise, of course, here as a member of the Kansas City A's in 1965, when he was reportedly 59 years old, and he pitches three shutout innings against the Boston Red Sox giving up one hit to a (INAUDIBLE), which was absolutely amazing. So we're having a great time telling all of these stories. And yes, let me know that we're going to go eat barbecue, and then head over to the ballpark and get ready for the game.

SMERCONISH: What do you make of critics who say the word was just too accessible, too much on the tip of his tongue?

KENDRICK: I understand what they're saying. And yes, it does. Sometimes maybe make one believe that is the word and maybe have been used before. I don't know, for certain. So I understand that point of view.

But again, that doesn't mean that it was delivered. It doesn't mean that, in this case, I felt that there was malicious intent. It was an awful thing to say we acknowledge it as such. We don't condone what the use of the word was. But I certainly believe that it was a mistake. And I've been criticized because I felt like a mistake.

SMERCONISH: I was going to ask about exactly that. What has been the reaction to your forgiveness?

KENDRICK: Well, number one, one would never think so much hate would come along with forgiveness. That again, as I've said before, it seems a little bit counterintuitive. But I understand to some degree, the emotional anguish that something like this can generate is a horrible slur to have had happen. So I don't understand that.

Now, was I surprised by how much vitriol had come my way? Absolutely. But again, that is the nature particularly of self-learning (ph).

SMERCONISH: I hope the silver lining is a boost in your attendance. Candidly, I didn't know the museum was in Kansas City. I'm not going to come back to Kansas City without stopping in for a visit. And I hope that others do likewise.

KENDRICK: Well, I hope so too. Because Michael, we had just announced our plans to build a brand new 30,000 square foot standalone Negro Leagues Baseball Museum just a few days before this happened. So I was writing a tremendous high man.

You know, this notion of building a new museum, even though it's going to cost us about $25 million to build it, and I've gotten a lot of congratulations on having to raise $25 million in order to do this. But I understand people are excited, and we were excited. And then this happens. And you find yourself kind of embroiled in something that was really not your own doing. But again, it comes with the territory.

And I do think a lot of people have learned about the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, and I hope we continue to see a lot of people who will make their way here. But as we record this, the Washington Nationals are walking through this museum right now. And it never gets old.

SMERCONISH: Awesome.

KENDRICK: We always enjoy young athletes come here.

[15:25:03]

SMERCONISH: All right, everybody get out their checkbook. And thank you Mr. Kendrick. KENDRICK: Oh man, it has been my absolute pleasure. Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction now to this segment. What do we have, Catherine (ph)? Horrible word, I cannot force myself to say it and how he thinks he can get away with it, I do not know. But Doyle, in context, right, I mean, clearly, he's bringing it up in praise of the museum that he's just visited. If his record is as he represents, it's a 20-year clean track record and no history of any related type of an issue, then I think firing was too strong of a punishment. And by the way, so does Bob Kendrick.

One more if we have time for it? Do I have time to do this as well? No, clearly a mispronunciation. Nothing else in that statement leads me to believe there was any malice intended by him. I mean, Kelly Martin, if you heard that an announcer used that word in the midst of a broadcast and that's all that you knew, you'd say you got to fire him.

Of course, like nothing is worse than the utterance of that word. But again, to watch it and to know how he spent his day three hours once to come on air and share the experience, that's what changes it for me.

Up ahead, is the answer to the labor shortage, teens? Several states are passing their considering legislation to loosen child labor laws. Would you be OK with a 14-year-old serving you alcohol?

And with Americans seemingly unhappy with a prospect of a Biden Trump rematch. The bipartisan group called no labels is making the case for an alternative option. But will having a third-party candidate on the 2024 presidential ballot only helped Trump get reelected if he wins the GOP nomination. The group's chief strategist is here to explain.

And I want to remind you to go to my website @smerconish.com and answer this week's poll question, are you open to the idea of voting for a no labels third-party candidate?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:31:17]

SMERCONISH: Does America need, does America want a third lane in the 2024 presidential race? Listen to this, according to a new CNN poll, 66 percent of all Americans say a Biden victory would be a setback or even a disaster for the country, 56 percent say the exact same thing about Donald Trump. Which is why a nonpartisan group called No Labels is threading together a safety net for the American electorate in case the vast majority of voters aren't satisfied with a Biden versus Trump rematch if it comes to that.

The group aims to gain ballot access across all 50 states and the District of Columbia for a third-party candidacy hoping to appeal to independent voters with a -- quote -- "unity ticket" made up of one Democrat and one Republican. So far No Labels has been successful in gaining ballot access in Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and Alaska. Their push now is to get a third-party candidate on the ballot across key battleground states like Florida, North Carolina and Nevada.

But the momentum doesn't stop there. The organization has gathered 600,000 signatures and hopes to raise $70 million for their unity ticket by April of 2024. According to their chief strategist, they're about a third from reaching their goal.

Nominating a third-party candidate is of course controversial. Critics argue the groundwork No Labels is laying down will only catapult Trump back into the White House. But the bipartisan group is pushing back saying an insurance plan for the 2024 race is needed.

My next guest is Ryan Clancy. He is the chief strategist for No Labels. Ryan, thank you for being here.

You heard the polling at the outset, 66 percent say it could be a disaster for Joe Biden to be re-elected, 56 percent say Donald Trump would be likewise. If those are the numbers and Biden and Trump are the candidates, would that trigger what No Labels is planning?

RYAN CLANCY, CHIEF STRATEGIST, NO LABELS: Well, Michael, I mean, we think there's an opening today. And if it looks like this a year from now, there could be an opening. But to nominate a ticket, we've got to clear two pretty high bars, which is the major party nominees need to continue to be really unpopular, but a unity ticket needs to have an outright path to victory.

SMERCONISH: So speak to me about process. What is going to take place a year from now, if that's the timeline?

CLANCY: Well, we're going to have a whole procession of events coming up, Michael. And look, it will start this summer. So, after July you will see us release something called our commonsense agenda. These are the results-oriented ideas we know the vast majority of the country is going to want based on extensive polling and research we've done. It's something that two major parties refuse to give them.

So, that will start to put definition around this and then work backwards from our convention in April in Dallas. That's the latest point where we decide whether to nominate a ticket.

SMERCONISH: Let's talk about the criticism, third way. It's funny. I have a colleague Sam Feist here at CNN who runs the Washington bureau and we go back and forth on the issue of, how does this all play out? I'm going to put on the screen six of seven states where the margin was three points or less in 2020. Third way says even a paltry third- party performance would put 79 Biden electoral votes at risk, Arizona, PA, Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin.

You've heard the argument. What's your response?

CLANCY: Michael, the problem with that argument is when everybody looks at past third-party candidacies, Nader, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, those were protest candidates. No one who ever voted for those candidates thought they were actually voting for a president. No Labels will not nominate a ticket -- we will only nominate a ticket that we think can win.

And, by the way, based on the polling we're looking at today, an independent ticket is polling evenly for both sides so we are not seeing an advantage to one major party candidate or another.

[15:35:09]

SMERCONISH: Ryan, you know, of course, that if nobody gets to 270, the magic number to win the election, then the House of Representatives gets to make the decision and each state delegation is given one vote, meaning Alaska and California, your equals. Many say, well, the current composition of the House is such that Republicans would have the edge and consequently could be expected to vote for the Republican candidate. What's your answer to that?

CLANCY: Well, the current composition in the House doesn't matter because the House that would determine a president if it ever went there would be the one seated in January 2025. That's number one.

The second thing is there's actually an opportunity even before the House meets in the Electoral College where there's actually a surprising number of states that don't have bound electors. So if No Labels ticket won some electoral votes they could use that as a bargaining chip to get some support from one of the major party nominees.

But, look, in the end we're preparing for that because you've got to do all your diligence. But we won't nominate a ticket unless we think it can win outright in the Electoral College.

SMERCONISH: OK. How about the old adage, you can't beat somebody with nobody? How do you know that there will be quality candidates who will step forward and be willing to accept, you know, the No Labels ballot position that you secure?

CLANCY: We don't. And look -- and that's why we always talk about this as an insurance policy. We are 18 months out from the election. We are a year out from having to make a decision.

The only thing we know with any certainty, Michael, is what you said at the top. Two-thirds of the country doesn't want the election the two major parties are about to force them to get. And so, we think a year from now if there's an opening and people want this ticket, people are going to be very happy that we have laid the groundwork and got the ballot access where there's at least another choice.

SMERCONISH: People like to mention Joe Manchin. People like to mention Kyrsten Sinema, Larry Hogan. Others like to dream of Admiral William McRaven. Thoughts?

CLANCY: Sure. All the names that you've heard out there are names that other people have floated. So, No Labels isn't talking to candidates. We're not speculating about the names of candidates.

We are head down, working to get ballot access, working to put definition around what this kind of ticket could stand for when we release our commonsense policy agenda shortly after July 4th. And it is going to become very clear to people when you look at this agenda that there is a lot that the public wants that the two major party nominees simply refuse to give them.

SMERCONISH: Well, the polling data today supports what you're saying. Ryan, thank you so much for being here.

CLANCY: Thanks for having me, Michael.

SMERCONISH: More social media reaction now. What do we have?

No Labels is a Donald Trump re-election PAC. All it will do is fracture the vote, but Trump's most loyal will stick to him like glue. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional, says the Real Doctor.

Really? You're disbelieving of all that data? I mean, how about the fact that -- and I discussed this here recently. A plurality of Americans are neither Rs nor Ds. We are Is. Forty-nine percent of the country says, I identify as an independent, not as a Republican or a Democrat.

Who speaks for us? You know, maybe it's the election where finally the numbers are backed up by candidates who want to seize that mantle. Do we have, Catherine, the map? I never got to it with Ryan. Put up the map that No Labels presents.

Because they say we're not in it to be spoilers, we're in it to win it. Do you have that handy? Can we put that up?

I mean, they've -- here it comes. They've got a scenario where they say there are 25 states that they think they can absolutely win. And this thing doesn't go -- there it is.

I mean, I don't know. Who the hell knows? I said at the outset the only thing any of us knows for sure is that we have no idea which way this is going to go.

I've never -- I've been paying attention for more than 30 years. I've never seen a cycle with the unpredictability as the one that is commencing now.

In any event, go vote at Smerconish.com on this week's poll question. OK? Here it is. I want to know if you're open to the idea.

Are you open to the idea -- I'm not asking are you going to vote for because we don't even know who the candidates are. But are you open to the idea of voting for a No Labels third-party candidate? Go check that out.

Still to come, in a controversial move many states are relaxing child labor laws saying it's a way to tackle the shortage of workers. Some are even letting underage kids serve alcohol in restaurants. Could this prove an unlikely fix to recent worries about today's kids being too isolated and dependent upon social media?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:43:52]

SMERCONISH: It's a controversial idea to be sure but could America's labor shortage be alleviated by kids? The job market is one of the tightest since World War II and the unemployment rate is at just 3.4 percent, lowest in more than a half century. Several states, largely led by Republican lawmakers, now considering legislation to allow children as young as 14 to work longer hours and in riskier jobs, including serving alcohol.

On Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed a law lengthening the workday and curfew for 14 and 15-year-olds while school is in session, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to work the same hours as adults, and permitting teens as young as 16 to serve alcohol in restaurants with parental permission.

Previously in Arkansas, Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law eliminating permits that required employers to verify a child's age and parents' consent. In Wisconsin, lawmakers backing a proposal to allow 14-year-olds to serve alcohol in bars and restaurants. The Ohio legislature has a bill in process that would allow students ages 14 and 15 to work during the school year with their parents' permission until 9:00 p.m., later than federal law allows.

[15:45:04]

Such bills they are being considered and passed despite the fact that since 2015 the number of minors employed in violation of child labor laws has more than tripled. Opponents say such safeguards are key to protecting underage workers from exploitation, dangerous work environments, harassments and a myriad of other problems.

Joining me now is Emma Camp, an assistant editor at "Reason" magazine who graduated from the University of Virginia in 2022. She wrote an article in "Reason" titled "Don't Freak Out Over Teens Having Fast Food Jobs."

Emma, thanks for being here. When I was 15, I lied when I applied at McDonald's because I was so eager to work there but they only hired 16-year-olds. They figured it out. I came back when I was 16 and I worked there for the next two years.

I wanted to flip burgers, odd as that sounds. I was not going to work in a meat packing plant or, you know, do some mining operation. What are your thoughts about the trend I've just described?

EMMA CAMP, ASSISTANT EDITOR, REASON MAGAZINE: So I think there's actually been a lot of hysteria around these bills. When you look at the text of what's actually been enacted, they're really quite moderate, even milquetoast reforms. Basically, letting teenagers maybe work a little bit younger or a little bit longer, but nothing really crazy. And you mentioned increased child labor violations. I think there has been a bit of a bait and switch. So, the majority of these child labor violations actually involve migrant children working illegally in places like commercial farms. These reforms really have nothing to do with that.

And importantly, you know, that kind of labor will still be illegal under these reforms. So I think instead of panicking, we should be celebrating because there are so many positive outcomes associated with working as a teenager.

SMERCONISH: The one that I saw that was -- well, I agreed with the propriety, the lessons that one learns from having a job as a teenager, for sure. The one that troubled me the most that I read about -- it was not the booze. It was the hours of working during a school year, up to six hours on a particular day. For me that's too much because I think you've got to prioritize the schoolwork.

I wanted to ask you this. Is this really about American kids or about migrant workers?

CAMP: So I think these bills are actually about American kids, right, making it easier for them to work because there are a lot of really positive outcomes associated with working as a teenager. A lot of them are self-evident, you know, responsibility, learning to show up on time.

Teenagers themselves really like working. They like having their own money. They like not constantly hounding their parents for cash. And, in fact, there has been some research that indicates that teenagers who work part-time actually earn more later in life than those who didn't.

There is one study that looked at teenagers that worked part-time during their senior year. And what it founds is that those who worked about six to nine years after graduation were earning 20 percent more than those who didn't. So I think we should really be celebrating and encouraging places that are making it easier for teenagers to get jobs.

SMERCONISH: Emma, if we build it, will they come to quote the old line? Are we sure that teenagers are going to fill these voids that exist if all of a sudden, the rules are loosened?

CAMP: So I think it depends, right? So I think when we're looking at the areas that teenagers like to work in, fast food and food service is a good example, right?

So there has been a lot of fearmongering about the laws that are loosening, the age that kids can serve alcohol. A lot of these once they had a bill that was very clear about saying that you can't bartend until you're 18, so mostly this will just like, you know, 14 or 15-year-olds work at a place like an Applebee's, right, that serves alcohol. You know, I think teenagers might fill those positions.

You know, if we're looking at places that -- sectors that teenagers don't really want to work in, I don't think that's the solution to the labor shortage. I think the solution to the labor shortage is liberalizing our immigration laws and making it easier to work here if you're not a citizen.

SMERCONISH: I have to move on but before I do, I know you just graduated from UVA. Congrats. What was your first job?

CAMP: When I was 17, I was a nanny. And I had a really great time doing that. Yes. I learned a lot of skills that I took with me into my adult life.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Emma. Appreciate it.

CAMP: All right. Thank you so much.

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

It is important to protect -- oh, Jamal. Hello, Jamal. It's important to protect people, but we put entirely too much emphasis in putting kids in bubbles and preventing -- look, we don't want kids to be exploited. I mean, somewhere in here is the proper balance.

Six hours on top of a school curriculum is too many hours. We don't want to be overly protective. You know, Lenore Skenazy comes to mind, "Free-Range Kids" or her new movement Let Grow with Jonathan Haidt. We've got to let them out, right, but we've got to protect them at the same time. It can be done.

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments and the result of this week's poll question. Please go vote.

[15:50:01]

I want to know if you're open to the idea, not that you'd cast a ballot necessarily, but are you open to the idea of a No Labels third- party candidate?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: All right, there it is, the result of this week's poll question at Smerconish.com. More than 30,000 have voted. Are you open to the idea of voting for a No Labels third-party candidate? Let's call it 60/40 say, yes, let's see what that looks like.

Here's some social media reaction from today's program. Two words for a third-party, Ralph Nader.

[15:55:00]

Everybody, Judy, has their -- you know, their favorite. But what about this and what about that? Every one of these cycles is different. What about this cycle? You come from where things stand, do you share that finding from the CNN poll that says two-thirds say not these two, it would be a disaster? What else came in during the course of the program today? None of these prosecutions would occur if Trump had retired from politics. How much more obvious can it be? The public knows this and doesn't like it.

You know, I got to say, RI, I think there's truth in that. And if Donald Trump is on trial, in the thick of the voting, people are going to look at it and say -- some people are going to look at it and say, this is a political prosecution.

If he weren't still, you know, the titular head of the GOP and running for president of the United States, would a misclassification of business records in a case over sex, from seven years ago, be brought against anybody else? And I think the answer to that is, no, it wouldn't be. So I guess I'm -- I guess I'm agreeing with your point.

I don't have time for another one. Let me simply say this, have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend and remember those who made the sacrifice.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)