Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Will Hunter's Criminal Charges Affect Biden's Re-election Bid? Does Expansion Of Our Military Footprint Make Us More Or Less Safe? University Presidents Under Fire For Campus Antisemitism Hearing; Retail Stores Discourage Workers From Confronting Shoplifters. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 09, 2023 - 09:00   ET

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

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: What were you up to when you were six years old? Playing with toys, yes. Painting, drawing, sure. Learning about the periodic table? Well, Declan Lopez is but she's also a kindergartener with an IQ of 137.

That's high. Her parents say they realize how smart she is when she started to speak Mandarin at 18 months old. Well, now she has been accepted into the international society Mensa, which is for people with high IQs like hers. By the way, she told CNN that she knows the atomic mass of Tennessee is 294. And now we know too.

Declan Lopez, I see you. If you see something or someone I should see, tell me. I'm Victor Blackwell on socials. Thanks so much for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 08:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up right now.

[09:01:00]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: What's the father to do? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Joe Biden might soon face a decision about whether to prevent his own son from going to prison. It's a determination that'll be made against the backdrop of the 2024 presidential campaign, one more intangible in an already unpredictable election cycle. Hunter Biden could face up to 17 years if convicted for the nine tax charges for which he was indicted on Thursday. He pleaded not guilty. According to data from the Internal Revenue Service nearly 90 percent of all tax cases, they refer to the Department of Justice for prosecution, they end with a conviction or a guilty plea, and around two thirds of those cases resulted in prison time with an average sentence of 14 months.

This in addition to the 25 years, he could face for the three federal gun charges for which he was indicted in Delaware back in September. The allegation there is that Hunter violated measures meant to preclude drug users from having guns when he bought and kept a firearm for more than a week in 2018. The most recent charges focus on Hunter's nonpayment of at least 1.4 million in taxes between 2016 and 2019. The six misdemeanors happened during a time when he was deep in the throes of addiction. But the three felonies happened when he was sober. The taxes have since been paid. It's all quite a change from the plea agreement he was prepared to strike until a judge in Delaware questioned it this past summer. Hunter was expected to receive two years probation after pleading guilty to misdemeanor tax charges and would have avoided prosecution on the gun charge had he stayed out of trouble. And now, he faces the very real prospect of being sent to prison if convicted. The Speedy Trial Act requires 100 retried within 90 days, however, that's routinely waived.

But that means that as Americans are preparing to vote, there couldn't be both a Biden and a Trump being tried in federal criminal court. Of course, one is a candidate and the other just a son. But still any sons legal peril would impact his father's psyche, and in this case, even more so. Hunter and Joe have a unique bond born of tragedy. In 1972 when Hunter was two years old, he survived a terrible automobile accident that killed his mother and 13 year old sister.

His older brother Beau also survived and would later follow his father's political path ultimately being elected the attorney general of Delaware. Beau succumbed to cancer in 2015.

Meanwhile, Hunter's battle with addiction demons has been well documented, including in his recent indictment. In fact, the linchpin of the current indictment consists of admissions that Hunter made in his 2021 memoir titled "Beautiful Things." The feds say that in 2018, Hunter claimed a tax deduction for nearly $389,000 in business travel, when in fact he had none. They point to what he wrote in his memoir about how he was really spending his time, namely that he was smoking crack, quote, "24 hours a day smoking every 15 minutes, seven days a week."

As he wrote, his time was not spent on business but rather, after arriving in California in April, he spent the next four or five months surrounded by and paying for an entourage of, quote, "thieves and junkies, petty dealers, over the hill strippers, con artists and assorted hangers on, who then invited their friends and associates and most recent hookups, They latched on to me and didn't let go all with my approval. I never slept. There was no clock. Day bled into night and night and today."

Hunter Biden is one of millions who fight addiction, some of whom face criminal prosecution for their resulting behavior. But his case is different. His father possesses the constitutionally granted power to pardon anyone for any federal crime, including his son. Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre on Friday once again said Biden will not pardon Hunter. But can that possibility be so easily discounted? Not if Joe thinks that Hunter is now being treated more harshly because of his name, the boomerang effect of having once been offered a sweetheart deal, arguably because of his name.

[09:05:14]

My hunch is that Joe Biden would do anything for his son including a pardon, and that his desire to steer him from a life of addiction was why he dropped his own guard and allowed Hunter to trade on the family name and accompany him on government aircraft while doing business with foreign entities. The idea of pardoning Hunter will at least be given serious consideration. Maybe this added weight also causes a reevaluation of the President's reelection where his poll numbers are grim and no change in policy or any piece of legislation can stave off his chief opponent, Father Time.

Joining me now is Franklin Foer, a staff writer at The Atlantic. He's the author of the recent biography, "The Last Politician, Inside Joe Biden's White House and the Struggle for America's Future."

Franklin, thank you for being here. Most fathers and sons are close, but what's particularly special about this relationship?

FRANKLIN FOER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, as you say, it's shrouded in all sorts of grief, but also in all sorts of guilt. Hunter was not the son that Joe Biden had tapped to be his successor, the golden child in the relationship, that was Beau. And I think Hunter was aware of that fact. And I think that Biden is aware of Hunter being aware of that fact. Biden consistently has really intervened in his son's life in order to try to prevent him from falling even deeper into that rabbit hole of addiction, which of course, is an incredibly difficult thing to prevent.

Biden has played an active role as a grandfather and surrogate father to Biden's children. And so, that relationship, as you say, in the opening is deep, it is special, it is -- it's covered in scar tissue. And it's a -- it's one of the few areas where President Biden struggles to think strategically, because it's impossible to think strategically about your own son.

SMERCONISH: Hunter Biden appeared on a Moby podcast that was just released. I want you and everyone else to listen then I'll ask you to react. Play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUNTER BIDEN, PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SON: They are trying to, in the in their most illegitimate way, but rational way, they're trying to destroy a presidency. And so it's not about me, and their most base way, what they're trying to do is they're trying to kill me, knowing that it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Franklin Foer, he says they're trying to kill me. How is this going to play out in the context of 2024 and react to what you just heard?

FOER: Well, I think that -- I mean, this is a way in which Hunter's interest and Joe Biden's interests are not totally aligned. I think Hunter is fighting for his reputation here where his father is fighting to save the republic from the threat of authoritarianism. But when I listen to what he's saying, I also have to agree that there is some truth in it. I mean, I think that Hunter Biden's crimes are so petty and should hardly be placed on a continuum with all the accusations being levelled against Donald Trump, and even Donald Trump's own family. And the Republicans have struggled for so long to really define Joe Biden and Hunter Biden is basically the best hook that they have to create some sort of extremely negative image of him.

And it's actually been incredibly effective. I think, despite the fact that most people did not anticipate it to be effective because Biden had done such an effective job of swatting away all those accusations in 2020. But you look at the polling numbers, and it's pretty clear that beyond the Fox News base, there is a sense that there is the Biden is corrupt, that Biden's son has done something corrupt. And in an election that should be turning on questions of democracy and corruption that I would think would be crystal clear in terms of the comparison. This is one of the few things that muddies that up.

SMERCONISH: Franklin Foer, thank you for the analysis. We appreciate you.

FOER: Yes, thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some during the course of the program. What do we have, Katherine (ph)? From the world of YouTube, the best that could happen for Dems would be for Biden to pardon Hunter then announced that he will not seek reelection.

Eric, I think what perpetuates the idea that that President Biden gives such consideration was that statement that he made behind closed doors at the fundraiser this week I think in Boston where he said that, you know, but for Trump being in the race he probably would not be running. And at a different time said that you know 50 other Democrats could also beat Donald Trump. My point, one more enormous intangible to add to the list for 2024.

[09:10:17]

Up ahead, since entering World War II, 82 years ago this week, America has become the self-appointed policeman of the world. But could that stance be counterproductive? Plus, this plane flew over Cambridge on the first night of Hanukkah, tweaking Harvard's president for how she answered a congressional committee's questions about campus policy and threats of Jewish genocide. She and the other presidents of MIT and Penn, all on the hot seat for not condemning it and saying it depends on the context.

Were they wrong in how they described their university policies or just tone deaf? What should they have said? I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, does context matter when determining whether calling for the genocide of any group is bullying or harassment? By the way, while you're there, why not subscribe for the free daily newsletter, you'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends like this from Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:18]

SMERCONISH: Question, is America self-appointed role as global cop making us more or less safe? The United States technically not at war with any nation, but that doesn't mean our defense is dormant. In the weeks following Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, there have been nearly daily attacks on U.S. and coalition forces by Iranian backed groups. In just the past month, an American destroyer shot down multiple drones in its vicinity in the Red Sea and responded to distress calls from a civilian commercial vessel that was fired upon by a ballistic missile. U.S. forces killed at least five Iran backed militia members in a drone strike after the U.S. identified an imminent attack likely to be launched by militia forces in Iraq. A defense official told CNN that since October 17, there have been 82 attacks by Iran back proxy groups on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Syria.

Since World War II, America has taken on the role of trying to keep peace worldwide as U.S. military bases have propagated around the world to the point where there are now about 800 of them. And today out of 195 nations on the planet, U.S. military counterterrorism has a footprint in 78 of those countries. As USA Today, which first published this data put it, "Nearly a quarter century after the U.S. launched its response to 9/11, the Pentagon continues to pursue military actions in the Middle East and in many more parts of the world than Americans may realize."

Joining me now is the person who compiled the data, Stephanie Savell, co-director and senior researcher at the Costs of War project at Brown University's Watson Institute, for which she wrote the recent paper, "United States Counterterrorism Operations Under the Biden Administration, 2021 through '23."

Dr. Savell, does the expansion of our footprint make us more or less safe?

STEPHANIE SAVELL, SR. RESEARCHER & CO. DIR. COSTS OF WAR PROJECT, WATSON INSTITUTE, BROWN UNIV.: Thank you so much for asking that question, it's just the one that should be asked with this data. And you know, my answer is no. There are more Islamist militant groups than there were when we started these -- the so called War on Terror in, you know, in 2001, there are more recruits to those groups, there's a ton of blowback to all of this military action around the world. And we're seeing in Iraq and Syria right now, just as you pointed out, that the U.S. presence in these places in the name of counterterrorism actually makes U.S. troops, you know, makes it more likely that they engage in aggressive actions abroad.

SMERCONISH: Isn't there a bit of chicken and egg to all of this? I shared your research with Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and he said to me, you know, be aware of the lesson 1918ish post World War One, we went the way of isolationism, and arguably, that's what gave rise to World War II.

SAVELL: Yes, I mean, I think every context is different. But what we've done is gone so far in the direction of being the world's cop. And, you know, there is a militarized status quo in this country, the U.S. feels like it needs to do something abroad through military force. Primarily, we've gotten extremely far in the direction of using the military as the primary tool of U.S. foreign policy. And arguably, that's not keeping, you know, Americans or anyone else in the world any safer. My other research has shown that in the so called War on Terror, that kind of ripple effects, the ways that these wars have caused what's called indirect death, you know, economic crises and hunger and the collapse of healthcare infrastructure, that's caused 4.5 million deaths. Not to say all due to U.S. actions, but the kind of reverberating effects of these post 9/11 wars.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Savell, Donald Trump likes to say that he kept the United States out of war. You've analyzed the Biden administration, 78 is the number that you come to, 78, we've got a footprint of some kind in 78 of 195 nations. What about Trump? How does he compare to Biden in this respect?

SAVELL: Yes, so Trump had relaxed a lot of the rules of engagement that allows the military to conduct drone strikes in places like Syria, and Iraq and Somalia, and Biden has tightened those up and increased protections for civilians. But the overall footprint of counterterrorism between the two administrations looks remarkably similar. I came out with a version of this map during the Trump administration, and it showed 85 countries total. And this shows 78 under the Biden administration.

[09:20:22]

Now, this has some high intensity areas. So, four to five countries where the U.S. has dropped drone strikes on militant targets, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Syria, nine countries where U.S. forces have engaged in on the ground combat against militants. And then the bulk comes in this category of training and assistance in counterterrorism. So the U.S. trains and assists other countries security forces and counterterrorism, that's happened happening in 73 countries. And that's really far from the kind of innocuous neighborly help that it sounds.

A lot of times what's happening is that the U.S. is providing funding weapons and training for regimes that are very far from democratic. They're using those tools to crack down on political dissidents, and political opponents. And it's really creating and fueling a cycle of blowback in which those targeted groups are then joining militant movements.

SMERCONISH: It's a provocative and healthy conversation. I'd love to see this get on the presidential debate stage. Thank you, Doctor Savell. Appreciate your time.

SAVELL: Thanks so much for having me.

SMERCONISH: What are you saying via social media? What do we have from the world of X on this? They're great as a deterrent as long as war doesn't break out. After that, it's goodbye world. Look, we showed the map.

I mean, it's indisputable how the footprint has increased and increased and increased. The question is, you know, are we there to respond to something? Are we there creating something? I think a rote response of this is a new Al-Qaeda hotspot, or whoever the terror group might be, let's quickly go and open a base there is probably the wrong way to go. That's my two cents.

Still to come, shoplifting, shoplifting, the five finger discount, and other organized retail crime costs American retailers more than $69 billion annually is part of why it's so rampant because companies for a variety of safety and liability reasons encourage employees to just let it happen. And after the presidents of Penn, MIT and Harvard wouldn't condemn calling for the genocide of the Jews, they have faced a groundswell of outcry from donors, politicians, business leaders and others. Were their widely criticized explanations actually consistent with the First Amendment? That's what I'm trying to get to with today's poll question at smerconish.com. Go vote on this, does context matter when determining whether calling for the genocide of any group is bullying or harassment?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:27:30]

SMERCONISH: What should they have said? Following testimony at this week's congressional hearing about a lack of pushback against anti- Semitism on their campuses, Harvard's Claudine Gay, MIT's Sally Kornbluth and Elizabeth Magill from the University of Pennsylvania have all been under fire for the way that they answered questions posed by Republican Elise Stefanik. Their responses sparked widespread condemnation and calls for resignations from donors, trustees, lawmakers and others. More than 70 members of Congress from both parties have signed a letter to the three schools demanding they remove their presidents in light of their testimony. The White House condemned the University president's responses saying, quote, "Any statements that advocate for the systemic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting."

In Boston, a group claiming to be Jewish students pay for a plane to fly overhead with a Palestinian flag and a banner that read, Harvard hates Jews. Harvard's president told the student newspaper, The Crimson, "I am sorry. Words matter." As the week wore on, it was Magill who became the poster child. A prominent Penn alum withdrew a $100 million donation.

A truck circled the campus with billboards calling for her to be fired. The University Board of Trustees will meet via phone 05:00 p.m. tomorrow to discuss Magill and a statement she's said to be working on. Here's an excerpt from Magill's exchange with GOP representatives Stefanik.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

ELIZABETH MAGILL, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

STEFANIK: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

MAGILL: If it is directed and severe, pervasive it is harassment.

STEFANIK: So the answer is yes?

MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The other presidents also fell back on the need for context to decide. So, what are these codes of conduct referred to by Stefanik say exactly? And do they apply to this specific problem? The one from the University of Pennsylvania contains the following wording under the rights of students' citizenship, the right to freedom of thought and expression, but also the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or status as a disabled or Vietnam Era veteran.

[09:30:05]

And Penn's responsibilities of student citizenship includes the following, to refrain from conduct towards other students that infringes upon the Rights of Student Citizenship. The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religions slurs. However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action. Student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable rules or laws, University regulations or policies.

After her testimony on Tuesday, Penn president Magill released a video on Wednesday seeking to clarify her statements from the hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH MAGILL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESIDENT: I was focused on our university's long-standing policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Look, Hamas was barbaric on 10/7. Israel and the world will be a safer place without Hamas. A college campus is no place for the promotion of antisemitism, much less the outright call for genocide. I hope I've made all of that abundantly clear.

Nevertheless, the speech issues embodied in this debate are not always black and white. While the First Amendment does not necessarily apply to a university environment, when viewed in a First Amendment context, what the presidents said was actually correct.

I want to know what you think. Go vote at Smerconish.com on today's poll question. Does context matter when determining whether calling for the genocide of any group is bullying or harassment?

Ilya Shapiro joins me now. He's the director of Constitutional Studies for the Manhattan Institute. His Substack blog is called Shapiro's Gavel. He recently wrote this piece for the Free Press, "Where Free Speech Ends and Lawbreaking Begins." Professor Shapiro, thank you for being here. The presidents were tone-deaf. They were horrible in their presentation, but in a First Amendment context were they necessarily wrong?

ILYA SHAPIRO, DIRECTOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Well, it's true that the First Amendment protects offensive speech, hate speech, the most vile racial epithets and calling for genocide. That's true. But on a university campus there are these rules against harassment. There are also time, place and manner restrictions. You can't disrupt speakers or classes or block entrances to buildings, all of which has happened on our campuses.

And the reason why these university presidents couldn't say all of that and say that we enforce our rules strictly, but we don't punish speech, is because they haven't been enforcing these rules and that's the problem. Harvard are the bottom two -- literally the bottom two schools for free speech as ranked by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is the gold standard.

SMERCONISH: OK, so what should the response have been? If Ilya Shapiro had been in the position of any one of those three presidents, Elise Stefanik asked the same question. If it were me, as I just made clear, I would have begun any response by condemning Hamas, condemning antisemitism, condemning any calls for genocide, and then I think I would have gone into the more legal aspects of this. What would you have said?

SHAPIRO: No, that's correct. I would have said this speech is abhorrent and goes against our values. While the First Amendment protects hate speech, including this kind of speech, when it's directed at people or when demonstrations are in front of Jewish centers for student life, what have you, that's a problem with harassment.

When it interferes with other students' ability to get the education that they're there that -- so, we're going to be investigating this strongly, but I want to make clear speech alone is not the problem. It's when that speech becomes intimidation, harassment, vandalism and violating our rules against disrupting our educational mission.

SMERCONISH: I am not excusing their poor performance. I'm criticizing it. But I look at this with somewhat of a trained eye, professor, and I say they're not dopes. They prepared. They read in. What explains how they were all reading from the same hymnal and got it so terribly wrong in terms of appearing tone-deaf?

[09:35:05]

Have you thought about that?

SHAPIRO: They were too prepared. They were lawyered up. They had advisers, PR and what have you. Their statements were clearly coordinated.

Nothing wrong with that. You want to be on the same page when you're sort of all representing elite institutions. But this was not a legal deposition. This is a congressional hearing that was instantly going to go viral, and they should have known that. And so, you respond a little less legalistically.

There is simply no moral clarity. There is no leadership. They were there looking like automatons and ultimately pleased nobody. They're not dopes, but they used bad judgment in how they approached the hearing.

SMERCONISH: There's a -- very quickly, I'm limited on time. But from your writings, I know that you distinguish correctly between speech and conduct. Talk about that very briefly, if you can.

SHAPIRO: Well, assault, vandalism, menacing, stalking, harassment, these are all not protected by the First Amendment. Urinating on a Hillel, a Jewish center has happened recently at some other school, even if it's expressive, it's not protected. So -- as well as other regulations, I said, against disruption and all these different things. So, even as a constitutional lawyer and a First Amendment advocate, you can't answer all of these questions simply by pointing and invoking the First Amendment.

SMERCONISH: Ilya Shapiro, thank you for your time.

SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Now like you get it. Now, you've been briefed. Now, you can go vote. Does context matter when determining whether calling for the genocide of any group is bullying or harassment?

A lot of social media reaction to today's program. I appreciate that, including this from the world of YouTube. What do you got?

Free speech on college campuses must be protected, but, holy cow, you have to call out genocide.

Well, sure you do, Mary. I totally agree. I mean, imagine someone who regards abortion as murder and, consequently, shows up outside a planned parenthood facility and says genocide is taking place in there. We need to do something about the genocide that is taking place inside those walls.

I mean, that's a matter of speech. Hopefully it doesn't become a matter of conduct, where now they're in the face of someone and trying to thwart someone else's rights.

I said it clearly in the intro, OK, to this part of the program, which is that these are not black and white matters. They get presented that way, and Elise Stefanik got exactly what she was looking for, like three times over, a hat trick of sound bites. But these are complicated issues and no one has really said that this week. Up ahead, this is so tragic. At Macy's here in Philadelphia, guards saw a man attempting to steal hats. They took back the merchandise. The guy shows up 15 minutes later -- this is like 10:00 on Monday morning, and he stabs two guards who were unarmed. He kills one of them.

Does this incident illustrate why the retail industry tends to allow most shoplifting to happen without interference? Or do they need to crack down on it?

Please make sure you're signing up for the daily newsletter when you're casting your votes on the poll question. You'll get some real winning editorial cartoon work like Jack Ohman in this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:52]

SMERCONISH: Are there any guardrails left to seriously combat retail crime? Here in Philadelphia this week, a Macy's store security guard was stabbed to death by a suspected shoplifter after he confronted him.

The alleged shoplifter was arrested, charged with murder and aggravated assault. That specific Macy's department store has had 250 retail theft instances known, I should say, this year. Who knows how many they got away with.

And in Sacramento County the sheriff's office announced that they made nearly 300 arrests in one week, all of them related to retail crime. This comes after the county sheriff Jim Cooper criticized the retail giant Target for its shoplifting policy.

He released a statement that read in part, "Our property crimes detectives and sergeant were contacted numerous times by Target to help them with shoplifters. At the briefing, we were told by their head of regional security that we could not contact suspects inside the store. We could not handcuff suspects inside the store, and if we arrested someone, they wanted us to process them outside -- behind the store. We were told they didn't want to create a scene inside the store and have people film it and put it on social media."

And Target isn't the only retail brand with policies that discourage its employees from confronting shoplifters. Retailers like Best Buy, Lowe's, CVS, Lululemon, Walgreens, they prohibit their employees from engaging with suspected shoplifters out of an abundance of caution.

But even if these shoplifters are confronted by employees, are they even prosecuted? In 2018, Philadelphia's district attorney's office began instructing its prosecutors to seek less jail time for shoplifters and treat their crimes as summary offenses, unless the stolen items were worth more than $500. New York City shoplifters can avoid prosecution through the second chance diversion program and work with city officials to address the underlying problems that led them to shoplift. The NYPD says over the past five years, shoplifting complaints nearly doubled, peaking at 64,000 last year according to police data. Only about 34 percent resulted in arrests compared to 60 percent in 2017.

[09:45:04]

The Retail Industry Leaders Association found organized retail crime costs American retailers over $69 billion per year, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs due to store closures and reduced hours. Of course, many factors like a store's shoplifting policy and its willingness to involve law enforcement make it challenging to gather enough data to compile an accurate depiction of arrests made in retail crime.

Joining me now is the president of Retail Industry Leaders Association, Brian Dodge, which represents more than 100 retail brands. Brian, thank you for being here. What's the industry norm? What is a retail employee supposed to do if they see theft taking place?

BRIAN DODGE, PRESIDENT, RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION: So, thanks for having me, Michael. This is a very troubling and growing problem. The policies of most retailers are for the bulk of employees, they are discouraged and forbidden from engaging directly with shoplifters in the store and there's a really good reason for that.

There is no merchandise in the store more valuable than the safety and well-being of the employees and the guests in the store. Many retailers also have other elements of their workforce that are focused on security, some of them are enabled to engage, oftentimes retailers will engage outside security guards to support in these efforts. So, it varies, but the bulk of employees are not trained as law enforcement, are not enabled to engage directly with shoplifters.

SMERCONISH: Is the problem growing to the proportion that I think it is based on media reports? I want to beware of the summer of the shark. You know, there was a summer, I think, in 2001 where it seemed like everybody who got in the ocean was being bitten. And then a year later we looked at the data and we realized that shark attacks had gone down.

So, what's the real deal? Is this growing exponentially?

DODGE: It's growing very rapidly and has been for the last five to seven years. It's driven by two major factors. The first is the growth of online marketplaces like eBay, Amazon and Facebook where thieves can find easy access to unsuspecting buyers to sell their stolen goods. The second is the under-prosecution and limited resources of law enforcement that has enabled these thieves to operate with a sense that they're not going to be arrested and they're likely not going to be prosecuted.

SMERCONISH: I worry that, you know, we're all, I think, familiar with food deserts, areas often in urban America where the folks -- the big stores that we would all know, supermarket chains, they avoid. And it's hard for people to just go and find decent food that's fresh. I worry that there are going to be retail deserts created because a lot of folks are going to say, retail community, we're not going to build a store in location X, Y or Z. We'll just rely on people who sit at their computers. Not everybody can sit at their computer and buy goods.

DODGE: Sadly, we've seen retailers forced to make that decision, that the crime issues have become so acute in certain areas that stores simply can't remain open. We've all walked through stores and seen product locked up. It's further evidence that the only way to keep product in the store for legitimate buyers is to put it behind lock and key and make that experience more complex.

The scale of the issue is growing. We know that the -- the resources required to investigate these crimes are considerable. That's why retailers are partnering so greatly with law enforcement, to get better data on our side, to work with them in order to identify the highest impact offenders that are out there and get them off the streets. These individuals are involved in retail crime but they're often involved in many other crimes and we believe working with law enforcement, we can get them off the streets.

SMERCONISH: I get it. There's an easier marketplace now to sell stolen goods, but prosecutors, it sounds to me, are dropping the ball by not throwing the book at some of these individuals. Someone needs to be made an example of. My two cents. Thank you, Brian. I appreciate you being here.

DODGE: Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: Social media comments, Catherine, what do we have? From the world of X, formerly known as Twitter.

Without a doubt, when you announce that you won't prosecute under $900, guess what happens? Failed DAs, failed blue cities.

I mean, it doesn't seem like rocket science. If I were a shoplifter, I would probably be looking at the tag and knowing the value of the merchandise with an eye toward what would be the punishment if I were to be prosecuted. And how many people are going to see a story like the one that I led with and say, you know what, I'm not going to go into the downtown area of any given city and shop. I'll just sit back and do it on Amazon. And that's not a good thing, no disrespect to Amazon. But you want people out and about and socializing with one another.

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments and the final result of the poll question from Smerconish.com. Cast your ballot right now. Sign up for the newsletter when you're there. Does context matter when determining whether calling for the genocide of any group is bullying or harassment?

[09:50:05]

By the way, if you sign up for the newsletter, you're going to get the work of great editorial cartoonists. I think this is my favorite of the week. By the way, check this out from Steve Breen, two-time Pulitzer Prize -- it's hysterical.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: OK. There is the result, so far, of today's poll question. Wow. I never like rounded numbers. Does context matter when determining whether calling for the genocide of any group is bullying or harassment? Seventy percent of more than 25,000 say, no.

[09:55:02]

Here's some of the social media reaction that has come in during the course of the program which I don't see in advance.

That's some bad witness prep there, says Suann Ingle.

Yes. I mean, are you kidding me? These three college presidents, as I said to Professor Shapiro, they're not fools. They're not dopes. Like they spent the time, they read in, they got ready, they weren't well prepared and that is not to excuse them.

Oh, my God, if that question comes to you, what do you do? It's so obvious. Congresswoman, I would like to begin by condemning Hamas, for what Hamas did on 10/7, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Number two, I want to condemn antisemitism in all forms. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Number three, I want to condemn any prospect of the talk of genocide against any particular group, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And then I say, even though the First Amendment doesn't literally apply to our conduct on this campus, we are nevertheless guided by the First Amendment. And the First Amendment necessitates that oftentimes ugly speech is nevertheless protected. And so, my job, as a university president, is to balance the interests of all concerned, while respecting even the ugly speaker. Something like that.

And instead, it was like, oh, my -- it was eggheaded. It was terrible. It was terrible. I ate up all my time with that but it is important because I wanted to get that off my chest.

Subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)