Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Will Press Attempts To Curb Trump End Up Helping Him?; Will D.A. Willis Alleged Relationship Put Trump G.A. Case In Jeopardy?; No Labels Asks DOJ To Investigate Opponents' Efforts; Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary Crucial For Haley's Candidacy. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired January 20, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

KHAYA NJUMBE, GETTING BACHELOR'S DEGREE: Around campus, a lot of people live in shocked when they saw me, especially when I was much younger, they would think I'm the professor's son or something of that sort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:00:07]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Abram, Khaya, congratulations. I see you. And if you see something or someone I should see, tell me. I'm Victor Blackwell on socials.

Thank you so much for joining me this weekend. I'll see you back here at 8:00 a.m. Eastern on Saturday. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:38]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Are the people most opposed to Donald Trump actually aiding his election? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Tuesday is the New Hampshire primary. The GOP race of the Granite State thought to be a two person affair, Donald Trump and Nikki Haley. If Trump becomes the first non-incumbent Republican to win both the Iowa caucus and an open New Hampshire primary, he will be the de facto nominee of his party. But New Hampshire could prove more hospitable for Haley. It's less evangelical, and home to more libertarians and Independents.

So Haley is all in and so too are many institutional forces, which see time running out to stop Trump. But are some of those efforts backfiring? Mark Halpern in his Wide World of news newsletter regularly chronicles this phenomenon which he calls "the sad irony of those members of the media and the Democratic Party who most worried about a Trump second term acting in ways that actually make it more likely he will win." Here's an example, on Monday MSNBC had the kind of all-night extensive coverage of the Iowa caucus that we've come to expect of cable outlets, but when it came time for Trump to make his acceptance speech, the network didn't air it. Instead, Rachel Maddow said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC'S "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW": At this point in the evening, the projected winner of the Iowa caucuses has just started giving his victory speech. We will keep an eye on that as it happens. We will let you know if there's any news made in that speech, if there's anything noteworthy, something substantive and important. The reason I'm saying this is, of course, there is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered live platform to remarks by former President Trump. It is not out of spite, it is not a decision that we relish, it is a decision that we regularly revisit.

And honestly, it is not an easy decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: By the way, CNN did take Trump speech live for about the first 10 minutes before getting out. Ignoring Trump's electoral success is a way of putting a thumb on the scale and will redound to his benefit. It also sets a poor precedent. If he wins the Republican nomination will some cover the convention, but not his acceptance speech? If he wins the presidency, will there be a blackout on the inauguration? I doubt Trump would have won over the MSNBC audience, his base was watching elsewhere.

But of course, they'd been made aware of the slight and it will now be added to their Festivus of grievances against institutional forces they see as seeking to deny voters a chance to elect Trump. And at the top of that list are states like Colorado and Maine trying to knock Trump off the ballot by asserting that he's an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig was my guest here two weeks ago. Lessig is no fan of Trump. In fact, he calls him astoundingly dangerous.

But Lessig also believes that while "electing Trump would be the worst political decision of the nation since the Civil War. Excluding him wrongfully by a close vote of the Supreme Court could well trigger the next Civil War." Says Lessig, "We must defeat him politically, not through clever lawyer interpretations of ambiguous constitutional texts."

In the eyes of Trump's base, and perhaps some Independents, the 14th Amendment challenge only underscores what they already think about the four criminal indictments that Trump faces, namely that they're politically motivated. But that's why in entrance polls, roughly two thirds of Iowa voters said they'll stick with Trump, even if he's convicted. And consider that two thirds of caucus goers said President Biden didn't legitimately win the 2020 election, and about seven in 10 of those voters, they supported Donald Trump.

And then there's Hunter Biden. Just this week, the Justice Department finally confirmed they took possession of the laptop. You'll remember in the fall of 2020 when some of the -- some of the contents of the laptop's hard drive made its way to the New York Post, President Biden and his supporters argued that it had all the makings of Russian disinformation and social media companies suppressed or blocked access to the Post's article about it. This past Wednesday, Congressman Jim Jordan revealed that federal investigators had asked financial institutions to use search terms such as Trump and MAGA when combing over customer data in the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol riot. All of this makes his supporters furious, they see an establishment aligned against Trump especially the media, and even where they don't read, don't rely on the outlets, they're aware of how they seem to be working in concert to defeat their candidate.

[09:05:19]

The entire January, February issue of the Atlantic dedicated to warnings about if Trump wins. Countless editorials from newspapers similarly predicting the horrors of a second Trump term. An editorial in the "L.A. Times," "Trump wants to be us first dictator." The "New York Times," "Why a second Trump presidency may be more radical than his first." Rolling Stone, "Every awful thing Trump has promised to do in a second term."

And the Atlantic, "Trump wants revenge and so does his base." All of the criticism, it preaches to the converted and it causes MAGA to close ranks around their candidate even when his statements are outrageous and playing on racist tropes. Consider the way that his comment that illegal migrants are poisoning the blood of the nation, it's been shown on a loop. But GOP primary voters, they like what they heard, 81 percent of them they agree with Trump. And immigration and the economy were also the biggest issues for Iowa caucus goers with over a third naming each as their most important issue in their vote.

These were both reasons why JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon gave Trump props this week in Davos.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JMORGAN CHASE: When people say MAGA they're actually looking at people voting for Trump, and they think they're voting -- and they're basically scapegoating them that you are like him. And -- but I don't think they're voting for Trump whose family values. And if you -- just take a step back, be honest, he's kind of right about NATO, kind of right about immigration. He grew the economy quite well.

He wasn't wrong about some of these critical issues, and that's why they voted for him. And I think people should be a little more respectful of our fellow citizens. I think this negative talk about MAGA is going to hurt Biden's electoral campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Dimon makes the point that if there's not more respect toward the 74 million of our fellow citizens who voted for Donald Trump, it could end up hurting Biden, just as it did Hillary Clinton when she said half of Donald Trump's supporters belong in a basket of deplorables. This week on my Sirius XM radio program, a caller seemed to embody exactly what Jamie Dimon was discussing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't possibly have Trump runs again. I would never vote for him and I must have said it five times preceding the Iowa caucuses. And then the next day you hear that they didn't carry the speech and I go, maybe I will vote for him. Just if nothing else, just to stick it in Rachel's face going, you're not going to decide what I'm going to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Here's the bottom line, Donald Trump doesn't need to motivate his base. His opponents are doing that for him, which brings me to today's poll question at smerconish.com. Here's what I'm asking, are the people most opposed to Donald Trump actually aiding his election?

Joining me now to discuss is Charles Whitaker. He's the dean of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

Dean Whitaker, thank you so much for being here. How should the media cover the former president who is now the leading Republican candidate?

CHARLES WHITAKER, DEAN, NORTHWESTERN UNIV. MEDILL SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: I think they -- thank -- good morning, Michael, how are you? I think we should cover him as we've covered every other candidate, not get the rest of the hesitation that many media outlets have when you have this unreliable narrator to put it charitably, whose rhetoric is inflammatory and threatens to shred the fabric of the democracy. You're reluctant to give that individual a platform. But he is the presumptive standard bearer of the Republican Party, and we have an obligation to cover that party of those views. We have an obligation to preserve what's happening for posterity.

And we can't abdicate that responsibility just because we find an individual or their views odious.

SMERCONISH: So let me take the side of those media outlets and other institutional forces, they would say, Dean, wait a minute, he's an existential threat to democracy, how could we not constantly remind our audiences of that fact?

WHITAKER: I'm not saying they shouldn't remind their audiences of that fact. I think placing his rhetoric in context, examining it, putting it under a microphone -- microscope is exactly what we want to do. But shutting it out, saying it doesn't exist, pretending that those views are so horrible that we can't -- we can't air them, I think it really does -- it really is an abdication of our responsibility to show both the viewers who agree with the MSNBC viewers who agree, as well as the Trump voters on what's going on. We need to preserve that record.

[09:10:03]

SMERCONISH: And Dean Whitaker, as I said in my opening commentary, if you carry it to its logical conclusion, if he should win the nomination, OK, here comes the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, how do you cover it? You know, what do you do? WHITAKER: Correct.

SMERCONISH: You're covering it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, but not the night that he makes an acceptance speech? And then fast forward, if, if he should win the presidency, now, it's inauguration date, you know, now what?

WHITAKER: Right. Correct. And as you said, that's just fueling the antipathy of the individuals on his -- in his base who think that these institutions are against him, and by proxy, against them as well. We have to figure out a way to cover this. Again, to examine it, to put -- place it under a microscope, to help people and place Trump and his views in context, but we can't put our head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. Or you can say that it's too awful for us to air.

SMERCONISH: Do you think that some of the difficulty that the media is having in coming to terms with how to handle Trump is born of a belief that in 2016 he was given too much free airtime? And the mindset is --

WHITAKER: Absolutely.

SMERCONISH: -- one of, well, we don't want to do -- we don't want to do that again, so now it's as if they're going completely in the opposite direction.

WHITAKER: Correct. The pendulum has swung in exactly the opposite direction. I think media outlets in 2016 were fascinated by Trump. They didn't think he was a serious candidate. They didn't think there was any way possible that he would win.

And so, he was covered as a curiosity, not as someone who ultimately would ascend to the highest -- to ascend to the highest office in the land. Now, they feel they've learned that mistake, and they're pulling back, but they're pulling back too much. Again, he is, as I said, the presumptive standard bearer of the Republican Party, he has to be covered as you would cover any other serious candidate for this office.

SMERCONISH: Dean Charles Whitaker from Medill, thank you so much, sir. We appreciate your time.

WHITAKER: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my website this hour at smerconish.com. Answer today's provocative poll question, are the people most opposed to Donald Trump actually aiding his election? What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media.

I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. Catherine (ph), what do we have? From the world of live chat, we love that too, I respect your opinion but why would an MSNBC audience be interested in what Trump regurgitates. How is that convention or inauguration remotely equal to a speech after a caucus vote by 14 percent? OK. But, Robert, by that logic, why then -- and I hate to -- I hate to single them out, but it's the clearest example and we all watched, you know, what happened on Monday night. How can you justify saying, we're going to interrupt all of our normal programming, we're going to bring in all the usual suspects, we're going to have the election wall, we're going to bring in, you know, the vote return as we see it. And then when you reach that critical moment of the evening, it's like, well, we can't take this. I mean, I think Robert respectively -- respectfully, by that logic, then don't cover even the Iowa caucus.

But how can you be a cable outlet and adopt that position? And by the way, it's just part of a larger narrative that he is weaving all to his benefit, all to his benefit and saying, look, they're all against me, and they don't want you to have the opportunity to cast a ballot for me if you're so inclined. He's benefiting from it. That's the point I'm making.

Still to come, the judge overseeing the Trump Georgia election subversion case has set a February 15 hearing to consider the motion to disqualify Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis due to allegations of a, quote unquote, "improper relationship" with her special prosecutor who's been paid more than $600,000 in fees. Could the situation put the whole case in jeopardy?

Plus, No Labels has gotten a slot on the ballot in 14 states and says it's considering 13 candidates for an Independent presidential ticket this fall. Well, this week, the group wrote to the DOJ and said, please investigate what it claims are intimidation tactics trying to prevent them from presenting an alternative to voters. Do they have a point?

And remember, if you subscribe to the smerconish.com daily newsletter, it's free. You get exclusive editorial cartoons from some of the legends. I thought this from Rob Rogers just summed up the whole week. Take a good look.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:28]

SMERCONISH: Well, the allegations about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis having relationship with her special prosecutor upend her election interference case against former President Trump or is the fewer as Willis alleges more about racism. This week, a judge in Atlanta scheduled a hearing on February 15 on emotion seeking to have Willis and the lead prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade, thrown off Trump's Georgia election fraud case. This followed allegations by one of Trump's codefendants, Mike Roman, indicted for his role in the fake elector's plot that Willis is in a romantic relationship with Wade, an outsider lawyer and former judge who she hired to manage the case for which he's been paid more than $600,000 despite never previously having tried a felony criminal case in Georgia. The judge ordered Willis to file a written response by February 2 and to appear at the February 15 hearing, which will be televised. Sunday, Willis made her first public remarks about the allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: They won't be mad when I call them out of this nonsense. First thing they say, oh, she going to play the race card now? But no, God. Isn't it them who's playing the race card when they only question one? Isn't it they are playing the race card when they constantly think I need someone from some other jurisdiction in some other state to tell me how to do a job I've been doing almost 30 years?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: And then at a court filing on Thursday, Willis' attorney said that the subpoena for her to testify should be dismissed because Wade's soon to be ex-wife Joycelyn Wade has conspired to use the civil discovery process to annoy, embarrass and oppress District Attorney Willis. The story has been on the front page of the hometown newspaper of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, including the most recent revelations that according to bank statements filed Friday in Wade's divorce case he paid for at least two plane trips with Willis while the investigation was underway.

[09:20:28]

In a recent column in the Journal Constitution, "Fani Willis, what are you thinking, political columnist Patricia Murphy quotes a Democratic official saying, "This could totally derail the Trump case if it's true."

Patricia Murphy joins me now.

Patricia, welcome back. How significant the revelation that the prosecutor Nathan Wade paid for Fani Willis' travel?

PATRICIA MURPHY, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: I think it's an important piece. It's not the smoking gun. I think it's something though that is going to be part of all of the information that we start to learn about the nature of Fani Willis' relationship with Nathan Wade. But more importantly, whether the hiring of Nathan Wade and the role that he's played in this investigation is something that he would have played had he not been involved with Fani Willis.

And again, there's been no evidence to confirm the exact nature of the relationship and the vacuum of no information coming from Fani Willis' office right after these accusations came out. I think it's created a much larger problem in the state than would have been had we known immediately what exactly happened and when.

SMERCONISH: It's a bad look, I mean, I get it, we still don't know the real details of the relationship. But it's a bad look, if in fact, they're having a relationship and she hired him and there are questions as to his qualifications for the role for which he's been ascribed. But there as a lawyer and thinking about continuing legal education requirements, we have requirements where we have to sit in class and talk about ethical issues, this is like a hypothetical from one of those. And on one hand, Patricia, I hear some saying, hey, wait a minute, Nathan Wade, if he's doing a decent job and he's getting paid, he can then use, you know, his proceeds, his money to do whatever the hell he wants to do. On the other hand, if in fact, he's using those proceeds and spending them in part on her, does she now have skin in the game relative to his prosecution?

That's the issue, as I see it. What thoughts do you have?

MURPHY: Yes, I think that's exactly right. And it's also important to know that Democrats here in the state in particular saying this has nothing to do with the underlying issue of what Donald Trump and his co-defendants did following the 2020 elections. But once this was filed in court, and the attorney bringing these accusations as somebody who really does have an excellent reputation in Cobb County circles where she's from, and so it's not the kind of accusation that's come from one of the Trump attorneys who was throwing anything against the wall when that was happening. This is something that is seen as something serious. They've also made specific allegations that Nathan Wade may not have been properly hired, that it didn't go through the proper hiring process, and therefore may not have been legally sworn in as a special prosecutor. Now, that starts to be a problem when you talk about the role that the special prosecutor played.

Also, are there any violations of the State Bar of ethics here? Those will all come out in that court hearing. And so, we're just not there yet. But it has really up into the momentum that Wade and Willis and their entire prosecution team had going into this. This had felt like a very buttoned up case, they had gotten all of the indictments they were seeking from the special grand jury, a lot of that had to do with Nathan Wade's work.

And then they've also gotten four plea agreements. So it was something that felt like it was moving along really quickly and very successfully for the prosecution. This has really up ended that momentum. And it caused an immense amount of anxiety here in the state about the underlying case itself.

SMERCONISH: A quick final thought from a distance to me the big takeaway in the context of 2024 is delay, delay, delay, because we keep wondering, is Donald Trump going to face any criminal prosecution before the election? This is going to take a little while to sort itself out. Is that fair?

MURPHY: I think that's right. It's already taken a little while. We're looking at potentially a month delay for a process that Fani Willis was looking to start going to even potentially an August trial date before the election. Has this delayed that to the point that now it's going to bleed into after the election? Again, we don't know.

But it is a significant problem in this case that was moving along pretty swiftly. And it's something that we're just not quite there yet to know what kind of jeopardy it's causing for the underlying issue.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Patricia Murphy, from the Atlanta Journal Constitution. We appreciate you.

MURPHY: Thank you. SMERCONISH: More social media reaction now from the world of X, formerly known as Twitter. These allegations, even if true, do not diminish Trump's guilt one iota. Allegations against Trump are not fruit of the poisonous tree, they stand on their own regardless of Willis' alleged improper actions."

[09:25:11]

Ann Walsh, I agree with you that this doesn't have anything to do with the factual predicate for which he's been charged. It does raise the question, though, of what would happen if the lawyer seeking her dismissal got their way? Would a new prosecutor, would a new prosecution team, pick up the mantle and prosecute Trump in the exact same way?

And look, as I laid it out for Patricia Murphy, on one hand, you say, you know, it's all kind of salacious, right? It's the sort of thing that's going to get a lot of headlines. But on the ethical issue at stake here, on one hand, you could say, whose business is it? If Nathan Wade, the prosecutor is doing a decent job, he's getting paid a fair wage, and what, we're now going to question how he chooses to spend the money that he earns from that or any other legal work? That doesn't seem right.

On the other hand, some would say, but if she's the beneficiary of what he's getting paid now, does she have some type of compromised interest in the ongoing nature of that prosecution? That's the issue. Again, you know, I should be getting CLE legal credits even for framing it for you.

Up ahead, in its quest to mount a viable independent presidential ticket, No Labels has gained access now in 14 states, including several key battlegrounds worth 123 Electoral College votes. But this week, they claimed to the Justice Department that they're being illegally thwarted by those who fear they will only help elect Donald Trump. Do they have legitimate beef?

And I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question, are the people most opposed to Donald Trump actually aiding his election? While you're there, sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter. You're also going to get exclusive content from political cartoonist like two time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Breen. Look at what he sketched this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:10]

SMERCONISH: Is there an organized plot afoot to thwart an effort to get a third-party ticket on the 2024 presidential ballot? This week leaders of No Labels, a group that has been organizing a potential independent ticket, asked the DOJ to investigate -- quote -- "An alleged unlawful conspiracy to subvert Americans' voting rights, intimidate potential candidates and shut down the organization's effort to secure ballot access." In the letter to the DOJ No Labels says, "It's one thing to oppose candidates who are running, it's another to use intimidation tactics to prevent them from even getting in front of the voters." It then cites several incidents like this electronic billboard driven around Georgetown, the weekend to the 2023 White House Correspondents' Association dinner, accusing the No Labels CEO and her husband, a former Democratic consultant, of being proponents of MAGA hate.

Last week, No Labels said that there are 13 possible candidates being considered for the two slots without naming any. "Politico" reported that this week when No Labels founding chair and former senator Joe Lieberman said they would be open to Nikki Haley being a candidate Haley's camp immediately said that she wasn't interested.

So far, No Labels has gained access in 14 states including key battlegrounds such as Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, worth 123 Electoral College votes. It is active in several more states and this fight is just heating up as Gallup found that 43 percent of Americans now consider themselves independent making them the largest political bloc in the nation.

Joining me now is Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels. OK, Ryan, I read the letter that you folks sent to DOJ, but tell my audience what is the most egregious interference that you are alleging?

RYAN CLANCY, CHIEF STRATEGIST, NO LABELS: Well, the two biggest things are the intimidation against No Labels supporters and potential candidates. Some of our opponents are on the record saying they want to destroy the reputations of people who support No Labels, say they want to find any skeletons in the closet of any candidates who want to affiliate with us.

And look, I understand politics is hard ball. We appreciate that and we embrace the First Amendment, but you can't do this kind of stuff. You can't intimidate people from participating in the democratic process.

SMERCONISH: I mean, I read it. I was a bit nonplussed by it, because to me it was the rough and tumble. I mean, if everybody beefed to DOJ about the sort of things that are in your letter, I think, everybody would be complaining. I'm not condoning any of the behavior.

CLANCY: Well, but remember, Michael, we're not a political campaign. What we're doing is akin to voter registration. And I think -- you know, I want you to imagine if there was a group out there registering disenfranchised voters and there was an organized group that was intimidating the donors and the political candidates affiliating that -- with that, there would be outrage.

Well, we're doing the exact same thing. Ballot access is complementary to voting rights. You know, if you think about it, we're a democracy not just because we can vote. We're a democracy because we also have open access to the ballot.

I mean, Russia, North Korea, Iran, they vote -- they're not really democracies because the authorities decide who can and can't be on the ballot. That's why we think ballot access is so important.

SMERCONISH: Ryan, page one of the "New York Times" today -- I don't know if you have a return monitor. I'm going to put it on the screen. I'll read the headline.

Page one above the fold. "Voters Gloomy Over Prospect Of a Rematch." It says, Republicans view Biden as so politically and physically weak that they think his party will replace him. Democrats can't fathom that Trump could win another nomination. He is facing 91 felony charges.

The picture is not getting better for Biden and Trump. It is not as if in a month or two people are going to wake up and say, hooray, we have Biden and Trump.

[09:35:02]

So, we already know how the American people look at this choice. So, what are you waiting for?

CLANCY: Well, we always said we're going to wait until March and the biggest reason is because we have ballot access ahead of us. So, we have several months of just getting on the ballot. We're going to focus on that.

And look, things can change. You know, it is possible two months from now it is not Trump/Biden. I wouldn't say it isn't likely, but one of the things we've said all along is that we're only going to do this if we think there is absolutely a path. And a Trump/Biden contest is a situation where at least today we do think there probably is a path.

SMERCONISH: OK. But is there a path for a third-party ticket to actually win 270 electoral votes? You're now -- you're now on the ballot in 14 states. But how do you actually win 270 especially if it goes to the House of Representatives and each state delegation gets one vote and there are no independents in the House of Representatives?

CLANCY: Look, Michael, we will put up a ticket if we think it can win outright 270 in the Electoral College, and we think that is possible. You look at the polling we've done and we're going to have some other polling coming out soon, we think there's a lot of states, Texas, Florida, others where a unity ticket is viable.

I mean, we understand why people are skeptical of this given the history of independents. On the other hand, you cited the data, the highest number of self-identified independents in the country of voters looking at two historically unpopular major party nominees. I mean, the thing to think about is, why wouldn't there be an opening for an independent in a year like this?

SMERCONISH: Ryan Clancy, thank you. Appreciate your being here.

CLANCY: Thanks for having me, Michael.

SMERCONISH: More social media reaction from the world of X. What do we have?

There is a big picture case for development of a third party. Not while there is an existential threat to democracy, rule of law, it wouldn't start at the presidential level, and would need to be transparent about donors and nomination processes. Not No Labels. That's just ego.

Look, everybody -- everybody I talk to, and maybe it is the orbit, you know, in which I exist, people are like, yes, we need choice. We need a third party. Oh, no, no, not this year.

And then I say, well, wait a minute, you know, given the data and given the opinion of America, if not this year, then let's stop talking about it, OK? Please don't come back to me in 2028 and say, we need a third-party alternative.

Now, if the point of that social media is to start in smaller steps and say, let's get some independents in the Congress, in the Senate, and in the House, then I'm all for that. I mean, my God, if you -- if you had a handful, if you had three or four legitimate independents in the United States' Senate the whole balance of power would be in their hands and that would be a good thing.

Still to come, Nikki Haley needs to win Tuesday's New Hampshire primary if she hopes to gain the traction needed to stop the Trump train. How is that going especially in the wake of last night's Trump endorsement by her fellow South Carolinian Tim Scott?

And don't forget, cannot wait to see the result of this. Go to Smerconish.com, vote on today's poll question. Are the people most opposed to Donald Trump actually aiding his election?

[09:42:39]

SMERCONISH: Tuesday's New Hampshire GOP primary pretty much do or die for Nikki Haley. The Granite State's unusually high number of independents and its law allowing those independents to vote in either primary gives her more of a chance. But Friday, her fellow South Carolinian and former candidate himself Tim Scott endorsed Donald Trump.

Haley have been trying to get Scott's endorsement herself. Her polling in most of the subsequent states shows her road to be a rocky one unless New Hampshire can change the narrative.

Joining me now to discuss is New Hampshire Republican strategist Dave Carney. He was the political director for President George H.W. Bush. OK. Dave, let me put my first question in terms that Papa Bush would have appreciated. Who has got big mo?

DAVID CARNEY, NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Trump.

SMERCONISH: How come?

CARNEY: You know, it is a good lesson for every political person. The big mo comment from Ambassador Bush in '80 after he win Iowa, you know, when used -- in a long term -- this is not a one-time event. The primaries go on for months.

And as you said, expectations and you don't deliver, you are dead. DeSantis last summer, going to win Iowa. Didn't even come close. You know, that kind of, you know, backtracking. In New Hampshire, the Haley campaign said they're going to win New Hampshire. Now they are talking about last night a strong, you know, second place. Of course, there are -- there's only two people running in New Hampshire right now.

You get -- you know, Trump said he was going to win Iowa and he did, record historic number. He comes in with wind at his -- at his back. He's got -- he's going to win New Hampshire.

The Haley campaign did something about three or four weeks ago, they were actually running an excellent campaign in New Hampshire and then they stopped doing, you know, real traditional campaigning. She would stand there and take questions from everybody. And then she would, you know, talk to any microphone in the room and work really hard. And they sort of are trying to play prevent defense, Michael.

It is just not going to work in New Hampshire. It's not going to work -- it doesn't work in politics generally unless you are the frontrunner.

SMERCONISH: You know, there was a temptation of some when Chris Christie got out to say, OK, I think the number was 12. Like he had 12 percent of the vote.

[09:45:00]

I guess, you can just slide that into Nikki Haley's column because a Christie person is not going to vote for Donald Trump. But, Dave, that is not the way that it works in real life, right?

CARNEY: Right. And I think a lot of people doing a simple math at the diner with a paper napkin thought that. I thought that.

I thought 90 percent of Christie's people would go to Haley and she could get, you know, close, single digits maybe. But Christie, you know, trashed her on the way out the door. And interestingly some of the Christie loyalists who were with him in '16 and -- you know, were with him again on Twitter uncharacteristically were really harsh on Haley after he got out.

So, only 65 percent of his people, you know, said they were going to go to Haley. And some of them are going to Trump, which is how -- how is that even possible? So, yes, it is not -- it is not ABC. Everything follows each other. There is, you know, personal -- humans are involved. Therefore, there's a lot of human interactions that are very hard to predict.

SMERCONISH: Let me run a quick clip from last night. Tim Scott endorsing Donald Trump. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC): And that is why I came to the very warm state of New Hampshire to endorse the next president of the United States, President Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Dave Carney, what is the significance, if any, of that endorsement in New Hampshire?

CARNEY: It just shows that the president is going to win. He's going to -- you know, he's going to crash Nevada, their complicated, corrupt new system. They are going to win South Carolina and win every other contest throughout the country.

And that momentum, back to your first question, that -- you know, there are people who like to be with a winner. Why would you go with a guy who is in third place, has no shot, he is not going to win anywhere including his home state, or the person who is in third -- second place who is not going anywhere and not going to win their home state? And so, you see people -- you know, they'll flick off. They want to be able to say, I was with Trump. Everyone --

SMERCONISH: Sure.

CARNEY: Everyone wants to be with the winner.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Dave Carney. Nice to have you here.

CARNEY: You bet, Michael. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. And upcoming, the results of today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Are the people most opposed to Donald Trump actually aiding his election?

When you are there voting, sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter. Jack Ohman -- check out what the Pulitzer Prize winner sketched for Smerconish.com newsletter this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:29]

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the result. So far, 25,795 having voted. Are the people most opposed to Trump aiding his election?

Wow. I must say I'm surprised. I thought it would be the reverse of that.

The yes votes have it at 54 percent. Little message in there for all the institutional forces watching according to this audience, a pretty significant sample size, you're helping him.

Social media reaction. What do we have, Catherine? From the world of X.

You have blurred the lines and misrepresented Rachel's comments.

OK. Can I stop right there? How could I have misrepresented Rachel's comments when I played what she said?

They are not ignoring the acceptance speech.

Yes, they are ignoring the acceptance speech.

They will report any news he makes after the fact.

OK. And, Rayray, is that the same standard for the convention? Like Republican national -- put that back on me. I'm kind of finished with that response.

So now it's Republican National Convention and it's Milwaukee. And the acceptance speech is traditionally -- is it Wednesday or Thursday? I've been to so many of them I get confused. You're going to carry the convention all week long and then you're going to dip out of the acceptance speech and say, don't worry. We'll tell you if any news is made here.

And now it's the inauguration. And for the inauguration, should he win, is like Trump is going to put his hand on the Bible and then give a speech. Hey, if he says anything that we find -- that we find significant and news worthy, then we'll bring it to you.

And, oh, by the way, we're a news outlet, that's ridiculous. What's next?

You're amplifying the message of the far right by covering this topic.

Oh, now I shouldn't even discuss it. I should bury my head in the sand like everybody else.

Why aren't you discussing dangers to democracy posed by the far right with equal vigor?

We have done it. I'm not in a closet apologist. You give me too much credit or blame, Eric K. I wear all my opinions on my sleeve. Like with me you don't have to wonder what's the agenda. I'm telling you the agenda.

The agenda is to just analyze and parse what everybody else is missing, which is that the way in which Donald Trump is being treated and covered is to Trump's advantage. One more, if I've got time for it. I think that I do.

Censorship of Trump helps him. Congratulations, Michael. You finally -- you finally got something right.

All right. I'll accept the fake praise. I don't have much more to say about that, Catherine. Sorry to cut you cold.

Do we have time for one more? If we do, I would love to hit it.

[09:55:00] OK. Good. Let's do it. What do we got?

You want a third party? Let them build a real party beginning with local elections. To show up once every four years only means that they wanted to skew the election. Jill Stein did it. Nader did it. Perot probably --

Larry Fox, I like your idea. I would like -- I would like a third- party alternative to be something in every election. And maybe -- we'll see what happens this year, because when I look at that -- when I look at that headline about how gloomy voters are about the prospects of the choice that seems to be coming to fruition, to me, it says, the moon and the stars have aligned.

Like this is the year that something really could happen. If it's not this cycle, then you have the answer. The only way to bring about more choice is to do it on a local basis, to approach congressional races and senatorial races.

There's an effort out there. They call it the Fulcrum project. And it stands for the proposition that if you simply had, you know, three or four legitimate independents in the United States Senate, they would sort of quell all the forces on the far left and the far right, and they would get to call all the shots. And I think the country would be in a better place.

More to come next week. Thanks for watching.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)