Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) joined me this AM:

Audio:

05-31hhs-johnson

Transcript:

HH: Speaker Johnson, good morning. How are you?

MJ: Hey, Hugh. Doing well. Good to hear your voice.

HH: You’re early, and I’m glad you’re early, because I’ve got a lot to talk to you about. And we’ll talk during the break and post it all and then after the break as well. So let me begin by asking you, have you spoken to President Trump?

MJ: I have not spoken to him in the last few days. I was with him there in court a few weeks ago. I’ve talked to him a couple times since. He’s very frustrated, as we all are. But I think he understands they just ensured that he gets reelected president. I’m convinced of that.

HH: Well, Senator Rubio said that on Special Report last night when I was on the panel. Do you think the conviction will have the same effect on GOP and independents that the Dobbs decision had on the Democratic base?

MJ: You know what? That’s a great analogy. I think it probably will. Today, I’m in Ohio and Michigan, tomorrow in Illinois. Hugh, I’ve been in, by the end of this week, I will have been in 115 cities doing campaign events in the last six months in 29 states. There is an incredible energy on the ground that existed before this. But I was here in Ohio doing events when this came down yesterday, and I’m telling you that the enthusiasm is through the roof right now. People are so disgusted at what they’re seeing the Democrats and the left do, that they’re highly-motivated. And I just have never seen this kind of energy before.

HH: I was asked by NPR this morning to limit by objections to the verdict to one, and I cited the failure to specify charges. You’re a pretty good lawyer. Which one would you hold up? The judge’s conflicts? The instructions? The failure to allow Brad Smith to testify? What’s your number one reason for reversal?

MJ: Gosh, it’s a great question. You know, probably the fact that as the Trump’s litigation team is suggesting this morning, we know that Cohen perjured himself on the stand. He should have been impugned as a witness, and he wasn’t. And the entire case is premised and built upon his testimony, a known perjurer. You know, I mean, there’s so many grounds for appeal here. I think it’s a certainty that it will be overturned. It’s just going to take us some months to do that, I’m afraid. And that’s the peril of all this, and that’s, of course, what they knew and what they wanted all along.

HH: Yeah, but you know, I think sometimes, you’ve got to be careful what you wish for. Speaker, stand by for a second. I’ve got to cut to break, and I’ll continue talking with you as long as you can stay with me.

MJ: Sure.

— – – — –

HH: Speaker Johnson, we’ll play this and post it, even though we’re off the air for about five minutes, and then we’ll come back. Do you expect this miscarriage of justice to impact the former President’s selection of vice president? Will he go for a lawyer that can combat the ridiculousness of this like Tom Cotton or Mike Pompeo? Or will he want a contrast with a mild-mannered but very smart Doug Burgum? What do you think?

MJ: Or Tim Scott or someone like that? Yeah, look, we have an embarrassment of riches on our side. It’s a deep bench, unlike the other team’s, and that’s a great problem to have. You know, he’s got some great choices. Every one you named there are good friends and trusted friends of mine. So it’s tough for me to handicap the race, but I’ll tell you, he’s got great choices. I think any of the people you mentioned could give voice to this and express the outrage of the people and explain what’s wrong about it. It really doesn’t take legal acumen or a legal background to be able to see that what’s happened here is just plainly wrong, and it’s lawfare. And there’s no better way to describe it, and I think people understand that.

HH: Well, I look forward to the vice presidential debate, and…

MJ: Yeah.

HH: When Vice President Harris stands up and says I was a prosecutor, and this was well done, I just think maybe I’d like to have Mike Pompeo say well, not only am I a good lawyer, but I was a secretary of state, and you’ve embarrassed us around the world.

MJ: Oh, yeah.

HH: Because I do think this embarrasses us around the world. Do you share the opinion of former National Security Advisor O’Brien that this really damages our rule of law arguments everywhere?

MJ: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is what you expect in a third world country, a banana republic, not the United States, the premiere legal system in the world that’s been the model and the envy of everybody for so long. The Democrats are so desperate because they know President Trump is crushing Joe Biden in the polls that they have relegated themselves to this. They risk the destruction of the credibility of our entire system of justice, and there is nothing less than that at stake here. People don’t see the system as fair right now. And Hugh, you and I both know that’s a peril to the maintenance of a Constitutional republic. People have to believe that the system of justice is fair, and they don’t right now. And it’s going to take us quite a bit of time to restore that faith. And that’s a serious challenge for us.

HH: Mr. Speaker, I come from California. That’s where I practiced law for 35 years. I’m retired now. And I’ve argued before judges I didn’t think were going to go my way like Stephen Reinhardt. I won that case on the 9th Circuit, but I nevertheless thought I didn’t have much of a chance going in, because it was Reinhardt. And I’ve argued in front of other judges who are erratic. I’ve never argued to a judge who had contributed to an anti-Hugh campaign. You’re a lawyer. I mean, can you believe Merchan stayed on this case after he had contributed to Biden and to two committees, symbolic, small contributions, but he wanted to make a statement. Can you believe he rejected the recusal motion?

MJ: It’s incredible. It’s incredible. I was with President Trump, rode with him in the motorcade to court a few weeks ago to see all that charade for myself, and I just can’t believe it. I mean, and think of it, Hugh. Even in the last week or so, you’ve got the left apoplectic that Justice Alito should supposedly recuse himself because his wife flew a flag at their home, right? This guy, this judge in Manhattan, to your point, is an open known Biden donor. His daughter, by the way, is out raising millions of dollars on the trial that’s going on in front of him. There’s no way that that should ever have been allowed, and I think everybody sees that double standard. And I think it’s going to work to President Trump’s benefit in the election. And all of us, by the way, Hugh, last night, our Republican fundraising platforms broke records. The NRCC, the RNC, I mean, there is a zeal out there in the base, and enthusiasm, a motivation, and I made the comment in another interview this morning that President Trump is no longer just an individual. He is now a symbol. He is a symbol of fighting back against this corruption of our system and the deep state and all the rest. It’s true. That’s happening in real time. And we’re all going to watch it play out over the next few months.

HH: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to condense the issue set in ways that are easy to remember, and I’m finally down to the five I’s. The Five Eyes, of course, applied in the intelligence world are Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The five I’s of 2024, I think, are inflation, number one, immigration, number two. Number three is Israel. Number four is the infirmity of Joe Biden. And number five is the injustice done to Donald Trump. Good summary?

MJ: That’s excellent. You’ve got a great way of doing that summary. I might adopt that, Hugh, and I will give you the credit for it, because there’s so many issues, to your point, to talk about. And when I’m moving around the country doing all these events, I mean, people are so frustrated about so many things. It’s helpful to us to be able to summarize it well, and I think that does it. Yeah, that last I that we’ve just added is a big one, and I think it may overtake some of the other issues.

HH: When we come back from break, I’m going to ask you to rank them, because I do think inflation was number one going into this, but we’ll be right back and we’ll talk about whether or not injustice trumps it now. Stay tuned. I’ll be right back with Speaker Johnson.

— – — –

HH: I am back now with Speaker Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, of course. Speaker Johnson, in terms of your advice to candidates running for the House of Representatives who are challenging Democrats in competitive districts, do they lead with the inflation? Do they lead with the immigration nightmare that we have on our hands? Do they lead with the Israeli war and the fact that Joe Biden doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going? Do they lead with the infirmity of the President? Or do they lead with the injustice done to the former President?

MJ: It’s a great menu of items there. You know, I think no matter where you are in the country right now, and I mentioned I’ve been to over 110 cities in 29 states in the last six months. The issues are the same. I mean, they really are. It doesn’t matter where you are – north, south, east, west. That’s what’s been on everybody’s hearts and minds. It’s inflation. It’s the immigration, the open border, the infirmity of the President. I would add another I. How about instability on the world stage, which really all of this leads into? That’s a real problem.

HH: Yup.

MJ: And we’re on the verge of World War III. We’ve got hot wars around the globe, and China, Russia, and Iran all working together against Israel, of course, but us as well and the free world. These are dangerous times, and there’s a lot to discuss. And people have a lot on their hearts and minds, and they’re fed up, Hugh. They’re ready for change. And I think the polling was already showing us, the poll that came out Wednesday this week already said they gave Biden, this is the Hill and DecisionDesk, and they looked at 200 different metrics across the board, across the country. And they assessed that Donald Trump, prior to this verdict, had a 54% chance of winning the White House. I think that’s underestimated. They think the Republicans had an 80% chance of winning the Senate, and they gave us a 64% chance of keeping and growing the House majority. I think all those numbers just went up pretty dramatically. And it’s going to be an exciting year.

HH: Now white, hot anger has to be channeled into political activity that is legitimate and just, not into stupid stuff, and certainly not into violence.

MJ: Yeah.

HH: I know you know that. But do you expect the legacy media, especially the Manhattan-Beltway media elite to honestly explain to their audiences the grounds for appeal and why I and Mark Levin and many other people are so…Ted Cruz last night, 100% confident in reversal. Do you think legacy media will fairly present this over the weekend?

MJ: Oh, no. Of course, not. And they can drag this out, now, for another month before sentencing and then all the way through the conventions. That’s the game. That was the design. That’s what they wanted to do, call Donald Trump a convicted felon, you know, try to attack his character all the way through this thing. They’re terrified, Hugh, because they know that he is beating Joe Biden in all the swing states, six of the seven when I last saw it. I’m on the ground here, I mentioned, in Ohio and Michigan today. I’ll be in Illinois tomorrow. I’m telling you that these are not, you know, even in blue states and swing states, President Trump already had the energy and the enthusiasm on his side. And I think this makes it better for our team.

HH: Oh, Bernie Moreno is the happiest man in America. I know he doesn’t really want the President unjustly convicted, but Bernie Moreno is going to just immediately, Sherrod Brown is so bad on this stuff, I hope somebody asks him about the recusal idiocy that he signed onto for Justice Alito after this. Where in Ohio are you? That’s my home state, Mr. Speaker.

MJ: Oh, yeah. Well, I’m in Cincinnati this morning, and we’ll be headed, we’re doing four cities in Ohio in 36 hours. So Toledo and Columbus and Cleveland, and I’m telling you that the crowds here are enthusiastic. They know what’s at stake. Everybody does. We’re apt to say oh, you know, the next election cycle’s the most important one of our lifetime. Everybody knows that this one truly, truly is. And so they’re motivated. We set fundraising records last night on our fundraising platforms after all this broke. And we had to set up a new site, because they were crashing all of our sites, so www.supportDJT.com is our House majority’s effort to stand with the President and get this thing done. So I would refer everybody there if they get a chance.

HH: www.supportDJT.com?

MJ: That’s right. That’s right.

HH: You know, I’m glad you told me that, because I do think the website’s going to do down again. www.supportDJT.com. In Michigan, will you be with Mike Rogers, who was on the program yesterday?

MJ: Yeah. I’m trying to catch up to him. He is busy on the campaign trail and doing a great job. And I think he’s got a fantastic shot there.

HH: So I’ll close with this, Mr. Speaker. I know you’re pressed, and I appreciate the time. I want to play what people didn’t hear afterwards. If we get back the Senate, and I think we’re going to win with McCormick, with Hogan, with Moreno. I think we’re going to win with Tim Sheehy and Kerri Lake and Sam Brown, and maybe in Wisconsin. I think we’re going to get the Senate back. I think you’re going to hold your majority. You get one big swing in reconciliation. I hope it’s aimed at education and defunding schools with more than a billion dollars in endowment and making choice a requirement of every school in the nation. Like Louisiana just adopted choice, I believe.

MJ: Right.

HH: What do you think your big swing will be if you get the House and the Senate with the new second term of President Trump?

MJ: Well, the reconciliation process is so important, because you know that it requires only a bare majority vote in the Senate instead of the 60-vote threshold. We’re going to use it aggressively and broadly. We’ve got a multi-pronged plan to do that, because we need massive policy change. Those issues that you mentioned are high on our list. There’s other things as well, I mean, including even immigration. So I think that the Byrd rule, we can survive that, not to get too deep in the weeds. A lot of people don’t follow all this. But the Democrats used it very broadly last time, and they kind of set a new precedent, and so we’re making some very important plans for how to do that. And the first order…

HH: Yeah, the Byrd rule for, this audience understands that it’s a dollars and cents rule.

MJ: Yeah.

HH: If you’re going to affect the reconciliation process, you’ve got to be affecting the budget. But I think you can do education spending. You can do immigration. You can do a lot with budget-connected stuff, right?

MJ: Of course. That’s right. That’s right. The Senate parliamentarian is the arbiter of all that, but we’re working on the front end so there’s no surprises. And we’re very bullish and optimistic about what we’ll be able to achieve in that. Look, we’ve got to fix every metric of public policy. Joe Biden and the Democrats have messed it all up, of course. And I told President Trump recently, Mr. President, in your next term, which I’m convinced you’ll get, you can be the most consequential president of the modern era. We’ve got to fix everything. And he knows that. He gets it. And we’re going to have a very aggressive first 100 days agenda in the new Congress, new administration. And I think it’s going to excite the people.

HH: My last question, Mr. Speaker. We have enemies – China, Iran, Russia. As they look at the United States today, have they changed their calculous about our role in the world and our ability to deter them?

MJ: Sadly, and dangerous, I think that’s true. We have projected weakness on the world stage. That’s the instability, the other I that I was going to add to your list. And I think it’s a very serious threat. But I do believe that when Donald Trump returns to the White House, I think all that changes. I think it’s a 180-degree turn, because they respect and they fear Donald Trump. They’re not sure what he’s capable of, and there’s some real value in that, you know, Hugh. I mean, we didn’t have hot wars around the globe when he was in the Oval Office for a very important reason. And Joe Biden…

HH: How dangerous will the transition be? You’ve got this infirm, feeble, wobbly president who has been defeated by Donald Trump, and I’m projecting here what I think is going to happen. How dangerous will those transition months be if China’s looking at Taiwan?

MJ: Well, that’s something that we lose sleep over. I think that is their plan, and it’s just a matter of time before they try it. And why wouldn’t you, if you were China? Really, why wouldn’t you in that transition period? We certainly hope that doesn’t happen. Our military is hopefully armed and equipped for that. You know, I get the briefings, and I can’t go into the classified parts. But there’s tabletop exercises being done right now, and I think that we’ll be able to hold the line. But we have got to have a change in our commander-in-chief. Everybody knows that. And this is not a sustainable trajectory we’re on. If we had four more years of Biden and Harris, oh, Heaven help us. That can’t happen. I don’t think it will, and that’s why we’re so bullish about November.

HH: Mr. Speaker, thank you for joining me this morning. I appreciate your candor and your willingness to get out there and start fighting back against what is a miscarriage of justice. Press on and have a good trip. Hope they take you to Warren/Youngstown, because that’s actually real Ohio, as opposed to Cincinnati. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MJ: Good to talk to you.

End of interview.