While discussing the latest controversies surrounding alleged sexual misconduct by President Trump on Wednesday's edition of New Day, lawyer Nancy Smith used her platform to go after evangelicals for wanting "to tell gay people they can't have rights based on their religion" and preventing "women from making private medical decisions."
Smith, who represents former Fox News personality Gretchen Carlson, wasted no time in attacking “white evangelicals” for their belief in traditional marriage and their opposition to abortion: “The people have a right to know about the conduct of their President, especially a President who is loved by white evangelicals, they’re his base, who want to tell gay people they can’t have rights based on their religion and their religion prevents women from making private medical decisions and policy should be based on those religious principles and here we have a President who wants to hide his own behavior.”
It never occurs to liberals like Smith that evangelicals might support President Trump because he does not hate them, unlike her and her fellow cosmopolitans in the media, academia, and on the “tolerant” left; who denounce them as “deplorables” and “bitter clingers.”
Guest co-host Erica Hill asked Smith if she thought that the “constant drip, drip, drip of information from Stormy Daniels” was “changing the narrative and what we knew about it?” Smith responded by saying “Well I hope it is”, adding “if he wasn’t holding himself up to be literally the evangelical President, Jesus speaks to him, God brought him to us, maybe it would be even less relevant.” She forgot to mention that if Trump were a Democrat, it would also “be even less relevant.”
The conversation then turned to what does and does not constitute political speech. The President has argued that his reference to one of his accusers, Summer Zervos, as a liar is protected under the First Amendment while another one of his accusers argues that her story that she sold for $150,000 also qualifies as political speech. Smith dismissed the idea that the President’s reference to Zervos as a “liar” constitutes political speech but “it might be political speech to say I have information about the President which shows his character and that he’s a hypocrite.”
Hill concluded her interview with Smith by asking her which one of the three cases discussed in the segment “has the most teeth legally.” Smith argued that the Summer Zervos case has the most teeth because “she can now subpoena all the other NDAS”, drawing similarities between the legal cases surrounding the President and the scandals surrounding Bill Cosby and former President Bill Clinton.
Hill said the process of subpoenaing all the other NDAs and taking the President’s deposition “could take months, it could take years.” Smith seemed to hope that these cases proceed as quickly as possible, saying “hopefully, it’ll take months.”
As the Russia investigation has yet to bear any fruit for their master plan to take down President Trump, the left has now turned to the sexual misconduct allegations against him as their most effective method to remove him from office. It looks like the left has found a new ally in Nancy Smith, who would more than happy to trash the President in the court of public opinion.
CNN New Day
DAVID SCHWARTZ: It’s important to every single person that enters into a non-disclosure agreement. People do this, people do this in order to avoid litigation and avoid the embarrassment to family, to business, to reputation. That’s why people enter into these...you know why people enter into these contracts. They’re entered into all the time.
ERICA HILL: So look and if you’re taking what he’s saying at face value, yes, they enter into them for reasons and they do it knowingly. So then why do we want to change things now? Why do we want to keep, or why do we want to keep them in place? You can see both sides but break it down for me here. Why does this really matter?
NANCY SMITH: Well, people who enter into NDA agreements aren’t the President of the United States. We happen to live in a democracy. This President has been lacking transparency since he wouldn’t give us his tax returns but his behavior is more important to the public. The public has an interest to know, in how the President of the United States conducts himself. We, how do we know this? They impeached Bill Clinton because he lied about a consensual relationship. We know this because Donald Trump held a press conference with all of his accusers somehow in order to tarnish Hillary Clinton. The people have a right to know about the conduct of their President, especially a President who is loved by white evangelicals, they’re his base; who want to tell gay people they can’t have rights based on their religion and their religion prevents women from making private medical decisions and policy should be based on those religious principles and here we have a President who wants to hide his own behavior. He’s the President. He’s not anybody.
HILL: So let me ask you is about that behavior or is it about legally what we’re seeing? And I don’t mean just, I mean, so there’s the question of is there the behavior of an alleged affair. That’s one thing. A lot of people aren’t all that upset about it. Yes, maybe, maybe it’s men behaving badly but, you know, this is sort of what we get. Or is it more the behavior, to your point, from a legal standpoint and if that is it we are seeing this constant drip, drip, drip of information from Stormy Daniels and from her attorney Michael Avenatti. Is that working, is that working in terms of...obviously it’s keeping the story out there but is it changing...in your view, is it changing the narrative and what we know about it?
SMITH: Well, I hope it is because as they said in the Nixon impeachment, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover up. And when you have a President of the United States making a fake name in order to shut up somebody weeks before the election, and now we know his friends are doing catch and kill with other women who have stories about him, if he wasn’t holding himself up to be literally the evangelical President, Jesus speaks to him, God brought him to us, maybe it would be even less relevant. But the public has a right to know about the character of the President. He said that himself repeatedly throughout the election. Republicans talk about character more than anybody.
HILL: So one of the things that sticks out in two of these cases here. So let’s put Stormy Daniels aside for a moment. But we’re also looking at, we got this ruling yesterday with Summer Zervos, who was a contestant on The Apprentice and she filed a defamation suit against the President because he called her a liar, among other things. He said listen, number one, I’m the President so this really can’t happen right now, when they were going back and then also, that his speech was protected because it was political speech so he’s protected under the First Amendment. The judge said “this doesn’t stand. This isn’t going to happen.” What’s fascinating to me is that happened, right, and at the same time we’re hearing from this other woman, a former playmate who says that she sold her story for $150,000. It was never published. Now she’s also claiming that her story falls under First Amendment protections because it’s also political speech. It’s fascinating that we have two different sides in two different cases but they’re both using a similar argument.
SMITH: Right. I don’t think it’s political speech to call somebody a liar. I don’t think that can be called political speech. But it might be political speech to say I have information about the President which shows his character and that he’s a hypocrite.
HILL: Which one of these three cases has the most teeth legally?
SMITH: I think that the Summer Zervos case does because she can now subpoena all the other NDAs. That’s going to be relevant to her case, what he said about other women, and whether he lies about his behavior with other women. And we just saw on Cosby, the judge ruled that five other women can testify about this pattern of behavior. So she can, she can subpoena all the other NDAs and take his deposition as we know from Clinton vs. Paula, Paula Jones vs. Clinton.
HILL: That could take months, it could take years.
SMITH: Hopefully it’ll take months.
HILL: Two seconds. Do you think it will happen?
SMITH: Yes. Absolutely.