Speaker 1: Donald Trump was arraigned in New York City on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: He is facing thirty four felony counts. But there are
Speaker 1: a lot of issues with the indictment. I mean, chief
Speaker 1: among them the fact that the statute of limitations have
Speaker 1: passed for a felony indictment. But that doesn't matter. This
Speaker 1: is a political hit job. We saw Alvin Bragg shut
Speaker 1: down the entire city over a one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: thousand dollar payment. Then if you question if it's political,
Speaker 1: just look at the timeline of all of this. The
Speaker 1: former president's first hearing is scheduled for December, which means
Speaker 1: that all of this is going to go on throughout
Speaker 1: the Republican primary. But that's what they want. We also
Speaker 1: know that it's all bogus, that this is a hit job,
Speaker 1: that Alvin Bragg is just a tool for the left,
Speaker 1: that his entire purpose is just to destroy Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: that it has nothing to do with the rule of law,
Speaker 1: it has nothing to do with going after criminals. Listen
Speaker 1: to what he said yesterday at a press conference. We
Speaker 1: cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conducts. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy's a joke. Is he serious? I mean, last
Speaker 1: year he downgraded fifty two felonies to misdemeanors. I used
Speaker 1: to live in New York City. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: I left is because of the crime. The streets of
Speaker 1: New York are not safe. He lets criminals roam the street.
Speaker 1: He lets murderers and executions happen in the middle of
Speaker 1: the street. He lets robberies happen in New York City,
Speaker 1: carjackings happen in New York City. I mean, you could
Speaker 1: walk down the street and get randomly punched in the face.
Speaker 1: If you're on the subway, you could get pushed in
Speaker 1: front of one or if you're a woman, god forbid,
Speaker 1: you can get raped. But he's okay with that, right
Speaker 1: because again he downgraded fifty two percent of felonies last
Speaker 1: year to misdemeanors. But he's going to get Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, he promised that. That was a campaign promise,
Speaker 1: and now he's following through. Now. Trump remained defiant. He
Speaker 1: took to a stage at Marrow Lago after the arraignment
Speaker 1: and he said, this have a Trump paid judge with
Speaker 1: the Trump paiding wife and family, whose daughter worked for
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris and now receives money. The Biden harrish campaign
Speaker 1: and a lot of them. The only crime that I
Speaker 1: have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those
Speaker 1: who seek to destroy it. And as he laid out,
Speaker 1: that's the problem in all of this, that he's facing
Speaker 1: a Marxist Manhattan DA, in a Marxist state, in a
Speaker 1: Marxist city where a jury of his peers are a
Speaker 1: bunch of left wing radicals. So canny get a fair hearing?
Speaker 1: And what should you know about the unsealed indictment? What
Speaker 1: she do you know about these charges that are laid out?
Speaker 1: Is the case strong? We're going to ask Texas Attorney
Speaker 1: General Ken Paxton, who joins me on the show and
Speaker 1: he's next stay with US Attorney General Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: of course, arraigned this week facing thirty four or felony
Speaker 1: counts from the Manhattan DA. You know, what do you
Speaker 1: make of the case that Alvin Bragg has laid out. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a case that would never be and brought unless
Speaker 1: his name is Donald Trump. We've never seen anything like
Speaker 1: it where we have thirty four councils are all pretty
Speaker 1: much it's already passed the statute of limitations. It's also
Speaker 1: I guess it's dependent upon some crime that they've not
Speaker 1: even specified yet, so that they can sort of bootstrap
Speaker 1: it into a felony, because right now, you know what
Speaker 1: the case looks like is misdemeanors. So it's it's I
Speaker 1: guess I wish I could say it's hard to believe
Speaker 1: that that's the tactic that is being used by the
Speaker 1: left everywhere. It's just now everybody should be worried about this,
Speaker 1: because if they can go after the president this way,
Speaker 1: there's really no one that's saved. Does this surprise you
Speaker 1: that they're doing this, that they're just being so blatant
Speaker 1: about it, as you pointed out, they're not even laying
Speaker 1: out really what the felony that he committed is. Does
Speaker 1: this surprise you at all? I think it is a
Speaker 1: surprising because because I you know, for other levels of government,
Speaker 1: we've seen it in my state with Governor Perry and
Speaker 1: ka and Tom Blay others, where they go after them
Speaker 1: to try to ruin their political careers and ruin their lives,
Speaker 1: but we've never seen a present history of this country.
Speaker 1: So for the left to go to that level and
Speaker 1: clearly stretching, stretching, stretching their legal arguments into like crazy
Speaker 1: stuff that no one's ever been charged with before, and
Speaker 1: violating this whole idea of you know, stature limitations, which
Speaker 1: designed to make sure that cases are brought into timely manners.
Speaker 1: Some people don't forget the facts and they have no
Speaker 1: regard for the law. They just wanted to get him
Speaker 1: and this guy, this dial attorney, ran targeting Trump and
Speaker 1: he wanted to deliver on his campaign promise. This is
Speaker 1: not America. This is not the America that the founder
Speaker 1: set up. It's not the America that I grew up in.
Speaker 1: When you have to be afraid of the government that
Speaker 1: they're targeting you and trying to find some way to
Speaker 1: put you in jail, that's what they're doing. Well. And
Speaker 1: of course, you know, no one should be able to
Speaker 1: question if it's political nature, because the next in person
Speaker 1: hearing is going to be December fourth. So this is
Speaker 1: you know, essentially career a circus during the Republican primary
Speaker 1: where Donald Trump has already declared exactly and you also
Speaker 1: have to look at the history of this disc attorney.
Speaker 1: He has let all kinds of people go. He's reduced felonies, murders,
Speaker 1: other crimes to lesser offenses, and so you know, he's
Speaker 1: got a pretty big job in New York to prosecute crime,
Speaker 1: and yet he hasn't really done that. He's done a
Speaker 1: really poor job of that. And somehow he's got lots
Speaker 1: of time and lots of resources to go after a
Speaker 1: former president after the Statute of limitations, run and try
Speaker 1: to concoct some theory that he's committed felonies just to
Speaker 1: ruin his life and ruin his campaign. I guess my
Speaker 1: concern is that, you know, it's pretty I'm an attorney,
Speaker 1: but even looking at this, you know, the Statute of limitations,
Speaker 1: you look at the fact that in order for him
Speaker 1: to commit a felony, it has to be in pursuit
Speaker 1: of concealing another crime. They don't lay that out right.
Speaker 1: So you can go through these things and see obvious,
Speaker 1: glaring issues that you don't have to be an attorney
Speaker 1: to see. But the problem is that this is happening
Speaker 1: in New York and he is facing you know, Marx's
Speaker 1: DA or Marx's judge or Marxist State, you know, Marxist City,
Speaker 1: and the jury of his peerers are you know, a
Speaker 1: bunch of left wing radicals. Can he get a fair
Speaker 1: hearings in this environment. No, no, he can't. It's impossible.
Speaker 1: It's not designed to be a fair hearing. It's designed
Speaker 1: to have the result decided before it's ever started. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly why they wanted to do it where they
Speaker 1: did it. And you know, the process for him going
Speaker 1: forward is you know, it's not very encouraging. It's not
Speaker 1: going to be based on what the truth is, what
Speaker 1: the law is. It's going to be designed to confict
Speaker 1: from the very beginning, which puts US in the same
Speaker 1: league as countries like Russia and China. I don't see
Speaker 1: any real difference when you start targeting people and the
Speaker 1: outcome is known before the actual trial. So yeah, he's
Speaker 1: going to have problems, and you know, hopefully he can
Speaker 1: get to some appeals court that will be fair. But
Speaker 1: I know in Texas, you know, a lot of these
Speaker 1: Republican leaders had to go pretty high up to get
Speaker 1: out of Travis County, which is Austin, before they got
Speaker 1: any kind of fairness otherwise, because of their name and
Speaker 1: the fact that there were Republicans that guaranteed a conviction. Well,
Speaker 1: and if it was just this too, it would be
Speaker 1: a little bit more comforting. But he's facing incoming fire
Speaker 1: from Georgia. He could potentially face an indictment there. He's
Speaker 1: facing federal investigations which are being overseen by Special Counsel
Speaker 1: Jack Smith. So I mean they are really throwing everything
Speaker 1: at him, and this time it's you know, criminal investigations
Speaker 1: versus you know, just congressional impeachments. Yeah. So what they
Speaker 1: do this is this is common. They just line up
Speaker 1: as many of these as they can get, hoping that
Speaker 1: just the weight of all of those will crush somebody,
Speaker 1: destroy them. Maybe one of them they get lucky and
Speaker 1: they actually take away the freedom of an innocent person.
Speaker 1: That's their greatest hope is to take away the freedom
Speaker 1: of an innocent person. And so that's what they do.
Speaker 1: They just line up as much crushing legal and fortunately,
Speaker 1: at least Trump has resources. Most people in his situation,
Speaker 1: I would say, somewhere in the high nineties would have
Speaker 1: to plead guilty to something they did not do because
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have the resources to fight. So most people
Speaker 1: in his situation plead guilty to something they did not
Speaker 1: do because they cannot afford to fight. Well, and that's
Speaker 1: what I really believe that this is all about is
Speaker 1: you know, it's not just about you know, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: it's about silencing political dissidents. Right. We've already seen the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice go after parents, labeling them domestic terrorists.
Speaker 1: They would after Mark. How could the pro life Catholic
Speaker 1: who just wanted women to not get abortions. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: took a stage in Philadelphia a few months ago labeling
Speaker 1: seventy five million Americans as enemies in the state, with
Speaker 1: the military behind him. So I think they're making it
Speaker 1: pretty obvious that, you know, the whole point of this
Speaker 1: is punishing people for wrong think and punishing political dissidents
Speaker 1: in America. Yeah, I think you're exactly right. They're trying
Speaker 1: to send a message as chilling effect designed to keep
Speaker 1: good people you might otherwise run for office and have
Speaker 1: the wrong views, according to them, from actually getting into
Speaker 1: the race, because they realized that, look, if I get in.
Speaker 1: With the thousands and thousands and thousands of laws and
Speaker 1: regulations that we have, these prosecutors can have unlimited sort
Speaker 1: of resources, unlimited possibilities to try to connive and concoct
Speaker 1: some type of crime. And obviously these are not crimes
Speaker 1: that we used to deal with where we know you've
Speaker 1: been harmed. These are stretched and they're more they're harder
Speaker 1: to define what you actually what actually crime you did,
Speaker 1: and what harm you cause. Yeah, I mean, I assume
Speaker 1: that's the point of going with thirty four is that
Speaker 1: even if you can get you know, a couple thrown out,
Speaker 1: the hope is that you at least get one to
Speaker 1: stick and then you know, you label Donald Trump a felon,
Speaker 1: which is you know, essentially what they're trying to do
Speaker 1: is you know, ruin him and tarnish his name. I
Speaker 1: guess my concern is I haven't fully grasped my own
Speaker 1: head with the political fallout of this all is going
Speaker 1: to be because of course, as conservatives, we care about
Speaker 1: the rule of law, we care about the weaponization of
Speaker 1: government because it's aimed at us. But you know, if
Speaker 1: you're an independent who probably already hates Donald Trump, is
Speaker 1: this going to get you over to our table to
Speaker 1: try to win you know, the twenty twenty four election,
Speaker 1: or you know, win education or you know, the economy,
Speaker 1: be what could get them to come over. So I'm
Speaker 1: a little bit concerned that if this is the driving
Speaker 1: force heading into the presidential election, we might find ourselves losing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think that's obviously the point. That's just to
Speaker 1: drag us down. And if we stand up and say
Speaker 1: we're not going to put up with it, then we're
Speaker 1: stuck in the fight. Right. We don't have to give
Speaker 1: up and say Okay, they win. They can do this
Speaker 1: to anybody they want to and woke a pitchu light
Speaker 1: or we have to fight it, fight it, fight it,
Speaker 1: And that potentially puts us in a position of supposedly
Speaker 1: creating a taint to the party or dragging the party down,
Speaker 1: or causing trouble. Why don't you just stop? Why does
Speaker 1: just get out sacrifice yourself at The problem with that
Speaker 1: is once we colpitulate to that we have lost, they
Speaker 1: will just keep doing it, and they will find something
Speaker 1: on anybody that they want to. And if you can
Speaker 1: do it with this kind of legal theory that's any
Speaker 1: competent attorney would never file, then you can do it
Speaker 1: with anybody. There's nobody that's also limits and nobody that
Speaker 1: won't be charged with a crime if they decide they decide,
Speaker 1: they decide that they want to charge you with a crime.
Speaker 1: So I've been going back in forth in my mind
Speaker 1: about this about meeting power with power, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's an argument to be made that the only thing
Speaker 1: that Democrats respond to is power, and the only way
Speaker 1: they stop with this is mutually assured destruction. Is it
Speaker 1: time for conservative das in America to start targeting Democrats
Speaker 1: to meet power with power, to show them that mutually
Speaker 1: assured destruction is awaiting them. Yeah. I think we definitely
Speaker 1: have lots of people, the Biden's Clintons who have committed
Speaker 1: it's not crimes, they certainly deserve to be investigated and
Speaker 1: very likely they've committed crimes. But the problem is we
Speaker 1: don't really have them many das that are willing to
Speaker 1: risk themselves for that. For some reason, on the left
Speaker 1: has recruited people, they've embold them. I don't see many
Speaker 1: DA's across the country that are willing to take on
Speaker 1: that risk, and a lot of times we don't support
Speaker 1: our people doing that, and so they're left on their
Speaker 1: own to take on this fight, and then they get
Speaker 1: attacked and then people come after them, and so they're
Speaker 1: they're in a physicis like, well, I don't have the
Speaker 1: support of the media. I don't have the support of
Speaker 1: George Soros, who funds all this stuff. I don't have
Speaker 1: the support of my own party because nobody else wants
Speaker 1: to take the risk, and so it becomes really challenging,
Speaker 1: at least from what I can see. I just don't see.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you can name a da doing this,
Speaker 1: who's actually pushing forward on actual crimes of very powerful people,
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it well. And it's also challenging because
Speaker 1: we have leaders like you know, Mitch McConnell and the
Speaker 1: Senate who is probably you know, cheering this all along.
Speaker 1: So you know, that's sort of a challenge we face
Speaker 1: as well. You're assuming the Biden administration over the one
Speaker 1: point seven trillion dollar omnibus. Tell us about the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: you know why you filed it, what you hope to accomplish,
Speaker 1: Why it's important. Look, so it's important that the process,
Speaker 1: the constitutional process, has followed. And it's clear that Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi had a vote without a quorum. They were proxy voting,
Speaker 1: so people would turn their votes in to the clerk
Speaker 1: and then somebody else would vote them. And that's not
Speaker 1: the way the founders envisioned it. No one's ever done
Speaker 1: it that way. I don't know if any other legislature
Speaker 1: that has allowed that, and so we're just saying, look,
Speaker 1: you can't pass a one point seven three in dollar
Speaker 1: bill with less than half the people there. That's not
Speaker 1: how the constitution works, and you have to respect the
Speaker 1: process or the reality is we don't have a constitutional process.
Speaker 1: We have whatever Dancy Pelosi or Joe Biden makeup, and
Speaker 1: they are actually running the country by themselves. There is
Speaker 1: no there is no republic, there is no democracy. It
Speaker 1: is controlled by a few people. And that's that's where
Speaker 1: we're headed if we don't say that the process it
Speaker 1: involves elected representative showing up and voting matters, you know.
Speaker 1: And I think that's kind of how how we got here.
Speaker 1: As you know, everything is so centralized now, and the
Speaker 1: more centralized the government is, the more centralized big businesses,
Speaker 1: big tech, big banks, the less power we have as
Speaker 1: the people. And that's sort of where we have arrived
Speaker 1: right now in American history. You know, are there any
Speaker 1: final thoughts? Is there anything that you'd like to leave
Speaker 1: us with before we conclude? I think there's hope. I mean,
Speaker 1: if the American people in force stand up and say
Speaker 1: we're not putting up with this, We're not going to
Speaker 1: let the media talk us into this. We're not going
Speaker 1: to let our people go down just because they're they're
Speaker 1: in the middle of controversy, they're being attacked a lot
Speaker 1: of times. It's easy to say, why don't we just
Speaker 1: let them go, Let's get somebody else. We cannot do
Speaker 1: that at this point. We have to stand up for
Speaker 1: our own and we have to fight with them or
Speaker 1: they will take us all down one by one. We've
Speaker 1: seen that in other countries. That's the way it happened
Speaker 1: in Germany, and that's the way it's happened in Russia,
Speaker 1: that's the way it happens in China. We cannot let
Speaker 1: that happen here. I agree wholeheartedly. I know you will
Speaker 1: be out in the fight. You know, we're going to
Speaker 1: continue to do that a show, and you know, continue
Speaker 1: to do that on Fox and wherever else I can.
Speaker 1: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton always appreciate your time. You're
Speaker 1: a busy man. I truly enjoy you joining the show
Speaker 1: and breaking this all down for us. So thank you, Hey,
Speaker 1: so glad to have be on and let's get a
Speaker 1: great it was Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton obviously very
Speaker 1: passionate about all of this as he should be. I
Speaker 1: want to thank him for joining the show. I want
Speaker 1: to thank you guys for listening at home every Monday
Speaker 1: and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. Please
Speaker 1: leave us a review, give us a rating. On Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: I love looking at those. I want to thank my producer,
Speaker 1: John Cassio for putting the show together. Until next time,