Speaker 1: Cider. Always a pleasure to be with you in studio.
Speaker 2: There is so much this Trump indictment that needs to
Speaker 2: be broken down. That's going to be the goal today
Speaker 2: for people to understand this indictment. Let's walk through exactly
Speaker 2: what they have charged Donald Trump with and also your
Speaker 2: overview how serious is this in your opinion scale one
Speaker 2: to ten. We've seen like in New York there was
Speaker 2: not a lot of people worried about that indictment. They
Speaker 2: thought it was frivolous, they thought it was kind of absurd.
Speaker 2: Sachul limitations. There's gonna be a lot of problems in court.
Speaker 1: Is this different?
Speaker 3: Well, the last podcast we did on Friday, we did
Speaker 3: it right after news of the indictment broke, but the
Speaker 3: indictment wasn't public. What has changed between then and now
Speaker 3: is we now have the indictment so we can see
Speaker 3: specifically what they brought. I will say now having reviewed
Speaker 3: the specific indictment, it's pretty underwhelming. There's not a lot
Speaker 3: of there there. We talked quite a bit before the
Speaker 3: indictment about how it was extremely likely that the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice was going to indict Donald Trump. That Merrick
Speaker 3: Garland I believe wants to indict Donald Trump. I think
Speaker 3: he came into office wanting to indict and to prosecute
Speaker 3: Donald Trump. But we also talked about the problem that
Speaker 3: he couldn't just base it on the classified documents because
Speaker 3: it so happened just that everyone else did the same
Speaker 3: damn thing. And so we discussed on this podcast how
Speaker 3: I believe they would really build their case as an
Speaker 3: obstruction case. What's interesting is they did that, but the
Speaker 3: bulk of the indictment focuses on the classified documents. So
Speaker 3: if you look at the indictment, there are thirty seven
Speaker 3: counts in the indictment. It starts with criminal offenses concerning
Speaker 3: the willful retention of national defense information, with holding a
Speaker 3: doctorument of record, corruptly concealing a document of record, concealing
Speaker 3: a document in a federal investigation, a scheme to conceal,
Speaker 3: and if you look at it, all right, so counts
Speaker 3: one through thirty one to the bulk of the indictment
Speaker 3: are multiple counts of willful retention of national defense information,
Speaker 3: and by the text of it, the terms of that
Speaker 3: crime are serious. Whoever having unauthorized possession, of access to,
Speaker 3: or control over any document, writing codebooks, sign signal books, sketch, photograph, photographic, negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
Speaker 3: or note relating to the national defense, or information relating
Speaker 3: to the national defense, which information the possessor has reason
Speaker 3: to believe could be used to the injury of the
Speaker 3: United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits,
Speaker 3: or causes to be communicated, delivered to try transmitted, or
Speaker 3: attempts to communicate, delivered or transmitted, or caused to be communicated,
Speaker 3: delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled
Speaker 3: to receive it, or willfully retains the same, and fails
Speaker 3: to deliver it to the officer employee of the United
Speaker 3: States entitled to receive it, whoever being entrusted with or
Speaker 3: having lawful possession of, or control of any document writing, codebooks,
Speaker 3: signal book, sketched, photograph, photographic, negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note,
Speaker 3: or information relating to the national defense. Through gross negligence,
Speaker 3: permits the same to be removed from its proper place
Speaker 3: of custody, or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust,
Speaker 3: or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or having
Speaker 3: knowledge that the same has been illegally moved from its
Speaker 3: proper place of custody, or delivered to anyone in violation
Speaker 3: of its trust, or lost or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
Speaker 3: and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction,
Speaker 3: or destruction to his superior officer. The consequence of all
Speaker 3: of that is that you face a maximum fine of
Speaker 3: two hundred and fifty thousand dollars an imprisonment of not
Speaker 3: more than ten years, or both. Now the thirty one
Speaker 3: counts of that. If those thirty one counts, if Trump
Speaker 3: were convicted of it, and if they ran consecutively, he
Speaker 3: could be sentenced to three hundred and ten years in prison.
Speaker 3: Now on the face of that, all that sounds serious, Yeah,
Speaker 3: except for the problem that this is a president of
Speaker 3: the United States. This is a president of the United States,
Speaker 3: and every president of the United States has taken papers
Speaker 3: from his time as president that goes back, I suspect,
Speaker 3: back to George Washington. This is a general statute that
Speaker 3: if you or I are working in government, we have
Speaker 3: a classified document and we shove them down our underwear.
Speaker 3: Like Sandy Berger, who was the National Security Advisor to
Speaker 3: Bill Clinton did. That's the kind of statute that can
Speaker 3: be used to go after you. In this instance. The
Speaker 3: press has been breathless about the allegation that Trump stored
Speaker 3: classified documents in his bathroom, in his shower, and the
Speaker 3: Biden Department of Justice Media Production office helpfully took a picture,
Speaker 3: which they conveniently released to the world because this is
Speaker 3: a media production. And I say that tongue in cheek.
Speaker 3: It should not be a media production. But they are
Speaker 3: engaged in politics here. We've all seen the picture of
Speaker 3: the boxes stacked up in the marble bathroom with the chandelier,
Speaker 3: and there's something titillating about that. That's an odd place
Speaker 3: to store classified documents in a shower. Although I have
Speaker 3: to ask you something. Number one, every president has taken records.
Speaker 3: So just saying, oh, if you have a national security record,
Speaker 3: you're obviously a felon. Well, if we're going to lock
Speaker 3: up all our former presidents, you know, I'm not sure
Speaker 3: Jimmy Carter is going to last long in doing hard time.
Speaker 3: Bill Clinton, on the other hand, could do quite well
Speaker 3: behind bars. But secondly, okay, fine, you've got an embarrassing
Speaker 3: place for documents to be which is a bathroom and shower.
Speaker 3: Is that any more embarrassing than in a cardboard box
Speaker 3: in a garage next to an antique corvette. Yeah, that
Speaker 3: would be where Joe Biden kept his documents.
Speaker 2: Or classified documents on his server, in Hillary Clinton's basement,
Speaker 2: her bathroom.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, the biggest problem the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice has is the screaming hypocrisy. This breathlessly says,
Speaker 3: my god, he had a classified document off with his head.
Speaker 3: And it doesn't say a word about why. They have
Speaker 3: no concerns at all about Joe Biden about all of
Speaker 3: the documents he had, not in one place, not in
Speaker 3: two places, multiple places, left with no security, left stacked
Speaker 3: in the garage, unlocked garage. This is so obviously a
Speaker 3: double standard. This is a double standard driven by a
Speaker 3: Department of Justice that's blinded by hatred. I think they've
Speaker 3: convinced themselves that Trump actually is Adolf Hitler, and so
Speaker 3: nothing else matters. If you're going after Hitler, everything is
Speaker 3: justified and well, yes, Joe Biden did the same thing,
Speaker 3: well yes Hillary Clinton did the same thing. But they're
Speaker 3: not Hitler. This is how they're thinking goes, They're not Hitler.
Speaker 3: So it's fine. We like them. They're on our team,
Speaker 3: so it's not a crime if they do it. But boy,
Speaker 3: isn't this a good excuse to go after the devil?
Speaker 3: Looking at this indictment, I think the same thing today
Speaker 3: that I thought last week when it was announced. This
Speaker 3: is garbage. It's not the same kind of garbage that
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg's New York indictment is. That's just legally frivolous.
Speaker 3: It's legally frivolous. On the face of it, It's.
Speaker 1: Go to one to ten. How concerned are you over
Speaker 1: that indictment? One ten?
Speaker 3: The brag one? Yeah, one point five?
Speaker 1: And what about this one?
Speaker 3: Four point five?
Speaker 1: What's the biggest difference in.
Speaker 3: There are several things. Number one, this is the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice.
Speaker 1: Unlimited funds, unlimited lawyers, unlimited time.
Speaker 3: When the Department of Justice comes after you, it is
Speaker 3: a lot more serious. It just is DOJ has resources,
Speaker 3: has power, It has the ability to devote massive resources
Speaker 3: and typically far more talented prosecutors than Alvin Bragg has
Speaker 3: at his disposal. Alvin Bragg, on the face of it,
Speaker 3: the indictment is really reaching. It's trying to create crimes
Speaker 3: where none exists in this instance. What they allege is
Speaker 3: arguably criminal for someone who's not the president of the
Speaker 3: United States. The problem with it is the double standard
Speaker 3: and the political persecution, rather than whether or not this
Speaker 3: is in fact a violation of law. The pundits on
Speaker 3: CNN will all say, ah, they've shown a violation of law.
Speaker 3: My response is great, Explain to me, why if you
Speaker 3: want to prosecute Trump, are he and Biden going to
Speaker 3: be cell mates? If you bring twin prosecutions for the
Speaker 3: same thing and put Hillary in, have the three of
Speaker 3: them you want to prosecute all three of them. We
Speaker 3: can talk about that. Now. That would be absurd, sure,
Speaker 3: but that would at least be consistent to say, okay,
Speaker 3: any of you who had a classified document, we're going
Speaker 3: to prosecute all of you, all right, that I could
Speaker 3: understand this is so serious, off with all their heads.
Speaker 3: But that's not what they're saying with zero explanation. They say,
Speaker 3: when the guy we don't like who used to be
Speaker 3: president of the United States, who is a leading candidate
Speaker 3: to be the next president of the United States, when
Speaker 3: he does it, we will come after him and try
Speaker 3: to put him in jail. When our boss does it? Who? What?
Speaker 3: Never heard Joe Biden? Who's that guy?
Speaker 2: So you go to court on this, let's paint that
Speaker 2: picture of what this looks like going forward. Is there
Speaker 2: going to be a jury trial? I think it's pretty queer.
Speaker 2: There's not going to be.
Speaker 1: A plea deal here.
Speaker 2: And before we explain how that would actually go down,
Speaker 2: we'll even get to see it will be allowed there
Speaker 2: to be, you know, cameras in that courtroom. I want
Speaker 2: to tell you about our friends ever, Patriot Mobile. If
Speaker 2: you're sick and tired of woke companies, We've seen this
Speaker 2: with what's gone on with Budweiser, We've seen this with Target.
Speaker 2: The list now goes, unfortunately on and on. And if
Speaker 2: you're just sick and tired of having your money go
Speaker 2: to companies that don't allie with your values, there is
Speaker 2: a choice now with your cell phone.
Speaker 1: It's called Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2: They're the only conservative Christian cell phone provider in the country.
Speaker 2: You get the best coverage, the same coverage you're used
Speaker 2: to right now, except when you pay your bill, you're
Speaker 2: actually standing and supporting causes that you believe in the
Speaker 2: First and the Second Amendment, the rights of unborn children,
Speaker 2: protecting and supporting our veterans and those that served this country.
Speaker 2: That's what Patriot money does. Patriot Mobile does with your
Speaker 2: money every month when you pay your bill. So make
Speaker 2: the switch and stand with people that stand with what
Speaker 2: you believe in eight seven eight Patriots the number that's
Speaker 2: eight seven eight Patriot or online at patriotmobile dot com,
Speaker 2: slash verdict, Patriot mobile dot com slash verdict or eight
Speaker 2: seven eight Patriot use the promo code Verdict and you'll
Speaker 2: also get free activation and the best deals of the
Speaker 2: year center. If this thing moves forward, which I think
Speaker 2: is going to, are we going? Is he preparing for
Speaker 2: a jury truck? And it's in Florida. Some you have
Speaker 2: asked a question, why is it in Florida? Why didn't
Speaker 2: it happen somewhere else? How did they pick Florida and
Speaker 2: what will that look like?
Speaker 3: Well, they picked Florida because they allege that's where the
Speaker 3: crimes occurred, that they occurred at mar Lago. That that's
Speaker 3: where Trump, they alleged, illegally stored the classified documents. That's
Speaker 3: where he refused to turn over the classified documents. That's
Speaker 3: where they allege he engaged in obstruction of justice, and
Speaker 3: so you bring the crime where the alleged crime. You
Speaker 3: bring the case where the alleged crime occurred. Look, I
Speaker 3: think being in Florida is better than being in d C.
Speaker 3: If this goes to a jury trial, Trump is likely
Speaker 3: to get a more fair jury in Florida than he
Speaker 3: would in d C. D C would be hopelessly stacked
Speaker 3: against him. You know, looking at this indictment, the double
Speaker 3: standard is a massive problem for DOJ and right now
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland and Jack Smith have done nothing to address this.
Speaker 3: That being said, the obstruction claims are where the greatest
Speaker 3: legal peril is. But let's start on the double standard.
Speaker 3: Listen to Jack Smith when he's laying out this indictment,
Speaker 3: and listen to what he has to say.
Speaker 4: Today, an indict moves unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with
Speaker 4: felony violations of our national security laws, as well as
Speaker 4: participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. This indictment was
Speaker 4: voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern
Speaker 4: District of Florida, and I invite everyone to read it
Speaker 4: in full to understand the scope and the gravity of
Speaker 4: the crimes charged. The men and women of the United
Speaker 4: States Intelligence Community and our armed forces dedicate their lives
Speaker 4: to protecting our nation and its people. Are laws that
Speaker 4: protect national defense information are critical to the safe and
Speaker 4: security of the United States, and they.
Speaker 1: Must be enforced.
Speaker 4: Violations of those laws put our country at risk. Adherence
Speaker 4: to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice, and our nation's commitment to the
Speaker 4: rule of law sets an example for the world. We
Speaker 4: have one set of laws in this country and they
Speaker 4: apply to everyone applying those laws, collecting facts. That's what
Speaker 4: determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more and nothing less.
Speaker 3: So those remarks literally need a laugh track. Yeah, like
Speaker 3: a studio audience would start laughing at that, because he
Speaker 3: could give the exact same speech substituting the word Joe
Speaker 3: Biden for the word Donald Trump. Yeah, he could give
Speaker 3: the exact same speech substituting Hillary Clinton for Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 3: obviously he's not why because they like those guys, they're
Speaker 3: on the team, and so all the moralizing we have
Speaker 3: one set of laws for all people who are enemies
Speaker 3: of the White House.
Speaker 1: Why it's propaganda.
Speaker 3: It is demonstrably absurd. I'm actually he's a pretty good actor.
Speaker 3: I'm impressed that he said that with a strange face
Speaker 3: like like that you stand up and say, oh, we
Speaker 3: apply this fairly and uniformly to everyone, as long as
Speaker 3: we don't like you.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, if that's true, then why isn't the
Speaker 2: Special Counsel having a press conference right now with Joe
Speaker 2: Biden and the classification of documents?
Speaker 1: Classified documents? Hey at his house next to his corvette.
Speaker 2: Do you expect that will put any pressure on them
Speaker 2: now to have the same press conference?
Speaker 3: No, we're not going to. I think they're shameless. I
Speaker 3: think they're so bought in that they don't care that
Speaker 3: they believe they are hunting the devil. They're hunting Hitler,
Speaker 3: and everything has justified the name of it now where
Speaker 3: the legal exposure is more significant concerns obstruction of justice.
Speaker 3: And we talked about this before that that if they're
Speaker 3: going to distinguish Trump from Biden, their best talking point
Speaker 3: as well, once it was discovered, Biden handed it over.
Speaker 3: Trump didn't. So that's why it's different. And I will
Speaker 3: say in the indictment there are two exchanges that are
Speaker 3: not great that we're going to hear about a lot
Speaker 3: on the TV.
Speaker 1: So prepare for it.
Speaker 3: Prepare for it if there are if there's a trial,
Speaker 3: we will hear about it on trial. One exchange is
Speaker 3: this was caught on tape where he's talking about the documents,
Speaker 3: and Trump says, quote, all sorts of stuff, pages long.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, let's see here I just found. Isn't
Speaker 3: it amazing? This totally wins my case, except it's like
Speaker 3: highly confidential secret. This is secret information. Look look at this,
Speaker 3: he points out. In another section of the transcript, he said,
Speaker 3: you know, when I was president, I could declassify this,
Speaker 3: but I can't now, And a Trump aid on the
Speaker 3: tape says that's a problem. That exchange will be played
Speaker 3: in court as evidence of wilfulness. What Biden would argue
Speaker 3: is that he didn't know he had the documents, that
Speaker 3: he wasn't aware, that he didn't willfully violate the statute.
Speaker 1: And once he found out he had them, he gave
Speaker 1: them back.
Speaker 3: And Biden will argue then that he didn't obstruct. There's
Speaker 3: another portion of testimony from Trump's former lawyer, who says Trump,
Speaker 3: in responding to the subpoena, advised his two attorneys, and
Speaker 3: he was talking about Hillary Clinton's lawyer and he says, quote,
Speaker 3: he was great. He did a great job. You know
Speaker 3: what he said. He said that it was him that
Speaker 3: he was the one who deleted all her emails, the
Speaker 3: thirty thousand emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling
Speaker 3: or going to the gym and are having beauty appointments.
Speaker 3: And he was great, and he and she didn't get
Speaker 3: into any trouble because he said he was the one
Speaker 3: who deleted them. And according to Trump's lawyers, he said
Speaker 3: that several times during the day. Quote related that story
Speaker 3: more than once during that day. Now, look on obstruction,
Speaker 3: Hillary Clinton is someone else who engaged I believe in
Speaker 3: obstruction of justice, who engaged in the willful destruction of evidence,
Speaker 3: who deleted thirty thousand emails, who used bleach bit to
Speaker 3: erase the evidence of it, who use hammers to smash
Speaker 3: cell phones. Yeah, Hillary Clinton's conduct is serious. This DOJ
Speaker 3: happily ignores it because she's on the team and they're
Speaker 3: on her team.
Speaker 1: The argument, I'm sure is gonna be I was joking.
Speaker 2: I was talking about the double standard of Hillary Clinton
Speaker 2: with that play in court, in that kind of say,
Speaker 2: I'm clearly talking about how ridiculous this subpoena. Is I'm
Speaker 2: talking about how absurd it is. They're coming after me
Speaker 2: wanting all these documents. Hillary Clinton, this is what she
Speaker 2: was doing and know one bad than I. So I
Speaker 2: was remarking on that.
Speaker 3: He might presumably that is what he would say. There's
Speaker 3: another portion from his lawyers where they said that Trump
Speaker 3: suggested that they just pluck out the classified documents. The
Speaker 3: prosecution will argue that the jury should conclude from that
Speaker 3: that Trump was instructing them to destroy evidence in violation
Speaker 3: of a subpoena. I want to be clear, I think
Speaker 3: all of this is garbage. But look, when you're representing
Speaker 3: a client, it helps when a client speaks carefully and precisely.
Speaker 1: So how does this play in court?
Speaker 2: I mean, we saw that he called for an expedited
Speaker 2: he wants to move quickly with this going to a trial.
Speaker 2: How much say so does a DOJ have in that?
Speaker 2: Who ultimately will decide? How are they going to choose
Speaker 2: the judge?
Speaker 3: Here?
Speaker 2: Which court does this go to? And we're we going
Speaker 2: to watch this on TV like we watched OJ Simpson.
Speaker 2: Is the whole world going to stop and we're going
Speaker 2: to see cameras? And is Trump gonna have to be
Speaker 2: there every day, sitting there as a defendant at that table.
Speaker 3: Look, that is certainly possible. This could proceed quickly. I
Speaker 3: think it's likely to take a long time. It's going
Speaker 3: to take in a minimum months, it could take years.
Speaker 3: Part of it depends on what the pre trial motions are,
Speaker 3: what litigation arises out of trying to exclude evidence. They
Speaker 3: are all sorts of preach trial steps that could delay
Speaker 3: a trial for years. It's possible we see a trial quickly.
Speaker 3: I think that's pretty unlikely. But it depends on the
Speaker 3: initial reporting. Is this was assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon,
Speaker 3: who is a judge that Trump appointed. Assuming that's true,
Speaker 3: that's a good development for him, not to have a
Speaker 3: judge who is predisposed to be antagonistic and hostile to him.
Speaker 2: Can the DOJ immediately say, well, he appointed her, so
Speaker 2: she should be taken out of this, out of the
Speaker 2: courtroom for this, we win another judge. Is that something
Speaker 2: they could fight for.
Speaker 3: They could try to do that. I don't think that
Speaker 3: motion would succeed.
Speaker 2: Is that because most people think, well, it'd be simple
Speaker 2: to say, hey, this woman's biased.
Speaker 1: He appointed her legally. How does that work.
Speaker 3: So instead you should have a judge that was appointed
Speaker 3: by Biden and to be biased against him. Look, we're
Speaker 3: in untreaded territory. Yeah, because no Department of Justice has
Speaker 3: ever prosecuted a president before, so we've got reason we
Speaker 3: haven't been in this circumstance before. I think as a
Speaker 3: matter of law, it is not the case that every
Speaker 3: judge appointed by a president is naturally biased to be
Speaker 3: predisposed to support that president. Particularly with district court nominations.
Speaker 3: You often see instances where Republicans appoint district judges who
Speaker 3: the Democrat senators in that state pushed, who can be very,
Speaker 3: very liberal. You see case instances where Democrats appoint district
Speaker 3: judges where you have particularly Republican senators from those states,
Speaker 3: where the judges are relatively conservative. And so as a
Speaker 3: legal matter, it's not a straight up proxy that whoever
Speaker 3: appointed the judge, they're just a partisan for that that president.
Speaker 3: And by the way, they're not supposed to be They're
Speaker 3: supposed to be fair and impartial. The overwhelming problem here
Speaker 3: is the obvious double standard. And here listen to Trump
Speaker 3: explaining and actually explaining quite accurately, the double standard.
Speaker 5: Every time I fly over a blue state, I get
Speaker 5: a subpoena. It's no coincidence they indicted me the very
Speaker 5: same day that it was revealed that the FBI hit
Speaker 5: explosive evidence that Joe Biden took a five million dollar
Speaker 5: illegal bribe from Ukraine. Next Hunter will probably be charged
Speaker 5: with some very minor offense so that the FBI and
Speaker 5: dooj can pretend that they're fair. They want to pretend
Speaker 5: they're fair.
Speaker 3: We got Hunter for jaywalking.
Speaker 5: As far as it's the joke of an indictment, it's
Speaker 5: a horrible thing. It's a horrible thing for this country.
Speaker 5: I mean, the only good thing about it is it's
Speaker 5: driven my poll number's way up.
Speaker 3: Can you believe there? So I will say that right there,
Speaker 3: that legal analysis is exactly spot on. What's interesting is
Speaker 3: a lot of what Trump is saying there is what
Speaker 3: we've been saying on Verdict for months. Yeah, with regard
Speaker 3: to Hunter Biden, I believe they're going to indict Hunter Biden.
Speaker 3: I think they'll do it soon, and it may not
Speaker 3: be for jaywalking, but it's going to be for something
Speaker 3: personal and small that can be explained. He's a poor,
Speaker 3: troubled soul with a substance abuse problem.
Speaker 1: It doesn't connect him to his father.
Speaker 3: That's the critical point. Build that wall to protect Joe
Speaker 3: Biden and just make Hunter Biden the scapegoat. And that's
Speaker 3: going to let Jack Smith, that's going to let Merrick
Speaker 3: Garland say, look, how even handed we are. We indicted
Speaker 3: a Trump and A Biden's sea were fair and nobody
Speaker 3: who's paying attention at all will buy that. But for
Speaker 3: some people who are not paying attention, that may sound persuasive.
Speaker 3: Look the point Trump made also there was really important,
Speaker 3: which is this indictment came literally the day that we
Speaker 3: learned that there's an informant, an informant that the FBI
Speaker 3: has relied upon, an informant that the FBI has trusted
Speaker 3: in previous cases, who came forward and alleged that Joe
Speaker 3: Biden received a five million dollar bribe from Barisma, the
Speaker 3: Ukrainian natural gas company that was paying Hunter Biden a
Speaker 3: million dollars a year, and that we know Joe Biden
Speaker 3: took official acts to benefit. He bragged the infamous Son
Speaker 3: of a Bitch exchange, He bragged about holding a billion
Speaker 3: dollars an American aid hostage to force Ukraine to fire
Speaker 3: the prosecutor who was going after the corrupt oligarch who
Speaker 3: owned Barisma. So if you look at bribery, you need
Speaker 3: to quit pro quo. We know there's a quote. We
Speaker 3: know that Joe Biden took official action that benefited Bearisma.
Speaker 3: If in fact he deposited five million dollars from Barisma,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden should be charged and prosecuted for bribery. To
Speaker 3: be honest, that is the most grave allegation against a
Speaker 3: president that we've seen in our lifetimes. That is literally
Speaker 3: being on the take and being bribed. It's like abscam.
Speaker 3: It's showing up with a paper bag full of cash.
Speaker 3: Here's the favor we want. Will you do it? If
Speaker 3: it is correct, and by the way, it may be false.
Speaker 3: This is at this point an allegation from an anonymous
Speaker 3: informant to the FBI that the FBI is trying mighty
Speaker 3: lead a stone wall and cover up. If it's false,
Speaker 3: then Joe Biden not a clear his name. If it's false,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden not to say release it, bring the witness forward,
Speaker 3: hav him testify. Joe Biden should be angry. I am
Speaker 3: angry that you are impugning my character by saying I
Speaker 3: took a bribe. The fact that he's not doing that,
Speaker 3: that he says where's the money? That is incredibly troubling
Speaker 3: in the fact that it's literally the same day. Look,
Speaker 3: these are the same goons that sent the irs to
Speaker 3: Matt Taebe's house the day he was testifying in front
Speaker 3: of the House of Representatives on Twitter censorship at the
Speaker 3: behest of the federal government. Jack booted thugs behave this way. Yeah,
Speaker 3: this is not behavior that demonstrates integrity, that demonstrates respect
Speaker 3: for law, that demonstrates all those great things Jack Smith
Speaker 3: talks about the speech.
Speaker 1: Say it all you want to, but it's just not true.
Speaker 2: And the proof is the fact they're coming after him
Speaker 2: for everything, and everyone else gets to walk around and
Speaker 2: even like we heard, there was.
Speaker 3: By the way, to any reporter, look, there are no
Speaker 3: reporters who actually do their jobs any more in the
Speaker 3: corporate media. But to any reporter, the next time you
Speaker 3: talk to any Democrat senator, ask the following question, if
Speaker 3: it has proven true that Joe Biden received a five
Speaker 3: million dollar bribe personally from Ukraine in exchange for government policy,
Speaker 3: should he be impeach Yes or no? I don't think
Speaker 3: any reporter will ask a Democrat senator that question. I
Speaker 3: will say, for a Democrat senator, I don't know how
Speaker 3: the heck they'd answer it, because they'd backpedal and they'd
Speaker 3: think hypotheticalsals. Yeah, look, that's easy. Anyone who is convicted
Speaker 3: of bribery, who's guilty of bribery, yes, they should be
Speaker 3: in peached. And it doesn't have to be a high
Speaker 3: crime or misdemeanor. Remember the Constitution said bribery trees and
Speaker 3: are other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bribery is explicitly laid
Speaker 3: out if you have a corrupt public servant who was
Speaker 3: on the take. That is why impeachment exists. If Joe
Speaker 3: Biden received five million dollars from Maurisma, Joe Biden I
Speaker 3: go to prison.
Speaker 2: And that five million is separate from the five million
Speaker 2: his Sun got. A lot of people in the media
Speaker 2: have not covered that at all. This isn't five million
Speaker 2: that went into a bunch of bank accounts divided up
Speaker 2: the allegation, right, Joe directly five million and Hunter got
Speaker 2: another five million.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's five He got a million
Speaker 3: a year over several years. I'm not sure it's fully five,
Speaker 3: but it is millions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Separate cash for the two men, Separate payoffs for
Speaker 2: the two men, not co mingled ten percent for the
Speaker 2: big guy, which is when the media loves to make
Speaker 2: sure they overlook.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about our friends. They got
Speaker 1: the precious metals real quick.
Speaker 2: And if you are close to retirement or you are
Speaker 2: in retirement, you know know how important is to protect
Speaker 2: your wealth, especially when we've seen the ups and downs
Speaker 2: the economy, interest rates where they are, some bank failures,
Speaker 2: and that is where gold can come in to help
Speaker 2: you with your IRA, your four one K.
Speaker 1: You need a company that you can trust.
Speaker 2: And the company that I use as a gust of
Speaker 2: Precious Medals now our Gusta Precious Metals will sit down
Speaker 2: with you.
Speaker 1: And talk to you to see if gold's even right
Speaker 1: for you.
Speaker 2: If you are in retirement, if you have saved one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars or more, ask them about their free
Speaker 2: guide to gold and the web conference they will do
Speaker 2: with each and every person. They will sit down with you,
Speaker 2: talk about your finances personally, not in general, and you'll
Speaker 2: get the peace of mind of knowing that you are
Speaker 2: protecting your hard earned assets. Call them eight seven seven
Speaker 2: the number four Gold IRA. You're gonna get the free
Speaker 2: Investor's Guide on Gold. You're also gonna get that web
Speaker 2: conference for free eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA,
Speaker 2: or a visit Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta
Speaker 2: Precious Metals dot Com. I got to ask you a
Speaker 2: question about election interference here the idea of a presidential
Speaker 2: front runner having to go to court, having to go
Speaker 2: into a jury trial. This charade, which I would say
Speaker 2: is probably gonna be bigger than the oj Simpson trial
Speaker 2: in all reality, especially if we get to watch it,
Speaker 2: is that its on its face not election interference. That
Speaker 2: you're trying to put a guy at a defense table
Speaker 2: and you know, and tie him up in courts.
Speaker 1: I would assume this court case could last.
Speaker 2: Weeks, if not months, easily, while he's also trying to
Speaker 2: leave and go run for president at the very same time.
Speaker 2: How I mean for Democrats to obsessed election interference in
Speaker 2: Russian collusion, which was a lie and they knew it
Speaker 2: was a lie. But this is actual election interference, is
Speaker 2: it not?
Speaker 3: Of course it is, and it's blatant and in your face.
Speaker 3: That's why the Department of Justice has standards that that
Speaker 3: that it does not typically bring a prosecution on the
Speaker 3: eve of a campaign, to not interfere with the campaign.
Speaker 3: It's why the standard should be exceptionally high for when
Speaker 3: you would prosecute a former president or a candidate for president.
Speaker 3: Doesn't mean it should never be met. It just means
Speaker 3: it should be exceptionally high. Now, look, Jack Smith has
Speaker 3: some experience in this. Jack Smith prosecuted Bob McDonald was
Speaker 3: the governor of Virginia. He brought the case against Bob
Speaker 3: McDonald and, by the way, McDonald at the time was
Speaker 3: a plausible candidate for president. He wasn't a front runner,
Speaker 3: but he was one of the plausible candidates for president.
Speaker 3: He was governor of Virginia at the time. He was
Speaker 3: popular in Virginia. Jack Smith brought a case, he got
Speaker 3: a conviction, conviction went to the US Supreme Court, and
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the conviction, threw it out,
Speaker 3: concluded it was contrary to law. Now the damage was done.
Speaker 3: You know what Jack Smith had interfered in that election.
Speaker 3: He had accomplished the real purpose.
Speaker 1: And ear in a man's life and changed the outcome
Speaker 1: of election, and he.
Speaker 3: Has charge yes, and the Supreme Court unanimously threw it out.
Speaker 3: But they threw it out years later, when all the
Speaker 3: damage had been done. For a president to be indicted,
Speaker 3: the threshold should be exceptionally high. It shouldn't be jaywalking.
Speaker 3: It shouldn't be keeping books that wrongfully reflects how hush
Speaker 3: money was paid, as Alvin Smith has in his ridiculous indictment,
Speaker 3: and it shouldn't be possessing presidential records just like every
Speaker 3: other president has done. The threshold needs to be significant
Speaker 3: because there's an obligation to respect the electoral process. There's
Speaker 3: an obligation to respect democracy. This indictment shows contempt for democracy.
Speaker 3: They're not indicting him because they think he's going to
Speaker 3: lose the election in November. They're indicting him because they're
Speaker 3: afraid he's going to win the election in November. That
Speaker 3: means they are perfectly happy to say, we have power,
Speaker 3: and we're going to use power to stop the damn
Speaker 3: voters from putting someone we don't want into the White House.
Speaker 2: Same thing they try to do in twenty sixteen. Yes one, Yes,
Speaker 2: we're going to overthrow the will of the people. We're
Speaker 2: going to use documents we know aren't real.
Speaker 3: And it's what doj and FBI did throughout the Trump
Speaker 3: presidency from within the date deep state. They waged war
Speaker 3: on him. They're now doing it openly and brazenly at
Speaker 3: press conferences. And this is designed to be politics. I'll
Speaker 3: tell you the kind of allegation that would merit this.
Speaker 3: If you have an allegation that Donald Trump received a
Speaker 3: five million dollar bribe from Ukraine or China or anyone else,
Speaker 3: and you can demonstrate that he received the bride in
Speaker 3: exchange for official conduct, that's the kind of case that
Speaker 3: should be brought. But they don't have that allegation. They
Speaker 3: don't have that evidence. They do have the allegation about
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. That is the type of crime that would
Speaker 3: clear the threshold for what should be brought against a
Speaker 3: president or a former president or a major presidential candidate.
Speaker 3: The irony is they announce this political persecution on the
Speaker 3: same day that news breaks about Joe Biden. It's not
Speaker 3: complicated to understand the magic act going on, paying no
Speaker 3: attention to what's over here, watch over here, watch the
Speaker 3: fuzzy rabbit.
Speaker 2: The insane part of this conversation is this is all
Speaker 2: could happen this trial before we vote? What if it
Speaker 2: is delayed till after What if, hypothetically Donald Trump wins
Speaker 2: the primary and then it's the general and then they say, okay,
Speaker 2: now we're going to go to a court case. Or
Speaker 2: even worse, what if he wins the general he's now
Speaker 2: the president of the United States of America. Could they
Speaker 2: haul him down to Florida for a jury trial and
Speaker 2: you could see the President of the United States of America, Well,
Speaker 2: he's supposed to be doing the job at the White House,
Speaker 2: sitting on a jury trial.
Speaker 1: What happens then.
Speaker 3: So we're in an uncharted territory. Then the Department of
Speaker 3: Justice has an existing legal opinion from the Office Legal
Speaker 3: Council that says that DOJ will not indict a sitting president.
Speaker 1: But they've already indicted him and he's not the sitting president.
Speaker 3: That's why you're getting into uncharted legal territory. I don't
Speaker 3: know what DOJ would conclude if he's already been indicted
Speaker 3: and the trial is proceeding.
Speaker 1: I can't even believe we're having this conversation.
Speaker 3: So insane, it would be utterly insane. The fact that
Speaker 3: he's indicted as a legal matter, does nothing to prevent
Speaker 3: him from running for office, doesn't disqualify him from the ballot,
Speaker 3: doesn't make him ineligible. You can be indicted. Sadly, left
Speaker 3: uses indictments as political weapons quite frequently. You could even
Speaker 3: end up with his being convicted. I don't think that's
Speaker 3: gonna happen. But if he were convicted and sentenced to jail,
Speaker 3: he's still not ineligible to be president. Being convicted of
Speaker 3: a crime does not remove your eligibility to be president.
Speaker 3: I don't think we will see that scenario because much
Speaker 3: like the Bob McDonald case that Jack Smith brought, I mean,
Speaker 3: they literally brought in a guy who had been engaged
Speaker 3: in political prosecutions before that were absolute failed disasters. They
Speaker 3: brought him in and said, hey, can you come do
Speaker 3: it again?
Speaker 1: Unanimous failure by the Supreme Court standards.
Speaker 3: Yes, and unanimous means including the lefty justices right like
Speaker 3: the justice is appointed by Democrats on the far left.
Speaker 3: All of them agreed, no, this, this conviction cannot stand.
Speaker 2: So you could have a president that is convicted and
Speaker 2: it could work its way all the way up to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So then the other question if he is the president.
Speaker 3: And by the way, that's why Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon.
Speaker 3: We might have found this out. Richard Nixon, I believe
Speaker 3: committed multiple crimes. As you know. I write about this
Speaker 3: at length in my last book, Justice Corrupted, How the
Speaker 3: Left has weaponized the legal system. The whole first chapter
Speaker 3: walks through the criminal conduct of the Nixon White House,
Speaker 3: of the Nixon Department of Justice, and in many ways
Speaker 3: Barack Obama succeeded in doing what Nixon tried to do,
Speaker 3: and now Biden does so openly and brazenly. But after
Speaker 3: Nixon resigned in disgrace, there was a very real possibility
Speaker 3: he would be prosecuted. John Mitchell is Attorney General, was
Speaker 3: prosecuted and served I think twenty two months in jail.
Speaker 3: If Nixon had been prosecuted, the scenario you're talking about
Speaker 3: of the entire country watching TV like the oj trial
Speaker 3: and seeing the present dragged through this garbage, it would
Speaker 3: have been a nightmare. And it's why Gerald Ford stepped
Speaker 3: forward and pardoned him. And I think pardoning him was
Speaker 3: an act of real courage because it probably single handedly
Speaker 3: ensured that Ford would lose the election and Jimmy Carter
Speaker 3: would be elected, and he knew that. He knew that
Speaker 3: when he was signing the pardon, he was likely dooming
Speaker 3: his own election to be president, that he was going
Speaker 3: to cost himself the job he was in. But he
Speaker 3: did it, I believe, because he believed it was better
Speaker 3: for the country to spare the country the nightmare of
Speaker 3: the president going through an extended criminal trial. We've come
Speaker 3: a long way from that moment to now Biden and
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland and Jack Smith gleefully hoping and praying they
Speaker 3: can drag the country through a criminal trial directed at
Speaker 3: the former president and a leading candidate to be the
Speaker 3: next president.
Speaker 1: Can a president, a sitting president, pardon himself.
Speaker 3: That is an unclear question. Also, it has been debated.
Speaker 3: There are differing views. History has never tested it. Uh
Speaker 3: and uh who knows. We may find out if Joe
Speaker 3: Biden decides to pardon himself for taking a five million
Speaker 3: dollar bribe, that he could do.
Speaker 1: He could Uh.
Speaker 3: Probably, As I said, it's untested, he could try. He
Speaker 3: could certainly try. I'll point out that if Joe Biden
Speaker 3: were to pardon himself for taking a five million dollar bribe,
Speaker 3: even the tiny at times not very reliable House majority
Speaker 3: in the House would be forced to impeach him.
Speaker 2: Then what about his son? They indict Hunter Biden, Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden gets some indictments to come down. Can you just
Speaker 2: say it's my son, I love him, he's the smartest
Speaker 2: guy I know.
Speaker 1: Yes, and impeach him. And is that something the House
Speaker 1: could do teach?
Speaker 3: I mean he can pardon Hunter, Yes, he can, unquestion
Speaker 3: pardon Hunter of federal offenses. He can't pardon him of
Speaker 3: state offenses. So there may be state offenses in addition
Speaker 3: to federal offenses. I will say, if he were to
Speaker 3: pardon Hunter in a way that was pardoning him of
Speaker 3: corruption that involved corruption implicating Joe Biden, you're getting into
Speaker 3: murky legal territory here. But that is the sort of
Speaker 3: thing that the Democrats for years said concerning Donald Trump
Speaker 3: was obstruction of justice. That when Trump talked about pardoning
Speaker 3: different players, they argue that substruction of justice if you
Speaker 3: use the pardon power to prevent our investigation. If Joe
Speaker 3: Biden were to do that for Hunter in such a
Speaker 3: way as to block or to try to block investigation
Speaker 3: into Joe Biden's own corruption, that could be arguably characterized
Speaker 3: as Obstruction of Justice by Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: I got one more question, want to ask you about
Speaker 2: the political campaign. Before we do that, let me tell
Speaker 2: you about our friends at Chalk. If you're a guy
Speaker 2: and you're dealing with a real issue that a lot
Speaker 2: of guys are dealing with, and that's low testosterum, you
Speaker 2: need to check out Chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 1: They can help you get your edge back.
Speaker 2: If you feel like you've got weakness and you're just
Speaker 2: kind of sitting around and you've just lost some of
Speaker 2: that edge, that is where Chalk comes in.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Chalk is here to help guys just like you boost
Speaker 2: your testosterum up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now
Speaker 2: there's a male Vitality stack and go to Chalk choq
Speaker 2: dot com.
Speaker 1: I've been taking now for several months. I can tell
Speaker 1: you it works.
Speaker 2: You're if you feel like you've got fatigue after workouts,
Speaker 2: or you just don't feel like you can work out
Speaker 2: the way you used to, check out Chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 1: Go there, use the promo code Ben.
Speaker 2: You're gonna get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription
Speaker 2: for life. So check them out choq dot com Promo
Speaker 2: code Ben thirty five percent off any chop subscription for life.
Speaker 2: See dot com Total Political Question. To end this on,
Speaker 2: every time that Donald Trump gets indicted, he said in
Speaker 2: his video, his poll numbers go up. It seems that
Speaker 2: the country, at least conservative voters are rallying behind him.
Speaker 2: When these things happen. The more they keep coming after them,
Speaker 2: is it is it almost helping solidify his ability to
Speaker 2: get the nomination. That's totally different in general election. You've
Speaker 2: run for president, you know this. But in a primary,
Speaker 2: it seems like when they do this, he raised more money. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and more people are like, all right, you know what,
Speaker 2: screw it. The system's rigged, and I'm going to stand
Speaker 2: by someone that's being persecuted by the Democratic Party, by
Speaker 2: the DOJ of this and this administration of Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Look, that's clearly playing out. When Alvin Bragg brought his indictment,
Speaker 3: I said on this podcast, this will be worth ten
Speaker 3: points in the polls for Trump. That prediction proved exactly right,
Speaker 3: and within a week he was up ten. In this instance,
Speaker 3: this latest indictment, I think it probably will prove good
Speaker 3: for Trump in the polls, particularly in the primary. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know. In the general. Democrats are hoping this
Speaker 3: will hurt Trump in the general, and it might. I
Speaker 3: think the data are unclear right now in terms of
Speaker 3: how it would impact him in the general. But in
Speaker 3: the primary. Look, if you're a Republican, whether you like
Speaker 3: Trump or don't like Trump, you look at this and
Speaker 3: this is such obvious garbage. It's such a double standard.
Speaker 3: You see virtually all of Trump's opponents in the primary
Speaker 3: being forced to go defend him. Yeah, because it's such
Speaker 3: an obvious double standard that you can't you can't credibly
Speaker 3: say anything else. Look, they don't like defending Trump. His
Speaker 3: opponents don't like it at all. It pisces them off
Speaker 3: that they have to go out on TV and defend him.
Speaker 3: But that dynamic and listen, at least with Brad. More
Speaker 3: than a few observers have suggested that was one of
Speaker 3: the reasons Bragg brought the indictment was that he wants
Speaker 3: Trump to be the nominee. The Democrats believe Trump cannot
Speaker 3: win the general, and so they're quite open about their strategy.
Speaker 3: Do everything they can.
Speaker 1: To give him the nominee, and then we'll beat him
Speaker 1: in the general.
Speaker 3: Right with a candidate who can't tie his shoes, who
Speaker 3: will lock in the basement and will never let speak,
Speaker 3: but will run a whole campaign on how much we
Speaker 3: hate Donald Trump, and so that dynamic. I suspect it
Speaker 3: will continue to play out this way. I don't think
Speaker 3: you'll see the same bump from this indictment that you
Speaker 3: saw from the Alvin Bragg indictment, mostly because I think
Speaker 3: that it.
Speaker 1: Just solidifies the base, it doesn't expand it.
Speaker 3: This yeah, I think that distance has already been traveled,
Speaker 3: that the people who popped up because of the Brag
Speaker 3: thing they're still there. They're still there. But I think
Speaker 3: as a short term political matter for Trump is a
Speaker 3: good development. Longer term, that's that's murkier to figure out.
Speaker 2: It's gonna be interesting. Thank you for answering all these questions.
Speaker 2: I know so many of you had questions. We're gonna
Speaker 2: keep answering them. Don't forget hit that subscribe or auto
Speaker 2: download button or follow button. If you're listening to the
Speaker 2: show on Apple, you can hit the follow button there
Speaker 2: on Apple and you'll get every single episode, especially when
Speaker 2: there's breaking news. We've been doing a lot of episodes
Speaker 2: after midnight lately. It seems like because of the breaking news,
Speaker 2: so make sure you hit that subscribe, auto download, or
Speaker 2: follow button. We published Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and also
Speaker 2: you can follow the Center and us on social media
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: We'll see you back here in a couple of days