Speaker 1: Election interference. Donald Trump found guilty on all thirty four counts. Welcome,
Speaker 1: it is verdict with Senater Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you. Senator.
Speaker 1: You are in the car right now. I am in
Speaker 1: the studio. It's about ten to thirty Central time, eleven
Speaker 1: thirty Eastern. Give me your quick thoughts on what America
Speaker 1: just witnessed.
Speaker 2: Well, it's an absolute travesty. What unfold is in light
Speaker 2: As you noted, I am in a pickup truck driving
Speaker 2: south of the forty five Free Way. I spent all
Speaker 2: day in Dallas, Texas, and drive it home to Houston.
Speaker 2: Right now it is ten twenty seven pm. Now i'll
Speaker 2: get home past two in the morning. But we're doing
Speaker 2: this podcast on the phone. Let me apologize. Our audio
Speaker 2: is not going to be the same quality we normally
Speaker 2: do when we're using the audio equipment. But we wanted
Speaker 2: to get this out fast to address the issues tonight.
Speaker 2: Everyone on planet Earth knows what happened tonight. The New
Speaker 2: York try convicted Donald Trump of thirty four counts felony
Speaker 2: that if the sentences were consecutive, could put it in
Speaker 2: jail for more than a hundred years. That's not going
Speaker 2: to happen. It was an absolute miscarriage of justice. This
Speaker 2: was not law, This was not criminal justice. This was politics.
Speaker 2: This was a political hit job. This was a spare.
Speaker 2: This was the worst instance of election interference our country's
Speaker 2: ever seen. What we're gonna do tonight is we're going
Speaker 2: to break down what it means. We're going to talk
Speaker 2: about what happens next. We're going to talk about the
Speaker 2: next steps, how it impacts the elections, how it impacts
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, how it impacts the American people. All of
Speaker 2: that we're going to impact in this special issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I also real quick about the International Fellowship of
Speaker 1: Christians and Jews and important work and help that is needed.
Speaker 1: A lot of you have asked how you can help
Speaker 1: the people in Israel. Israel right now is still under
Speaker 1: attack and there's a major need that is emergency bomb
Speaker 1: shelter kits and actual bomb shelters. The International Fellowship of
Speaker 1: Christians and Jews is doing that right now. They are
Speaker 1: packing those emergency bomb shelter kits and they are also
Speaker 1: putting in these bomb shelters because when those bombs come
Speaker 1: at Israel and when they are shot, no one knows
Speaker 1: where they're going. To land, including the terraces, and that
Speaker 1: is why your gift is needed right now to help
Speaker 1: save lives and things to a matching challenge gift from
Speaker 1: a generous IFCJ supporter, your gift will double an impact
Speaker 1: and help provide twice the support. It is amazing what
Speaker 1: your life saving donation can do. You can help assemble
Speaker 1: and place these kits with enough food and life saving
Speaker 1: emergency supplies for twenty people that are huddled in a
Speaker 1: bomb shelter. And the cost to put together and distribute
Speaker 1: these kits is just two hundred and ninety dollars each.
Speaker 1: Your gift will be doubled an impact act. Like I said, so,
Speaker 1: if you want to help the people of Israel, the
Speaker 1: number to call to make your gift is eight eight
Speaker 1: eight four eight eight ifc eight that's eight eight eight
Speaker 1: four eight eight if CJ that's four three two five.
Speaker 1: You can also go online and donate to support IFCJ
Speaker 1: dot org to give. That's one word support if CJ
Speaker 1: dot orger eighty eight four eight eight if CJ. Senator,
Speaker 1: I want to talk of first what happens next. He
Speaker 1: was found guilty on all counts. Some don't even know
Speaker 1: what they were even charging him with including I think
Speaker 1: Donald Trump because the rules changed at the last minute.
Speaker 1: We talked about that in the last podcast. But let's
Speaker 1: look at the immediate future. There's a sentencing that is
Speaker 1: coming the same week as a Republican national convention. There
Speaker 1: is a legitimate chance that a Donald Trump could be
Speaker 1: in jail or b could be under house arrest, and
Speaker 1: that means he wouldn't be able to go to his
Speaker 1: own convention. How is that not alone election in it?
Speaker 2: Well man, that's not gonna happen. But it is the
Speaker 2: illustrative of just how ridiculous what's transpired is we saw
Speaker 2: Trump convicted on all thirty four counts. I have to
Speaker 2: bet emotions. I am, on one level furious. This is
Speaker 2: an outreach. It is It is a disgusting assault on democracy,
Speaker 2: on the rule of FAW. But I'm also heartbroken. I'm heartbroke.
Speaker 2: I believe in the I believe that our justice system,
Speaker 2: our justice system is supposed to provide equal justice under law.
Speaker 2: And you know, yesterday and we talked about on Wednesday's podcast,
Speaker 2: we talked about the different possible outcomes. We talked about
Speaker 2: the arracle that could happen, which would be an acquittal
Speaker 2: which I would have loved to have seen, and we
Speaker 2: talked about the possibility of a hung jury. One juror
Speaker 2: out of twelve people, one Dura will not be part
Speaker 2: of this sparse I will not be part of this
Speaker 2: this charade. I'm done, no, no, no. The justice system
Speaker 2: is not meant to attack your political opponent, and I
Speaker 2: won't play a part. Sadly, that didn't happen. Twelve New
Speaker 2: Yorkers decided they were Democrat partisans. Now I will say
Speaker 2: a significant part of that was, no doubt, driven by
Speaker 2: the absurd jury instructions given by the judge. This judge
Speaker 2: has made the New York justice system into a global
Speaker 2: laughing stocker. Across the planet. People know that the justice
Speaker 2: system in New York doesn't follow the rule of law.
Speaker 2: It doesn't care about each under law. Instead, it is
Speaker 2: a tool to attack your political enemy. That makes me
Speaker 2: sad that that's not the way our justice system is
Speaker 2: supposed to work. As you asked, what's next, Well, Trump
Speaker 2: has been released on his own recongnissance. The next step
Speaker 2: is sentencing. Sentencing is going to happen four days before
Speaker 2: the Republican National Convention. In the interim, there are a
Speaker 2: series of steps, including Trump has to go to a
Speaker 2: pre sentenced evaluation. He may have to submit to a
Speaker 2: psychiatrist or a psychologist. They compare a report all of
Speaker 2: the steps that are standard after someone is convicted, that
Speaker 2: a report gets presented to the judge to help the
Speaker 2: judge make a decision about sentencing. We will find out
Speaker 2: about sentencing literally the week of the Republican National Convention.
Speaker 2: I don't think it is by accident. This entire trial
Speaker 2: is designed to an interfere with the election. I'm going
Speaker 2: to make a prediction right now. The chances that this
Speaker 2: conviction is overturned on appeal, I believe are one hundred
Speaker 2: point zero percent. It will be overturned on appeal. I
Speaker 2: think the judge does that. I think the judge in
Speaker 2: this trial then over backwards, did everything possible, gave jury
Speaker 2: instructions that just defied the US Supreme Court President. Did
Speaker 2: not require the jury to be unanimous on all the
Speaker 2: elements of the crial. Let the jury mix and match
Speaker 2: and pick different potential other crimes to elevate this from
Speaker 2: a misdemeanor to a felony. All of that is reversible error.
Speaker 2: The judge knows that but I don't think he cares.
Speaker 2: I don't think the prosecutor cares, because the objective here
Speaker 2: is not to get a conviction that sticks, is not
Speaker 2: put Donald Trump in jail. The objective is to spare him.
Speaker 2: Within minutes of the verdict coming down, the Biden Whitehouse
Speaker 2: put out a statement referring to him as a quote
Speaker 2: convicted felon. That was the entire point of all of this.
Speaker 2: We will hear the words convicted felon referring to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump from Democrats and from the corporate media one between
Speaker 2: now and election day. Every other sentence they say will
Speaker 2: say bell and Bellen, Bell and Bell Bella. That was
Speaker 2: the point. And they know it'll be reversed on appeal,
Speaker 2: but that will happen after election day. And this is
Speaker 2: all their effort to try to stop the American people
Speaker 2: from reelection Trump.
Speaker 1: All right, let me play Devil's Advocate with you. If
Speaker 1: we're underestimating the Democrats again, I still go back to
Speaker 1: the real question. This judge has gone rogue. He went
Speaker 1: rogue on sentencing. He went rogue from the beginning. He's
Speaker 1: a donor to Biden. If he knows, Senator, and we
Speaker 1: use what you just said that he knows it's going
Speaker 1: to be overturned. Why the hell wouldn't he throw Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in jail or under house arrest where he can't travel.
Speaker 2: Look, and I fully believe this judge's partisan enough he
Speaker 2: would love to throw Donald Trump in a deep pit,
Speaker 2: to throw him in a pit of despair, to use
Speaker 2: a princess bride analogy, He would do everything in anything
Speaker 2: he could. But I also I don't have any indication
Speaker 2: that this judge is stupid. I think he's a partisan.
Speaker 2: I think he hates Trump, and I think he's willing
Speaker 2: to abuse his power. But a sling, he's not stupid.
Speaker 2: I don't know that if he orders Donald Trump sent
Speaker 2: to jail, that will be subject to an immediate appeal,
Speaker 2: and I think the immediate appeal would be successful. I
Speaker 2: don't know if it would be the state courts of
Speaker 2: New York or if it would be the federal courts,
Speaker 2: but I don't think the courts are going to allow
Speaker 2: the presumptive Republican nominee, and I think likely the next
Speaker 2: president of the United States to be hauled away to
Speaker 2: Rikers Island. By the way, New York State is also
Speaker 2: a state where you can assault the police officer. You
Speaker 2: can punch a little old lady in the face on
Speaker 2: the street, you can practically rape or murder someone, and
Speaker 2: these imbeciles won't send you to jail. But if your
Speaker 2: crime as being a Republican who's the leading anident for president,
Speaker 2: You're right, this partisan judge just might said go to jail,
Speaker 2: but I think he won't do it.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that if Trump, and this is where
Speaker 1: I love your legal mind, you're saying that it's more
Speaker 1: valuable to not put him under house arrests, yes, or
Speaker 1: put him in jail, because then he's the convicted fell
Speaker 1: in through election day. Then it's overturned after election day
Speaker 1: and you interfere with the election results. And if you
Speaker 1: actually put him in jail or under house arrests, then
Speaker 1: it would escalate the timeline rapidly, so then he may
Speaker 1: actually be found innocent, not innocent.
Speaker 2: But listen, I think the judge is not going to
Speaker 2: put Trump in jail because it would be bad politics.
Speaker 2: This is not law, this is not criminal justice, it's politics.
Speaker 2: It would be bad politics because it would force the
Speaker 2: appellate courts to act. And I think neither the partisan
Speaker 2: judge nor the partisan DA want the appellate courts to
Speaker 2: give a victory for Donald Trump before November. So they're
Speaker 2: not gonna do anything, I think to tee up a
Speaker 2: legal victory for Donald Trump before November. They want any
Speaker 2: legal victory for Trump to be after November. And I
Speaker 2: will say, I will give her one caveat. I could
Speaker 2: see some scenario or the Trump issue issues some sort
Speaker 2: of house arrest order says you gotta stay at bar Lago,
Speaker 2: you gotta wear an ankle bracelet. I don't think the
Speaker 2: judge will do that, but it is conceivable. But you're
Speaker 2: allowed to go to the convention and give the convention speech.
Speaker 2: You're allowed to go to the debate and participate the debate.
Speaker 2: That that house arrest with enough exceptions that it is
Speaker 2: not transparently election interference. It's just obvious to anyone with
Speaker 2: an IQ above twelve that it's election interference that is
Speaker 2: not outside the realm of possibility. I think that's probably
Speaker 2: doesn't happen either. But I do not think the judge
Speaker 2: would be foolish enough to order him set to jail,
Speaker 2: because I think it would force a rapid appellate reversal
Speaker 2: of that's terrible politics.
Speaker 1: All right, So let me ask you this, and people
Speaker 1: are going to say this case was extraordinary. It involves
Speaker 1: the former president, units it's America running for office. Why
Speaker 1: can Donald Trump not get his appeal heard very quickly?
Speaker 1: Why is this going to drag on until after election day?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't this move its way through? And the appeal moved
Speaker 1: through very very quickly. And is there anything he can
Speaker 1: do to force the hand for this case to move out?
Speaker 1: And whatever? This judge asides the sentence out very quickly
Speaker 1: and say, okay, no, this isn't right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look at the good question. I can tell you
Speaker 2: in any ordinary case, the answer would be done that.
Speaker 2: Typically if you're facing a criminal conviction, particularly if you
Speaker 2: don't have an order to go to jail, if you're
Speaker 2: allowed to be out and free pending the appeal. The
Speaker 2: way criminal convictions and appeals typically work, they can take years.
Speaker 2: I mean they can take their death penalty appeals that
Speaker 2: have taken decades. I think the wheels of justice move
Speaker 2: slowly moving through the appellate process. So in any ordinary case,
Speaker 2: you would never get the appeal resolved between now and
Speaker 2: the end of the year. Just take longer than that.
Speaker 2: And and so that's and the way it would work normally,
Speaker 2: from a trial court conviction in the New York state courts,
Speaker 2: you would appeal it typically to the New York Intermediate
Speaker 2: appellate courts, and then you would appeal it to the
Speaker 2: New York Court of Appeals, which is the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: in New York. It's the it's the top court of
Speaker 2: New York. So you would go through you'd have two
Speaker 2: levels of repellate courts in the state court system, and
Speaker 2: then after the top state court decided your appeal, you
Speaker 2: could then appeal to the US Supreme Court. From that
Speaker 2: that process could be in a normal criminal appeal easily
Speaker 2: take one, two even three years. I mean that process
Speaker 2: can be quite slow, depending on how long the judges
Speaker 2: take to issue attention. You could try to file an
Speaker 2: emergency appeal, but in an ordinary criminal case it would
Speaker 2: never succeed. Now there is another evidence that the Trump
Speaker 2: lawyers I suspect their debating to Night, the Trump lawyers
Speaker 2: couldn't try to file an emergency appeal straight from the
Speaker 2: trial court to the US Supreme Court. Now that's not
Speaker 2: easy to do. Whine straordinarily uncommon.
Speaker 1: This is extraordinaryly uncommon, but so is trying to imprison
Speaker 1: a presidential candidate, the leading candidate who's leading in all
Speaker 1: the polls, in a former president. Wouldn't that be enough
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court to raise their eyebrows, going, yeah,
Speaker 1: we might want to get involve.
Speaker 2: So it might, and the Supreme Court has has a
Speaker 2: variety of jurisdiction to grant a series of rints and
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court it wouldn't be a direct appeal, but
Speaker 2: you can craft an appeal that went straight from the
Speaker 2: state crowd court to the US Supreme Court. As I said,
Speaker 2: it is extraordinarily rare, but it is theoretically possible, and
Speaker 2: I'm sure the Trump legal team is debating that right
Speaker 2: now now. If they did the risk of that, in
Speaker 2: any ordinary circumstance, the Supreme Court would never ever ever
Speaker 2: taken this. The Court's general approach to appeals is let
Speaker 2: the process play out, let the timeline play out. Maybe
Speaker 2: another court could resolve this. So if this were not
Speaker 2: the leading candidate for president of the United States, the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court's approach would be even if this conviction is wrong,
Speaker 2: maybe the New York Intermediate Apellent Court versus it, Maybe
Speaker 2: the New York Toppeller Court reverses, and there are lots
Speaker 2: of ways this could get fixed without the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: getting involved in So that's the overwhelming approach of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court in almost every case. Now this is not
Speaker 2: almost every case. And so if I were part of
Speaker 2: Trump's legal team, I would give very serious thought to
Speaker 2: filing an extraordinary rit at the US Supreme Court. Now
Speaker 2: to grant that, you'd take four justices, and you'd have
Speaker 2: to have four justices that saw this as the outrage
Speaker 2: that it is. And I think that's probably right, and
Speaker 2: who were willing to put the Court in the middle
Speaker 2: of it? And I'll tell you, the US Supreme Court
Speaker 2: has a very, very strong and self protective instinct to
Speaker 2: keep the court out of political conflicts. If you look
Speaker 2: back at twenty twenty, twenty twenty, when you had multiple
Speaker 2: election challenges lawsuits all over the country, I wish the
Speaker 2: US Supreme Court had gotten involved. Then I urged the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to take the appeal from Pennsylvania. There was
Speaker 2: a Rentisterceerrari that was filed. Retisterurceerri made an appeal to
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court that was filed from Pennsylvania. I
Speaker 2: urged the Court to take that. In fact, if you remember,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump asked me if I would argue that appeal
Speaker 2: if the Supreme Court took the case from Pennsylvania, and
Speaker 2: I said yes, I would. The Court ultimately did not
Speaker 2: take the case, so I never argued it. I think
Speaker 2: the reason they didn't take the case is because of
Speaker 2: the self protective instinct of the Supreme Court that their
Speaker 2: sort of institutional approach is keep us out of a
Speaker 2: political mess. Now, let me give a countervailing argument. So
Speaker 2: twenty four years ago, I was a baby lawyer and
Speaker 2: I was part of the legal team that's litigated Bush
Speaker 2: versus Gord, Bush versus Gore. You'll remember happened right after
Speaker 2: the two thousand election, and in the state of Florida,
Speaker 2: there was a series of litigation challenges. George W. Bush
Speaker 2: won Florida, but out Lord challenged the election. He filed
Speaker 2: multiple lawsuits. In today's world, I guess they'd call out
Speaker 2: were an election denier. But he challenged the election, and
Speaker 2: I was part of the legal team that defended George W.
Speaker 2: Bush's victory in Florida. The votes were counted four separate times,
Speaker 2: and Bush won all four times. But the first time
Speaker 2: we went to the US Supreme Court, and there was
Speaker 2: a legal team that came together from Bush versus War
Speaker 2: that I still think is the finest legal team ever assembled.
Speaker 2: It was an amazing team, all of the best Supreme
Speaker 2: Court litigators of the planet. And I was twenty eight
Speaker 2: twenty nine years old. I was a kid carrying their bags.
Speaker 2: But I got to be a very junior part of
Speaker 2: an extraordinary team. And what was interesting is is we
Speaker 2: were writing the petition for sarcer oring, asking the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court to take the case, and I was part of
Speaker 2: the team writing that brief. There was a real debate
Speaker 2: among the lawyers about whether the Supreme Court would take
Speaker 2: that case. In two thousand and the divide, interestingly enough,
Speaker 2: was between those of us who had clerked to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court and those of us who had not. Almost
Speaker 2: all of the lawyers who had not clerked at the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court believe the Court would not take the case.
Speaker 2: They'd want to stay out of the fight. They would
Speaker 2: not want to get in the middle of this political fight.
Speaker 2: And I and most of the other lawyers who had
Speaker 2: clerked at the Court believed the Court would take the case.
Speaker 2: I was adamant. I thought the Court would take the case,
Speaker 2: and I agreed that the Court would see risk, they'd
Speaker 2: see political risk to itself as an institution. But I
Speaker 2: believe the Court would also feel a responsibility to step
Speaker 2: in and act. And I personally believe. I can't prove this,
Speaker 2: I have no inside information, but I personally believe that
Speaker 2: the Chief Justice, Chief Justice Rnquist, which is the justice
Speaker 2: for whom I clerked, and so I knew Chief Justice
Speaker 2: Rnquist very very well. I think he, in particular felt
Speaker 2: a great responsibility that when the country was all waiting
Speaker 2: on the resolution of the presidential race, that the Court
Speaker 2: had an obligation to step in and engage. Well, I
Speaker 2: think there's a chance the Court will feel that same thing.
Speaker 2: I think there are certainly justices who watching this are
Speaker 2: outraged of the lawlessness of the abuse of power. I
Speaker 2: don't know where the Chief Justice will fall. John Roberts
Speaker 2: was part of that legal team down in Bush versus War.
Speaker 2: I worked side by side with John Roberts in writing
Speaker 2: the petition for sirchu Or. He was part of the
Speaker 2: team that wrote that my recollection. Although I don't have
Speaker 2: a distinct recollection, but I assumed. I think he was
Speaker 2: among those of us who believe the Court would take
Speaker 2: the case now fast forwarding. He obviously has a very
Speaker 2: different role because he's the Chief Justice, and I think
Speaker 2: he's very protective of the Court's legitimacy. Will say, the
Speaker 2: Democrats are mounting a frontal assaults on the Court to
Speaker 2: delegitimize the Court, so I think there will be justice
Speaker 2: as afraid of getting into this matter. All of which
Speaker 2: is to say, I don't know if the Court would
Speaker 2: grant an extraordinary wrist, but I'm confident the Trump legal
Speaker 2: team is debating that and debating that extensively right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great point. I want to say to many of
Speaker 1: you that are listening right now, thank you, because a
Speaker 1: lot of you have taken the time to get involved
Speaker 1: with an amazing organization called Preborn. When a mother with
Speaker 1: an unplanned pregnancy meets her baby on ultrasound and here's
Speaker 1: their baby's heartbeat, it is a divine encounter that doubles
Speaker 1: a baby's chance at life. And every day, Preborn's networks
Speaker 1: of clinics rescue two hundred babies from abortion. And that's
Speaker 1: why we partner with Preborn, because we need to help
Speaker 1: these precious babies. Every day mothers have the opportunity to
Speaker 1: choose between life and an abortion. I hear that heartbeat.
Speaker 1: It is telling them their child is alive. Their heartbeat.
Speaker 1: The heartbeat begins to form at conception and at just
Speaker 1: three weeks it's already beating. At five weeks, a baby's
Speaker 1: heartbeat can be heard on ultrasound and that is where
Speaker 1: you come in. You can give a gift. Yes, for
Speaker 1: just twenty eight dollars, you could be the difference between
Speaker 1: the life or death of a child. And all gifts
Speaker 1: are tax deductible. You can donate and it's easy. You
Speaker 1: just have to dial the number pound two fifty and
Speaker 1: say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty, say the
Speaker 1: keyword baby. Or you can donate securely at preborn dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict. That's preborn dot com slash verdict. Make
Speaker 1: a donation, Like I said, for just twenty eight dollars,
Speaker 1: you can be the difference between life or death of
Speaker 1: a child. Dial on your phone pound two fifty and
Speaker 1: say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty, keyword baby. Senator,
Speaker 1: let me ask you another question, and this is one
Speaker 1: that I've been asked a lot over the last ten
Speaker 1: hours on social media. It's really been popping up, and
Speaker 1: there is a divide when it comes to this court case,
Speaker 1: and there's been a lot of anger by a lot
Speaker 1: of conservatives have said, see, I told you so. We
Speaker 1: should have gone after one of the liberals out there
Speaker 1: that was committing crimes and gone after them to say
Speaker 1: to the Democrats, if you do this to Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: we're going to come back and do it to you.
Speaker 1: And now there's people that say, well, there it is.
Speaker 1: The cat's out of the bag. This is law fair
Speaker 1: and if we're not willing to do it back to them,
Speaker 1: they're going to keep doing it to us. Give me
Speaker 1: your reaction to people like that are extremely frustrated on
Speaker 1: that aspect of us that we're we're playing by the rules,
Speaker 1: they're not, and yet they're winning.
Speaker 2: Look I get that sentiment, and it's frustrating because the
Speaker 2: other side, the other side is willing to destroy the
Speaker 2: rule of law. They're willing to destroy the judiciary, they're
Speaker 2: willing to destroy our country in pursuit of partisan powers,
Speaker 2: and and and it is it's why I'm so sad today.
Speaker 2: Uh you know, I was on Sean Hannity yesterday, I
Speaker 2: was on Shannon John Hennity tonight. Yesterday, Sean and I
Speaker 2: got in a little bit of an argument because the
Speaker 2: jury was still pending, and I said, look, I'm holding
Speaker 2: out hope that maybe one juror will say no and
Speaker 2: there'll be a hung jury. And I'll tell you Sean
Speaker 2: laughed at me and he said, no, New York is
Speaker 2: too far gone. It's not gonna happen. Donald Trump cannot
Speaker 2: get a fair trial in New York. And I didn't
Speaker 2: want to believe it. I gotta say Sean was right.
Speaker 2: This this justice system, the justice system, I don't know
Speaker 2: that it ever recovers from this. It will always be
Speaker 2: known as a Democrat, but that a Republican. If you're
Speaker 2: a Republican in New York. There are a lot of
Speaker 2: in New York who are calling their real estate agents
Speaker 2: who are looking to leave New York. If they say, okay,
Speaker 2: you cannot count on the rule of law in this state.
Speaker 2: I understand the sentiment. If they're going to burn it down,
Speaker 2: we ought to burn it down in the views our power.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with that. I I at the end
Speaker 2: of the day, I believe in the Constitution, I believe
Speaker 2: in the rule of law. I don't want power of
Speaker 2: views by either side, now, but me that that you
Speaker 2: give the other side a pre past my view. I've
Speaker 2: said many times I don't want a Republican Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: I don't want a Democrat Department of Justice. I want
Speaker 2: a Department of Justice that follows the law and that
Speaker 2: prosecutes the individuals who commit crimes, regardless of their party. So,
Speaker 2: for example, I hope if we in January we have
Speaker 2: a new president, if Donald Trump is reelected, which is
Speaker 2: what I hope will happen, and we have a new
Speaker 2: Department of Justice. I hope right at the outset, they
Speaker 2: open investigations into the fundings of these anti American and
Speaker 2: anti Israel and anti Semitic protests on college campuses, and
Speaker 2: they trace down, follow the money, and they find out
Speaker 2: our terrorists finding financing this, our foreign countries financing this.
Speaker 2: I hope they use the full investigatory resources of the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice to get to the bottom of that. Now,
Speaker 2: note I'm not saying that because I have a target
Speaker 2: I want to put in jail. I'm saying that because
Speaker 2: I see the evidence of a crime, and I want
Speaker 2: the Justice Department to investigate that crime and to prosecute
Speaker 2: whoever is guilty, and sadly, I don't believe the Justice
Speaker 2: Department is prosecuting that crime right now, because the flip
Speaker 2: side of what they're doing is they will abuse power
Speaker 2: to target their enemies, and they will also so abuse
Speaker 2: power by protecting their friends. And so I get the
Speaker 2: vindictive instinct, but I think it's the wrong answer. I
Speaker 2: think we should demonstrate that the rule of law matters.
Speaker 2: And by the way, there is plenty of real criminality
Speaker 2: that prosecutors can pursue without engaging in the blatant abuse
Speaker 2: of power we've seen from Democrats in these cases against
Speaker 2: Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk about the politics of what we
Speaker 1: mentioned the very beginning. We know from the White House
Speaker 1: that the words that we're going to hear over and
Speaker 1: over again between now and November fifth are convicted felon, convicted, felon,
Speaker 1: convicted felon.
Speaker 2: There is a convicted fella.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, exactly. So how powerful is that going to
Speaker 1: be politically? It is clearly engaged people today on Trump's side.
Speaker 1: I had two people walk up to me today this
Speaker 1: afternoon and they said, I've never given a political donation
Speaker 1: in my life, but damn it tonight when the website
Speaker 1: gets back up. It crashed multiple times because some of
Speaker 1: you were going to donate. They said, I'm going to
Speaker 1: write a big check. And one of them said to me,
Speaker 1: I'm you know how much I'm going to donate. Seventeen
Speaker 1: seventy six. That's my number I'm donating. And this is
Speaker 1: someone that had never donated, he said, in his entire
Speaker 1: life to any political campaign, local, state, or national. And
Speaker 1: he said, this is our country under siege, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to get involved now. Now, I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of patriots out there and new patriots who are
Speaker 1: going to probably make that decision. But there's also center
Speaker 1: the other side. Democrats are going to be inspired by this.
Speaker 1: It's no longer looking at an incompetent Joe Biden. Their
Speaker 1: hatred for Donald Trump is now back front and center.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look that this will inspire both sides. I don't
Speaker 2: believe this decision will change the outcome of the life
Speaker 2: in no effort. I think it's baked in the in
Speaker 2: the cake. I think rabbit partisan Democrats hate Trump so
Speaker 2: much they were going to vote against them in November.
Speaker 2: They're still going to vote against him, and and and
Speaker 2: and this that this is revenge born for them, that
Speaker 2: that that they're just living their fantasy. Uh. In terms
Speaker 2: of Republicans, I think this energizes Republicans. You're right that
Speaker 2: the Trump website collapse win Read, which is the portal
Speaker 2: to contribute to Trump to Republican senators. That portal collapsed tonight.
Speaker 2: So I think a lot of people went and said,
Speaker 2: I want to contribute to the Republicans who are running
Speaker 2: this cycle precisely because of that. I think this will
Speaker 2: energize Republicans, and this may well energize people. Let's say
Speaker 2: you're not a Donald Trump. Then let's say you say
Speaker 2: you don't particularly like it. Maybe you're strongly apart. If
Speaker 2: you care about the rule of law, you ought to
Speaker 2: be outreaking about this. If you care about actually a
Speaker 2: justice system that is not simply a tool to attack
Speaker 2: your enemies, you ought to be horrified by this. Because listen,
Speaker 2: you go down a Latin America, you'd have a banana Republics.
Speaker 2: My dad's from Cuba. Cuba understands what happened to night.
Speaker 2: There are banana Republics throughout this country that understand what
Speaker 2: happened to night, which is one party gets in power,
Speaker 2: and they use the justice system to try to lock
Speaker 2: up their predecessors, to try to lock up their opponents.
Speaker 2: If you don't want that to happen to America, even
Speaker 2: if you might even despise Donald Trump, you should be
Speaker 2: very upset about what happened tonight. The Democrats calculus at
Speaker 2: the beginning of this is that there would be two
Speaker 2: to three to five percent of voters who are not
Speaker 2: very engaged, who are not paying attention, a lot who
Speaker 2: will decide the last couple of weeks before election day.
Speaker 2: And if they hear the word fella fellon Felon repeated
Speaker 2: a gazillion times, we'll say, oh, I can't vote for
Speaker 2: a felon, and so we'll vote for by it. I'm
Speaker 2: really skeptical. I don't think it's played out that way.
Speaker 2: I think most Americans, other than the rabid Democrat partisans,
Speaker 2: recognized this was a political persecution and and and so
Speaker 2: I don't see this changing votes. And I think even
Speaker 2: some Democrats and some in the media have backed away
Speaker 2: from their fervor from this because they see it backfired
Speaker 2: to some extent now not tonight. They're not backing away
Speaker 2: because they're too jubilant this is too much. This is cathartic,
Speaker 2: and this is ecstasy, and this is shoden Freud, all
Speaker 2: unfolding at once. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: I don't see this changing the outcome on election Day.
Speaker 1: You've been in a lot of debates, Senator, and you've
Speaker 1: been on the president of debate stage. You debated Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But I and I've I've one of my things that
Speaker 1: I love is debate prep. And I was putting myself
Speaker 1: in the room tonight mentally. All right, if I'm in
Speaker 1: the room before the debate with Joe Biden, I know
Speaker 1: Joe Biden at some point is going to look over
Speaker 1: at Donald Trump and say, well, you're a convicted felon.
Speaker 1: How does Trump respond to that? And that's I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty hardcore line that they have been obsessed
Speaker 1: with and they've got it. Now, how do you overcome
Speaker 1: that when there's people watching that I'm sure are going
Speaker 1: to watch this thing and maybe just engage the very
Speaker 1: first time. Weren't watching the trial. Don't understand how corrupt
Speaker 1: it was, don't understand how these charges shouldn't have ever
Speaker 1: been used, how they change things to get rid of
Speaker 1: the statue limitations, how the federal government didn't bring these
Speaker 1: charges eight years ago for a reason. I mean, all
Speaker 1: of that they've missed, and they look at the president
Speaker 1: sitting president, Look at Donald Drungle. You're a convicted felon.
Speaker 1: What do you do with that?
Speaker 2: Well, Look, I think the Biden debate prep team, he's
Speaker 2: going to spend a lot of time trying to convince
Speaker 2: fides and try to help Biden not to seem like
Speaker 2: a smug s op. His instinct is going to be
Speaker 2: smug and sanctimonias and to rub Trump's face, Trump's face
Speaker 2: in it. I think that is a bad look for Biden.
Speaker 2: If he doesn't, my prediction is they'll fail by the
Speaker 2: way that Biden can't resist being smug and sanctimonious on this,
Speaker 2: I think he probably just will. But if his debate
Speaker 2: prep team is any good, they will try to get
Speaker 2: him to resist that. On Trump's side on this whole
Speaker 2: topic and more broadly, on everything in the debate, I
Speaker 2: think they're going to try to stop Trump from just
Speaker 2: being volcanically anxious. Look, Trump typically engages in very little
Speaker 2: debate prep. He is not. You're right, I have debated
Speaker 2: Trump many, many, many times. He doesn't engage in extensive
Speaker 2: debate prep to the Instead they have debate prap. I
Speaker 2: think the team around him, if they're any good, likely
Speaker 2: will try to get him to be calm and matter
Speaker 2: of fact and not angry and cambative. If you go
Speaker 2: back and look at the twenty twenty debates, the first debate,
Speaker 2: Trump was angry and combative. That many observers believe that
Speaker 2: that hurt Trump because he was too angry and combative
Speaker 2: in the debate. I think that will be an instinct here.
Speaker 2: And Trump has reason to be pissed. Look, he was
Speaker 2: just railroad. He was railroaded by a kangaroo court. Any
Speaker 2: natural person and any person's natural reaction would be pissed.
Speaker 2: And Trump is not someone who generally hides his emotions.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm reminded of back back in two thousand.
Speaker 2: So we were talking about Bush versus Four earlier in
Speaker 2: the Pods. After Bush one, after the Spring Court resolved
Speaker 2: the case, and after he came in, he appointed his
Speaker 2: Attorney General, John Ashcroft, And I was part of the
Speaker 2: team that promp John Ashcroft for his confirmation hearings, and
Speaker 2: so we voted John Ashcroft multiple times for his confirmation
Speaker 2: hearings the Attorney General and you know, I'm young at
Speaker 2: this point, thirty year old lawyer, and there were several
Speaker 2: of us in the room. But we would try to
Speaker 2: get a noxious with Ashcroft and the preparation for confirmation.
Speaker 2: We try to piss him off, we try to insult it.
Speaker 2: And in the prop sessions he would blow his top.
Speaker 2: He'd yell at us and get mad. And we were
Speaker 2: asking if noxious questions and he would scream at us,
Speaker 2: and then we'd say, okay, senator can be a senator.
Speaker 2: At the time with his senator, I get what you're saying.
Speaker 2: You're right, that was a totally unfair question. It is
Speaker 2: completely wrong. You are perfectly justified yelling with us. Here's
Speaker 2: the problem. They don't have the votes to beat you
Speaker 2: right now. The only way they'd beat your confirmation is
Speaker 2: if they provoked you to say something stupid at the
Speaker 2: hearing and what you say, thanks your nomination. And so
Speaker 2: we worked with him. We said, Okay, yell at us,
Speaker 2: get all of your anger out of us. But when
Speaker 2: you get into hearing, don't yell at the senators. Give
Speaker 2: them nothing because they have nothing to defeat you, and
Speaker 2: they can only win as if you could give it
Speaker 2: to them. So you fast forward to the hearing, and
Speaker 2: you had Democrat senators that just made fool to themselves.
Speaker 2: I remember Ted Kennedy at one point leaning forward, he
Speaker 2: was reading something Ashcroft has read about the Second Amendment,
Speaker 2: and he talked about the Second Amendment being as the
Speaker 2: Framers as James Pattison, another Framers wrote about it a
Speaker 2: check on tyranny. And Ted Kennedy and his Boston Brahmin
Speaker 2: boye goes tarranny in the United States. What you know
Speaker 2: what that is? That is treason, I tell you treason.
Speaker 2: And John Ashcroft, to his credit, he had Ted Kennedy
Speaker 2: screaming at him and calling him a trainer. And John
Speaker 2: Ashcroft said, senator gets confirmed as Attorney General, I will
Speaker 2: follow the law. And I don't know that. His heartbeat
Speaker 2: got about sixty five and he got confirmed. You know,
Speaker 2: John Ashcroft, Well you and here are good friends.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's one of my mentors.
Speaker 2: Yes, his confirmation hearing, he didn't take debate, I promise you.
Speaker 2: In the prep sessions he did it got it out
Speaker 2: of his system. I think the Trump debate prep sessions
Speaker 2: will be similar. They will try to get that out
Speaker 2: of his system. I don't know if it will succeed
Speaker 2: or not.
Speaker 1: Final question for you on this, and it deals with
Speaker 1: the presidency and Joe Biden. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: can separate what this judge did from the corruption of
Speaker 1: the Biden White House. We know the attorneys that left
Speaker 1: the DOJD go work on this case. We know that
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg ran on this. We know he raised money
Speaker 1: off of it. We know that this judge UH has
Speaker 1: as a as a daughter that's heavily involved in fundraising
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: UH.
Speaker 1: And this all was orchestrated from from the Biden administration down.
Speaker 1: Now they're trying to act like now they're sprit from
Speaker 1: it like this is we stood back. We were just
Speaker 1: watching the wills of justice and and and and and
Speaker 1: a man be found accountable by a jury of his peers.
Speaker 1: That is clearly going to be their line. But make
Speaker 1: no mistake, none of this would have happened without the
Speaker 1: direction UH of Biden. I said today, America has its
Speaker 1: own Vladimir Putin. Now his name is is Biden. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is America's Putin right now, going after his political
Speaker 1: opponent and trying to lock them up.
Speaker 2: You know, in law, if you look at something like
Speaker 2: anti trust law, there's a concepts in law called conscious parallelism,
Speaker 2: which is people that all have similar incentives behaving similarly.
Speaker 2: But it's not a conspiracy. They just all are acting
Speaker 2: according to the same incentives. I don't know that Alvin
Speaker 2: Bragg is taking orders from the Biden White House. I
Speaker 2: agree that the Biden Joe Biden has been dictatorially, he's
Speaker 2: abused his power. But I think Alvin Bragg is a
Speaker 2: petty dictator of his own. He's George sorows Da. He
Speaker 2: ran on getting Joe Biden. You know, when his was
Speaker 2: the first indictment, I think a lot of Democrats were
Speaker 2: kind of sheepish. They said, Okay, this one is really sketchy.
Speaker 2: They didn't want this to be the lead case. And look, ultimately,
Speaker 2: the bidend OJ they sent the number three lawyer at DOJ,
Speaker 2: who had been a Democrat donor before in a Democrat comsultant.
Speaker 2: They sent him to be part of the trial team.
Speaker 2: So the Biden d OJ got in bed with the
Speaker 2: partisan prosecution. But but I'm not convinced that Alvin Bragg
Speaker 2: did so at the direction of the White House. I
Speaker 2: just think he hates Trump's guts, So does everyone in
Speaker 2: the Biden, the Oja Biden, the White House, so does
Speaker 2: Fanny Willits down in Georgia, so does just about every
Speaker 2: wild eyed partisan Democrat. And so I wouldn't say it
Speaker 2: as as much a direction from the White House as
Speaker 2: that they're all suffering from the same Trump derangement syndrome
Speaker 2: where they're willing to burn it all down, to destroy
Speaker 2: the rule of law, to abuse the justice system because
Speaker 2: they hate Trump so much, and they've convinced themselves if
Speaker 2: he is re elected, if he's president, it's the end
Speaker 2: of democracy. I mean, we played on Wednesday's pod Robert
Speaker 2: de Niro going on and on that'll be the last
Speaker 2: election ever if Trump is elected, which is just it's deranged,
Speaker 2: it's unhing. But I don't think de Niro is lying
Speaker 2: and that I think he believes every word he said.
Speaker 2: I suspect Alvin Bractas too, and I suspect the Biden,
Speaker 2: the White House that DFJ does as well.
Speaker 1: Final question, you're a poll guy. I love polls. I
Speaker 1: want your prediction. The first major polls that come out
Speaker 1: after this verdict has obviously come down, will they show
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump starts to lose momentum. Do you think
Speaker 1: he'll go backwards in the polls nationally or in swing states?
Speaker 1: Do you think this could even backfire more because you
Speaker 1: did say, and I agreed with you, that if they
Speaker 1: indict make him more powerful, his poll numbers would go up.
Speaker 1: That happen when the court case started. You said, it's
Speaker 1: going to make people solidify their support behind Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But now that he has the he's a convicted felon
Speaker 1: around his neck, and that what happens in the polls.
Speaker 2: So when the indictment first came down, the first indictment,
Speaker 2: I said on this podcast, this indictment will be worth
Speaker 2: ten points for Donald Trump in the polls. Now that's
Speaker 2: in the progress. A week later, Trump was up ten.
Speaker 2: That prediction proved exactly accurate. Now, to be fair, that's
Speaker 2: a primary poll. Primary polls are different than general election polls,
Speaker 2: and so it caused Republicans to rally around Trump, even
Speaker 2: some Republicans who were not supporting Trump at that time.
Speaker 2: The general election, it's a little harder. I think most
Speaker 2: of the views on both sides are baked in. But
Speaker 2: if you forced me to make a prediction, my prediction
Speaker 2: right now is Trump. I think it is pildly beneficial
Speaker 2: for Trump and the polls. I don't think it is
Speaker 2: major league because I think most of the people on
Speaker 2: both sides are baked in and it almost doesn't matter
Speaker 2: at this point. They're not moving. But if you press me,
Speaker 2: I would say, I don't think it's going to cause
Speaker 2: hilling the polls. And I would say I think it's
Speaker 2: likely to be a mild positive benefit for Trump and
Speaker 2: the polls, and he's already leading the polls right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is a shocking day. It's a sad day
Speaker 1: for this Country Center. I love doing this show with
Speaker 1: you three days a week. I really love it when
Speaker 1: we get to cover news that is so important to
Speaker 1: the American people, like this one today, even if it
Speaker 1: means you're in the car on the way driving home
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night. I say this, and
Speaker 1: I mean it's sincerely from everybody listening. Thank you for
Speaker 1: clarifying so much, explaining it, and also standing up for
Speaker 1: the rule of law as you described it earlier. Don't
Speaker 1: forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. Hit
Speaker 1: that subscriber auto download button. There's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of breaking news, so on those in between days,
Speaker 1: grab my podcast and I'll keep you up to date.
Speaker 1: Ben ferguson Podcasts The Senator and I will see you
Speaker 1: back here on Saturday for the week in review. And
Speaker 1: make sure you share this podcast right now so other
Speaker 1: people will hear it, especially your family and friends that
Speaker 1: may not have been into the case so they know
Speaker 1: what's actually going on. And we'll see you back here
Speaker 1: Saturday morning.