Speaker 1: Welcome at his verdict to a Senator Ted Cruz ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you. And on March the eighteenth of former
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump announced via True Social that he quote
Speaker 1: will be arrested on Tuesday of this coming week. Now
Speaker 1: protests take our nation back. A spokesman for President Trump
Speaker 1: stated that the former president has not received a notification
Speaker 1: from the Manhattan District Attorney's office regarding any potential indictment,
Speaker 1: and his post was highlighting his innocence. Senator President Trump saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: this is coming, be ready for it, be ready to protest.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about what he could be indicted for and
Speaker 1: how we got to this point with an activist da
Speaker 1: in New York. Well, let me say several things. Number One, obviously,
Speaker 1: this is a big damn deal. If the former president
Speaker 1: of the United States is arrested tomorrow, that is historic.
Speaker 1: It has never happened in the history of our nation
Speaker 1: that a former president of the United States has been arrested.
Speaker 1: Number Two, the case from the Manhattan District Attorney, if
Speaker 1: they bring an indictment and charge him, is utter and
Speaker 1: complete crap. Actually, as groundskeeper Willie would put it on
Speaker 1: The Simpsons, it's crap. I tell you it's crap. It
Speaker 1: is flimsy, it is weak, It has been rejected by
Speaker 1: prosecutor after prosecutor after prosecutor, and it is obviously political
Speaker 1: retribution and a political persecution. Number three, if this case
Speaker 1: is brought to the jury and the prosecutor loses, the
Speaker 1: richest irony of everything is it may be left wing
Speaker 1: Sorrows funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg more than anyone else
Speaker 1: who will have reelected Donald Trump as President of the
Speaker 1: United States. Because this is if you want to talk
Speaker 1: about how to unify Republicans behind Donald Trump in the primary,
Speaker 1: having an unhinged left wing prosecution, complete with perhaps a
Speaker 1: perp walk for the cameras, that ends up being thrown
Speaker 1: out and ends in failure could be the single biggest
Speaker 1: in kind gift to the Donald Trump campaign of this
Speaker 1: entire cycle. What's before we get into politics of this.
Speaker 1: I want to get to people so they understand who
Speaker 1: this district attorney is. This is a George Soros back
Speaker 1: district attorney. This is an activist DA and as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: no one else was willing to do this, but I
Speaker 1: guess this is how he gets campaign contributions. Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that's right. Alvin Bragg is the District Attorney in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: He is newly elected. He was supported by more than
Speaker 1: a million dollars from George Soros. That's how he got elected.
Speaker 1: And one of the very first things he's done is
Speaker 1: dramatically reduced the prosecution of violent crime in New York.
Speaker 1: Accorded to The Daily Mail, in November of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Manhattan Districttorney Alvin Bragg downgraded fifty two percent of felony
Speaker 1: cases to misdemeanors, compared to thirty nine percent in all
Speaker 1: of twenty nineteen. According to new data, by the way,
Speaker 1: Bragg's convention conviction rate, even after downgrading the cases, its
Speaker 1: conviction rate is fifty one percent. Barely half the cases
Speaker 1: his lawyers bring to trial get convicted. That's down from
Speaker 1: sixty eight percent in twenty nineteen. That is shockingly bad
Speaker 1: for a DA's office to have a conviction rate of
Speaker 1: fifty one percent, And if you compare it, his predecessor
Speaker 1: was Cyrus Vance Junior, another left wing Democrat DA. Between
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen and twenty twenty, former DA Cyrus Vans Junior
Speaker 1: never exceeded forty percent in the percentage of cases downgraded
Speaker 1: from felony to misdemeanor. Alvin Bragg has already gone up
Speaker 1: to fifty two percent. And he campaigned on the promise
Speaker 1: of criminal justice reform, which in George Soros world means
Speaker 1: letting violent criminals go. Now here's the irony. This da
Speaker 1: comes into office and he sets his hallmark of if
Speaker 1: you're a violent criminal, if you assault someone, we're going
Speaker 1: to downgrade your crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Speaker 1: We're going to release you. We're going to let you
Speaker 1: commit yet more violent crimes in Manhattan. The irony is
Speaker 1: the legal theory that he is pursuing against Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: in all likelihood will be an incredibly aggressive legal theory
Speaker 1: based on going the other way, on taking a misdemeanor
Speaker 1: and elevating it to a felony. And nobody is confused
Speaker 1: as to why he is doing this. He is doing
Speaker 1: this because he's a partisan Democrat and he hates Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Now he has a right to hate Donald Trump, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't have a right to abuse and corrupt the
Speaker 1: justice system to persecute his political opponents, and that, sadly
Speaker 1: is exactly what he's doing here. You talk about this
Speaker 1: persecution of your political opponents, and this goes back to
Speaker 1: what you warned about and spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: actually working on in your last book, Justice Corrupted, How
Speaker 1: the Left weaponized our legal system. Now, you started this
Speaker 1: book back in January last year. It came out in October.
Speaker 1: This book, in your mindset more than a year ago,
Speaker 1: was the worry that the left had gained control of
Speaker 1: our legal system and then was going to weaponize our
Speaker 1: legal system to take out political opponents. Now, George Soros
Speaker 1: has been funding this. He has done a damn good job,
Speaker 1: given credit of basically turning upside down district attorney's offices
Speaker 1: all over the country and using them for criminal criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform, bail reform, jail reform, and defund the police
Speaker 1: or drive the police in saying the other thing that's
Speaker 1: done is it's then also allowed for them to weaponize
Speaker 1: and go after political opponents. Now, your entire book was
Speaker 1: basically warning America about this. You saw this coming, and
Speaker 1: you realize that they were putting the pieces of this
Speaker 1: puzzle together. And here we are now with a president
Speaker 1: of the United's America that may have a mud shot
Speaker 1: this week. Well, Unfortunately I did see this coming. You
Speaker 1: write the book. I spent much of last year writing
Speaker 1: the book. It came out in October, and it goes
Speaker 1: into depth on how the left is weaponizing our legal system.
Speaker 1: There's an entire chapter on George Soros. DA's on the
Speaker 1: millions of dollars that Soros has spent putting radicals in
Speaker 1: the position of district attorney. District attorney race has used
Speaker 1: to be sleepy races, typically between people who are both prosecutors,
Speaker 1: who are both campaigning on we're gonna lock up the
Speaker 1: bad guys, We're gonna put violent criminals in jail, and
Speaker 1: you'd have a back and forth on competence, often without
Speaker 1: a whole lot of partisanship. Soros has invested tens of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars in putting radicals people like Alvin Bragg
Speaker 1: in this position because he understands power. I will give
Speaker 1: Soros credit. He has found the weak points in our
Speaker 1: democracy and our rule of law, and he has devoted
Speaker 1: millions of dollars to attacking those weak points, which have
Speaker 1: been having tremendous negative effect. And so there's an entire
Speaker 1: chapter Injustice Corrupted that explains what specifically the Soros DA's
Speaker 1: are doing. There's also an entire chapter that goes through
Speaker 1: Crossfire Hurricane, how the Department of Justice and the FBI
Speaker 1: were weaponized against Donald Trump, were used to attack the
Speaker 1: person who was then the Republican nominee to be president,
Speaker 1: and then once he became president, the hardcore partisans that
Speaker 1: had burrowed into dj and the FBI continued that witch
Speaker 1: hunt against him. And the book details that at great length.
Speaker 1: And so I would encourage you if you want to
Speaker 1: understand what is going on right now with the Biden
Speaker 1: DOJ and this George Soros prosecutor targeting Trump, go by
Speaker 1: the book Justice Corrupted. It just came out a couple
Speaker 1: of months ago, and it walks you through the details
Speaker 1: of what happened. I want to get into the play
Speaker 1: by play of if in fact the president is indicted,
Speaker 1: how does that go through the process, How will he
Speaker 1: be arraigned, will there be mug shots? How all that
Speaker 1: happens for people so they understand how this could play
Speaker 1: out with him saying I'm going to be arrested. That's
Speaker 1: the president's words, former President Donald Trump's words. Before I
Speaker 1: get to that, though, I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about Augusts of Precious Metals. You've seen what's been happening
Speaker 1: with banks, You've seen what's been happening on Wall Street
Speaker 1: just over the last couple of weeks. This is exactly
Speaker 1: why I've been telling you about August of Press Metals.
Speaker 1: If you want to protect your hard earned dollars, especially
Speaker 1: if you're close to retirement or in retirement, you understand
Speaker 1: protecting your money is what you're focused on. That is
Speaker 1: what a Gust of Precious Metals can help you do.
Speaker 1: I'm excited to tell you about a company not only
Speaker 1: did I trust, but also that I use. A Gust
Speaker 1: of Precious Metals is different. They will even tell you
Speaker 1: if a gold IRA isn't your answer. Now, A gust
Speaker 1: of Precious Meals is all about protecting your iras, your
Speaker 1: four oh one ks in this crazy economic time that
Speaker 1: we're in right now. And if you are close to
Speaker 1: retirement or in retirement, you know there is no time
Speaker 1: to make up losses. So if you've saved a hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars or more, take a look at their free
Speaker 1: guide and most importantly, sign up for their live free
Speaker 1: web conference. Both are filled with economic insights and gold
Speaker 1: IRA info. For your peace of mind, call a Gusts
Speaker 1: of Precious Metals eight seven seven the number four gold
Speaker 1: Ira eight seven seven four gold Ira, or visit August
Speaker 1: of Precious Metals dot com. Say that I've sent you
Speaker 1: Ben and they'll pay your fees up to ten years
Speaker 1: at a gust of Precious Medals dot com or eight
Speaker 1: seven seven four gold Ira. So I want to go
Speaker 1: back to the performer President Trump's tweet Senator and he says, look,
Speaker 1: I'm going to be arrested. This is going to happen.
Speaker 1: If this does happen, is there a very I mean,
Speaker 1: is there gonna be a mug shot of Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: And is that going to be victory for the Democrats?
Speaker 1: And how does this go? How does this happen? How
Speaker 1: are his attorney's brought into this to tell people how
Speaker 1: this will play out legally? So presumably there will be
Speaker 1: a mug shot if he is in fact arrested. There
Speaker 1: are a couple of ways they can do it. Typically,
Speaker 1: when you have an attorney who's represented by counsel and
Speaker 1: an arrest warrant is issued, you typically will give give
Speaker 1: that client the opportunity to turn himself in, particularly when
Speaker 1: the client is not a flight risk. We saw recently.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think last week's pod discussed how the
Speaker 1: bidendo J sent over twenty FBI agents to the house
Speaker 1: of Mark Hawk, who was a pro life activist. They
Speaker 1: showed up with body armor and helmets and machine guns
Speaker 1: and arrested him at the crack of dawn in front
Speaker 1: of his wife and seven children who were crying. That
Speaker 1: was utterly unnecessary in that instance. Mark Howk, his attorney
Speaker 1: had offered, Okay, if you're going to prosecute him, he'll
Speaker 1: turn himself in, and the BIDENDOJ said, now, now we
Speaker 1: want to come raide you. Likewise, we saw the FBI
Speaker 1: rated Mara Lago searching for documents. There was a sharp contrast,
Speaker 1: a double standard between how they rated Mara Lago searching
Speaker 1: for documents, but they were perfectly happy to let Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's attorneys turn over one set of classified documents after
Speaker 1: another after another after another, because this is political and
Speaker 1: partisan justice. In any sane world, if they should arrest warrant,
Speaker 1: they will allow Trump to turn himself in and they
Speaker 1: won't actually try to forcibly arrest him. I think that's likely.
Speaker 1: But if there is an arrest, there presumably will be
Speaker 1: a mug shot. There is an entire canon of politician
Speaker 1: mug shots. Unfortunately, we've seen politicized prosecutions before. There is
Speaker 1: a question about does the politicians smile or not. You know,
Speaker 1: you may remember Tom Delay when when he was indicted.
Speaker 1: You may remember Rick Perry when he was indicted, and
Speaker 1: smiling is one thing. It leads to kind of a
Speaker 1: strange mug shot. When you have a picture of someone
Speaker 1: in front of the hash marks for the different height
Speaker 1: levels and holding a little little placard with their name
Speaker 1: and number on it, and if they're smiling like a politician,
Speaker 1: it's it's often quite dissonant. I don't know how Trump
Speaker 1: will handle that. But will the media and the Democrats
Speaker 1: go crazy if there's a Trump mugshot? Of course they will.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, I think the
Speaker 1: image matters less than the facts in reality. And let
Speaker 1: me explain why this case is crap. So this all
Speaker 1: stems back to twenty sixteen, which was twenty sixteen was
Speaker 1: a long time ago. That was seven years ago. And
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, Trump allegedly paid one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels. Remember Stormy Daniels who was
Speaker 1: a stripper and porn star and allegedly had an affair
Speaker 1: with Trump. And the allegation is that Trump paid one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty thousand dollars of hush money, basically paid
Speaker 1: her one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to keep quiet
Speaker 1: because in twenty sixteen he was running for president and
Speaker 1: he didn't want a bunch of stories about his affair
Speaker 1: with Stormy Daniels. The person who allegedly delivered the money
Speaker 1: was Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was, of course Trump's personal lawyer.
Speaker 1: He was often involved in and pretty shady conduct. Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen himself has now served prison time. He has turned
Speaker 1: hard on Trump. He hates Trump. Michael Cohen is the
Speaker 1: chief witness for the prosecution in this instance. And look,
Speaker 1: as an ordinary matter, paying someone hush money is not
Speaker 1: typically illegal. You know, if you know, Ben, if you
Speaker 1: if you paid me a thousand bucks not to tweet
Speaker 1: out that I saw you mowing your lawn and a
Speaker 1: pink tutu last week, that was true, I would pay
Speaker 1: you more than a thousand dollars. But keep going, Look,
Speaker 1: that might be entirely understandable, and it might be two
Speaker 1: thousand to delete the photo I took on my iPhone
Speaker 1: of your doing so. But doing that is not illegal,
Speaker 1: like paying someone to do something, not to do something that,
Speaker 1: on the face of it is not illegal. So what
Speaker 1: is it that the DA is trying to say is illegal?
Speaker 1: And by the way, look, unfortunately people people in both
Speaker 1: parties ben and women have a they shouldn't affairs, destroy marriages,
Speaker 1: destroy lives. But this is not the first time that
Speaker 1: has happened in the history of the world. Paying an
Speaker 1: adulterous lover to keep quiet is something an awful lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats, an awful lot of Republicans have done. It's
Speaker 1: not good or writer moral, it is typically not illegal
Speaker 1: to do. So what is the Manhattan Day's theory here, Well,
Speaker 1: it's based on something called New York Penal Law one
Speaker 1: seventy five dot zero five. That is a statute that
Speaker 1: makes it a crime when an individual number one makes
Speaker 1: or causes a false entry in the business records of
Speaker 1: an enterprise, or two alters a races, obliterates, delete, removes,
Speaker 1: or destroys a true entry in the business records of
Speaker 1: an enterprise, or three omits to make a true entry
Speaker 1: in the business records of an enterprise in violation of
Speaker 1: a duty to do so which he knows to be
Speaker 1: imposed on him by law, or the nature of his position,
Speaker 1: or four prevents the making of a true trier causes
Speaker 1: the emission thereofs in the business records of an enterprise. Now,
Speaker 1: what the heck does that mean. It's a bookkeeping requirement.
Speaker 1: It's basically, don't keep bogus books. Don't keep fake books
Speaker 1: in a business. Now, the allegation here is that the
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty thousand dollars was recorded as legal
Speaker 1: expenses because Trump paid Michael Cohen one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, when in fact it was not legal expenses
Speaker 1: in the sense of paying the hourly rate of your lawyer,
Speaker 1: but it was money that was given to Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: to keep quiet. So that's the allegation. Now, it actually
Speaker 1: gets more complicated than that because New York penal law
Speaker 1: WON seventy five dot O five is a second degree
Speaker 1: Class A misdemeanor which has a maximum jail sentence of
Speaker 1: one year and has a two year statute of limitations,
Speaker 1: which means the DA can't charge Trump for something that
Speaker 1: happened seven years ago as a misdemeanor, because the statute
Speaker 1: of limitations has run. So what would the DA do. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a second provision, which is New York Penal Law
Speaker 1: one seventy five dot one zero. That is a felony,
Speaker 1: And for it to be a felony, which has a
Speaker 1: longer statute of limitations, the prosecutor must prove that Trump
Speaker 1: committed the misdemeanor business record falsifications, and that his intent
Speaker 1: to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or
Speaker 1: to aid in concealing the commission of another crime. So
Speaker 1: he's got a piggyback. Not just was this a bogus
Speaker 1: business record, but it was done to hide the commission
Speaker 1: of another crime. And presumably the theory for the other
Speaker 1: crime would be some sort of election federal election violation,
Speaker 1: that this money was somehow a campaign expenditure that you
Speaker 1: were hiding. It would be something like that. Now, Number one,
Speaker 1: the Muller Report already examined this exact issue. Did Donald
Speaker 1: Trump commit a federal campaign violation through the alleged one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty thousand dollar hush payment to Stormy Daniels?
Speaker 1: And Mueller decided not to prosecute, decided there was not
Speaker 1: enough here to prosecute. The Southern District to New York
Speaker 1: the US prosecutor in New York, and I think it's
Speaker 1: fair to say there is no love lost between the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York and Donald Trump. They decided
Speaker 1: not to prosecute because the evidence. A because Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: is an exceptionally unreliable witness, someone would have I think,
Speaker 1: serious credibility problems. But B because this is really really attenuated. Look,
Speaker 1: they actually tried to prosecute John Edwards. Remember John Edwards,
Speaker 1: the former Democrat senator who did the same thing, paid
Speaker 1: off his mistress to keep her quiet, and they went
Speaker 1: after him, alleging that that was really a campaign expenditure,
Speaker 1: and they lost. The jury said get the hell out
Speaker 1: of here or they lost. So in this instance, the
Speaker 1: Manhattan DA has to piggybank one alleged state violation on
Speaker 1: another alleged federal violation, both of which are exceptionally weak legally.
Speaker 1: This is about as flimsy a case as you can imagine.
Speaker 1: If this case is tried, how does that play out?
Speaker 1: He's indicted, you get a mug shot, Is there a
Speaker 1: trial date that would then be set, because the question
Speaker 1: is going to be how does that affect the president's
Speaker 1: run for the presidency. He's already announced he's gonna run
Speaker 1: again senator, So how does that play out? And can
Speaker 1: do you go to trial quickly so it's not in
Speaker 1: the middle of an election or does this just could
Speaker 1: it be held up in court for a year or two?
Speaker 1: And how does that play out politically? So usually you
Speaker 1: would go to court relatively quickly on this sort of thing. Now,
Speaker 1: I will readily admit I have not practiced law in
Speaker 1: New York state courts. I've certainly not practiced criminal law
Speaker 1: in New York state courts, so I don't have personal
Speaker 1: familiarity with trying a case like this in New York
Speaker 1: state courts. That being said, typically for a criminal provision,
Speaker 1: there's a speedy trial obligation, and this would ordinarily proceed
Speaker 1: relatively quickly. The first step would be the district attorney
Speaker 1: going and getting an indictment from a grand jury. Now,
Speaker 1: given given the politics in New York, I suspect it
Speaker 1: would be very easy to get an indictment. When you
Speaker 1: get an indictment from a grand jury, the criminal defendant
Speaker 1: isn't in there. Your lawyer doesn't get to make an
Speaker 1: argument to the grand jury as to why you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be indicted. And so that leads to the old aphorism
Speaker 1: that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. And so
Speaker 1: I think if the DA decides to go seek an indictment,
Speaker 1: he'll get an indictment in all likelihood. But bringing this
Speaker 1: case to the jury is going to be exceptionally difficult,
Speaker 1: even a biased jury of partisan Democrats. The evidence here
Speaker 1: is really flimsy. Look number one, listen. I think cases
Speaker 1: where people are engaged in sexual infidelities and trying to
Speaker 1: cover it up, There's been a long history of politicians
Speaker 1: doing that. Donald Trump is not the first politician alleged
Speaker 1: to have done that. Obviously, Bill Clinton famously had a
Speaker 1: career involved in doing this. John Edwards had these issues.
Speaker 1: I think juries are often skeptical of holding people accountable
Speaker 1: for what they view as essentially private and personal failings
Speaker 1: rather than official corruption. I think a lot of juries
Speaker 1: are not going to be eager to convict, particularly the
Speaker 1: first criminal conviction of a former president of the United
Speaker 1: States and the history of our nation. I think there
Speaker 1: is an understanding that if that is going to happen,
Speaker 1: the threshold needs to be significant. It shouldn't be some
Speaker 1: little ticky tack book keeping claim that if Trump's name
Speaker 1: were Donald Smith, the chances that Alvin Bragg would be
Speaker 1: bringing this case are zero. It is one hundred percent
Speaker 1: because he hates Donald Trump why this case will be brought.
Speaker 1: All point out. Also, look, we've talked a lot in
Speaker 1: the podcast about how I believe the Biden Department of
Speaker 1: Justice wants to indict Trump, and I think Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: personally wants to indict Trump on federal charges, federal charges that,
Speaker 1: if brought, I think would be more serious than these
Speaker 1: charges that apparently are going to be brought this week.
Speaker 1: But Merrick Garland's effort has gotten much much more complicated
Speaker 1: because I think DJ was on the verge of indicting
Speaker 1: Trump for the classified documents at Marlago, when suddenly Joe
Speaker 1: Biden appeared to have classified documents just about everywhere, almost
Speaker 1: stuck in the glove compartment of his corvette. I mean it,
Speaker 1: And as we talked about in this podcast, look, legally
Speaker 1: that's not technically a problem, but it creates an obvious
Speaker 1: political problem because the double standard is evident if the
Speaker 1: bidendj says, if Trump has classified documents, we want to
Speaker 1: put him in jail. But if Biden has classified documents
Speaker 1: at his home, no biggie, all good with us. Even
Speaker 1: people not paying attention say, wait a second, that's a
Speaker 1: double standard. Well, here's a huge double standard with the
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg potential prosecution of Trump, which is the theory
Speaker 1: that he's basing it on that Trump gave one hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty thousand dollars recorded it as legal fees, when
Speaker 1: in fact it was hush money to Stormy Daniels. Well,
Speaker 1: that is precise sleep the charge that was raised against
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton funded the so called Steele dossier.
Speaker 1: This is something again that I discuss at great length
Speaker 1: in the book Justice Corrupted the Steele Dossier. The Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign paid over a million dollars to make the
Speaker 1: Steele dossier, which is it's a work of fiction, it
Speaker 1: is a political hit job. But she covered up the
Speaker 1: payments for making the Steele dossier by calling those payments
Speaker 1: legal fees. So she did the exact same thing Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is accused of doing. Well, and to be clear,
Speaker 1: she was not indicted. I want to make that very clear.
Speaker 1: Remind people of the double standard here. She was not indicted.
Speaker 1: By the way, She's a resident of New York, so
Speaker 1: she could have been indicted under this statute by this
Speaker 1: DA and by the way, she did it at the
Speaker 1: same time Trump was doing. This is the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: so she literally did exactly the same thing at exactly
Speaker 1: the same place, at exactly the same time. But Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg is a Democrat, so he doesn't want to indict
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton even though their conduct was identical. Although let
Speaker 1: me put in a caveat, I have no evidence to
Speaker 1: suggest that Hillary Clinton had a sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels,
Speaker 1: so that conduct I'm not suggesting was identical. But the
Speaker 1: payments that are called legal fees, they both did the
Speaker 1: exact same thing. How the hell do you just go
Speaker 1: after the opposing party and not your own party's nominee.
Speaker 1: I got to ask you also about the timing of this.
Speaker 1: There was big breaking news that the Biden crime family
Speaker 1: had expanded this past week with payments coming from the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist governments. You know, these sectors and jobs that
Speaker 1: were sending cash back to the Biden crime family now
Speaker 1: has expanded to more family members, and exactly the same
Speaker 1: week that happens this story breaks. Now, before I get
Speaker 1: your reaction, I don't want to tell you about Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: If you're a conservative and you care about working and
Speaker 1: standing with companies that actually protect and defend your values,
Speaker 1: one way you can stand up for what you believe
Speaker 1: in is by switching your cell phone to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile is growing and they are the largest and
Speaker 1: only conservative Christian cell phone provider in the country. Now
Speaker 1: here's the part that you're gonna love. They take a
Speaker 1: portion of your bill every month that no extra cost
Speaker 1: to you, and give it back to conservative causes and
Speaker 1: organizations that you stand for. We're talking about protecting, defending
Speaker 1: our First and our Second Amendment rights, standing up for
Speaker 1: unborn children, and even helping with adoptions. With Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: you get great cell phone service, the same coverage you
Speaker 1: have right now. You have to keep your same cell
Speaker 1: phone number, and many times you can keep your same
Speaker 1: cell phone if you want to, or upgrade to a
Speaker 1: new one while paying that bill every month. You stand
Speaker 1: up for what you believe in. So call them. Eight
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot is the number. Eight seven eight Patriot.
Speaker 1: Use the promo code Verdict and you'll get the best
Speaker 1: deals of the day eight seven eight Patriot or online
Speaker 1: at Patriotmobile dot com. That's Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. Senator,
Speaker 1: I want to go back to the point I was
Speaker 1: making a moment ago, and that is this week was
Speaker 1: a really big week in the news area, to the
Speaker 1: point where even Biden's team had to respond Hunter. Biden's
Speaker 1: team had to respond about these new allegations that there
Speaker 1: was millions coming in from shady Chinese companies are directly
Speaker 1: tied to the Communist government, and expanded the list of
Speaker 1: people with the last same Biden who were receiving these
Speaker 1: funds from these shady business deals that we're all being
Speaker 1: run through Hunter and James Biden. Then in the middle
Speaker 1: of the same week when this happens and they're forced
Speaker 1: to respond, Bam, we're hearing about an indictment of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Is there any connection in your mind between these timing
Speaker 1: of these stories. Look, I don't know that that was
Speaker 1: the driving factor for Alvin Bragg my suspicion as Bragg
Speaker 1: is not a big fan of Biden either, so I
Speaker 1: doubt that that was his driving motivation to cover up
Speaker 1: for the growing evidence of Biden family corruption. Now I
Speaker 1: will say, you know you pointed out you said last
Speaker 1: week was a big week. My reaction listening to that
Speaker 1: was to chuckle. I'm like, well, wait a second, how
Speaker 1: could that possibly be. I didn't see it on CNN.
Speaker 1: I didn't see it on ABC or CBS or NBC. Like,
Speaker 1: the corporate media just ignores the evidence. So if you
Speaker 1: listen to this podcast, you know the facts. If you
Speaker 1: listen to a handful of conservative media outlets, you can
Speaker 1: find at least some of the facts. But the corporate
Speaker 1: media utterly ignores it. So my suspicion about the timing
Speaker 1: is it was less that Bragg is driven by wanting
Speaker 1: to change the media story, but the instant this began happening,
Speaker 1: I think the media was more than eager to jump
Speaker 1: all over it and change the topic because they certainly
Speaker 1: didn't want to be forced to discuss the evidence that
Speaker 1: came out last week that up to four Biden family
Speaker 1: members now collectively received over one million dollars from the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist That's a big, big deal. The media doesn't
Speaker 1: want anyone to know about it, and so the best
Speaker 1: way to do that is to talk instead about who
Speaker 1: Trump was sleeping with a decade ago. And if we
Speaker 1: can talk about porn stars and distract people from the
Speaker 1: sitting president and his family receiving over a million bucks
Speaker 1: from the Chinese communist well that's that's convenient for the
Speaker 1: political narrative from the corporate media. One of the things
Speaker 1: that the media is covering is Donald Trump in there
Speaker 1: now saying that he is threatening violence again. He put
Speaker 1: out a message about the possible is possible arrests. And
Speaker 1: I want people to be able to hear what Trump
Speaker 1: had to say quickly, and then I want you to
Speaker 1: hear CNN clearly take him out of context, treating him Mike,
Speaker 1: he's a domestic terrorist. Here's Trump in his own words.
Speaker 1: These four horrible radical left Democrat investigations of your all
Speaker 1: time favorite president me is just a continuation of the
Speaker 1: most disgusting witch hunt in the history of our country.
Speaker 1: It's gone on forever with the Russia, Russia, Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Ukraine and the Mueller hooks. It's an absolute disgrace. What's
Speaker 1: going on. They even spied on my campaign, and remember this,
Speaker 1: with all of the work that they did on Mueller.
Speaker 1: No collusion, that's what the answer was was all no collusion.
Speaker 1: Whether it's the Marlago raid or the Unselect Committee hoax,
Speaker 1: the perfect Georgia phone call, it was absolutely perfect, or
Speaker 1: the stormy horse faced Daniels extortion plot, they're all sick
Speaker 1: and it's fake news. Are of means, are desperate to
Speaker 1: stop us because they know that we are the only
Speaker 1: ones who can stop them, and they know it very strongly.
Speaker 1: And they're looking at the polls where not me, but
Speaker 1: we are up by so much they can't even believe it. Now.
Speaker 1: You hear him say that, And how does CNN spin it?
Speaker 1: They say that the President of the United States of
Speaker 1: America is threatening violence again and he should be treated
Speaker 1: basically like a domestic terrorist. Your CNN and their own words,
Speaker 1: your reaction to Trump's claim that he will be arrested Tuesday,
Speaker 1: his calls for protests, and by the way, the Manhattan
Speaker 1: Day's Office still not confirming that there is any imminent
Speaker 1: arrest or indictment that is scheduled for Tuesday, right, that's
Speaker 1: part of the story that he's putting us a specific
Speaker 1: date on it that the DA's office is not. But
Speaker 1: obviously the larger point is the one Fred that you mentioned.
Speaker 1: You know, if you are the most sympathetic observer possible
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump and you do double backflips, you can
Speaker 1: find some credence in his argument that I'm January sixth,
Speaker 1: he did not know that his language would lead to violence,
Speaker 1: But January sixth has now happened. He knows the effect
Speaker 1: of the language that he used that day and how
Speaker 1: it led to violence, and here he is coming very
Speaker 1: close to that language again. It makes it very hard
Speaker 1: to avoid the conclusion that he is willing to use
Speaker 1: the threat of violence as part of his political strategy.
Speaker 1: And that is just a reminder of the very different
Speaker 1: era we are in that we have been at any
Speaker 1: point in American history where you have Trump, the leader
Speaker 1: of a political movement who is routinely willing to raise
Speaker 1: the specter of violence as a way of advancing his goals.
Speaker 1: And so many conservative commentators and members of Congress who
Speaker 1: have condemned preemptively the possibility of indictment remained silent on
Speaker 1: his raising this threat of violence. So that I think
Speaker 1: is just enormously significant and a mark of the very
Speaker 1: different era that we are in politically that we have
Speaker 1: ever been in before. I mean, they're pretty much calling
Speaker 1: out what I do. They're calling out you, Senator, saying
Speaker 1: as a member of Congress and basically saying that you're
Speaker 1: aiding and abetting a domestic terrorist who's now calling for
Speaker 1: a massive uprising in the country. That's not what I
Speaker 1: heard from Donald Trump. I heard a former president saying,
Speaker 1: this is an activist day who's gone rogue yet again
Speaker 1: with four different times. They're batting over three on the
Speaker 1: first ones, and now they're going at me again. CNN
Speaker 1: is not a news organization. They are a left wing
Speaker 1: propaganda outlet, and they lie for a living. Every word
Speaker 1: of that diatribe, including and butt and the we're lies.
Speaker 1: Nothing Trump said was a call for violence. If you
Speaker 1: look at his truth social post, he said quote he
Speaker 1: will be arrested on Tuesday of next week. Protest, take
Speaker 1: our nation back. Now. The last I checked, the word
Speaker 1: protest is not the same thing as riot. It is
Speaker 1: not commit violence. The last I checked. The First Amendment
Speaker 1: to the Constitution, the very first protection in the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights, protects our right to protest, our right to
Speaker 1: stand up and speak out. And what the left does,
Speaker 1: and in fact, what the left has done since January sixth,
Speaker 1: is they've tried to smear the thousands of people who
Speaker 1: engaged in peaceful protests. They tried to smear those protesters
Speaker 1: with the violent action of a much smaller cohort. My
Speaker 1: view is simple in its consistence, if you commit violence,
Speaker 1: you should go to jail. The irony is that whole
Speaker 1: screed from CNN. The right does not excuse violence. If
Speaker 1: you commit violence, if you assault a police officer, you
Speaker 1: ought to be in a jail cell a long damn time.
Speaker 1: But you know who does excuse violence? The left, The
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, the media, CNN happily sat there cooing about
Speaker 1: the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots across the country,
Speaker 1: listening while Democrats called it a summer of love as
Speaker 1: great American cities burned, as police cars were firebombed, as
Speaker 1: stores were looted, as police officers were murdered. Now, let's
Speaker 1: be clear the Black Lives Matter riots, there were some
Speaker 1: people engaged in peaceful protests. They had a right to
Speaker 1: do that. But there were hundreds, if not thousands, of
Speaker 1: people engaged in organized acts of violence, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: turned a blind eye to it. The media not only
Speaker 1: ignored it, they celebrated it and Kamala Harris went so
Speaker 1: far as to raise bail money to bail out of
Speaker 1: jail the violent criminals committing acts of violence. And you
Speaker 1: don't have to go back three years ago, you can
Speaker 1: go to right now. Right now. You have aggressive, threatening
Speaker 1: rioters outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices, threatening
Speaker 1: the justices and their families, threatening their children. Their conduct
Speaker 1: is a federal crime. And we have an Attorney General
Speaker 1: under Joe Biden who just ignores the law, refuses to
Speaker 1: enforce that law. Why because he and the Biden White
Speaker 1: House agree with the people who are committing criminal offenses.
Speaker 1: They are quite content to use threats of violence to
Speaker 1: advance their political ends. By the way, they're also not
Speaker 1: investing resources in prosecuting the people who are firebombing crisis
Speaker 1: pregnancy centers across the country. Why because they are perfectly
Speaker 1: happy to use violence for their ends. So, look, Marxists,
Speaker 1: what they accuse you of doing, typically they are doing.
Speaker 1: And CNN illustrated that right there and then that was
Speaker 1: not a call for violence. And let's be clear my home,
Speaker 1: my prayer by urging to everyone is no one should
Speaker 1: engage in violence this week or any other week. But
Speaker 1: peaceful protesting, speaking out that is protected by the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and that is good for America. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you one final question about an eligibility issue. There's so
Speaker 1: much misinformation out there center about if the president is
Speaker 1: a indicted does he is ineligible to be president? And
Speaker 1: b if he is convicted before election day in e one,
Speaker 1: would he be ineligible. Before I get you to answer that,
Speaker 1: I want to tell everybody about our friends over at Chalk.
Speaker 1: If you're a guy and you're getting a little bit
Speaker 1: older and you feel like you've lost some of that
Speaker 1: strength and vitality, you're feeling a bit weak and just
Speaker 1: that complacency, then you need to hear what Chalk can
Speaker 1: do for you. The problem is pretty simple. Men's assass
Speaker 1: from levels are off a cliff historically, at an all
Speaker 1: time low. The patriots at Chalk are here to help
Speaker 1: real American men take back their right to proudly maximize
Speaker 1: your masculinity by boosting testostrum levels up to twenty percent
Speaker 1: over ninety days. Now you're gonna ask the question, does
Speaker 1: it work. I've been doing this now for about sixty days.
Speaker 1: I can tell you it does. I've been taking Chalk
Speaker 1: Cchoq and the Male Vitality Stack is what I've been using.
Speaker 1: It works. It's manufactured right here in the US of A.
Speaker 1: Chalks and natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have
Speaker 1: game changing effects on your energy your focus. Checkout chalkhoq
Speaker 1: dot com. Use the promo code ben for thirty five
Speaker 1: percent off any Chalk subscription for life. You can cancel
Speaker 1: anytime as Wellhoq dot com use the promo code been
Speaker 1: that Choq dot com. Finally, Senator, there's so much misinformation
Speaker 1: out there, and I've seen a lot of fodder about this,
Speaker 1: people saying, well, the Democrats win if they indict Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: that means he's an eligible to be president. I've seen
Speaker 1: others that have said, well, if he's indicted, the rush
Speaker 1: to a jury trial because if he is convicted then
Speaker 1: they'll be ineligible to be president. What does the law
Speaker 1: actually say, Well, it doesn't say any of that. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, there is no prohibition on someone who
Speaker 1: is indicted running for president. There's no prohibition on someone
Speaker 1: who is indicted being elected president. Sadly, we have seen
Speaker 1: far too many political officials, both candidates and and officeholders
Speaker 1: indicted for political and partisan reasons. In my book Justice Corrupted,
Speaker 1: and look, this podcast wasn't supposed to entirely focus on
Speaker 1: the book, but the entire book is written on what's
Speaker 1: happening right now. I talked about DJ's prosecution of Ted Stevens.
Speaker 1: Ted Stevens was a senator from Alaska. He was a Republican.
Speaker 1: He was an incredibly long serving senator. The Department of
Speaker 1: Justice brought a corruption case against him, tried him, and
Speaker 1: he ended up being defeated in the on election day,
Speaker 1: a Democrat won the Alaska Senate seat. Subsequently, it turned
Speaker 1: out the prosecution and engaged in massive misconduct and the
Speaker 1: entire thing was a political persecution. It was designed to
Speaker 1: do what it did, which is weakened him politically and
Speaker 1: let the Democrat win. Likewise, I talk about in the
Speaker 1: book the prosecution of Bob Menendez. Bob Benendez was a
Speaker 1: Democrat senator and DOJ announced that they leaked an indictment
Speaker 1: against Bob Menendez for misuse of campaign funds. But they
Speaker 1: did it literally the day that Bob Benendez announced his
Speaker 1: opposition to the Biden Iran nuclear deal. The Biden White
Speaker 1: House was mad at him because he was a Democrat.
Speaker 1: Opposing the catastrophic Iran nuclear agreement, and so their DOJ
Speaker 1: in a naked act of politics, they leaked, and they
Speaker 1: leaked then in order to punish Menendez for daring opposed
Speaker 1: the White House. By the way, we see the Biden
Speaker 1: DOJ doing political leaks constantly. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the Menendez case went to trial and they lost at trial.
Speaker 1: So there are no consequences other than political for being indicted.
Speaker 1: And the question is, well, what if you're convicted, Well,
Speaker 1: if you're convicted, that doesn't mean you're ineligible to run
Speaker 1: for president or be president either. It's happened in the past.
Speaker 1: For example, the socialist Eugene Debs ran for president four
Speaker 1: times in the early nineteen hundreds, and he was a
Speaker 1: candidate while he was in jail, so he was literally
Speaker 1: as a socialist in jail running for president. And the
Speaker 1: Constitution Article two, section one of the Constitution provides the
Speaker 1: qualifications for president, and nothing in that clause precludes felons
Speaker 1: precludes people who are incarcerated from running for president or
Speaker 1: serving as president. There is just one mechanism that could
Speaker 1: theoretically happen, which is if Trump were prosecuted, if he
Speaker 1: were convicted, and if the House of Representatives were subsequently
Speaker 1: to impeach him yet again, and if the Senate were
Speaker 1: to convict him in what would now be his third
Speaker 1: impeachment trial. One of the penalties that the Senate can
Speaker 1: impose and the impeachment of a president is to prohibit
Speaker 1: him from running for office in the future. So that
Speaker 1: is a penalty that is theoretically possible. But it would
Speaker 1: take the House of Representatives, which is controlled by a
Speaker 1: Republican majority, and it would take two thirds of the
Speaker 1: Senate to impeach and then convict Trump and make him
Speaker 1: ineligible for office. The chances of that happening I can
Speaker 1: quantify precisely or zero point zero zero percent. This is
Speaker 1: a Democrat fever dream. This is a corporate media fever dream.
Speaker 1: The consequences of this are purely political. And I want
Speaker 1: to underscore Alvin Bragg. You know, you know sometimes Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: in many respects, has enjoyed a great deal of luck
Speaker 1: in his life. And one of the areas where he's
Speaker 1: enjoyed a lot of luck is in having the right enemies.
Speaker 1: There were times where the Trump presidency was in difficult straits,
Speaker 1: and yet the Democrats and media hated him so much
Speaker 1: that they were so over the top attacking him that
Speaker 1: it had the reverse effect and it rallied voters behind him,
Speaker 1: and they said, you know, if those sobs hate him
Speaker 1: that much, he's got to be the right guy. That
Speaker 1: dynamic is very much alive here. I'll tell you if
Speaker 1: I were a partisan Democrat, if I wanted a Democrat
Speaker 1: to win in twenty twenty four as president, I would
Speaker 1: be beside myself right now that this clown from Manhattan
Speaker 1: is going to bring a case that is ridiculous, that
Speaker 1: is legally weak, and in fact, here I'll read you
Speaker 1: what Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley is a law professor, very smart,
Speaker 1: well respected law professor, left of center, but willing to
Speaker 1: speak the truth even when it doesn't further Democrats interest.
Speaker 1: Here's what Turley wrote last week in The Hill quote.
Speaker 1: Trump faces serious legal threats in the ongoing Marlago investigation,
Speaker 1: but the New York case would be easily dismissed outside
Speaker 1: of a jurisdiction like New York, where Bragg can count
Speaker 1: on highly motivated judges and jurors. Although it may be
Speaker 1: politically popular, the case is legally pathetic. Bragg is struggling
Speaker 1: to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case
Speaker 1: long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over
Speaker 1: his payment of hush money to former stripper Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 1: If Bragg brings this case and he tries it to
Speaker 1: a jury and he loses, which is what should happen,
Speaker 1: if Trump wins at trial, that single action could be
Speaker 1: the single most decisive action that elects Trump as president,
Speaker 1: that helps him win the Republican nomination number one, but
Speaker 1: that helps him win the general number two. If I
Speaker 1: were a partisan Democrat, I would be crying in my
Speaker 1: beer right now that they are so extreme, so partisan,
Speaker 1: so abusive, that they are driving the American people the
Speaker 1: other direction. Elon Musk, because he put it in a tweet.
Speaker 1: He said, if they do this, he believes that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump will get reelected in the landslide, just for the
Speaker 1: reason that you just mentioned there. If you're listening to
Speaker 1: Verdict and you have never hit that subscriber auto down
Speaker 1: with a button, this is the time to do it,
Speaker 1: because this week, I promise you, is going to be
Speaker 1: a week you don't want to miss any of our episodes.
Speaker 1: And if this does happen. I can promise you we're
Speaker 1: going to get you a response right away, so make
Speaker 1: sure you subscribe to Verdict, download it wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts, Share this podcast with your family and friends,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, please write us a five ser review.
Speaker 1: It helps us reach a bigger audience, and we'll see
Speaker 1: you back here in a couple of days