Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you, Senator.
Speaker 2: It was a massive ruling from the Supreme Court on
Speaker 2: trump immunity and there are a lot of questions now
Speaker 2: that people have about this ruling.
Speaker 3: Well, this was a major victory for President Trump in
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. It was a vote of six to three.
Speaker 3: Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and concluded that
Speaker 3: Trump has very broad immunity for official acts. We'll break
Speaker 3: down exactly what that means, but one of the things
Speaker 3: it means is that Jack Smith's prosecution is in serious,
Speaker 3: serious trouble and likely won't be able to proceed at all.
Speaker 1: We'll explain it all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there's a lot of people that have so
Speaker 2: many questions about presidential power now and what that means,
Speaker 2: the extreme left going crazy on that. Will break it down.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you real quick about Blackout Coffee. I
Speaker 2: tell you now, it's like every day I get a
Speaker 2: note from one of you saying, Ben, all right, I
Speaker 2: tried it.
Speaker 1: You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: Blackout Coffee is amazing coffee from a conservative company that said,
Speaker 2: get rid the woke brands of coffee that you're drinking. Now,
Speaker 2: this is not an average cup of coffee. This is
Speaker 2: a premium cup of coffee. I start every morning with it.
Speaker 2: I'm on the radio seven am. I gotta be awake,
Speaker 2: not woke, and I want a premium cup of coffee. Well,
Speaker 2: this coffee is one hundred percent of America and zero
Speaker 2: percent woke. Blackout is committed to conservative values, from sourcing
Speaker 2: of the beans to the roasting process, customer support, and shipping.
Speaker 2: They embody true American values and they accept no compromise
Speaker 2: on taste or quality. Now, if you've never tried Blackout Coffee,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna make it easy and I'm gonna save you
Speaker 2: a bunch of money. Go right now to Blackout Coffee
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 2: Use the cube on code vertict. You're gonna get twenty
Speaker 2: percent off your first order, whether it's traditional coffee or
Speaker 2: flavored coffee. Or if you travel a lot like I
Speaker 2: do and you want to take premium instant coffee. That
Speaker 2: is been a game changer for me. I take it
Speaker 2: with me everywhere on the road and you're gonna love it.
Speaker 2: So get twenty percent off your first order Blackoutcoffee dot
Speaker 2: com slash verdict. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict. Be Awake,
Speaker 2: not Woke, use the promo code Verdict for twenty percent
Speaker 2: off your first order.
Speaker 1: Center.
Speaker 2: I rarely say this. I don't even know where to
Speaker 2: start with this ruling. So there's two aspects. There's one
Speaker 2: the ruling itself, and I guess we should probably start there.
Speaker 2: What does this mean? And then we'll get into the
Speaker 2: politics of it afterwards. But the Supreme Court overwhelmingly said
Speaker 2: that ex presidents have substantial protection from prosecution.
Speaker 3: Well, that's right, and let me just explain a little
Speaker 3: bit of the ruling. So the Supreme Court laid out
Speaker 3: three categories of presidential action. It said, Number one, presidential
Speaker 3: action that is within the president's exclusive constitutional authority. There
Speaker 3: is absolute immunity. So what does that mean. That means
Speaker 3: powers that the Constitution gives directly to the president. Things
Speaker 3: like being the commander in chief of the armed forces,
Speaker 3: things like granting a pardon, things like nominating a judge,
Speaker 3: things like firing a cabinet member. All of those are
Speaker 3: matters that are given to the exclusive authority of the
Speaker 3: President of the United States and the second category of
Speaker 3: the court laid out are presidential powers that are shared
Speaker 3: with Congress, and in that instance, the court says the
Speaker 3: president has immunity there also, but it did not decide
Speaker 3: whether the immunity is absolute or presumptive, and presumptive beings.
Speaker 3: You presume that there's immunity, but the prosecution could lay
Speaker 3: out a strong enough case to overcome that immunity, and
Speaker 3: it leaves that question open, so that's not decided. The
Speaker 3: third category are unofficial actions and unofficial actions not exercising
Speaker 3: the power of the presidency. Those have no immunity whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And what the.
Speaker 3: Court then did is remanded the case all the way
Speaker 3: back to the trial court for the trial court to
Speaker 3: figure out which of the actions that are alleged in
Speaker 3: the indictment fall into which category.
Speaker 2: That is, to break us down Layman's terms means they
Speaker 2: they basically said, you guys didn't do it right. You
Speaker 2: didn't even categorize it correctly. We're sending it back to
Speaker 2: you do your paperwork the right way, in essence, and
Speaker 2: then start all over.
Speaker 3: Yes, but but it's not quite as harsh as that.
Speaker 3: This is something courts do all the time, and in particular,
Speaker 3: look the court is laying out a new test here.
Speaker 3: So anytime the court is laying out new rules, it
Speaker 3: is commonplace to send the case back to the lower
Speaker 3: court to apply those rules, to figure out what those
Speaker 3: rules mean with respect to the specific case. And part
Speaker 3: of the reason is the way our appellate system works
Speaker 3: is courts of appeals review decisions and judgments made by
Speaker 3: the lower courts, and so it is an exercise of
Speaker 3: judicial restraint to say, let's let the lower court figure
Speaker 3: this out first and then will review any arguments of
Speaker 3: error on appeal.
Speaker 2: So this is why the timeline is significant, right with
Speaker 2: the election coming up.
Speaker 3: Yes, and so one almost certain outcome is there will
Speaker 3: be no trial on Jack Smith's case on January sixth,
Speaker 3: before election day? Did that there simply isn't time. It's
Speaker 3: before the district judge. She's going to have to go through.
Speaker 3: This is going to be very complicated legal analysis. Both
Speaker 3: sides are going to present arguments as to what is
Speaker 3: what is an exclusive official act which is absolutely immune,
Speaker 3: What is an official act whether that is entitled to
Speaker 3: presumptive immunity or absolute immunity, and what is not an
Speaker 3: official act that is entitled to no immunity, and that
Speaker 3: is going to be action by action, and it will
Speaker 3: be I think Jack Smith is going to have a
Speaker 3: very difficult time having any of us case survive.
Speaker 2: When you look at Jack Smith and you mentioned any
Speaker 2: of his case surviving, this case was clearly brought to
Speaker 2: either put Trump in jail, tie him up in court,
Speaker 2: interfere with the election. Could they even go forward with
Speaker 2: this case if hypothetically Donald Trump does win the presidency
Speaker 2: all over again, would that affect the case or basically
Speaker 2: kill the case? And if he loses, what's the point
Speaker 2: of moving forward because he's no longer in theory of
Speaker 2: threats to the Democratic Party being the president? Is that
Speaker 2: another reason just to say, all right, well, we did
Speaker 2: what we need to do. We wanted to accuse him
Speaker 2: of a bunch of things and throw jell ou at
Speaker 2: a wall.
Speaker 3: So theoretically the case could proceed in either instance. However,
Speaker 3: if Trump loses, You're right, the urgency of the case
Speaker 3: from the perspective of the Democrat partisans is reduced. If
Speaker 3: Trump wins, this case is over and it doesn't have
Speaker 3: to be over, by the way, But when Trump is
Speaker 3: sworn in on January twentieth, twenty twenty five. The instant
Speaker 3: he's sworn in, he has the authority to direct the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice dismiss the case. The Attorney General works
Speaker 3: for him, and I fully expect at twelve oh one
Speaker 3: on January twentieth, new President Trump will instruct the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice dismiss both of these prosecutions. They were political prosecutions.
Speaker 3: They should not have been brought, and you are to
Speaker 3: go to court as the prosecutor and say we're dismissing
Speaker 3: our claims.
Speaker 2: Bill Barr, who has been very critical of the president,
Speaker 2: he even came out and said this former US Attorney
Speaker 2: General obviously about the immunity decision.
Speaker 1: I want to get your reaction to that.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you first off about what this case
Speaker 4: comes down to. The Donald Trump has absolute immunity from
Speaker 4: criminal prosecution, but only for official acts. Is it going
Speaker 4: to be up to a lower court than the determined
Speaker 4: the difference.
Speaker 5: That's right.
Speaker 6: I think this was a very sensible decision that I
Speaker 6: think most lawyers familiar with this area expected, which is
Speaker 6: this went up to the court in a very abstract posture,
Speaker 6: which was the government's very broad assertion there was no
Speaker 6: immunity whatsoever, what the Court saying here is no, there's
Speaker 6: absolute immunity when he's acting directly under the Constitution, carrying
Speaker 6: out a function under the Constitution. There is presumptive immunity
Speaker 6: when he performs an official act, and the government has
Speaker 6: the burden of showing that it can prosecute him for
Speaker 6: that without impairing the executive function. And finally, there's no
Speaker 6: immunity for unofficial or private acts, I think. And the
Speaker 6: practical effect of this is that the District Court is
Speaker 6: going to do what it really should have done at
Speaker 6: the beginning, which the government really should have had it due,
Speaker 6: which is due the analysis. So the facts are going
Speaker 6: up to the Supreme Court. So as a practical matter,
Speaker 6: there's not going to be a trial of this case
Speaker 6: before the election.
Speaker 2: That's the ballgame, right, I mean, this is another massive
Speaker 2: victory for Trump.
Speaker 3: It is a massive victory for Trump, and now the
Speaker 3: District Court is going to have to sort it out.
Speaker 3: But let's talk a little bit about what those categories
Speaker 3: mean and why the court drew that distinction. And let's
Speaker 3: start with Category three. Private acts. There are all sorts
Speaker 3: of things that are private accident for which there is
Speaker 3: no immunity. If Joe Biden wandered outside the White House
Speaker 3: and saw a man walking on the street and pulled
Speaker 3: out a gun and shot him. That would have no
Speaker 3: immunity because that's a private act. That's not exercising an authority,
Speaker 3: a power of the president. That's just committing murder. If
Speaker 3: a president sexually assaulted an inturn, say, that would have
Speaker 3: no immunity because that's also not a presidential power. That's
Speaker 3: not exercising presidential authority. That's committing a private wrong. If
Speaker 3: a president committed, say, perjury or obstruction of justice. Let's say, hypothetically,
Speaker 3: a president named William Jefferson Clinton, who was facing a
Speaker 3: civil lawsuit went into the civil lawsuit.
Speaker 1: And lied.
Speaker 3: That lie under oath about his sexual activities. That is
Speaker 3: in no way of shape or form an official act.
Speaker 3: That is a private act. Under this decision, that president
Speaker 3: could be prosecuted for perjury or obstruction of justice if
Speaker 3: he goes and hides the dress with evidence of his
Speaker 3: sexual activity and obstructs an investigation into it, that could
Speaker 3: likewise be prosecuted. All of those are private acts.
Speaker 1: There's no.
Speaker 3: There's no presidential power being carried out there. The court's reasoning,
Speaker 3: so that's category three. But there's very little, if anything
Speaker 3: in jack Smith's indictment that arguably falls into that category.
Speaker 3: This is not private misconduct. Category one, the category that
Speaker 3: the Court says is absolutely immune. The Court focuses on
Speaker 3: the text of the Constitution, and actually it draws it
Speaker 3: draws this model from a landmark decision of the Court
Speaker 3: called Youngstown Steel and Youngstown Steel dealt with when Harry
Speaker 3: Truman seized steel mills and Justice Robert Jackson, one of
Speaker 3: the greatest Supreme Court justices ever to serve on the Court,
Speaker 3: described different levels of presidential power. And he described presidential
Speaker 3: power when the president was acting in concert with Congress,
Speaker 3: and congressional authority said, their presidential power is at its highest.
Speaker 3: And then he said, a second category is when the
Speaker 3: president is acting in an area where Congress has been silent,
Speaker 3: their presidential power is at a middle level. And a
Speaker 3: third category is what a president is acting directly contrary
Speaker 3: to what Congress has said, and there he says presidential
Speaker 3: power is at its lowest because you've got two branches
Speaker 3: in conflict. That was a model the Court drew upon
Speaker 3: here and what the Court concluded through its reasoning from
Speaker 3: Article two of the Constitution, which vests quote, executive power
Speaker 3: in a president of the United States of America, which
Speaker 3: grants the president duties of quote unrivaled gravity and breadth.
Speaker 3: And it reason that the president's authority to act if
Speaker 3: it stems from either an Act of Congress or from
Speaker 3: the Constitution itself, and when acting within the constitutional authority,
Speaker 3: the president's actions are beyond the scope of congressional or
Speaker 3: judicial review. And the Court further held that an Act
Speaker 3: of Congress cannot criminalize the president's actions within his exclusive
Speaker 3: constitutional power, and that courts cannot adjudicate a criminal prosecution
Speaker 3: examining such actions. And so the reasoning there is, listen,
Speaker 3: if the president is exercising a power that the source
Speaker 3: of the power is the Constitution. Congress doesn't have the
Speaker 3: power to step in and say we're going to take
Speaker 3: away the power that the Constitution gave you, because the
Speaker 3: Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Speaker 2: So I've got like fifteen different questions, and I want
Speaker 2: to go through these because it's the question I think
Speaker 2: everybody's asking. Democrats when this came out, the first thing
Speaker 2: they started fantasizing over was, fine, well, we've just gotten
Speaker 2: a dictator and a tyrant in the White House if
Speaker 2: Trump gets back in and do whatever he wants to
Speaker 2: and they say, well, then you know what, if he's
Speaker 2: going to do it, then maybe we should do it.
Speaker 2: Let's just send sealed seam to six is a official
Speaker 2: act to go after and just take out Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: That was what they were talking about online. That would
Speaker 2: not be covered under an official act. Correct, Well, it's
Speaker 2: actually more complicated than that. And this is a hypothetical
Speaker 2: that's been asked at several stages in the litigation. In
Speaker 2: the Federal Court of Appeals. They asked that hypothetical to
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers at the Supreme Court. That example is used
Speaker 2: by one of the descents in the Supreme Court. And look,
Speaker 2: the reason it's complicated is because the presidency has vast authorities,
Speaker 2: and one of those authorities is being commander in chief
Speaker 2: of the armed forces. The president does have the power
Speaker 2: to kill people and has always had the power to
Speaker 2: kill people. And to be clear, every president who's ever
Speaker 2: served has killed people. That is part of the power
Speaker 2: commander in chief. Now you have responsibilities in terms of
Speaker 2: how to do it. But I'll give an example. Barack
Speaker 2: Obama order the drone killings of US citizens abroad who
Speaker 2: were believed to be terrorists. He ordered the military said
Speaker 2: a drone over there and blow that guy up. Now,
Speaker 2: to be clear, Ben, if you or I did that,
Speaker 2: we'd be prosecuted for murder. We don't have the ability
Speaker 2: to order the drone killings of an American citizen. Barack
Speaker 2: Obama was now charged with murder, and so part of
Speaker 2: the reason why that hypothetical. Look, it sounds absurd, but
Speaker 2: remember presidents are given massive authority, including literally the authority
Speaker 2: to push a button and launch nuclear weapons that could
Speaker 2: annihilate humanity.
Speaker 1: It is terrified.
Speaker 3: It's one of the reasons why Joe Biden being non
Speaker 3: compassmentus but not being utterly unaware of what's around him
Speaker 3: is so damn dangerous because he's the one person in
Speaker 3: America that has the power to exterminate our species.
Speaker 2: In the three that dissented in this ruling, one of
Speaker 2: the examples, I want to go back to it because
Speaker 2: the Justice Claim immunity ruling allowed Presence to poison staff
Speaker 2: and again their example, I have Navy sealed team members
Speaker 2: kill political rivals. The Chief Justice Roberts really pushed back hard,
Speaker 2: saying that was nothing but fear mongering. So to be clear,
Speaker 2: this does not give the present power to poison their staff, right.
Speaker 1: It does not.
Speaker 3: But all right, what are the checks that would stop
Speaker 3: a president from ordering Seal Team six to kill a
Speaker 3: political rival.
Speaker 1: One of the most.
Speaker 3: Important checks is Seal Team six could and should refuse
Speaker 3: that order. That the military has an obligation. If there
Speaker 3: is an order that is plainly unlawful, the military should
Speaker 3: refuse to carry it out. And so if Joe Biden
Speaker 3: told Seal Team six, go kill Donald Trump, which by
Speaker 3: the way, lefties on Twitter are calling for every two minutes,
Speaker 3: which shows you listen when you're a ttalitarian that wants
Speaker 3: to hold power at any time. It is interesting how
Speaker 3: revealing it is that they're immediately calling for murder.
Speaker 1: That that says a lot. But the first check.
Speaker 3: Would be that a blatantly unlawful order would be refused
Speaker 3: to be carried out by the military. Secondly, if God forbid,
Speaker 3: we had truly an abusive tyrant as president, and if
Speaker 3: the military refused to carry it out, the next immediate
Speaker 3: step would be impeachment. And it you would have to
Speaker 3: assume if a president murdered his rival, that you would
Speaker 3: see Congress and peach him immediately.
Speaker 2: Well, even on MSNBC, they were having this conversation on
Speaker 2: this scot of immunity ruling, and they said, in their words,
Speaker 2: Trump could target like journalists could target.
Speaker 1: Quote me, That's what Wallace said.
Speaker 2: And then he said people, if he wins, will be
Speaker 2: forced to flee the country.
Speaker 7: Listen, frame court in Russia exists, but none of us
Speaker 7: think that there's a rule of law there.
Speaker 1: When you look at this hands, it just doesn't know it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly, Mark Elias. We should pull the curtain back
Speaker 7: on what's actually happening, shouldn't we.
Speaker 1: People are exploring.
Speaker 7: Options to live in other countries if they think they
Speaker 7: could be targeted for prosecution by Donald Trump, because targeting you,
Speaker 7: or targeting me, or targeting Andrew would be an official
Speaker 7: act based on today's decision.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean they could target for criminal prosecution, they
Speaker 5: could target or administrative investigation, the IRS, the SEC, the EPA.
Speaker 2: I mean they're not just talking about death, they're talking
Speaker 2: about using the president saying I'm going to target everybody
Speaker 2: I want to and use all of the things by
Speaker 2: the way which Democrats have done. They've used the justice system,
Speaker 2: they use the irs of the Tea Party, for example,
Speaker 2: They've gone after people and raid their homes. Steve Bannon's
Speaker 2: in jail right now. The list goes on and on
Speaker 2: and on of all the things that they're doing actually
Speaker 2: right now before this ruling that had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with this ruling. Now they're like, well, we're going to
Speaker 2: have to leave the country because he's just going to
Speaker 2: target all of us.
Speaker 3: So I got to say, what utter garbage the two
Speaker 3: of them. Oh, they're going to target us, the going
Speaker 3: to targets. That's what Joe Biden is doing right now,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. This Justice Department is the most lawless, partisan,
Speaker 3: weaponized abuse system of justice ever seen. The absolute irony
Speaker 3: of those people saying, oh, Trump's gonna do that. You
Speaker 3: know what, when he was president before, he didn't do that.
Speaker 3: It is you, you dishonest partisan hacks that are going after
Speaker 3: that have the four indicement against Trump. As you noted,
Speaker 3: Steve Bannon is in jail right now. They are, Peter
Speaker 3: Navarro is in jail right now. You're going after pro
Speaker 3: life protesters, you're attacking, you're refusing to go after people,
Speaker 3: are firebombing pregnancy resource centers. The absolute hypocrisy. The people
Speaker 3: who invented weaponization are now saying, well, we're scared we'll
Speaker 3: be targeted. It's utter garbage. You know, I got to say,
Speaker 3: you're and my friend Jesse Kelly, he tweeted it in
Speaker 3: response to this. I think his tweet was very insightful.
Speaker 3: He said, you know what you call it when Scotus
Speaker 3: reveals the president has an community and the first thought
Speaker 3: the communists have is about using the military to execute
Speaker 3: political opponents. In poker, that's known as a tell. For instance,
Speaker 3: if you told me that the president could do whatever
Speaker 3: he wanted without restriction, my very first thought would be
Speaker 3: about firing government employees and eliminating entire federal agencies. For communists,
Speaker 3: their thoughts go directly to murder. Again a tell.
Speaker 2: It's a great point, and it goes back to the
Speaker 2: insanity of all of them. They do this, and then
Speaker 2: you know, you look at the Supreme Court and again
Speaker 2: I go back to listen to Norm Essen on CNN
Speaker 2: immediately after this happens.
Speaker 1: Listen to what he says, when.
Speaker 8: The president does it, that means it is not illegal.
Speaker 8: So in this context, with what the court has decided,
Speaker 8: norm does this mean that Nixon basically would have been
Speaker 8: able to do what he did completely legally without any recourse.
Speaker 7: You could have had.
Speaker 9: Substantial portions of Richard Nixon's wrongdoing that drove him from
Speaker 9: office because it was conducted from the Oval office, using
Speaker 9: his official advisors to engage in break ins. A wide
Speaker 9: variety of other illegal activity would have been impossible to prosecute. Essentially,
Speaker 9: what the Supreme Court majority, again including terribly conflicted justices
Speaker 9: who have no business sitting on this case under any
Speaker 9: standard of judicial ethics, what they've done, Sarah, is rewrite
Speaker 9: American history. It goes all the way back to the
Speaker 9: founding American idea. We overthrew King George the Third because
Speaker 9: we did not want a ruler to have this kind
Speaker 9: of absolute immunity, and the Supreme Court has now altered that.
Speaker 9: And we have to be honest that we're facing a
Speaker 9: major party political candidate who has said he wants to
Speaker 9: be a dictator on day one, he wants to assert
Speaker 9: autocratic powers. They've just given him a license for dictatorship
Speaker 9: within the purview of official acts. That should be extremely alarming,
Speaker 9: and it makes this momentous election really a referendum on
Speaker 9: the future of American democracy.
Speaker 2: A license for dictatorship, like, come on, CNN.
Speaker 3: What utter garbage, and again that the Freudian projection is
Speaker 3: so utterly rich. It is Joe Biden whose Department of
Speaker 3: Justice is targeting its political enemies. It is Joe Biden
Speaker 3: who is engaged in rampant censorship of the free speech
Speaker 3: of American citizens. It is Joe Biden who issued a
Speaker 3: blatantly illegal vaccine mandate that was thrown out by the courts,
Speaker 3: but fired thousands and thousands of active duty service men
Speaker 3: and women, fired FBI agents, fired Border patrol agents because
Speaker 3: they refuse to comply with his illegal vaccine mandate. And
Speaker 3: to be clear, the court struck down his vaccine mandate,
Speaker 3: but he had already gotten rid of the people he
Speaker 3: wanted to get rid of. It is Joe Biden who
Speaker 3: repeatedly issues lawless orders trying to give away a trillion
Speaker 3: dollars in student loans that he has no legal authority
Speaker 3: to do. He knows they'll get struck down in court,
Speaker 3: but he's trying to buy votes. That is utterly lawless.
Speaker 3: It is Joe Biden who, on the border is ignoring
Speaker 3: the entirety of federal immigration law and is released, has
Speaker 3: allowed eleven million people to come into this country illegally.
Speaker 3: Who is ignoring the Americans who are being murdered, who
Speaker 3: are being raped by the criminals he's releasing. And yet
Speaker 3: you have these numbskulls go on CNN and say, oh, well,
Speaker 3: this means Trump can be a dictator. Trump didn't do
Speaker 3: any of that. Everything I just listed Trump actually followed
Speaker 3: the law, He exercised his power. He implemented policies that
Speaker 3: proved very beneficial for the American people. It is the Democrats.
Speaker 3: And look, look when Alexandro Majorcas was impeached for utterly
Speaker 3: defying the law, for refusing to follow immigration law, every
Speaker 3: single Democrat in the Senate, all of them voted to
Speaker 3: throw out the case and to hear no evidence. So
Speaker 3: they don't care about the rule of law. They care
Speaker 3: about power. The reason they're angry and hyperventilating is because
Speaker 3: this case is an effort to weaponize the justice system
Speaker 3: to stop the voters from voting to elect Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: and this ruling they view as getting in the way
Speaker 3: of what they want to do, which is weaponized the
Speaker 3: justice system to subvert democracy. The irony is, he says,
Speaker 3: this is a blow to democracy. What they're doing is
Speaker 3: an attack on democracy, and they're frustrated that their attack
Speaker 3: on democracy is not working.
Speaker 2: This June marked two years since the overturn of Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 2: and you may not realize that the number of abortions
Speaker 2: actually increase the following year. In twenty twenty three, the
Speaker 2: amount of abortions reach its highest level since twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: with the abortion pill accounting for up to sixty three
Speaker 2: percent of all abortions.
Speaker 1: It's tragically no surprise. Now.
Speaker 2: Preborn is an organization I want you to know about
Speaker 2: and I want you to get involved with. They are
Speaker 2: continuing to stand strong for women in crisis and at
Speaker 2: risk babies. Preborn is a ministry of compassion that showers
Speaker 2: women and babies with God's love, providing free ultrasounds to
Speaker 2: mothers with unplanned pregnancies to introduce them to the precious
Speaker 2: life that's growing inside of them. Here's what's amazing. When
Speaker 2: a mother meets her baby on ultrasound, and here's that
Speaker 2: baby's heartbeat. She is twice is likely to choose life.
Speaker 2: Twenty eight dollars sponsors one ultrasound, and one hundred and
Speaker 2: forty dollars help to rescue five babies. Your generous tax
Speaker 2: deeductible donation will also help to provide women who choose
Speaker 2: life with assistance for up to two years. So please
Speaker 2: give give your best gift. To donate, it's very easy.
Speaker 2: Dial pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's
Speaker 2: pound two fifty. Say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty.
Speaker 2: Say the keyword baby. Or visit preborn dot com slash
Speaker 2: verdict that's preborn dot com slash verdict Center. My final
Speaker 2: question for you now is the politics of this. You
Speaker 2: got Twitter going crazy in the left saying, all right,
Speaker 2: we'll just take out Donald Trump, which is I thought
Speaker 2: against law, but apparently not. You've got the media saying, well,
Speaker 2: this means that Donald Trump, if he gets elected, is
Speaker 2: going to be a dictator and a tyrant and he
Speaker 2: can just lock everybody up, so people are going to
Speaker 2: have to flee the country. And now, in a weird way,
Speaker 2: this kind of gets the Democrats out of out of
Speaker 2: jail free card. With the court cases which I believe
Speaker 2: have been backfiring on them, They've only been helping every
Speaker 2: time they go after Trump legally, it seems to help
Speaker 2: Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Is this in a weird way of blessing in disguise.
Speaker 2: Politically, for the Democrats, they can kind of just put
Speaker 2: pause and Jack Smith can go away and Alvin Bragg
Speaker 2: can kind of go away for a little bit, and
Speaker 2: we just kind of have a normal election.
Speaker 3: Now, you know, I think you may be overthinking it.
Speaker 3: I don't think they're capable of thinking strategically or rationally
Speaker 3: on this. They just hate him. They want to attack
Speaker 3: him on every front. It is always about Orange Man bad,
Speaker 3: it is always about Trump is the devil. And so
Speaker 3: they're just gonna have You're gonna see cries of frustration.
Speaker 3: You're gonna see tears on MSNBC. Trump winning terrifies them. Look,
Speaker 3: these cases, the jack Smith case is not gonna proceed
Speaker 3: before the election. It's gonna take significant time to brief
Speaker 3: out and decide the immunity questions that now sent to
Speaker 3: the Lower Court. And it's not clear that any of
Speaker 3: the jack Smith case survives once you go through the
Speaker 3: analysis of what constituted an official action, either an exclusively
Speaker 3: official action or an official action with with shared authority
Speaker 3: with Congress, very little, if any, of the jack Smith
Speaker 3: indictment will survive that analysis. But and and actually, Alvin Bragg,
Speaker 3: it's it's interesting. You know, we were supposed to have
Speaker 3: the judicial sentencing of Trump two days before the Republican Convention.
Speaker 3: That now is going to be delayed. And the reason
Speaker 3: it's going to be delayed is as soon as this
Speaker 3: decision came down, Trump's legal team asked to brief the
Speaker 3: judge there as to why those convictions should be thrown
Speaker 3: out under the reasoning in in this Supreme Court decision,
Speaker 3: and and and the court said yes, that that that
Speaker 3: the court will consider legal arguments on that question, and
Speaker 3: that meant that the sentencing had to be delayed. And
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg agreed to delay the sentencing. Now, I got
Speaker 3: to say he pretty much had to. With this decision
Speaker 3: coming down, it is obvious that the court at least
Speaker 3: needs to consider what is the relevance of this decision
Speaker 3: to the convictions against Donald Trump. Now, the court said
Speaker 3: when it was scheduling arguments that it thought that the
Speaker 3: arguments were baseless. So I'm going to predict right now
Speaker 3: the New York judge is going to say, no, this
Speaker 3: that decision doesn't change anything. And it is true that
Speaker 3: the conducted question occurred before Trump was president and so
Speaker 3: it is in no way, shape or form an exercise
Speaker 3: of presidential authority. And so there are lots of reasons
Speaker 3: why the decision from the New York Trial Court is
Speaker 3: an absolute abomination and an abuse of power, and why
Speaker 3: it will be reversed on appeal. But it may well
Speaker 3: be that that it's not going to be because of
Speaker 3: this decision, because this decision concerns the the exercise of
Speaker 3: presidential powers, and Trump was not president when the conducted
Speaker 3: question occurred.
Speaker 2: It's going to be interesting. We're going to be following
Speaker 2: it here. Don't forget. We do the show Monday, Wednesday
Speaker 2: and Friday. Make sure you hit that subscribe or auto
Speaker 2: download button. Please share this podcast wherever you are on
Speaker 2: social media so other people get to hear it and
Speaker 2: the center I will see you back here Friday morning.