Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you and Senator we now know the White House. They
Speaker 2: know how to celebrate when it comes to Donald Trump
Speaker 2: being convicted.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right. We have seen now the smirk
Speaker 3: heard around the world, Joe Biden, jubilant, gleeful, celebrating and
Speaker 3: spiking the football in the end zone at this political prosecution.
Speaker 3: And it's not just a prosecution. It is a persecution
Speaker 3: which Democrats believe will yield dividends. In November, we're going
Speaker 3: to break down the fallout from the convictions in New
Speaker 3: York and we're going to go into detail about precisely
Speaker 3: why this was an abuse of power, the jury instructions
Speaker 3: that were given in this trial, how this was rigged,
Speaker 3: and the Democrats do not want anyone to acknowledge how
Speaker 3: it was rigged. Well, we're going to give you the facts.
Speaker 3: We're going to break it down.
Speaker 2: It was shocking to see how gleeful the President of
Speaker 2: the United States of America was at knowing that his
Speaker 2: political opponent is now an official political prisoner.
Speaker 3: Well, look, it is sad watching Joe Biden utterly gleeful
Speaker 3: and not even pretending to hide it. You know, I
Speaker 3: have to say, if you're going to do a kangaroo trial,
Speaker 3: if you're going to go after your political opponents and
Speaker 3: try to attack them and abuse the justice system, usually
Speaker 3: people pretend they're not doing that. Well, not with Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Take a look at how we reacted when he was asked.
Speaker 4: About it, mister president. Can you tell us, sir, Donald
Speaker 4: Trump prefers to himself as a political prisoner and blames
Speaker 4: you directly. What's your response to that, sir? Do you
Speaker 4: think the condition will have an impact on the campaign.
Speaker 4: We'd love to hear.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts, sir. Should you be on the ballot? Sir?
Speaker 1: That's damning. I mean it's obvious he's saying, yeah, and
Speaker 1: I did that.
Speaker 3: Look it is disgusting. And I will say for those
Speaker 3: of you all listening to the audio, as you know,
Speaker 3: in this podcast, we do three shows a week that
Speaker 3: are on audio. One of them typically is on video.
Speaker 3: This is one of the video shows. So if you're
Speaker 3: on audio, i'd encourage you go over to YouTube and
Speaker 3: watch the video because you actually need to see see
Speaker 3: the expression on his face. He's gleeful, He's not hiding it.
Speaker 3: He is spiking the football and just shameless it is.
Speaker 3: I'm abusing power. I'm reminded of of mel Brooks history
Speaker 3: of the world. It's good to be the king. That's
Speaker 3: actually what I thought. I could almost hear Biden saying,
Speaker 3: I'm abusing my power, damn it, and I'm proud of it.
Speaker 3: I will say this, the Trump campaign saw that and
Speaker 3: immediately turned it around. They put together an ad. I
Speaker 3: got to say, it's a heck of a powerful ad.
Speaker 3: It's the same thing you've seen, you just saw, but
Speaker 3: with a little bit of music, a little bit of context.
Speaker 3: Take a look at this Trump ad.
Speaker 5: Just was done. Guy.
Speaker 6: The Biden administration order a boon or an opponent to
Speaker 6: political appone, mister.
Speaker 4: President, can you tell us, sir, Donald Trump prefers himself
Speaker 4: as a political prisoner and blames you directly. What's your
Speaker 4: response to that, sir?
Speaker 2: Now, before I get your response, I want to tell
Speaker 2: you about our friends over at Freedom Gold USA. At
Speaker 2: Freedom Gold USA, they are a company that I recommend
Speaker 2: when it comes to gold and silver for one main reason.
Speaker 2: They typically charge twenty to thirty percent less than other
Speaker 2: major gold firms when it comes buying gold or silver
Speaker 2: and with inflation where it is right now, it is
Speaker 2: a time to watch what's happening. With the price of
Speaker 2: gold continuing to hit all time highs, inflation is heavily
Speaker 2: eroding your purchasing power, putting your savings and your retirement
Speaker 2: accounts and future legacy at risk. And with more taxes,
Speaker 2: the continued threat of war, a national debt now exceeding
Speaker 2: thirty four trillion, and the push for a central bank
Speaker 2: digital currency, your financial freedom is at stake and that
Speaker 2: is why to know about Freedom Goold USA. They are
Speaker 2: here to help you be empowered when it comes to
Speaker 2: buying gold and silver, and the team at freedom Goold
Speaker 2: USA is ready to answer all of your questions about
Speaker 2: preserving your wealth and provide stability in uncertain times. Freedom
Speaker 2: Gold USA will never take you to put all your
Speaker 2: money in a gold or silver ira. They understand diversification,
Speaker 2: but part of safeguarding your wealth can be used with
Speaker 2: physical gold and silver to take control of your financial
Speaker 2: future today. So call the team that I use and trust,
Speaker 2: the team that charges between twenty to thirty percent less
Speaker 2: than other major gold companies out there. That means you're
Speaker 2: getting twenty to thirty percent more gold or silver in
Speaker 2: your account day one one eight hundred sixty five five
Speaker 2: eight eight four three one eight hundred sixty five five
Speaker 2: eight eight four to three, or visit freedom goold USA
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict. That's freedom gold USA dot com
Speaker 2: slash verdict and see if you qualify for up to
Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars in free silver.
Speaker 1: Senator, that ad was a brilliant ad. Y.
Speaker 2: I also think we can see that America saw that
Speaker 2: smirk for what it was, a threat to our freedom
Speaker 2: and democracy and our way of life in this country,
Speaker 2: trying to imprison your political opponents. But even more than that,
Speaker 2: people went to donate to Trump like never before. They're angry.
Speaker 3: Fifty three million dollars in the first twenty four hours.
Speaker 3: It was stunning. And by the way, I will say,
Speaker 3: I think Republicans across the board saw that. I can
Speaker 3: tell you in terms of my campaign website, we saw
Speaker 3: a surge of donations there as well. I assume others
Speaker 3: did as well. I think people saw what happened in
Speaker 3: the campaign and they were pissed off, and they were
Speaker 3: pissed off, and they had the reaction They're like, this
Speaker 3: is wrong. We need to stand up and fight back.
Speaker 3: You know, I got to say, watching that smirk, it's
Speaker 3: in furiating. But it was a moment when the mask slipped.
Speaker 3: And so the Democrats are playing a game. This political
Speaker 3: prosecution was all about calling Trump a convicted felon. They
Speaker 3: can now do that. They're going to do that every
Speaker 3: single day until election day. Now, there's kind of a
Speaker 3: script that you play when you're doing a kangaroo court.
Speaker 3: When the court is over, what you say is is
Speaker 3: all right to quote south Park, respect my authority. That's
Speaker 3: supposed to be the line. Well Joe Biden managed when
Speaker 3: he wasn't caught smirking through giving his genuine reaction to
Speaker 3: read the script and say, we now have the verdict,
Speaker 3: we must respect the authority. Give a listen to this
Speaker 3: press conference of Joe Biden telling everyone shut up and
Speaker 3: accept the results. Trump is a bad guy.
Speaker 5: Just checking this afternoon, good afternoon. Before I began, Mary Marx,
Speaker 5: I just wanted to say a few words about what
Speaker 5: happened yesterday in New York City. The American principle that
Speaker 5: no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump
Speaker 5: was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a
Speaker 5: state case not a federal case, and it was heard
Speaker 5: by a jury of twelve citizens, twelve Americans, twelve people
Speaker 5: like you, Like millions of Americans who served on jurys.
Speaker 5: This jury is chosen the same way every jury in
Speaker 5: America is chosen. It was the process that Donald Trump's attorney.
Speaker 3: Was part of.
Speaker 5: The jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks after
Speaker 5: careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found
Speaker 5: Donald Trump guilty on all thirty four felon accounts not
Speaker 5: only be given the opportunity as he should to feel
Speaker 5: that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That's
Speaker 5: how the American system of justice works. And it's reckless,
Speaker 5: it's dangerous. It's irresponsible for anyone to say this was
Speaker 5: rigged just because they don't like the verdict. Our justice
Speaker 5: system is endured for nearly two hundred and fifty years,
Speaker 5: and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system,
Speaker 5: the justicystem should be respected and we should never allow
Speaker 5: anyone to tear it down. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 5: That's America, that's who we are, and that's who will
Speaker 5: always be. God will he.
Speaker 2: He says, it's irresponsible to say that this verdict was rigged,
Speaker 2: that this jury was rigged, that all of this was rigged.
Speaker 2: But then he smirks, basically saying, yeah, it was rigged,
Speaker 2: and you should respect the system that we just rigged.
Speaker 3: Look, I got to say listening to that, watching that,
Speaker 3: it is infuriating. It makes my blood boil. He says,
Speaker 3: it's reckless to do this, and we need to not
Speaker 3: tear down the justice system. Nobody has torn down our
Speaker 3: justice system more than that man, Joseph Robin at Biden
Speaker 3: jor he has presided over number one, politicizing the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice in a way that is utterly shameful, that
Speaker 3: targets his political enemies, that protects his own corruption, and
Speaker 3: at the same time he says, well, we got to
Speaker 3: respect this system. He ignores the fact that Alvin Bragg
Speaker 3: is a viciously partisan prosecutor, a Democrat who campaigns saying
Speaker 3: I'm the guy to get Donald Trump. I'm the one
Speaker 3: to get Donald Trump. I know how to get Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: I'm the one to get Donald Trump. Joe Biden doesn't
Speaker 3: acknowledge any of that. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that
Speaker 3: the number three person at his own Justice department, left
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice to go join the prosecution. He
Speaker 3: has a line in there. This was a state case,
Speaker 3: not a federal case, except for the fact that one
Speaker 3: of the lead lawyers was your number three lawyer at
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice. He doesn't ignore knowledge the fact
Speaker 3: that this judge was a joke, was a rabid partisan,
Speaker 3: was a donor to Joe Biden. He's one of his donors.
Speaker 3: And you know what he behaved. You know, the man
Speaker 3: should have been he should have taken off his black
Speaker 3: robe and he should have put on a Biden hat
Speaker 3: because it was a campaign. You want to talk about
Speaker 3: an unacknowledged campaign contribution, how about every day Judge Merchamp
Speaker 3: showed up to work. That was a campaign contribution. And
Speaker 3: by the way, under their theory, it was clearly intended
Speaker 3: to influence the outcome of the election. Alvin Bragg every day.
Speaker 3: Apparently Joe Biden needs to disclose Alvin Bragg's salary on
Speaker 3: his campaign finance reports because this is entirely intended to
Speaker 3: influence the outcome of an election. It is Look, the
Speaker 3: rule of law matters. What happened this week. It's infuriating,
Speaker 3: and it's disappointing.
Speaker 1: He's also premeditated.
Speaker 3: Yes, they knew what they were doing by the smirk.
Speaker 3: The smirk was the honesty that whole riff was. The
Speaker 3: planned defense, by the way, was planned at the beginning.
Speaker 3: They knew what they were going to say. It was
Speaker 3: all about we do a kangaroo court. It's all over. Now.
Speaker 3: Listen to the court. Listen to the court. No, no, no,
Speaker 3: you can't call it a kangaroo court. Never mind the
Speaker 3: kangaroo jumping up and down, ignore the facts, ignore the law.
Speaker 3: We have someone who is wearing a robe who says
Speaker 3: him bad. Okay, you got to keep us in power.
Speaker 3: And by the way, that's all we care about that
Speaker 3: Democrats stay in power.
Speaker 2: They pre planned this and you can literally go back
Speaker 2: years to see it. One of the Soros family members,
Speaker 2: and I want to pull this tweet up because I
Speaker 2: think it's an important point that you just made.
Speaker 1: This was all orchestrated by design.
Speaker 2: George Soros went out there and said, I want to
Speaker 2: find people that are friendly to me. I'm going to
Speaker 2: get them elected around the country. I'm going to weaponize
Speaker 2: the court system, and then I'm going to get the
Speaker 2: outcomes from weaponizing the court system. Alvin Bragg was the
Speaker 2: first part of this master plan. You had to have
Speaker 2: a prosecutor that was willing to say, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to follow the law all and I'm going to do
Speaker 2: egregious acts of partisanship to get us to a point
Speaker 2: where we might be able to get to a court
Speaker 2: And look at the tweet from Soros's son explaining that
Speaker 2: we have won.
Speaker 1: We are successful.
Speaker 2: Quote Democrats to refer to Trump as a convicted felon
Speaker 2: at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message.
Speaker 2: And we want people to wrestle with a notion of
Speaker 2: hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in
Speaker 2: the country. And then the New York Times headline Trump
Speaker 2: guilty on all counts. They plan this, yes, and it
Speaker 2: was years in the making that.
Speaker 3: They're all on the same team. Now. Alex Soros is
Speaker 3: George Soros's son. By many reports, George Soros is he's
Speaker 3: he's very elderly, and apparently he has diminished significantly, much
Speaker 3: like Joe Biden, and so it is widely reported that
Speaker 3: Alex Soros is running things now. Alex Soros is the
Speaker 3: young hard leftist who is distributing billions of dollars funding
Speaker 3: it all. And so how did Alvin Bragg get elected
Speaker 3: with money from Soros? Massive money from Soros. By the way,
Speaker 3: Soros is doing this all across the country, investing millions
Speaker 3: and millions of dollars in electing left wing DA's who
Speaker 3: let criminals out of jail, who won't prosecute murderers, And
Speaker 3: it really is striking. They're not hiding it. No, look
Speaker 3: at this tweet. Democrats should refer to Trump as a
Speaker 3: convicted felon at every opportunity. As we said on Friday's pod,
Speaker 3: the entire purpose of this was for them to be
Speaker 3: able to call him a convicted felon. Repetition is the
Speaker 3: key to a successful message. This is all about message.
Speaker 3: This is all about politics. They're not hiding it. It's
Speaker 3: why Joe Biden's smirking, which is our political plan, worked.
Speaker 3: Although I'm not convinced it worked. I actually think it
Speaker 3: think it may well backfire. They think people are stupid.
Speaker 3: They think repetition is the key. If we say it
Speaker 3: a lot, people will be stupid and just believe it.
Speaker 3: I think people have some real common sense. I think
Speaker 3: people understand this was a sham.
Speaker 2: You look at the sham and you see the media respond.
Speaker 2: We could play fifty clips the media. Most people that
Speaker 2: are listening, they know what was said. But there's also
Speaker 2: this psychotic gleefulness over the idea now that they're saying,
Speaker 2: not only we're gonna call him a convicted felon, but Donald
Speaker 2: Trump can't travel outside the country to many other countries.
Speaker 2: Do you really want that got to be your president?
Speaker 2: I mean this is they obviously knew what they were
Speaker 2: gonna say long before he was convicted, and play it
Speaker 2: out for this campaign, knowing that the appeal wouldn't happen
Speaker 2: in time.
Speaker 3: Look, this is all about politics. The appeal will succeed,
Speaker 3: this will be reversed on appeal, But this is all
Speaker 3: about attacking Trump. And I will say this. Trump came
Speaker 3: out and gave a press conference, and I want you
Speaker 3: to listen to the point he made. This is very brief,
Speaker 3: but it is a fundamental point that ought to scare
Speaker 3: the hell out of everybody.
Speaker 6: Give a listen a case where if they can do
Speaker 6: this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Speaker 2: I think that's incredibly powerful reminder. If the Democrats line
Speaker 2: is remind him and say it over and over again.
Speaker 2: He's a convicted felon. Donald Trump's line should be over
Speaker 2: and over again. If they can do this to me,
Speaker 2: a former president United States of America, they can do
Speaker 2: it to any one of you.
Speaker 3: And let's let's use an example. Ben. You're you're an
Speaker 3: influential guy. You're well known, You've got a very popular podcast.
Speaker 3: You are on the radio. You've been on the radio
Speaker 3: since you were twelve years old. Who long time? Let
Speaker 3: me ask you something. Are you a billionaire? No? Do
Speaker 3: you have a billion dollars in the bank.
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: Do you have a team of lawyers on retainer?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: Were you president of the United States?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: Do you have universal name idea across the globe?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 3: Do you have a jet with your name on the
Speaker 3: side of it. If they can do it to him,
Speaker 3: it's a hell of a lot easier to squash he
Speaker 3: Ben Fergus than it is a Donald J.
Speaker 4: Trump.
Speaker 3: If they can do it to him, whoever is listening,
Speaker 3: there's nobody listening. They could do it to me. They
Speaker 3: could do it to you. They can do it to anybody.
Speaker 3: They are grinning. We can destroy you and we don't care.
Speaker 3: It is all about power. Look We talk a lot
Speaker 3: on this podcast about Marxism, and as you know, I
Speaker 3: wrote a whole book, my last book, Unwoke, how to
Speaker 3: defeat cultural Marxism in America. For me, Marxism is very
Speaker 3: real because my family has suffered and been imprisoned and
Speaker 3: tortured by Marxists. They care about power, the same thugs
Speaker 3: that will throw you in prison. They're trying to do
Speaker 3: the same thing to Donald Trump right now because all
Speaker 3: they care about is power.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the step forward for Trump and using
Speaker 2: not just a smirk, but also using this court case
Speaker 2: to explain the American people just how rigged it is.
Speaker 2: I think that's an important point for him. He's gonna
Speaker 2: have to go out there and explain this is how
Speaker 2: all this went down, this is how corrupt it was.
Speaker 1: How much into the weeds does he need to go
Speaker 1: into that?
Speaker 3: I don't think he needs to get into the weeds
Speaker 3: a lot. I think think we're going to provide details
Speaker 3: in just a few minutes that will give you give
Speaker 3: you some backup on that. But look, I think people
Speaker 3: know you look at this. Everyone involved in this is
Speaker 3: obviously a partisan. It's why I get so angry at
Speaker 3: Joe Biden saying it's reckless to tear down our justice
Speaker 3: system because he's the one tearing down the justice system.
Speaker 3: I watched that that press conference, and it reminds me
Speaker 3: of like an arsonist holding cans of gasoline with with
Speaker 3: matches in his hands, saying, stop complaining about me lighting
Speaker 3: buildings on fire. He's the one burning our justice system
Speaker 3: to the ground, and their real consequences to it. There
Speaker 3: are real consequences to people losing faith. What he actually
Speaker 3: said about our system of justice is a cornerstone of America.
Speaker 3: That is correct. Look, if you contrast America to Banana republics,
Speaker 3: the difference is you have the rule of law. The
Speaker 3: difference is you don't do this. And these democrats they
Speaker 3: hate Trump so much they don't care. They're willing to
Speaker 3: destroy it. And all right, let let's get to Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg minds you, he's suddenly tough on crime. Yeah,
Speaker 3: this is a guy who if you murder people, if
Speaker 3: you rate people, you walk down the street and you
Speaker 3: punch a little old lady in the face, Alvin Bragg
Speaker 3: will let you go.
Speaker 2: Three the illegal immigrants attacked a police officer on camera.
Speaker 1: Let him walk out.
Speaker 3: The same day, the same day, the same day. Let
Speaker 3: him go. This is a man who was elected to
Speaker 3: let violent criminals go. That's what Soros wanted. Let violent
Speaker 3: criminals go. New York will be better with more murderers
Speaker 3: on the street. New York will be better with more
Speaker 3: rapists on the street. That is their view. Now I
Speaker 3: want you to listen to what Donald Trump said, because
Speaker 3: he made a very powerful point on exactly this.
Speaker 6: We had a DA who is a failed DA. Crime
Speaker 6: is ramped into New York. Violent crime, that's what he's
Speaker 6: really supposed to be looking at. Crime is ramp into
Speaker 6: New York. Yesterday and McDonald's you had a man hitting
Speaker 6: him up with machetes a machete. Whoever can imagine even
Speaker 6: a machete being wielded in a store in a place
Speaker 6: where they're eating and they's going rampant, and Bragg is
Speaker 6: down watching a trial on what they call.
Speaker 3: Crimes crimes.
Speaker 1: He's got a great point.
Speaker 2: This guy shouldn't be in this court with Donald Trump
Speaker 2: when this is what he's dealing with, machete wielding individuals
Speaker 2: in New York.
Speaker 3: So literally, on the day of the trial, there was
Speaker 3: a lunatic with a machete in a McDonald's threatening people.
Speaker 3: Now you would think, what is a district attorney supposed
Speaker 3: to be doing? I would think pretty high on the
Speaker 3: list is protecting me from machetes. Like if some guy
Speaker 3: brings out a machete and is trying to hurt people,
Speaker 3: the DA ought to arrest him and prosecute him. But no,
Speaker 3: you know, what's a decapitated person or two. When you're
Speaker 3: talking about Democrats, they're willing to look the other way
Speaker 3: at that. What was Alvin Bragg doing? He had a
Speaker 3: political objective to be in that courtroom because he's trying
Speaker 3: to bloody Donald Trump, he's trying to reelect Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: he's trying to stay in power. And I want to
Speaker 3: break down some of the materials so that There's a
Speaker 3: very interesting article that was written in The Intelligencer, and
Speaker 3: it's by Elie Honik, who is a CNN legal commentator,
Speaker 3: not a conservative, but he is a real lawyer, and
Speaker 3: he analyzes and and breaks down a lot of the
Speaker 3: enormous legal problems with what happened in this trial. Let
Speaker 3: me read read briefly what he said. He said the
Speaker 3: District Attorney's press office and its flax often proclaim that
Speaker 3: falsification of business records charges, which is what they went
Speaker 3: after Trump on, are quote commonplace, and indeed the office
Speaker 3: is quote bread and butter. That's true only if you
Speaker 3: draw definitional lines so broad is to render them meaningless.
Speaker 3: Of course, the DA charges falsification quite frequently. Virtually any
Speaker 3: fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation, so it's
Speaker 3: often an add on to some other case. It's one
Speaker 3: of the additional crimes that's committed. But let me continue
Speaker 3: from elihonik. But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the
Speaker 3: truth emerges. The charges against Trump are obscure and nearly
Speaker 3: entirely unprecedented. Now listen to this next sentence. In fact,
Speaker 3: no state prosecutor in New York or Wyoming or anywhere
Speaker 3: has ever listened to that word, ever charged federal election
Speaker 3: laws as a direct or predicate state crime against anyone
Speaker 3: for anything, none ever, Even putting aside the specifics of
Speaker 3: election law, The Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any
Speaker 3: case in which falsification of business records is the only charge,
Speaker 3: so that starts off of the front end. This is unusual.
Speaker 3: They had to get incredibly creative.
Speaker 1: Not just unusual, never been done before.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's true. Yeah, I mean we.
Speaker 2: Literally said, no one's been super enough to do it.
Speaker 2: But we packed this court. We got the judge we want,
Speaker 2: We got the da we want. We got a guy
Speaker 2: that the majority of the people in this area actually hate.
Speaker 2: They knew this. You couldn't have planned this any better.
Speaker 2: And it goes back to the George Soros money. We
Speaker 2: got the money to get the guy we want elected.
Speaker 2: We got the judge. He gave money to Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: We've set up this kangaroo court from beginning to end
Speaker 2: exactly how you'd have to do it to get this
Speaker 2: to happen.
Speaker 3: That's right now. One of the things that we have
Speaker 3: today that we did not have we did the last
Speaker 3: podcast is we actually have the jury instruction. So I've
Speaker 3: gotten written jury instructions, been able to read them before.
Speaker 3: I was relying on news reports of what the judge said,
Speaker 3: but I didn't actually have them in front of me.
Speaker 3: So understand that the sort of Rube Goldberg machine that
Speaker 3: they invented to try to get anything to get Trump
Speaker 3: the cl The crime is falsifying business records. That's a misdemeanor.
Speaker 3: By the way, a misdemeanor. Do you know the definition
Speaker 3: of a misdemeanor with the different differences between a misdemeanor
Speaker 3: and a felony. A misdemeanor is a crime that is
Speaker 3: punishable by less than a year in jail. The definition
Speaker 3: of a felony is a crime that is punishable by
Speaker 3: a year or more in jail, So that's the cutoff. Felonies,
Speaker 3: understandably are more serious.
Speaker 2: Speeding ticket, parking ticket all misdemeanors because you don't go
Speaker 2: to jail for over a year.
Speaker 3: Fright jaywalking, those are misdemeanors. Murder is a felony. Rape
Speaker 3: is a felony. Burglary is a felony. Crimes that are serious,
Speaker 3: so falsification of business record, it is a misdemeanor. It's
Speaker 3: punishable by less than a year, and it has a
Speaker 3: two year statute of limitations, which means the prosecutor has
Speaker 3: two years to bring the case. All of this happened
Speaker 3: years go back in twenty sixteen, so the statute of
Speaker 3: limitations expired years ago. So every one of the charges
Speaker 3: that Alvin Bragg brought you can't bring now under the
Speaker 3: plain text because two years is passed. So New York has, however,
Speaker 3: a mechanism to elevate that crime to a felony if
Speaker 3: the falsification of business record is done with the intent
Speaker 3: to conceal another crime. And so I want to break
Speaker 3: down these jury instructions because it's going to show just
Speaker 3: how absurd this was. One thing linked upon another, linked
Speaker 3: upon another. So page twenty nine of the jury instructions
Speaker 3: herees what the judge told the jury intent to commit
Speaker 3: or conceal another crime for the crime of falsifying business
Speaker 3: records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must
Speaker 3: include an intent to commit another crime or to aid
Speaker 3: or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, though the
Speaker 3: people must prove an intent to commit another crime or
Speaker 3: to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not
Speaker 3: prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided
Speaker 3: or concealed. So understand this other crime, which is the
Speaker 3: magic ticket that elevates these these misdemeanors to felonies and
Speaker 3: extends the statutal limitationcy you can suddenly prosecute them. The
Speaker 3: prosecutor quote need not prove that the other crime was
Speaker 3: in fact committed, aided or concealed. So it's a crime
Speaker 3: that doesn't have to have happened, all right, So let's
Speaker 3: read some more New York election Law section seventeen one
Speaker 3: to fifty two predicate. Here's what the judge instructed the jury.
Speaker 3: The people alleged that the other crime the defendant intended
Speaker 3: to commit aid or conceal is a violation of New
Speaker 3: York election Law section seventeen one fifty two. Okay, that's
Speaker 3: some clarity that we didn't have through much of the trial.
Speaker 3: But the judge actually specifies, all right, this is the
Speaker 3: quote other crime. What is section seventeen one to fifty
Speaker 3: two of New York election law provides, Well, it provides
Speaker 3: that quote, any two or more persons who conspire to
Speaker 3: promote or prevent the election of any person to a
Speaker 3: public office by unlawful means, and which conspiracy is acted
Speaker 3: upon by one or more parties, there too, shall be
Speaker 3: guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent on election. And
Speaker 3: so the keywords there are unlawful means, two or more
Speaker 3: persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of
Speaker 3: any person to a public office by unlawful means. So
Speaker 3: those two words unlawful means are the entire foundation on
Speaker 3: which this whole case is built. Now, what does unlawful
Speaker 3: means mean? And this is the most important jury instruction.
Speaker 3: This will be the basis for reversal when this case
Speaker 3: is appealed, it will be There are lots of reasons
Speaker 3: to reverse it, but this is the easiest and clearest.
Speaker 3: Here's what unlawful means means. And it's just two paragrass
Speaker 3: It's very short quote. Although you must conclude unanimously that
Speaker 3: the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of
Speaker 3: any person to a public office by unlawful means, you
Speaker 3: need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
Speaker 3: In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent
Speaker 3: the election of any person to a public office by
Speaker 3: unlawful means, you may consider the following one violations of
Speaker 3: the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FICA, two
Speaker 3: the falsification of other business records, or three violation of
Speaker 3: tax laws. So we've talked about how the US Supreme
Speaker 3: Court has long made clear in order to convict someone
Speaker 3: of a crime, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
Speaker 3: every element of the crime, and the jury must found
Speaker 3: find unanimously that you are guilty. You have committed every
Speaker 3: element of the crime. What the judge just said, there
Speaker 3: is no no number one. This unlawful means means anything unlawful,
Speaker 3: like whatever, like. We're not going to define it, but
Speaker 3: I'm going to give you three jurors choice, your pick.
Speaker 3: It's like mix and match, choose your own adventure. A
Speaker 3: couple people say, I think it was federal campaign finance law.
Speaker 3: Someone else. You know, it was violation of the tax laws.
Speaker 3: By the way, they don't specify what about the tax laws?
Speaker 3: Did you violate the tax laws?
Speaker 4: Yep?
Speaker 3: Okay. Then suddenly this is a felony. Then suddenly the
Speaker 3: statute of limitations is extended. Then suddenly, instead of less
Speaker 3: than a year, you can sentence Donald Trump to over
Speaker 3: one hundred years.
Speaker 2: Is it fair to say that the judge basically gave
Speaker 2: instructions to the jury that almost put them in a
Speaker 2: position where there's no way to not find them guilty
Speaker 2: because there's such ambiguity.
Speaker 3: The way they define this. The judge knew damn well
Speaker 3: it was all but forcing the jury to render a
Speaker 3: guilty verdict now, I still think a juror should have
Speaker 3: said no. And by the way, there is a long
Speaker 3: tradition in our juris prudence of what's called jury nullification,
Speaker 3: which is there are times when this has happened repeatedly
Speaker 3: where a juror says, you know what, you may give
Speaker 3: me instructions that I've got to do X, Y and Z,
Speaker 3: but this is garbage, this is bs no, this is
Speaker 3: a miscarriage of justice. And that's part of the reason
Speaker 3: our system has a jury system, is to have twelve
Speaker 3: ordinary people as a check on the prosecution and on
Speaker 3: the justice system. It's why I held out hope for
Speaker 3: a hung jury that someone would say this is so
Speaker 3: obviously garbage. I won't play a part, but I will
Speaker 3: say I feel some sympathy for the jurors because reading this.
Speaker 3: Here's the instruction that the judge gave about the Federal
Speaker 3: Election Campaign Act. The terms contribution and expenditure include anything
Speaker 3: of value, including any purchase, payment, loan, or advance, made
Speaker 3: by any person, for the purpose of influencing any election
Speaker 3: for federal office. Under federal law, a third party's payment
Speaker 3: of candidate's expenses is deemed to be a contribution to
Speaker 3: the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective
Speaker 3: of the candidacy. So in this instance, the focus was
Speaker 3: on the money that Michael Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels,
Speaker 3: the so called hush money to keep her quiet about
Speaker 3: the alleged affair. Now, under this instruction, the judge is
Speaker 3: basically told the jury that is a campaign finance violation.
Speaker 3: He says any payment, any payment of candidate's expenses is
Speaker 3: deemed to be a contribution unless the payment would have
Speaker 3: been made irrespective of the candidacy. Now, the judge did
Speaker 3: not allow Brad Smith, the chairman former chairman of the
Speaker 3: Federal Elections Commission, to testify, and that instruction on federal
Speaker 3: campaign finance law is woefully incomplete. So Brad Smith put
Speaker 3: out a tweet thread that actually explained federal campaign finance law.
Speaker 3: I want to read it and walk through that because
Speaker 3: it will show why the judges jury instructions were so deficient.
Speaker 2: Before we do that, I want to talk to you
Speaker 2: about one of my commitments, and that is I am
Speaker 2: sick and tired of giving my money to companies that
Speaker 2: do not stand with my values. And in the coffee business,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of liberal companies out there. You
Speaker 2: probably had two or three pop into your brain right
Speaker 2: when I said that. Well, I start my day every
Speaker 2: morning at seven am on the radio. I've got to
Speaker 2: be awake and I want a premium cup of coffee
Speaker 2: to start my day that, honestly I can look forward to.
Speaker 1: And that is why I switched to Blackout Coffee.
Speaker 2: Now, Blackout Coffee is one hundred percent America and zero
Speaker 2: percent woke. They are committed to conservative values from sourcing
Speaker 2: the beans to the roasting process, customer support and shipping,
Speaker 2: and they embody true American values and they accept no
Speaker 2: compromise on taste or quality. Now, Blackout Coffee is a
Speaker 2: premium cup of coffee.
Speaker 1: It's not average, and I want you to try it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to give you a discount to give it
Speaker 2: a shot, because when you do, you're never going to
Speaker 2: switch back. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com, slash verdict. That's
Speaker 2: Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and use the coupon code
Speaker 2: Verdict for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: Be awake, not woke.
Speaker 2: Try Blackout Coffee at Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict and
Speaker 2: use that promo code verdict for twenty percent off your
Speaker 2: first order centata. I want you to go over what
Speaker 2: you were just describing, because it's amazing that the guy
Speaker 2: that should have been able to go before the court
Speaker 2: and explain these laws and how they work to the
Speaker 2: jury was barred from testifying, and that's why apparently he
Speaker 2: decided to put out this long tweet.
Speaker 3: Now, so this is this is a tweet thread. I'm
Speaker 3: just gonna read it. Let's take a stab. False Falsefying
Speaker 3: business records under New York law is a misdemeanor unless
Speaker 3: it is done to hide a crime. Bragg says that
Speaker 3: crime was a violation of Federal Election Campaign Act FIICA,
Speaker 3: or of a New York statute making it illegal to
Speaker 3: inflight LUNs an election by unlawful means. But if the latter,
Speaker 3: what is the quote unlawful means? That's what we were talking
Speaker 3: about a minute ago, an alleged violation of FICA. So
Speaker 3: it comes down to FICA. There are two potential violations here.
Speaker 3: One is the acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign.
Speaker 3: The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign.
Speaker 3: Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution that
Speaker 3: allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy
Speaker 3: Daniel settlement. FIKA defines a contribution as a payment made
Speaker 3: quote for the purpose of influencing an election. The twenty
Speaker 3: sixteen max legal contribution was twenty seven hundred dollars. This
Speaker 3: looks bad for Trump. It's pretty easy to conclude the
Speaker 3: payment was made to influence an election by buying Daniel's silence, right,
Speaker 3: and Cohen paid Daniels one hundred and thirty thousand dollars,
Speaker 3: way over the limit. Well, it's not so simple. First,
Speaker 3: let's clear something up. Cohen just loaned them, he was
Speaker 3: paid back, and then some So where some ask is
Speaker 3: the contribution. But this is not a winner for Trump.
Speaker 3: Under the law, a contribution includes a loan unless made
Speaker 3: in the ordinary course of business EGA bank. So that's
Speaker 3: not a good argument. But for context, note that there
Speaker 3: is no limit on how much Trump can pay can
Speaker 3: contribute to his own campaign. By October twenty seventh, when
Speaker 3: Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent over sixty million
Speaker 3: dollars of his own money on the campaign. It would
Speaker 3: have been easy for him to toss in another one
Speaker 3: hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Now back to the definition
Speaker 3: of contribution. If they bought Daniels's silence to quote influence
Speaker 3: an election, what the prosecution is alleged. Isn't that a
Speaker 3: contribution and also a campaign expenditure which mirrors the contribution definition.
Speaker 3: First common sense, we know that a campaign expense is
Speaker 3: not literally any payment made quote for purpose of influencing
Speaker 3: an election, and reading the statute that way would be
Speaker 3: way too broad. For example, in nineteen ninety nine, Bill
Speaker 3: and Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. One
Speaker 3: reason they did so was so that Hillary could run
Speaker 3: for US Senate from New York. In other words, the
Speaker 3: expenditure was clearly done in part quote for the purpose
Speaker 3: of influencing an election. Is it a campaign expenditure underfeaka?
Speaker 3: Of course not common sense. How about if a would
Speaker 3: be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records
Speaker 3: because he's afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging
Speaker 3: to his candidacy campaign expense, No, clearly not, even though
Speaker 3: done quote for the purpose of influencing an election. Or
Speaker 3: suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against
Speaker 3: his businesses before running for Congress. He thinks the lawsuits
Speaker 3: are bs, but he's afraid the press will make a
Speaker 3: big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements
Speaker 3: with campaign funds? The answer obviously is no, even though
Speaker 3: there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the
Speaker 3: settlements would be paid specifically quote to influence an election.
Speaker 3: In fact, in each of these examples, it would be
Speaker 3: unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds. I'm gonna
Speaker 3: take a pause here. Understand what Alvin Bragg's argument is.
Speaker 3: He's saying Trump had to use campaign funds to pay
Speaker 3: off Stormy Daniels. That's an idiotic rule. And by the way,
Speaker 3: it's a rule that says every candidate for public office,
Speaker 3: if you're paying to settle a lawsuit dealing with whether
Speaker 3: you had an affair, you must use your campaign funds
Speaker 3: to do so. That's absurd. And what Brad Smith is
Speaker 3: saying is if you did that, the Federal Election Commission
Speaker 3: would go after you. Let me go back to what
Speaker 3: Brad Smith, because he explains it a little bit more.
Speaker 3: This is because and this is the part that the
Speaker 3: judge left out of the jury instruction didn't tell the jury,
Speaker 3: so they didn't know this. There's another part of that.
Speaker 3: The judge just said, ignore this part because it shows
Speaker 3: that Trump hasn't violated the law. Rat Smith, former chairman
Speaker 3: of the FEC charged with enforcing this law. Quote. This
Speaker 3: is because FIICA also prohibits using campaign funds for quote
Speaker 3: personal use. So you got to ask is it personal use?
Speaker 3: If yes, you can't use campaign funds aka Hillary Clinton
Speaker 3: buying a house right in New York? Exactly what is
Speaker 3: quote personal use? Under Federal Election Commission regulations, and the
Speaker 3: FEC has primary authority for interpreting the law. It is
Speaker 3: any obligation that would exist irrespective of the candidacy. Indeed,
Speaker 3: the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn't
Speaker 3: make something a campaign expense. If the obligation would exist
Speaker 3: irrespective of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is
Speaker 3: personal use and therefore illegal. Certainly, Daniels used the campaign
Speaker 3: to push or Trump and for the most money she could.
Speaker 3: The timing affected the value of the allegations, but the
Speaker 3: obligation didn't exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated
Speaker 3: his candidacy, and it was not created by his being
Speaker 3: a candidate. She could have shut him, shook him down
Speaker 3: for hush money at any point, whether or not he
Speaker 3: was running for president. Brad didn't say that. I said that.
Speaker 3: Brad continues, Let's use common sense. Is it a campaign
Speaker 3: expense to pay a non disclosure agreement for something arising
Speaker 3: out of events ten years earlier and not caused by
Speaker 3: the act of being a candidate. Is paying hush money
Speaker 3: a campaign expense? Duh, No, And we wouldn't want it
Speaker 3: to be. This is really important. We wouldn't want it
Speaker 3: to be. We don't want candidates using campaign funds to
Speaker 3: pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program,
Speaker 3: or a gym member purchase, to help the candidate look better.
Speaker 3: And therefore, quote for the purpose of influencing an election,
Speaker 3: you can't use campaign finance funds for that.
Speaker 2: So when you're running for office, just to be very
Speaker 2: clear on his point, you can't say I'm going to
Speaker 2: take a fifty thousand dollars wardrobe for all these campaign
Speaker 2: events because it's still technically closed for you personally.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you can't do that at all. You can't buy
Speaker 3: your clothes using cap I.
Speaker 1: Need a haircut or and I'm gonna get one every day.
Speaker 3: You can't do any of that. You can cannot do,
Speaker 3: and they'll go after you for it. If you do it,
Speaker 3: they will go after you for personal use. Let me
Speaker 3: finish what he said. He only had a couple more
Speaker 3: and certainly not to pay non disclosure agreements to keep
Speaker 3: embarrassing info hidden In summary, for the purpose of influencing
Speaker 3: an election is an objective standard. The motive of the
Speaker 3: donor of the spender doesn't matter. So what are expenditures?
Speaker 3: Paying campaign staff? Are expenditures? Are a campaign expenditure? Buying
Speaker 3: ads for the candidate, paying fundraising costs, paying a cant
Speaker 3: paign accountant, paying for polling, travel to campaign events. Basically
Speaker 3: all the obligations you incuraged solely because you were running
Speaker 3: for office. The FEC's approach is consistent with the US
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, which is consistently held in every case in
Speaker 3: Speaker was passed fifty years ago that its definition of
Speaker 3: contribution and expenditure must be objective, not subjective, to avoid
Speaker 3: being unconstitutionally vague. None of that went to the jury,
Speaker 3: so the jury was just told, well, if it could
Speaker 3: influence the election, you got to find it's a violation
Speaker 3: of law that has flat out false, and they were
Speaker 3: not told. If Trump had done what Alvin Bragg said
Speaker 3: he needed to do, the FEC would have charged him
Speaker 3: with a personal use violation with using campaign funds illegally.
Speaker 3: The jury didn't know that because the judge didn't want
Speaker 3: him to know.
Speaker 2: That, and that's why they said you can't come and testify.
Speaker 3: Yes, and he also vented the lawyers from arguing this.
Speaker 3: But by the way, so that was one ground. The
Speaker 3: other two grounds that could be unlawful means. And you
Speaker 3: could have three jurors on one and five on another,
Speaker 3: and four other like they could mix and match the
Speaker 3: other ground.
Speaker 1: Have you ever heard of a jury where that was it? Okay,
Speaker 1: this thing, you understand.
Speaker 2: It's weird that Usually it's you either got to be
Speaker 2: all in lockstep, yeah, or you're not. So it's either
Speaker 2: your innocent or guilty because a twelve agree, and or
Speaker 2: if they disagree, one of them disagrees.
Speaker 1: Were done.
Speaker 3: Find the elements of the crime.
Speaker 1: He said, find your own path too.
Speaker 3: Guilty, Yeah, whatever you want. The objective is guilty. You
Speaker 3: come up with however you want to get there, all right,
Speaker 3: So one was the Federal campaign Finance on his instructions
Speaker 3: are wonefully deficient. He only includes part of the rule.
Speaker 3: He leaves out the other half, which is explains why
Speaker 3: Trump shouldn't have done so. And it would have been
Speaker 3: a mistake to do it the way the prosecutor wanted
Speaker 3: him to do, and he would have been charged with it.
Speaker 3: I mean it would have been he would have been
Speaker 3: violating the law to do what Alvin Bragg is saying
Speaker 3: he should have done. Another supposed basis of unlawful means
Speaker 3: was falsification of other business records. The second of the
Speaker 3: people's theories. This is from the jury instruction. The second
Speaker 3: of the people's theories of unlawful means, which I will
Speaker 3: define for you now, is the falsification of other business
Speaker 3: records for purposes of determining whether falsifizing business to records,
Speaker 3: and the second degree was an unlawful means used by
Speaker 3: a conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Here you may
Speaker 3: consider the bank records associated with Michael Cohen's account formation,
Speaker 3: the bank records association with Michael Cohens wired to Keith Davidson,
Speaker 3: the invoice from Investor Advisory Services, and the ten ninety
Speaker 3: nine MISK form of the Trumpet Organization issued to Michael Cohenes. So,
Speaker 3: in other words, they're thirty four counts of false business records.
Speaker 3: They're all the identical charge. They just occur thirty four
Speaker 3: different times, thirty four different entries in the bookmarks. What
Speaker 3: he's saying is, you know what, every one of these
Speaker 3: is a misdemeanor. But if you say you made one
Speaker 3: of these entries to assist in another of these entries,
Speaker 3: then they're all felonies. Wow, Like it is the most
Speaker 3: circular reasoning that just makes no sense. And by the way,
Speaker 3: let's go to the third one, because the third one
Speaker 3: just makes me laugh out loud. The people's third theory
Speaker 3: of unlawful means, which I will define for you now,
Speaker 3: is a violation of tax laws. Under New York State
Speaker 3: and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly
Speaker 3: supply or submit materially false or fraudulent information in connection
Speaker 3: with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is
Speaker 3: unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement,
Speaker 3: or other document that is fraudulent or false as at
Speaker 3: any material matter, or that the person does not believe
Speaker 3: to be true and correctest to every material matter. I
Speaker 3: listened to this last sentence. Under these federal, state, and
Speaker 3: local laws, such conduct is unlawful even if it does
Speaker 3: not result in the underpayment of taxes. So, in other words,
Speaker 3: he told the jury, by the way, you can find
Speaker 3: a violation of tax laws even if you paid you
Speaker 3: didn't pay any less taxes, even if you didn't defraud anyone,
Speaker 3: even if you're not using it to cheat on your taxes,
Speaker 3: if you think there's something in the tax laws. And
Speaker 3: by the way, there is no person on planet Earth
Speaker 3: who understands all of the tax laws. You know, there
Speaker 3: was a book that was written years ago called three
Speaker 3: Felonies a Day, and it argues that all of us
Speaker 3: living in this complex world commit three felonies a day
Speaker 3: between tax laws and environmental laws. There's just so much regulations.
Speaker 3: If you are doing anything, if you're filling out a
Speaker 3: credit card application, an aggressive prosecutor can find three felonies
Speaker 3: a day that Ben Ferguson has committed in this instance.
Speaker 3: That jury instruction says, well, if you can figure out
Speaker 3: if you think there was any.
Speaker 1: Lime up with your own theory, basically.
Speaker 3: Come up with your own theory. And by the way,
Speaker 3: the violation of tax law, doesn't have to have taken
Speaker 3: a penny of taxes from New York City, New York
Speaker 3: State of the federal government. And if you think there
Speaker 3: was some amorphous violation of tax law that didn't result
Speaker 3: in any underpayment of taxes, suddenly, presto chanjoh. These misdemeanors
Speaker 3: that we can't prosecute the statute of limitations that extended.
Speaker 3: They're now felonies, and we can sentence Donald Trump to
Speaker 3: one hundred years in jail. One hundred and thirty four
Speaker 3: years in jail.
Speaker 2: In other words, orange man bad, find your way to
Speaker 2: figure out how to say he's guilty.
Speaker 3: That's exactly what this was all about. This is politics.
Speaker 3: It'll get reversed on appeal, but the judge doesn't care.
Speaker 3: He knows that The purpose is what Alex Soro said.
Speaker 3: The purpose is what Joe Biden said. The purpose is
Speaker 3: all the Democrats at all the media get to call
Speaker 3: him a felon over and over and over again between
Speaker 3: now an election day. This is a five month battle.
Speaker 3: It's not a five year battle. The purpose is not
Speaker 3: to put Donald Trump in jail. They know that's not
Speaker 3: gonna happen.
Speaker 1: Cost the election.
Speaker 3: They are trying to win. This is about keeping Joe
Speaker 3: Biden to the Democrats in power because it's all they
Speaker 3: care about, and they're willing to burn the justice system
Speaker 3: to the ground to keep the Democrats in power.
Speaker 2: One more question I want to ask of you, and
Speaker 2: it deals with what's next for Trump. But before we
Speaker 2: do that, I want to say thank you to so
Speaker 2: many of you that are listeners and watchers of this
Speaker 2: podcast for getting involved with the International Fellowship of Christians
Speaker 2: and Jews. Since a tear attack on October seventh, anti
Speaker 2: Semitism has been on the rise, not just in Israel
Speaker 2: but here at home, in the US and around the world.
Speaker 2: And that is why I've partnered with the International Fellowship
Speaker 2: of Christians and Jews to make a difference for the
Speaker 2: needs of those in Israel right now. They are asking
Speaker 2: for help when it comes to actually giving and putting
Speaker 2: up bomb shelters as well as the supplies you need
Speaker 2: while you were in that bomb shelter. For the month
Speaker 2: of June. We're asking Christians to sign this pledge will
Speaker 2: deliver to the President of Israel to show that Christians
Speaker 2: in America are not only standing in solidarity, but they
Speaker 2: are speaking up as well. So let's take a stand
Speaker 2: today with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and
Speaker 2: let the Jewish people know that they are not alone.
Speaker 2: They need your help. And if you're ready to pledge
Speaker 2: to stand side by side with your Jewish brothers and
Speaker 2: sisters to never be silent, to show the Jewish people
Speaker 2: that they're not alone, that they have God and Christians
Speaker 2: standing by their side. To sign the pledge, Go to
Speaker 2: SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That is support IFCJ dot org to
Speaker 2: take a stand today. Help the people in Israel again.
Speaker 2: Sign the pledge and stand with our brothers and sisters
Speaker 2: in Israel. Go to support if CJ dot org. That's
Speaker 2: support if CJ dot org to take a stand today.
Speaker 2: Send her final question for you, and this goes back
Speaker 2: to the last podcast. You were conflicted on what Trump's
Speaker 2: plan should be Next. Do you go to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2: Do you try to get there quickly? Or is there
Speaker 2: a way to force this case moving forward? Now knowing
Speaker 2: the jury instructions and what they were given and most importantly,
Speaker 2: what they had admitted from them, does this open up
Speaker 2: any different legal pathway for the Trump team to say, Okay,
Speaker 2: we need to get this scene even quicker. So it
Speaker 2: isn't Hey, we got what we wanted. We get to
Speaker 2: say you're a convicted felon all the way through election day.
Speaker 2: Can this speed up the process?
Speaker 1: Or no?
Speaker 3: So let me answer that. But let me answer that
Speaker 3: in connection to a question that people ask quite a bit,
Speaker 3: which is what's the sentence going to be? We've got
Speaker 3: the sentence, we know that is just a few days
Speaker 3: before the Republican Convention, and a lot of folks are asking,
Speaker 3: is the judge going to sentence Trump to jail time?
Speaker 3: I think there's a very real chance the judge sentence
Speaker 3: Trump to jail time. I think this is a vicious partisan.
Speaker 3: I think he hates Donald Trump. I think he's willing
Speaker 3: to abuse his power. But I will wager large sums
Speaker 3: of money regardless of what he sentences him to jail
Speaker 3: time or something else, that if there is incarceration, he
Speaker 3: will suspend it pending appeal. I think that I could
Speaker 3: see the judge at sentencing saying I sentence you to
Speaker 3: four years in jail or no, No, I don't think
Speaker 3: he would. I do think you've got four years for
Speaker 3: each of these thirty four counts. Is the maximum amount
Speaker 3: typically they would run concurrently, which means they would all
Speaker 3: run at the same time. You could run him consecutively,
Speaker 3: which is how you get over one hundred years in
Speaker 3: any ordinary circumstance. Number One, a judge of Trump's age
Speaker 3: that does not have any prior offenses in New York
Speaker 3: would never serve a day of jail time in any
Speaker 3: other case. I mean, look, you can physically assault someone,
Speaker 3: you can repeatedly violently beat people up, you can engage
Speaker 3: in all sorts of crimes and not serve jail time
Speaker 3: in New York. That being said, I think it's that's
Speaker 3: entirely possible. This judge is enough of a partisan to say,
Speaker 3: you're the president, what you did mattered, I'm sentencing you
Speaker 3: to four years in jail. I could see him. He
Speaker 3: would love that. That would be the crowning moment of
Speaker 3: his life to utter those words.
Speaker 2: It also be useful politically, because then not only can
Speaker 2: you say he's convicted felon, but then you say, do
Speaker 2: you want a guy going to the White House, it's
Speaker 2: about to go to jail.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So what I do not think he will do is
Speaker 3: sentenced him to jail and say take him into custody.
Speaker 3: And put him there right now. He could, but I
Speaker 3: think if he did that, it would prompt an immediate
Speaker 3: emergency appeal and he would get reversed. I assume this
Speaker 3: guy is smart enough to know that he doesn't want
Speaker 3: to get reversed, and he especially does not want to
Speaker 3: get reversed before election day. He's engaged in politics, so
Speaker 3: he's not going to do something I think that will
Speaker 3: prompt an immediate reversal because that undermines the political value
Speaker 3: of the charai that he's conducting. So if the sentences
Speaker 3: in prisonment or it could be home confinement. If the
Speaker 3: sentence is something like that, I think he'll suspend it
Speaker 3: pending the resolution of the appeal. In that case, I
Speaker 3: think the odds are quite high. This appeal will have
Speaker 3: to go through the New York state system. First. We
Speaker 3: talked about in Friday's pod, and by the way, you
Speaker 3: should go back and listen to Friday's pod. We did
Speaker 3: Friday's pod late Thursday night. We did it on the
Speaker 3: road as I was driving from Dallas to Houston. It
Speaker 3: was right after the verdict came down, and it was
Speaker 3: analyzing the next steps and in much greater detail than
Speaker 3: we have in this pod, and so you ought to
Speaker 3: listen to the two pods together. But the ordinary course
Speaker 3: of appeal would be to appeal from the trial court
Speaker 3: to the intermediate appellate court in New York in the
Speaker 3: state court system, and then if you lose in the
Speaker 3: intermediate appellate court, to appeal to the top appellate court
Speaker 3: in New York called the New York Court of Appeals.
Speaker 3: And then finally, if you lose there, then you could
Speaker 3: appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. That's normally how
Speaker 3: a criminal case would proceed. It is possible you can
Speaker 3: file an extraordinary writ to ask the US Supreme Court
Speaker 3: to intervene right now, but it is very very very rare.
Speaker 3: There is a chance, and I'm sure the Trump legal
Speaker 3: team is debating this right now. There's a chance the
Speaker 3: court would say yes. But I think it's probably unlikely.
Speaker 3: I think the court's instinct, particularly if a sentence is suspended,
Speaker 3: if the judge order Trump put in jail, the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court would say yes. It would force the court to
Speaker 3: say yes. So if the sentence is suspended and Trump
Speaker 3: is free to campaign, fore to debate, for you to
Speaker 3: go to the convention, I think the justice's instincts will
Speaker 3: be you know what, The New York state courts might
Speaker 3: correct this. The Court of Appeals might reverse this, The
Speaker 3: Intermediate Court of Appeals might reverse this. They might get
Speaker 3: it right. And there's a long ethos that the Court,
Speaker 3: which is, if we don't need to act, we don't
Speaker 3: need to act. If someone else can fix this, if
Speaker 3: another level of the justice system can fix this, the
Speaker 3: US Supreme Court doesn't need to step in. That's their
Speaker 3: general approach. If they were to deny the extraordinary writ
Speaker 3: I suspect you would have some justices right and say
Speaker 3: something like there are lots of reasons to be concerned here,
Speaker 3: but right now the sentence is suspended. The verdicts can
Speaker 3: be overturned on appeal, and so will allow the state
Speaker 3: proceedings to go forward. If there was an order of
Speaker 3: immediate incarceration, it would force their hands. I think the
Speaker 3: whole game here from the DA and from the judge
Speaker 3: is the political advantage not actually sending Trump to jail.
Speaker 3: They know these jury instructions will never survive an appeal.
Speaker 3: If you had anything resembling fairness in the judicial system,
Speaker 3: the New York Court's Appeals should reverse it. I got
Speaker 3: to say, based on the absolute disgrace we just saw
Speaker 3: play out, I have no confidence of that. The New
Speaker 3: York justice system is I suspect forever a global laughing stock.
Speaker 3: And you put this on top of the prior civil
Speaker 3: case where they took a half billion dollars that they're
Speaker 3: trying to take a half billion dollars from Trump. The combination.
Speaker 3: The message New York has said is if we don't
Speaker 3: like you, if you are politically disfavored, welcome to communist Cuba.
Speaker 3: We will treat you the same and you have the
Speaker 3: same rights as you would have locked into Gulac.
Speaker 2: This is gonna be interesting that it plays out. It's
Speaker 2: gonna be interesting to see what the poll numbers say
Speaker 2: this week. We're gonna cover it all. Don't forget we
Speaker 2: did this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit that subscribe or
Speaker 2: auto download button, and on those in between days there's
Speaker 2: a lot of breaking news. Grab my podcast as well,
Speaker 2: the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and I will keep you up
Speaker 2: to date on those in between days. Make sure if
Speaker 2: you didn't get to watch this on YouTube, watch it
Speaker 2: on YouTube. You'll get to see those clips and this
Speaker 2: famous smirk of Joe Biden and the Senate, and I
Speaker 2: will see you back here in a couple of days.