Speaker 1: Welcome. It is a verdict, was Senator Ted Cruz Ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you, Senator history, and a terrible way was
Speaker 1: made in America. Donald Trump, a former president United States
Speaker 1: of America, was arrested and was treated like a criminal
Speaker 1: by the media and by many people that were celebrating
Speaker 1: this day they've been fighting for since twenty sixteen. Before
Speaker 1: I even play as lawyers, I want to get your
Speaker 1: initial reaction to watching this today. Yesterday was a sad day.
Speaker 1: It was pitiful, It was an abusive power, it was partisan,
Speaker 1: and I got to say my biggest sentiment from yesterday
Speaker 1: was that it was underwhelming. You and I have been
Speaker 1: talking now for a week about this impending indictment, and
Speaker 1: we laid out the grounds on which the indictment was expected,
Speaker 1: and I got to say, a bunch of lefties on
Speaker 1: Twitter were coming after us saying, well, how can Cruz No,
Speaker 1: this can't possibly be the case. There the indictment is seen,
Speaker 1: there's more there. It reminded me of the breathless apprehension
Speaker 1: that the left had for the Muller Report. The Mulla
Speaker 1: Report was going to prove everything. I still remember you
Speaker 1: remember the S and L episode where Robert de Niro
Speaker 1: played Robert Mueller, and they ask you, you know, do
Speaker 1: you have the goods? He's like, I got I got him,
Speaker 1: I got him, And oh, every Democrat heart went pitter patter,
Speaker 1: pitter patter. It's got to be there. It's got to
Speaker 1: be there, it's got to be there. Well, for the
Speaker 1: last week, as you and I have been analyzing what
Speaker 1: was expected in this indictment, lefties on Twitter we're saying, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you haven't seen the indictment. You don't know what's there. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what we've seen. Now we've seen the indictment,
Speaker 1: and there ain't nothing there. It was so utterly and
Speaker 1: completely underwhelming. In fact, I gotta say one of the
Speaker 1: more amusing things so on Twitter, you know what's trending,
Speaker 1: even CNN, the words even CNN, because even CNN said,
Speaker 1: all right, this is underwhelming. This ain't nothing. The entire
Speaker 1: indictment consists of thirty four counts of the same thing,
Speaker 1: and the same thing is what we've been telling you
Speaker 1: for a week it was going to be, which is
Speaker 1: a violation of New York penal law one seventy five
Speaker 1: one zero. Now, as you recall New York penal law
Speaker 1: makes it a misdemeanor to create a false business record.
Speaker 1: That misdemeanor has a two year statute of limitation. So
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg had charged Trump on the misdemeanor, the case
Speaker 1: would be thrown out immediately because more than two years
Speaker 1: has passed since twenty sixteen. So he had to instead
Speaker 1: proceed under a different New York penal law, section one
Speaker 1: seventy five point one zero. To do that, he had
Speaker 1: to allege that it was a false business record in
Speaker 1: furtherance of another crime. That is the bootstrap through which
Speaker 1: he can elevate under New York law a misdemeanor into
Speaker 1: a felony and get a longer statute of limitations. Well, that's,
Speaker 1: in fact, exactly what he did. All thirty four counts,
Speaker 1: same thing, over and over and over again. But I
Speaker 1: got to say the amazing thing. The indictment doesn't specify
Speaker 1: what the other crime is that this was allegedly in
Speaker 1: furtherance of. In other words, it just repeats false business record,
Speaker 1: false business record, false business record, and it has the
Speaker 1: boilerplate language in furtherance of another crime. But it's almost
Speaker 1: like the district attorney said, never mind, we don't know
Speaker 1: what that other crime is. Look, you and I had
Speaker 1: speculated on this podcast what the other crime could be.
Speaker 1: It might have been. The most likely candidate was a
Speaker 1: federal campaign finance violation, which raises all sorts of problems,
Speaker 1: but that was the most likely alleged crime. Well, Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg didn't allege that, he didn't specify what the crime is.
Speaker 1: That's truly amazing. It's underwhelming. This case is nothing but politics,
Speaker 1: and the result is it's going to be thrown out.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the interesting things that you just
Speaker 1: mentioned was the shock of how this indictment was so absurd,
Speaker 1: to the fact that he's saying, well, there was a
Speaker 1: crime that was committed, possibly, but we won't tell you
Speaker 1: what the crime is. Well, the whole point of an
Speaker 1: indictment is so that the accused knows what they're being
Speaker 1: accused of. Donald Trump went home not knowing what he
Speaker 1: was accused of, and even his lawyers when they walked
Speaker 1: out of that courtroom, they seemed to be dumbfounded at
Speaker 1: the idea that we were even at a point where
Speaker 1: you would have an indictment, a thirty four count indictment,
Speaker 1: and you still wouldn't know what the actual crime is
Speaker 1: that they're accusing of committing. And Alan Bragg's like, well,
Speaker 1: you know it could be. Well, we'll let you know.
Speaker 1: We didn't list it. We don't have to list it.
Speaker 1: Here's his attorney's trumps of trains with their own words
Speaker 1: that just happen to somebody who was the president of
Speaker 1: the United States, and UM, on the one hand, On
Speaker 1: the one hand, there's not really any surprises. UM. I
Speaker 1: know there was a lot of talk over the past
Speaker 1: several weeks, in the past several days about what's going
Speaker 1: to be in this indictment and what's going to be
Speaker 1: there that UM, we don't know. There must be something
Speaker 1: besides what we've been talking about for the past, um
Speaker 1: four or five years. There wasn't, there's nothing. The indictment
Speaker 1: itself is boiler plate. It doesn't allege, UM, any federal crime,
Speaker 1: any state crime that's been violated. It doesn't allege what
Speaker 1: the false statement is, UM. And it's really disappointing. It's sad,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna fight it. We're gonna fight it. Were
Speaker 1: you surprised, Were you surprised by anything in the adictment? No,
Speaker 1: how about you, Joe, I was surprised there were no
Speaker 1: faction there. I mean normally in an indictment have alleged facts.
Speaker 1: So they said that this was a false business record
Speaker 1: entry to the agent, but another crime. We're not seeing
Speaker 1: what the other crime was. I mean, the last thing
Speaker 1: that he said there was it's aiding ebetting another crime,
Speaker 1: and they don't list with the other crime is have
Speaker 1: you ever seen something that is basically this incomplete to
Speaker 1: charge someone, especially at the level of the President of
Speaker 1: the United States of America. Yeah, Look, maybe on a
Speaker 1: half assed indictment of someone convicted of shoplifting or joy
Speaker 1: riding in a car, but not in a high profile,
Speaker 1: serious case. Listen, the district attorney knew that everyone on
Speaker 1: earth would fly suspect this indictment. They would read it.
Speaker 1: This indictment. To be honest, a first year law student
Speaker 1: could cut and pace and produce this indictment Number one,
Speaker 1: the thirty four counts. I have to admit I was
Speaker 1: kind of curious, Okay, what are the thirty four things
Speaker 1: he's done? I didn't know about thirty four things he
Speaker 1: was alleged to have done. Well, it turns out the
Speaker 1: thirty four counts are just thirty four individual entries in
Speaker 1: the bookkeeping. So it is the same basic crime alleged
Speaker 1: to have occurred month by month by month. Also, Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg did something quite unusual, so he released the indictment
Speaker 1: and then he released an additional document called a statement
Speaker 1: of facts. Now, usually an indictment includes some pretty specific
Speaker 1: factual allegations. This one doesn't at all. It just has
Speaker 1: the boiler plant language about false bookkeeping records in furtherance
Speaker 1: of another crime. Doesn't specify what the other crime is.
Speaker 1: The statement of facts is intended to be more of
Speaker 1: a narrative. It frankly as a media document. It was
Speaker 1: meant for media consumption, and it describes what the prosecutors
Speaker 1: think went on, and it talks about several things. One
Speaker 1: of the things that talks about is the National Inquirer
Speaker 1: and the National Enquirer their publisher David Pecker. By the way,
Speaker 1: I will say, as an aside, talk about someone named
Speaker 1: out of Charles Dickens. I'm not a fan of this
Speaker 1: particular individual. It is God has a sense of humor.
Speaker 1: But the indictment describes how Trump met with David Pecker
Speaker 1: and had a plan that the National Inquirer was going
Speaker 1: to assist in Trump's presidential campaign. Now you might like that,
Speaker 1: you might not like that, but it's not criminal. And
Speaker 1: let me be clear, I don't exactly have an absence
Speaker 1: of sentiments on this because when the National Inquirer got
Speaker 1: in bed with the Trump campaign, the first target they
Speaker 1: directed their enmity at was me. Yeah, and they ran
Speaker 1: multiple stories, the most ludicrous of which was alleging that
Speaker 1: my father had killed JFK. Look, that is part of
Speaker 1: what David Pecker made a decision. He was essentially tried
Speaker 1: to do everything he could to elect Donald Trump. So
Speaker 1: that's part of this indictment, not concerning me, thankfully, but
Speaker 1: concerning attacks on Donald Trump and people who came forward
Speaker 1: with allegations against Donald Trump, where the National Enquirer agreed
Speaker 1: to work to try to quash those stories. Now, listen,
Speaker 1: whether you like or dislike media outlets deciding they want
Speaker 1: to support a particular candidate and help them. That happens
Speaker 1: in politics all the time. Yeah, unless you're prepared to
Speaker 1: indict abcnbccbs CNN, AN MSNBC for crawling in bed and
Speaker 1: spooning with Joe Biden, then that is not in fact
Speaker 1: criminal conduct. Whether you agree or disagree with the political
Speaker 1: decision that particular media outlet makes. So the statement of
Speaker 1: facts also details a couple of different payments. Want a
Speaker 1: payment that went to Karen mc dougal for one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars. Secondly, a payment that went to
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Now,
Speaker 1: those are both women who alleged that they had had
Speaker 1: affairs with Donald Trump. I don't know if that's true
Speaker 1: or false, but that's what they alleged, and the indictment
Speaker 1: alleged that Trump paid them one hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars one hundred thirty thousand dollars respectively. As we've discussed
Speaker 1: on the podcast, whether that's true or false, that's not illegal.
Speaker 1: There's no law in New York state against an individual
Speaker 1: having an affair. There's no law in New York State
Speaker 1: against an individual paying anyone involved in an affair not
Speaker 1: to talk about it publicly. That is all entirely legal.
Speaker 1: What is alleged in this statement of fact is that
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, the personal attorney to Donald Trump, paid one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty thousand dollars to Stormy Daniels, and that
Speaker 1: Trump then reimbursed Michael Cohen and we now know. So
Speaker 1: the math that's laid out in the State of Facts
Speaker 1: is that Cohen paid one hundred and thirty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: to Stormy Daniels and then apparently fifty thousand dollars for quote,
Speaker 1: another expense, and it doesn't tell us what this other
Speaker 1: expense is. So that's one hundred and thirty thousand plus
Speaker 1: fifty thousand, that's one hundred and eighty thousand, and apparently
Speaker 1: what happened is they took that one hundred eighty thousand,
Speaker 1: they doubled it to three hundred and sixty thousand, because
Speaker 1: when Michael Cohen was paid back, he would have to
Speaker 1: pay taxes federal taxes and state taxes for the money
Speaker 1: being paid. So the basic math was, if you pay
Speaker 1: him three hundred and sixty thousand dollars and he pays
Speaker 1: fifty percent taxes, he would recoup his one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty thousand dollars. And then they decided to pay him
Speaker 1: an additional sixty thousand dollars on top of that, which
Speaker 1: the Statement of Facts calls a supplemental year end bonus.
Speaker 1: So all in he was paid four hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. And that was paid in a series of
Speaker 1: payments of thirty five thousand dollars a month. And by
Speaker 1: the way, what are the thirty four counts. It's each
Speaker 1: of those payments. It's each of the record keeping. It's
Speaker 1: literally entering it into the books. That's account writing, the check,
Speaker 1: that's account, and that's account in the month of January,
Speaker 1: it's account in the month of February, it's account in
Speaker 1: the month of March, April, May, June, July. That's how
Speaker 1: they get to their thirty four counts. So in translations,
Speaker 1: the same damn thing over and over again, and that's
Speaker 1: how they got to it's each month's payment. Yes, so
Speaker 1: each month's payment. Wow. And when you hear it that way,
Speaker 1: it makes you even more angry at what has happened
Speaker 1: here and the fact that Donald Trump is even having
Speaker 1: to send in this scenario. And there were even people
Speaker 1: in the media that were asking questions about this, like,
Speaker 1: are you sure this is a really good idea? There
Speaker 1: was an NBC News reporter that confronted Brag about the
Speaker 1: previous da and the Feds not pursuing these exact charges
Speaker 1: against Trump. I want to play that. Before I get that,
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about our friends that guests
Speaker 1: the Precious Medals. You have seen what's been going on
Speaker 1: in the economy, and if you are close to retirement,
Speaker 1: planning for retirement, or in retirement, you know how important
Speaker 1: it is to preserve your wealth. Right now, I've been
Speaker 1: using a Gust of Precious Metals. They are a awesome
Speaker 1: conservative company and if you want to understand what a
Speaker 1: gold IRA can do for you diversifying in gold or silver,
Speaker 1: then you need to call them. I trust them, I
Speaker 1: use them. Now. Here's what they do that's different. A
Speaker 1: Gust of Precious Medals is all about protecting iras and
Speaker 1: four oh one ks in this crazy economy. And they
Speaker 1: do a one on one web conference with you so
Speaker 1: that you understand how gold and silver can work for you.
Speaker 1: What does that cost nothing. You can sit down with them,
Speaker 1: talk about your financial future, your retirement, your four oh
Speaker 1: one K and see if gold or silver is right
Speaker 1: for you. They'll also send you their free gold IRA
Speaker 1: info guide as well, So give them a buzz seven
Speaker 1: seven four the number four Gold Ira age seven seven
Speaker 1: the number four Gold Ira or online at Augusta Precious
Speaker 1: Metals Dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot Com. Use
Speaker 1: the promo code Ben and you will get ten years
Speaker 1: of fees covered up to ten years, which is pretty awesome.
Speaker 1: Augusta Precious Meals dot Com centator. I want to play
Speaker 1: for you this NBC News reporter because I think the
Speaker 1: media was also honestly shocked at how weak this indictment,
Speaker 1: This thirty four count indictment was for quote felonies out
Speaker 1: of thin air, and NBC News called brag out for this,
Speaker 1: saying like, hey, did you screw up basically listen, reservations, readiness,
Speaker 1: What was the questions in your mind that needed to
Speaker 1: be up screw I'm not going to go chapter and
Speaker 1: verse into many thinking. What I will say is I
Speaker 1: believe the time period you're talking about, I'd been in
Speaker 1: office for a couple of months. The investigation, in my view,
Speaker 1: was not concluded into the conduct in particular, that is
Speaker 1: the base for the charges Today. Since that time, we've
Speaker 1: had more evidence made available to the office and opportunity
Speaker 1: to meet with additional witnesses. So, as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: I've been doing this for twenty four years. I don't
Speaker 1: bring cases prior to author and rigorous investigation. Now having
Speaker 1: done so, the case has been brought Rad Garrett Hayker,
Speaker 1: NBC News. Your predecessor took a hard look at this
Speaker 1: case and decided not to charge it. Federal prosecutors took
Speaker 1: a hard look at this case and decided not to
Speaker 1: charge it. Do you believe you have new evidence that
Speaker 1: led you to decide to charge this for why? Now,
Speaker 1: as I just mentioned, we had available to the office
Speaker 1: additional evidence that was not in the office's possession prior
Speaker 1: to my time here. And as to you you're part
Speaker 1: of your question about the federal we have a strong,
Speaker 1: i would say profound independent interests in New York State.
Speaker 1: This is the business capital of the world. We regularly
Speaker 1: do cases involving false business statements. The bedrock, in fact,
Speaker 1: the basis for business integrity and a well functioning business
Speaker 1: marketplace is true and accurate record keeping. That's the charge
Speaker 1: of thought here, falsefying New York State business records. So, Senator,
Speaker 1: he's making up two different things here. One is when
Speaker 1: we have the new evidence, doesn't have to share that
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and this indictment. Wouldn't you have to
Speaker 1: say what that new evidence is? Number one and two
Speaker 1: then then he basically doesn't tell you what it is
Speaker 1: and goes back to the original statement. Yeah, there's virtually
Speaker 1: no new evidence in this indictment or this statement of fact.
Speaker 1: This is all based on allegations that have been around
Speaker 1: for years, have been around for many years that prosecutor
Speaker 1: after prosecutor of look and concluded that there was not
Speaker 1: a crime they could prosecute. Where are we now? Trump
Speaker 1: came into court, he pleaded not guilty, he left. It
Speaker 1: ended up the DA made an interesting decision. They didn't
Speaker 1: do the mug shot. And by the way, the decision
Speaker 1: not to do the mug shot was entirely political. You
Speaker 1: and I predicted on this podcast. By the way, I
Speaker 1: want to take a moment of victory lap on this
Speaker 1: podcast on Monday, I said Trump will come in wearing
Speaker 1: a Chris blue a beautiful blue blue suit, a Chris
Speaker 1: white shirt, and a bright red Donald J. Trump tie.
Speaker 1: That is exactly what he was wearing. The only piece
Speaker 1: I did not accurately predict is I didn't realize that
Speaker 1: that Alvin Bragg would be so political he'd decide, Okay,
Speaker 1: we now have the first defendant in the history of
Speaker 1: New York City who doesn't get a mug shot, So
Speaker 1: they skipped the mugshot because they didn't want to give
Speaker 1: the picture to Trump. So instead we have pictures from
Speaker 1: him in the courtroom in exactly the attire that we
Speaker 1: predicted on this podcast that let's go to scream to
Speaker 1: the politics of this though, that's so political that you
Speaker 1: didn't even give the mug chat because I didn't want
Speaker 1: him to use it. Yes, can you use that? As
Speaker 1: they realize the mug shot. Well, so the next step
Speaker 1: Trump is scheduled to go back to court December fourth. Now, listen,
Speaker 1: it's early April. December fourth is a really long time away.
Speaker 1: That's weird. That's weird that it's dragging along that slowly.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, it is a virtual certainty that Trump's
Speaker 1: legal team will file a motion to dismiss, and they
Speaker 1: might file emotion to smiss on multiple grounds. One ground
Speaker 1: they could file is is that the indictment is deficient.
Speaker 1: The entire basis for getting around the statute of limitations
Speaker 1: and making it a felony is that that the false
Speaker 1: business records allegedly were in furtherance of another crime. They
Speaker 1: don't specify what that crime is. That's One of the
Speaker 1: first grounds on which you'd file emotion is to say,
Speaker 1: if you don't specify what the crime is, you have
Speaker 1: not pleaded the crime under New York state law. I
Speaker 1: think that a motion to dismiss on that basis is
Speaker 1: quite likely. I think you're also likely to see a
Speaker 1: motion to dismiss, maybe the same motion, maybe a different
Speaker 1: motion based on vindictive or selected prosecution. Alvin Bragg ran
Speaker 1: for office, and on his campaign, on the campaign trail,
Speaker 1: he promised to quote get Trump. That is, on its face,
Speaker 1: it's screams of selective prosecution. That this is a political
Speaker 1: left wing Democrat who wanted to go after a political
Speaker 1: opponent that he hated, and that's what was going on here.
Speaker 1: I think we will see that issue litigated early on
Speaker 1: at the outset. I think another issue that you're likely
Speaker 1: to see raised the entire basis of the crime, alleged crime,
Speaker 1: is that these were false business records. It's not clear
Speaker 1: that the records that issue are business records at all.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump paid these funds from his personal accounts or
Speaker 1: the blind trust that was erected to hold his assets
Speaker 1: while he was president. In other words, it wasn't from
Speaker 1: the Trump corporation. It wasn't a business entity. Now, the
Speaker 1: statement of facts refers to some personnel in the Trump
Speaker 1: organization who were involved in cutting the checks. But the
Speaker 1: checks they cut, we're not business checks. They were checks
Speaker 1: from Trump's personal funds. And so listen, if Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: writes a check to somebody, that is not a business
Speaker 1: record under the ordinary interpretation of it. So that's another
Speaker 1: ground on which I would expect this to be litigated
Speaker 1: and challenged. And I think all of those are series grounds.
Speaker 1: This indictment was not brought to get a conviction. This
Speaker 1: indictment was not brought to try to actually put Trump
Speaker 1: in jail. This indictment was brought to be a political smear.
Speaker 1: And the irony is in that one regard as a
Speaker 1: political smear. It is horrendously inept. In other words, listen,
Speaker 1: I'll be surprised if next week Trump is not at
Speaker 1: sixty percent in the GOP primary. I've already described how
Speaker 1: this is the single greatest in kind contribution to the
Speaker 1: Trump twenty twenty four campaign that I've ever seen, brought
Speaker 1: by Alvin Bragg, the left wing George Soros Democrat DA.
Speaker 1: So if their purpose was a political smear. It titilated
Speaker 1: the excitement of the left who hates Trump, but I
Speaker 1: don't think it succeeded in the purpose that they hoped
Speaker 1: it would. Yeah, I don't think it did either. But
Speaker 1: I also think that there's a problem now for this
Speaker 1: president that is the political side of can he get
Speaker 1: this dismiss senator before December or are his hands literally
Speaker 1: tied and his legal team's hands tied until December, which
Speaker 1: you know means then this is gonna this is going
Speaker 1: to be an issue well into this election cycle. Look,
Speaker 1: this is going to be an issue into this election cycle.
Speaker 1: There was no getting around that the Democrats hate Trump,
Speaker 1: and so they were going to argue about indicting him,
Speaker 1: potentially indicting him, wanting to indict him right up until
Speaker 1: election day, that that was going to happen. Regardless, I
Speaker 1: would like to see this resolved quickly. I don't know
Speaker 1: if the New York state courts will operate quickly. I
Speaker 1: do think there's another whole set of issues. The judge
Speaker 1: admonished Trump about his rhetoric. I gotta say so, there's
Speaker 1: not a gag order in place, but if the judge
Speaker 1: tried to put a gag order in place. I think
Speaker 1: that would raise very significant First Amendment issues. Trump is
Speaker 1: not an ordinary defendant. He is a leading candidate for
Speaker 1: president of the United States. And the idea that a
Speaker 1: New York State judge would try to impose legal penalties
Speaker 1: on one of the leading candidates for president of the
Speaker 1: United States, who happens to be a former president from
Speaker 1: speaking his mind about just about any issue of public
Speaker 1: concern is really an astonishing and an unprecedented notion. And
Speaker 1: so I don't think the judge will try to enter
Speaker 1: a gag order, because it really is To say that's
Speaker 1: playing with dynamite would be an understatement. But I was
Speaker 1: more than a little concerned by the judge admonishing rhetoric
Speaker 1: because it's none of his damn business. This is not
Speaker 1: a mob boss who is threatening retaliation against a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: This is, in fact, a partisan prosecutor who ran promising
Speaker 1: retaliation against a political opponent whom he hates. And so
Speaker 1: I think that there's a whole world of potential problems
Speaker 1: that could rise, but they haven't risen yet, and I
Speaker 1: actually don't think they will. I don't know this judge,
Speaker 1: but I would be surprised if the judge, were that foolish,
Speaker 1: because any effort to silence a leading contender for president,
Speaker 1: I think would be doomed a failure. I want to
Speaker 1: ask you about another shock, and that was the media
Speaker 1: spreading what I would refer to as fake news about
Speaker 1: some of these charges. And before I play that, I
Speaker 1: want to tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
Speaker 1: If you're a guy and you're getting a little bit
Speaker 1: older and you feel like you're losing a little bit
Speaker 1: of that edge, you're losing some of that strength and vitality,
Speaker 1: and you want to figure out how to fight back,
Speaker 1: you can do it now with the patriots at Chalk.
Speaker 1: They are here to help real American men take back
Speaker 1: their right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterum
Speaker 1: levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. I've been
Speaker 1: taking Chalk, you can check him out chalk choq dot
Speaker 1: com for now almost two months, and I've been taking
Speaker 1: the Male Vitality Stack. It works. You should look at it.
Speaker 1: If you feel like you're losing a little bit of
Speaker 1: that edge, then check it out and see what Chalk
Speaker 1: can do for you. Manufactured right here in the USA,
Speaker 1: Chalk's natural supplements are clinically proven to have game changing
Speaker 1: effects on your energy and your focus as well. Maximize
Speaker 1: your masculinity today go to chalkcoq dot com use the
Speaker 1: code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription
Speaker 1: for life. Cancel Anytimehoq dot com use promo code Ben
Speaker 1: for thirty five percent off. Senator, the media was also
Speaker 1: out there and they were obsessed. It was almost like
Speaker 1: the word was sent out to everybody in the media ABCNBCCNN, MSNBC.
Speaker 1: The list goes on to use a big word to
Speaker 1: make this sound like Donald trumpson deep you know what,
Speaker 1: And the word they were obsessed with today was the
Speaker 1: word conspiracy. I'm going to play this montage for you
Speaker 1: and I want to get your reaction. Trump pleaded not
Speaker 1: guilty in the Manhattan courtroom again to thirty four counts
Speaker 1: of falsifying business records and conspiracy. Conspiracy is a very
Speaker 1: effective tool used by prosecutors to charge someone, charge groups
Speaker 1: of people, and hold them accountable for all acts in
Speaker 1: furtherance of the conspiracy. But the big question now rises,
Speaker 1: who is the conspiracy? Thirty four counts of falsifying records
Speaker 1: and conspiracy is thirty four counts of falsifying business records
Speaker 1: and conspiracy. More information. We need to see what was
Speaker 1: the purpose of the conspiracy, who was in the conspiracy,
Speaker 1: what were the so called overt acts? You actually have
Speaker 1: to take a step in for servants for the resiance
Speaker 1: of that conspiracy. You don't actually have to complete the conspiracy.
Speaker 1: You don't actually have to go through with it. You
Speaker 1: can just intend to go through living now, now, center,
Speaker 1: I've got a whole another minute of this type of talk.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I think everybody gets the point here.
Speaker 1: They were obsessed with this word conspiracy. Was the president
Speaker 1: charge with conspiracy today? No? Ok, Look, listening to that montage,
Speaker 1: you want to know the definition of fake news. You
Speaker 1: just saw it. You can read the indictment. They're thirty
Speaker 1: four counts. They're thirty four counts of all the same thing,
Speaker 1: which is a fraudulent business record in furtherance of another crime.
Speaker 1: There is no conspiracy count. You know, one of those
Speaker 1: commentators said a conspiracy count can be a very powerful tool.
Speaker 1: That's actually accurate, But that's not what Alvin Bragg brought.
Speaker 1: There was no conspiracy charge, and every one of those commentators,
Speaker 1: assuming every one of them is talking after the indictment
Speaker 1: came out. Those news organizations should all issue retractions or
Speaker 1: corrections because there is no conspiracy charge and any news
Speaker 1: organization saying to the contrary is lying to the American people.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about another aspect of this, and that is
Speaker 1: how do you move forward if you're running for president
Speaker 1: with this hanging over your head? And also, I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear now that other indictments could happen. We
Speaker 1: may have mug shots of the president and the next
Speaker 1: couple of months, depending on these other cases. This is
Speaker 1: a distraction. It's going to be a big distraction. It's
Speaker 1: going to take time, energy, money, focus away. And they're
Speaker 1: trying to place it out in the voters heads that
Speaker 1: you can't vote for Donald Trump because if you do
Speaker 1: vote for a guy like Donald Trump, he might go
Speaker 1: to jail and therefore you're wasting your vote. That's obviously
Speaker 1: what the media is trying to do here and what
Speaker 1: the Democrats are hoping is going to happen. So how
Speaker 1: do the American people look at this moving forward? And
Speaker 1: if it grows? Senator, is that a reason to bail on? Say?
Speaker 1: All right, they've done their damage, Fine, we'll figure out
Speaker 1: something else. Look, this is blatant election interference by rabid Democrats,
Speaker 1: whether it is alvit Bragg, whether it is the Biden
Speaker 1: White House and the Biden Department of Justice. And we've
Speaker 1: talked at great length about how I believe Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: desperately wants to indict Donald Trump, or whether it is
Speaker 1: a left wing Georgia prosecutor with a grand jury who
Speaker 1: is a self described which all of these I believe
Speaker 1: are partisan efforts to use the criminal justice system to
Speaker 1: subvert the will of the voters. If you're a Democrat
Speaker 1: and you don't want Donald Trump to win, there's an
Speaker 1: obvious avenue to pursue, which is try to beat him
Speaker 1: in an election. If you're a Republican, and there's certainly
Speaker 1: some Republicans who don't want Donald Trump to win, the
Speaker 1: obvious answer is to beat him in a primary election.
Speaker 1: That's actually how our political process works. We're going to
Speaker 1: have primaries to select the Republican nominee in the Democrat nominee,
Speaker 1: and we should be debating who the best nominee is,
Speaker 1: who has the best record, who is the most likely
Speaker 1: to win, who would make the best president. That's the
Speaker 1: essence of politics. What is happening as these left wing
Speaker 1: Democrats they don't trust the voters. They don't want to
Speaker 1: have the voters make that determination. They don't actually want
Speaker 1: to have to make their case to the voters. Instead,
Speaker 1: they're trying to end run the will of the voters
Speaker 1: by pursuing bogus and abusive prosecutions. I think that is
Speaker 1: an endeavor doomed to fail, And ironically, the more they
Speaker 1: do it, the more they end up politically benefiting and
Speaker 1: boosting Donald Trump. And I'd like to see all these
Speaker 1: ridiculous prosecutions stop and let the voters decide. Let's have
Speaker 1: a real and meaningful debate about the right direction for
Speaker 1: the country, not a partisan witch hunt driven by Democrats
Speaker 1: who ultimately are angry with the voters in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: for having dared to elect Donald Trump in the first place.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you one other question politically about this.
Speaker 1: And there was a lot of conservatives I saw today
Speaker 1: that we're saying, Okay, if this is how the game's
Speaker 1: going to be played, then there needs to be conservative
Speaker 1: das around the country that go ahead and jump in
Speaker 1: and start charging Democrats with crimes. Hunter Biden James Biden,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on on to
Speaker 1: show them, if they're going to do it, we'll do
Speaker 1: it too. What is your reaction to that strategy where
Speaker 1: they're saying, all right, they want to go to the mattresses.
Speaker 1: We can't just keep sitting back. You're acting like we're statesman.
Speaker 1: If they want to play by these rules, let's play
Speaker 1: by these rules. Look at some level, it may be inevitable.
Speaker 1: We talked about when Verdict launched. The first night this
Speaker 1: podcast came into existence was the first night of the
Speaker 1: very first impeachment of Donald Trump. One of the things
Speaker 1: that we said in the opening days of Verdict is
Speaker 1: the Democrats are crossing a rubicon and they are creating
Speaker 1: a new environment where whenever you have a House representatives
Speaker 1: from one party and a president from the opposing party,
Speaker 1: the odds of impeachment being used as a means of
Speaker 1: political warfare have risen dramatically. Now, I wish the Democrats
Speaker 1: had not crossed that line, and I think our country
Speaker 1: is worse off when you have the impeachment of the
Speaker 1: president as a routine matter of political battle. But I
Speaker 1: think the Democrats have pushed us in that direction. I
Speaker 1: think what Alvin Bragg has done, and I think what
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland wants to do would push us dramatically more
Speaker 1: in that direction, where it's not just impeachment, which the
Speaker 1: American people do understand, it's politicians attacking politicians. There is
Speaker 1: inevitably some element of politics to it. An indictment and
Speaker 1: a prosecution is meant to be separate and apart from politics.
Speaker 1: So listen, part of me, my heart hurts when I
Speaker 1: hear people saying, all right, Republicans, go indict the Democrats. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't want to see our legal system used as
Speaker 1: a weapon and tool of political retribution. Now, to be clear,
Speaker 1: I've said repeatedly the Department of Justice should investigate the
Speaker 1: Biden family and Joe Biden in particular for corruption. Official
Speaker 1: public corruption is a responsibility of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: and I think there is significant evidence that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: personally has profited and that his family has profited from
Speaker 1: communist China and also from Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company.
Speaker 1: Those investigations are perfectly appropriate. Ideally they should happen in
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, even though it is headed by
Speaker 1: a Democrat attorney general. But I do think we've got
Speaker 1: a good possibility of seeing some Republican DA somewhere who decides,
Speaker 1: all right, I want to be famous like Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go do this too. And I got
Speaker 1: to say that is much worse for the rule of law.
Speaker 1: It's worse for the constitution, It's worse for our democratically
Speaker 1: elected government if we go down that road. But Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg and Merrick Garland have pushed us a long long
Speaker 1: way down that road. And I understand the rage and
Speaker 1: fury that is leading people to call for that last
Speaker 1: question for you. Don't want to ask you about these
Speaker 1: future indictments. Before we get that, I want to remind
Speaker 1: you about our friends at Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is
Speaker 1: the only conservative Christian cell phone coming in the US,
Speaker 1: and they are a company where every single time that
Speaker 1: you pay your bill, you actually are supporting the causes
Speaker 1: and organizations that fight for our values. If you want
Speaker 1: to know that when you are writing a check, when
Speaker 1: you're spending money each month, it's going to companies that
Speaker 1: stand up for what you believe in instead of what
Speaker 1: commies fighting against what you believe in. Patriot Mobile is
Speaker 1: where you need to be. Switching is easy. You get
Speaker 1: to keep your same cell phone number. You can keep
Speaker 1: your same cell phone you have right now in your hand,
Speaker 1: or you can upgrade to a new one, and many
Speaker 1: times you'll actually save money over what you're spending right now.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, they take a percentage of
Speaker 1: your bill every month and they give it back to
Speaker 1: conservative causes that fight for First Amendment rights, our Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights, rights of unborn children, even help now with adoptions.
Speaker 1: In a post reviewweight World. This is a company I've
Speaker 1: been using for years. They're amazing. So stand with other
Speaker 1: conservatives and make a difference with every phone call. Call
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile to day, or go online to Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: dot com slash ben, Patriot Mobile dot com slash ben,
Speaker 1: or you can go to eight seven eight Patriot. That's
Speaker 1: eight seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash ben.
Speaker 1: Last question for you, Center, and that is with this
Speaker 1: indictment today, is do you believe it's going to be
Speaker 1: pretty easy now to get these other indictments against Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: Because those grand juries are gonna say this prosecutor and say, hey,
Speaker 1: they've already done it in New York. You're not going
Speaker 1: to be the first go ahead and take the leap. Maybe. Look,
Speaker 1: I think it makes it a little bit easier, but
Speaker 1: but I don't think it makes it much easier. The
Speaker 1: Atlanta investigation, I don't really know. I don't know that
Speaker 1: that prosecutor as we discuss the grand jury for a woman,
Speaker 1: the fact that she went on a media tour broadcasting
Speaker 1: her partisan dislike for Trump, that's a real problem for
Speaker 1: the prosecutors. I promise you the Atlanta prosecutors were horrified
Speaker 1: when she did that. It will raise if there is
Speaker 1: an indictment, it will raise an obvious ground for challenging
Speaker 1: that indictment. The greatest peril legally has always been the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. And listen, the Department of Justice has
Speaker 1: a unique role. It is the exclusive enforcer of federal law.
Speaker 1: We've discussed at great length. I believe Merrick Garland has
Speaker 1: made the political decision he wants to indict Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It's why, and we've talked about this before. DJ leaked
Speaker 1: that they intended to indict Hunter Biden for purely personal
Speaker 1: crimes that had nothing to do with Joe Biden because
Speaker 1: a they wanted to insulate Joe Biden in the White
Speaker 1: House from liability and complicity in corruption with foreign governments,
Speaker 1: but b because it gave a easy appearance of balance
Speaker 1: for Garland to say, look, I indicted a Biden, I
Speaker 1: indited a Trump. Look how even handed I am. I
Speaker 1: think that plan hit a major, major impediment when it
Speaker 1: was suddenly discovered that Joe Biden had classified documents seemingly everywhere.
Speaker 1: I think prior to the Biden documents being discovered, the
Speaker 1: odds were extremely high that Merritt Garland was going to
Speaker 1: indict Trump for the possession of classified documents. Now it
Speaker 1: is really tough. It is really tough to bring that
Speaker 1: case against Trump and not bring it against Biden. Everyone,
Speaker 1: even MSNBC, the partisan shills there, would be forced to ask,
Speaker 1: wait a second, why is this only a crime when
Speaker 1: Republicans do it? And so I think yesterday's indictment, well,
Speaker 1: last week's indictment, and yesterday's not guilty plea marginally increases
Speaker 1: the chances of future indictments. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, I think there are real impediments to the
Speaker 1: other cases, and those impediments may be sufficient to prevent
Speaker 1: the indictments from coming. We're going to keep covering this
Speaker 1: here and we'll let you We'll keep you update on
Speaker 1: all of this as it continues to move forward and
Speaker 1: these possible other indictments. As you said, Center, this is
Speaker 1: Saturday for this country, and it's going to be very
Speaker 1: hard to get the genie back in the bottle after
Speaker 1: what the Democrats have done to the President of the
Speaker 1: United States America Foreign President Donald Trump. And I think,
Speaker 1: like you said, his approval rating and his numbers are
Speaker 1: going to skyrocket in this primary. He's going to be
Speaker 1: the overwhelming front runner on steroids after this, and that
Speaker 1: may be the biggest backfire ball for what the Democrats
Speaker 1: thought they were going to get out of this one.
Speaker 1: Don't forget. We do this podcast three days a week.
Speaker 1: One day we do audio and video, the other two
Speaker 1: are audio only. So make sure it subscribed and the
Speaker 1: hit that auto subscriber auto download button right. It's a
Speaker 1: five star review, so we can help reach more people,
Speaker 1: and please share it with your family and your friends.
Speaker 1: Senator Cruz and I will see you back here in
Speaker 1: a couple of days.