Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you and Senator it is the trial of the century,
Speaker 2: is how they were selling it on TV today. The
Speaker 2: jury and the Donald Trump trial is going to have
Speaker 2: an awful lot of power on his future.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right. We had yesterday, we had closing
Speaker 3: arguments from the defense from the prosecution, and today the
Speaker 3: judge will give jury instructions to the jury and the
Speaker 3: jury will begin to deliberate and deliberate until they reach
Speaker 3: a verdict. And so this is what it all comes
Speaker 3: down to. The witnesses are done, the evidence is done,
Speaker 3: and it now comes down to the judge and the jury,
Speaker 3: and we're going to find out the outcome. So we're
Speaker 3: going to explain what to expect, what the jury's options are,
Speaker 3: what is critical in the jury instructions, and then we're
Speaker 3: also going to talk about yet another trial, which is
Speaker 3: the Hunter Biden trial, which is about to begin, and
Speaker 3: we're going to talk about the rather astonishing thing that
Speaker 3: right before the Hunter Biden trial, Joe Biden decided a
Speaker 3: little witness tampering is a good way to start that trial.
Speaker 3: We're going to compare and contrast these two trials, these
Speaker 3: two presidents, and the very different standards of justice that
Speaker 3: have applied to both of them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one's the trial of the century. The other one
Speaker 2: no one's talking about at all. Let me tell you
Speaker 2: real quick about our friend's over at Patriot Mobile. I
Speaker 2: tell you what I love knowing that every day when
Speaker 2: I use my cell phone, I'm making a difference in
Speaker 2: standing up for what I believe in. And I love
Speaker 2: knowing that I'm no longer giving my money to woke
Speaker 2: companies that are fighting against my values. Now, if you
Speaker 2: have a cell phone, technology now has changed everything in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, you don't have to worry about having
Speaker 2: spotty coverage when you switch cell phone providers because you're
Speaker 2: going to use the same exact towers you're using right now,
Speaker 2: meaning you get the same exact coverage. But the difference
Speaker 2: is you're not with Big Mobile, who gets big donations.
Speaker 2: When you switch Patriot Mobile, you're going to give donations
Speaker 2: to conservative causes organizations and instead of being with Big Mobile,
Speaker 2: where they're giving big donations a democratic car CAU and
Speaker 2: candidates in organizations including Planned Parenthood. That is why I
Speaker 2: want you to switch to Patriot Mobile. You don't even
Speaker 2: have to go to a store to switch. You can
Speaker 2: literally call them nine to seven to two Patriot With
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four technology, you can.
Speaker 1: Switch over the phone.
Speaker 2: You can keep your same phone number you have now
Speaker 2: your same phone you have in your hand, are upgrade
Speaker 2: to a new one and it's all now done over
Speaker 2: the phone.
Speaker 1: Plus, when you pay.
Speaker 2: Your bill every month, five percent of your bill, at
Speaker 2: no extra charge to you, goes back to support causes.
Speaker 2: It support our First and Second Amendment rights, the rights
Speaker 2: of unborn children, and at Patriot Mobile, they support our
Speaker 2: wounded warriors, our veterans, and our first responder heroes. I
Speaker 2: love giving my money to company that's aligned with my value.
Speaker 2: So join me today, make the switch and make a difference.
Speaker 2: With every phone call nine seven to two Patriot or
Speaker 2: Patriotmobile dot com slash vert use a promo code verdict
Speaker 2: and you'll also get free activation Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code verdict or nine to seven to
Speaker 2: two Patriot Senator. This has been a trial the media
Speaker 2: has been obsessed with with Donald Trump in New York.
Speaker 2: We've also been kind of looking at them hedging their bets,
Speaker 2: and I'm referring to the media. They've started to say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, Michael Cohen didn't work very well. Maybe this
Speaker 2: thing won't happen the way we thought it was. There
Speaker 2: is a chance he could not be convicted. So let's
Speaker 2: go through what is now happening with the jury. They
Speaker 2: get their instructions from the judge. That'll take about an hour.
Speaker 2: They then have to go deliberate, and at that point
Speaker 2: there's nothing left from the outside world but for us
Speaker 2: to wait. So what is the jury's options. The Democrats
Speaker 2: want Trump to go to jail. They've been throwing these
Speaker 2: stories out there, the Secret Service talking to jail about
Speaker 2: maybe him. If he goes to jail, then there's the
Speaker 2: other possibility of a hung jury or not guilty. Tell
Speaker 2: me and explain each one of these scenarios.
Speaker 3: Well, as you noted, the judge is going to start
Speaker 3: the day by giving the jury instructions. The jury instructions
Speaker 3: matter enormously, and we're going to find out just how
Speaker 3: wildly biased this judge is. Those jury instructions are going
Speaker 3: to set up what the task is. It's the judge's
Speaker 3: job to tell the jury what the law is and
Speaker 3: depending on what the judge instructs. That could well be
Speaker 3: putting a finger on the scale and leaning in against
Speaker 3: Trump and in favor of the prosecution. As we've talked
Speaker 3: about on this pod, there are many aspects of the
Speaker 3: prosecution that did not go well for the prosecutor. Michael
Speaker 3: Cohen was a disaster of a witness. He admitted to
Speaker 3: lying on the stand. He admitted to being a thief
Speaker 3: on the stand. That really is a first. I don't
Speaker 3: know of another trial where the star witness admits and
Speaker 3: breaks news. Oh, by the way, I stole a bunch
Speaker 3: of money from you too.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 3: As we talked about this on this podcast that had
Speaker 3: CNN crying in their beer, I got to say, I
Speaker 3: do feel a little bad for CNN. I don't know
Speaker 3: what they're actually going to cover when this trial is over.
Speaker 3: They're certainly not going to cover the Hunter Biden trial
Speaker 3: because that would entail saying something negative about the White House,
Speaker 3: So they won't do that.
Speaker 2: The way you just insulted beer drinkers, I don't think
Speaker 2: they drink beer at Cena.
Speaker 1: I think it's more like a white claw. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna be honest with you.
Speaker 3: Hey, don't knock white claws. I had white claws thrown
Speaker 3: at me, two of them. It's you know, that's where
Speaker 3: you need catike reflexes. If someone throws a white claw,
Speaker 3: you gotta duck.
Speaker 1: You gotta duck.
Speaker 2: I will say you and I had a white claw
Speaker 2: at one of the shows after that happened.
Speaker 1: Can we both agree that might be one of the
Speaker 1: worst drinks you've ever had in your touch.
Speaker 3: Last y I've had precisely one white claw in my life,
Speaker 3: and I didn't finish mine.
Speaker 1: I didn't finish money there. It was like seventy five
Speaker 1: percent still in the bottle. It was disgusting. But then
Speaker 1: at CNN, I'm sure they drink that stuff.
Speaker 3: I you know, probably with a little pink umbrella. But
Speaker 3: CNN is they're worried, the media is worried that Trump
Speaker 3: will be acquitted. We'll find out. Look, the jury has
Speaker 3: not been sequestered. So they're all in New York. They
Speaker 3: all went over a Memorial Day weekend. They were surrounded
Speaker 3: by their friends and family, presumably, and my guess is
Speaker 3: a whole lot of them were saying, you got to
Speaker 3: convict this guy. You got to convict this guy. They're
Speaker 3: not supposed to discuss the case with anybody, but the
Speaker 3: jury really should have been sequestered, and the jury instructions
Speaker 3: are going to matter a lot. And by the way,
Speaker 3: if Trump is convicted, one of the many things that
Speaker 3: could lead to an appeal is what's in the jury instructions.
Speaker 3: And I'm going to break down in particular an issue
Speaker 3: on that in a second. But you ask what will happen. Look,
Speaker 3: they're thirty four counts of falsifying business records, and so
Speaker 3: the jury has to reach a verdict on each of
Speaker 3: the thirty four counts, and the options are guilty or
Speaker 3: not guilty. Now to find the defendant guilty. To find
Speaker 3: Trump guilty, the jury has to be unanimous of all
Speaker 3: twelve jurors have to conclude he's guilty. Now, they don't
Speaker 3: have to reach the same result in every one of
Speaker 3: the counts, So they could conceivably find him guiltlty on
Speaker 3: some and not guilty on others, but it has to
Speaker 3: be unanimous in order to find him guilty. If they
Speaker 3: can't reach an outcome, if they're deadlocked, then you could
Speaker 3: have a hung jury, and a hung jury leads to a
Speaker 3: best trial, and they could start the whole thing all
Speaker 3: over again, And in terms of timing, we don't know
Speaker 3: how quick this could be. That we could see a
Speaker 3: verdict today, we could see a verdict tomorrow, or they
Speaker 3: could spend a week or two deliberating and end up
Speaker 3: being deadlocked. All of those are possibilities, and we don't
Speaker 3: really know what the time he'll be.
Speaker 2: Can we go back to hung jury just for a
Speaker 2: second and explain that a little bit more? Is that
Speaker 2: a positive if you're the person he accused? Obviously in
Speaker 2: this scenario that would be Donald Trump, And then you
Speaker 2: mentioned appeal. Play that out for us, and what would
Speaker 2: that look like in the timeline.
Speaker 3: Well, look, for a criminal defendant, a hung jury is
Speaker 3: a victory. It's certainly a lot better than a guilty verdict.
Speaker 3: So a hung jury means the prosecution failed to convict you,
Speaker 3: but it's not a verdict of innocence of not guilty.
Speaker 3: And so the result of a hung jury is that
Speaker 3: the judge is forced to clar abyss trial and you
Speaker 3: can go to the trial all over again. And so,
Speaker 3: but a criminal defendant in normal circumstances, and not a
Speaker 3: thing about this is remotely normal. But in normal circumstances,
Speaker 3: a criminal defendant is pretty durned happy with the hung jury.
Speaker 3: It means the prosecution failed, and with some frequency the
Speaker 3: prosecution does not chooses not to try it a second time.
Speaker 3: And so a hung jury is at least a partial
Speaker 3: victory for the defense. But as I said, it can
Speaker 3: all happen again, which truly would be a nightmare. But
Speaker 3: CNN may be rooting for that because, as I said,
Speaker 3: they got to cover something for the next couple of months,
Speaker 3: and they're not going to cover the failures of the
Speaker 3: Biden White House, so this is all that's left to them.
Speaker 2: If this goes that scenario where someone holds out and
Speaker 2: they say, hey, I'm not going to convict, and then
Speaker 2: you look at the timeline down the road, could this
Speaker 2: still Would this be after a election day before election day?
Speaker 2: And if Donald Trump wins reelection, right, he gets elect
Speaker 2: this second time? The question I've been asked, and I said,
Speaker 2: I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm going to ask you.
Speaker 2: Could the president in theory pardon himself?
Speaker 3: No, okay, Now, the president can pardon himself from federal offenses.
Speaker 3: And so the indictments from the Department of Justice, there
Speaker 3: are two different indictments from the Special Council Jack Smith.
Speaker 3: There is the one that is the Document's case that's
Speaker 3: down in Florida for his alleged possession and legal possession
Speaker 3: of classified documents at Marlago. There is the second one
Speaker 3: that is the indictment in DC for January sixth. Both
Speaker 3: of those the president could pardon himself because those are
Speaker 3: federal claims. He wouldn't actually need to pardon himself because
Speaker 3: he could just direct the Department of Justice to dismiss
Speaker 3: the cases. And so if Trump is elected, both of
Speaker 3: those cases will go away. What he can't pardon himself
Speaker 3: of is the state offenses. So he can't part himself
Speaker 3: of the New York criminal charges. He can't pardon himself
Speaker 3: for the Georgia criminal charges because neither of those are
Speaker 3: federal charges. They're both state charges, and so only the
Speaker 3: governor can pardon. Actually, in Georgia, the governor can't pardon
Speaker 3: until after the trial. So even in that circumstance, it's
Speaker 3: not subject to a pardon until after the trial.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about if the jury goes in there
Speaker 2: is what has to take place for them to find
Speaker 2: him either guilty or innocent. Does that have to be
Speaker 2: unanimous in these state cases.
Speaker 1: So it does have to be unanimous.
Speaker 3: It has to be unanimous as to each of the counts,
Speaker 3: if any, on which he's found guilty. Now, this is
Speaker 3: where the jury instructions really matter, though, because it depends
Speaker 3: on what the judge asks them to find. Remember these
Speaker 3: claims that these charges are all for bookkeeping offenses. They're
Speaker 3: therefore thirty four allegedly false entries of a bookkeeping Now,
Speaker 3: under New York law, those books keeping offenses or misdemeanors
Speaker 3: and misdemeanors on which the statute of limitations has run.
Speaker 3: And so the whole trick of this very creative and
Speaker 3: frankly frivolous prosecution is they're trying to bootstrap a misdemeanor,
Speaker 3: and a misdemeanor is a crime that is punishable by
Speaker 3: less than a year in jail, and a misdemeanor typically
Speaker 3: as a short statute of limitations. They're trying to bootstrap
Speaker 3: it by focusing on another crime. And so if the
Speaker 3: book keeping offense is in furtherance of another crime, it
Speaker 3: can be elevated to a felony, which gives you a
Speaker 3: longer statute of limitations and longer a longer potential jail sentence.
Speaker 3: But what is really going to be critical is what
Speaker 3: the judge tells the jury they have to find about
Speaker 3: this so called other crime. And I will say there
Speaker 3: was a really good article that was written by Byron
Speaker 3: York and the Washington Examiner entitled Judgment Week how prosecutors
Speaker 3: will use the quote other crime against Trump? And in
Speaker 3: it he points out that the bookkeeping offenses are misdemeanors,
Speaker 3: but that the theory that they're using is that in
Speaker 3: addition to the bookkeeping offenses, Trump violated a New York
Speaker 3: state election law barring the quote conspiracy to promote or
Speaker 3: prevent election by unlawful means. Now, that is a misdemeanor
Speaker 3: as well. But what the Manhattan DA is arguing is
Speaker 3: that the two misdemeanors, when taken together, add up to
Speaker 3: thirty four felony charges and a maximum sentence of one
Speaker 3: hundred and thirty six years in prison for Trump. And
Speaker 3: so which is really I mean, it's a bootstrap strap
Speaker 3: that is an extraordinary bootstrap. But what is even more
Speaker 3: amazing is it's not clear what the judge is going
Speaker 3: to instruct the jury about the so called object crime.
Speaker 3: In other words, do they have to agree on what
Speaker 3: the object crime is. And first of all, what is
Speaker 3: the object crime? Is there only one? Are there more
Speaker 3: than one? Does the object crime require an object crime
Speaker 3: of its own? What level of proof do the prosecutors
Speaker 3: have to have to reach before they can find Trump guilty? Remember,
Speaker 3: ordinarily in a criminal case you have to prove beyond
Speaker 3: a reasonable doubt. Well, do they have to prove the
Speaker 3: object crime behind a reasonable doubt? And does the object
Speaker 3: crime even have to be a crime? And all of
Speaker 3: these were argued about before the judge. So last Tuesday,
Speaker 3: both sets of lawyers met with a judge and there
Speaker 3: was a lot of discussion about the most frequently mentioned
Speaker 3: object crime, which is the New York State election law,
Speaker 3: outlawing the promotion of an election by unlawful means. And
Speaker 3: the question is what does unlawful means? Now, the prosecutors
Speaker 3: cite an alleged violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Speaker 3: And remember we talked about in a previous pot how
Speaker 3: the judge would not allow Brad Smith, the former chairman
Speaker 3: of the Federal Election Commission, to testify about the Federal
Speaker 3: Election Campaign Act. Now, typically violations of that act are
Speaker 3: a civil matter. Would a civil matter be an object
Speaker 3: to crime. Well, there was a back and forth about
Speaker 3: whether it could be a civil offense or if it
Speaker 3: had to be actually a crime, and that also led
Speaker 3: to a discussion. And we'll see what the jury instructions
Speaker 3: say about the men's raya and in particular whether it
Speaker 3: has to be a willful violation the Trump The Trump
Speaker 3: lawyers wanted the judge to tell the jury that they
Speaker 3: must find that Trump willfully violated the law, which means
Speaker 3: that he specifically knew what he was doing was a crime,
Speaker 3: and that he did it anyway. And so here's what
Speaker 3: Andrew McCarthy, who's a very very experienced federal prosecutor and
Speaker 3: commentator and a good friend, here's what he wrote about that.
Speaker 3: He wrote, quote, whenever a crime is alleged, prosecutors must
Speaker 3: prove criminal intent. Wilfulness is the most burdensome intent standard
Speaker 3: in the criminal law. Prosecutors to prove that the defendant
Speaker 3: was aware of a legal duty and intentionally violated that duty.
Speaker 3: So those questions, and by the way, what did DOJ say.
Speaker 3: DOJ came in and argued, no, no, no, no, we don't have
Speaker 3: to prove any of that. Instead, they said that the
Speaker 3: underlying crime. The unlawful means doesn't have to be a crime.
Speaker 3: It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. And DOJ argued, quote,
Speaker 3: by its plain meaning, unlawful doesn't mean criminal, it means
Speaker 3: violation of law. That's what Michael Colangelo, who was one
Speaker 3: of the top officials at the Biden Justice Department and
Speaker 3: who left to join this rabid partisan DA's legal team.
Speaker 3: Colangelo argued, quote, the plain text of the statute provides
Speaker 3: that election law conspiracy occurred when the intended results are
Speaker 3: executed through unlawful means. Because it doesn't need to be
Speaker 3: criminal unlawful means, there's no need to add the word
Speaker 3: wilful into the jury's instructions. So the prosecution's position in
Speaker 3: the object crime is it doesn't have to be a crime,
Speaker 3: and he doesn't They don't have to prove that he
Speaker 3: intended to commit a crime, and that it doesn't have
Speaker 3: to be even a criminal act. It could be a
Speaker 3: civil violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Now, Trump's
Speaker 3: lawyers came back and said, I think quite sensibly, for
Speaker 3: this to be a criminal conspiracy, there has to be
Speaker 3: a criminal object Otherwise, quote, we just have a civil conspiracy,
Speaker 3: that it can't be used to elevate this into a felony.
Speaker 3: The judge said he was reserving decision on the willfully issue.
Speaker 3: So what the standard of intent is is going to
Speaker 3: be a big deal. Now, there were separately a debate
Speaker 3: about whether there has to be one object crime. Does
Speaker 3: the jury all have to agree on one object crime
Speaker 3: or could there be several, which with each juror finding
Speaker 3: a different object crime and say I like that one,
Speaker 3: so I'll use it to elevate it to a fellow. No, No,
Speaker 3: I like that one. And what are the prosecutors have
Speaker 3: to have to prove? Now, Colangelo argued, quote, the people
Speaker 3: weren't required to identify any object crime, so you could
Speaker 3: be have it be whatever you want it. Trump lawyers
Speaker 3: responded that, quote, the jury cannot infer that the unlawful
Speaker 3: means is established just by the fact that there was
Speaker 3: an agreement to promote Presidents Trump's election in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: Of course there was, he won. They have to establish
Speaker 3: some kind of unlawful means to make that a crime.
Speaker 3: So these questions are a big, big deal. And as
Speaker 3: we sit here today, we don't know how the judge
Speaker 3: is going to resolve it. But if the judge sends
Speaker 3: it to the jury and says the prosecution doesn't have
Speaker 3: to prove beyond reasonable doubt the object crime, it doesn't
Speaker 3: have to be a crime at all. You don't have
Speaker 3: to decide what the object crime is. Each one of
Speaker 3: you can pick a different object crime. That really illustrates
Speaker 3: how the jury instructions can stack the deck for the prosecution.
Speaker 3: My strong suspicions is we're going to see some pretty
Speaker 3: messed up jury instructions today, but we'll find out when
Speaker 3: the judge gives them.
Speaker 2: So you look at all these counts, and I've seen
Speaker 2: this really pick up steam on seeing NMSNBC and the others,
Speaker 2: and it's the look, we don't have to basically get
Speaker 2: Trump on everything. We just need to get him on something,
Speaker 2: and with so many charges against him, the jury will
Speaker 2: probably this is my words, what they were pontificating about
Speaker 2: is that they're going to find something to convict him on.
Speaker 2: And that's all we really want here. Is that a
Speaker 2: real strategy, Like hey, throw the book at him and
Speaker 2: eventually like there's enough smoke, there's fire. They don't like him,
Speaker 2: and they're like, all right, we'll let him go on
Speaker 2: a lot of this stuff, but we're going to nail
Speaker 2: at least on something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, that is possible. I don't think that's likely.
Speaker 3: I think it's likely to be binary. I think you're
Speaker 3: either going to have one or more jurors that say
Speaker 3: this is all crap, this is garbage, no, or it's
Speaker 3: going to be a partisan jury that says we hate
Speaker 3: Donald Trump and he's guilty on everything. I think it
Speaker 3: is likely to be one or the other. So actually,
Speaker 3: really one of three that you could get guilty on
Speaker 3: all of them, you could get not guilty on all
Speaker 3: of them, or a hung jury.
Speaker 2: If you get the hung jury and you get the appeal,
Speaker 2: So there's no appeal from hung jury. Okay, So no
Speaker 2: appeal from hung jury, just okay. So hung jury is
Speaker 2: a victory by default. Yes, but the prosecution can bring
Speaker 2: the case again. It could literally start all over.
Speaker 1: And that could and that can happen how quickly.
Speaker 3: As quickly as the judge wants to. The judge would
Speaker 3: have to panel a different jury. So a hung jury means, okay,
Speaker 3: we didn't get to a result, thank you jurors for serving,
Speaker 3: and you know, the judge could say, all right, next
Speaker 3: week we're gonna start vardire and we're going to bring
Speaker 3: in potential jurors and get going again. I doubt it
Speaker 3: would happen that fast, but it conceivably could.
Speaker 2: If you're trying to influence the outcoming election and tying
Speaker 2: Trump up in office, and that's your goal, then it
Speaker 2: would make sense. Right you would want to do it
Speaker 2: pretty quickly, and seven weeks can turn into fourteen weeks,
Speaker 2: fifteen weeks where you can't campaign. What would be the
Speaker 2: political fallout of this? And this is where I want
Speaker 2: you to put on a different hat. I look at
Speaker 2: this and I think they're messing with fire here. I
Speaker 2: think that this is a There could be massive political fallout.
Speaker 2: Democrats are obviously hoping for a conviction so they can
Speaker 2: then and this has been reported now in leak the
Speaker 2: White House that they're preparing for the president to make
Speaker 2: a statement from the White House. So will quote look
Speaker 2: non political being at the White House. If Trump is convicted,
Speaker 2: if it is a hung jury, or if he is innocent, innocent,
Speaker 2: found innocent, how do the politics of all those three
Speaker 2: scenarios play out for them?
Speaker 3: Well, this is all politics, This is not law, This
Speaker 3: is not a real criminal offense. There's no human being
Speaker 3: on planet Earth who would besecuted for these boloney charges
Speaker 3: if they were not named Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump.
Speaker 3: And so of course the Biden White House is salivating now.
Speaker 3: They're fairly clottish and announcing, Oh, the President's going to
Speaker 3: do it addressed from the White House. He's hoping to
Speaker 3: be reveling in. You know, Donald Trump is a felon.
Speaker 3: We now know that. Who knows how gleeful he will be.
Speaker 3: But it's all about politics, you know. I do think
Speaker 3: Democrats are dismayed. They really had hoped this trial would
Speaker 3: drag Trump through the mud and his numbers would plummet,
Speaker 3: and his numbers continue to be strong. He's leading in
Speaker 3: virtually every swing state. So I think democrats, you know,
Speaker 3: there was a big story this week about Democrats panicking
Speaker 3: about how badly Biden's doing. I will say, if there's
Speaker 3: a hung jury and the prosecution says, okay, we're going
Speaker 3: to go do it again, I think there will be
Speaker 3: a lot of exasperation expressed politically. But I think at
Speaker 3: the end of the day, this trial has not accomplished
Speaker 3: what the rabid partisans wanted it to accomplish. But I
Speaker 3: don't even know that they can see that Trump derangement
Speaker 3: syndrome is real. There are people who's mind has melted.
Speaker 3: Let's give it an example. Robert de Niro decided, you
Speaker 3: know what this country really needs is an angry left
Speaker 3: wing Hollywood actor outside the trial, and he kind of
Speaker 3: lost it. He had a meltdown. Give a listen to
Speaker 3: what de Niro said outside the trial.
Speaker 4: Under Trump, this kind of government will perish from the earth.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to scare you.
Speaker 4: No, no, wait, maybe I do mean to scare you.
Speaker 4: If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss
Speaker 4: these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted, and
Speaker 4: elections forget about it. That's over, that's done. If he
Speaker 4: gets in, I can tell you right now he will
Speaker 4: never leave. He will never leave.
Speaker 1: You know that he will never leave. By the way,
Speaker 1: isn't that what they said last time?
Speaker 2: If Donald Trump got elected, he would never leave and
Speaker 2: he wasn't gonna leave office, And yet he did.
Speaker 3: I gotta say what I'm most happy listening to it
Speaker 3: is he stands there and goes forget about it, Like yo,
Speaker 3: I'm in New York. I'm playing a muchstance. He gonna
Speaker 3: leave forget about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's that's that's de Niro for you. And
Speaker 2: I love how they roll out these stars like they're
Speaker 2: trying to bring attention to this, hoping that it's their
Speaker 2: best political wet dream they've ever had, which is Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is convicted. And then that brings me to my
Speaker 2: final question on this. Let's say Trump is convicted. It's
Speaker 2: been leaked that the Secret Service has been talking with
Speaker 2: the prison system about how they would incarcerate Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Can you run from prison if you're incarcerated, if hypothetically
Speaker 2: that happened, how does that work?
Speaker 3: Well, look, there is no legal bar, there's no constitutional
Speaker 3: bar uh to a felon being elected president. There's no
Speaker 3: legal or constitutional bar to someone in jail being elected president. Now,
Speaker 3: I do not believe Donald Trump will go to jail.
Speaker 3: That will not be the outcome. I think even this
Speaker 3: rabbid partisan judge would allow him to be be free
Speaker 3: while the appeal was pending. And I think if they
Speaker 3: tried to put him in jail, you would see an
Speaker 3: emergency appeal. And I do not think he is going
Speaker 3: to jail. So I think that is is in the
Speaker 3: rabbit fantasies of left wing delusions. But I think if
Speaker 3: they did actually put him in jail, I mean I
Speaker 3: said this on a previous pod. If they did actually
Speaker 3: put him in jail, I think he'd win the presidency
Speaker 3: with three hundred and more electoral votes.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the crazy thing is, we've been talking so much
Speaker 2: about this case. There's another very big case that starts
Speaker 2: with Hunter Biden. I want to get into that, but
Speaker 2: first I want to take a moment and say thank you.
Speaker 2: So many of you that are Verdict listeners have gotten
Speaker 2: involved with an incredible organization called Preborn. Preborn is helping
Speaker 2: save the lives of countless unborn babies. They're doing it
Speaker 2: by allowing mothers to hear their baby's heart on ultrasound.
Speaker 2: You may not realize this, but the heart of a
Speaker 2: child begins to form a conception and adjust it three weeks,
Speaker 2: it's already beating. At five weeks, a baby's heartbeat can
Speaker 2: be heard on that vitally important ultrasound. That's why we
Speaker 2: partner with Preborn, because we need to help these precious babies.
Speaker 2: And every day Preborn's networks of clinics rescues two hundred
Speaker 2: babies from abortion. When a mother whether an unplanned pregnancy,
Speaker 2: meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their baby's heartbeat.
Speaker 2: It is a divine encounter that literally doubles a baby's
Speaker 2: chance at life. By six weeks, a child's eyes eyes
Speaker 2: are forming. By ten weeks, a baby is able to
Speaker 2: suck his or her own thumb, And for just twenty
Speaker 2: eight dollars, you could be the difference, for just twenty
Speaker 2: eight dollars between the life or death of a child.
Speaker 2: All gifts to Preborn or tax deductible. You can donate
Speaker 2: easily by just dialing pound two fifty. That's pound two
Speaker 2: fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty,
Speaker 2: say the keyword baby. Or you can also donate securely
Speaker 2: online at preborn dot com slash verdict. That's preborn dot
Speaker 2: com slash verdict. Into all you that have already gotten involved,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for being involved in fighting back
Speaker 2: against the radicals at Planned parenthood. All right, Senator, I
Speaker 2: want to get to the other big case, and it
Speaker 2: is a very big case. It is a case that
Speaker 2: apparently is so nerve wracked in the White House. It
Speaker 2: looks like the President could have been involved in witness tampering.
Speaker 2: Ahead of the trial of his son, Hunter Biden. Let's
Speaker 2: talk about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. So this trial begins on Monday, June third.
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden is going to face a federal trial for
Speaker 3: his gun crimes and one of the key witnesses is
Speaker 3: going to be Halle Biden. Now who is Halle Biden.
Speaker 3: Halle Biden is the widow of Bo Biden, Hunter's older
Speaker 3: brother who tragically passed away of cancer, and also the
Speaker 3: ex girlfriend of Hunter Biden, and Halle Biden is expected
Speaker 3: to be a key witness. And Sunday night, Joe Biden
Speaker 3: stopped by Halle's house. It was about eight pm on
Speaker 3: Sunday night. Joe Biden came by and Halle was dating
Speaker 3: Hunter at the time of the crimes, and she's one
Speaker 3: of the expected witnesses. She was married to Bo Biden.
Speaker 3: He died in twenty fifteen of brain cancer, and the
Speaker 3: prosecutors alleged that Hunter lied about his drug use on
Speaker 3: the gun purchase forms and then that he illegally possessed
Speaker 3: at least one gun, which Hallie is alleged to have
Speaker 3: thrown in a public dumpster in twenty eighteen. So she's
Speaker 3: the one who allegedly got rid of the evidence, and
Speaker 3: so she's not just a witness, she is a central
Speaker 3: witness in the case. And the White House spokesman when
Speaker 3: asked about, gosh, why is Joe Biden visiting one of
Speaker 3: the key witnesses in the case against his son eight
Speaker 3: days before the trial, they said, no, no, no, he visited
Speaker 3: her because of the approaching ninth anniversary of Bo's passing. Now,
Speaker 3: I got to say that is that strikes me as
Speaker 3: a highly dubious explanation, naturally raises the question, gosh, did
Speaker 3: he did he visit Hally before the eighth anniversary? Before
Speaker 3: the seventh anniversary is sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second, first,
Speaker 3: And if he did, I'm unaware of it. And you
Speaker 3: certainly would think the White House if if that was
Speaker 3: their line and he had visited her at any time previously,
Speaker 3: you sure do think the White House would have pointed
Speaker 3: it out. But they didn't. And and I got to say,
Speaker 3: for the President of the United States, listen, when the
Speaker 3: president travels, the president never travels quietly. It's not subtle.
Speaker 3: You come in with a motorcade with secret service, and
Speaker 3: so for him to go it's it's brazen.
Speaker 1: It is Joe.
Speaker 3: Biden and the Biden family feels that they are not
Speaker 3: bound they behave as if they feel that they're not
Speaker 3: bound by criminal law, by any any restrictions, that that
Speaker 3: he's entitled to go. And the natural presumption is that
Speaker 3: he had a conversation with her about what she was
Speaker 3: going to say whence she testifies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, it would be important. Hey we want to
Speaker 2: know what you're going to say, or Hey, here's what
Speaker 2: we need you to say. If anyone else was in
Speaker 2: this scenario, what traditionally would happen when before a trial
Speaker 2: if everyone found out about the same way we did,
Speaker 2: regardless of an alibi, If Trump would have done this,
Speaker 2: if I was on trial or you were on trial
Speaker 2: and we were going to meet with somebody that's about
Speaker 2: to be a witness and testimony for a kid, like,
Speaker 2: what would happen.
Speaker 3: Well, you would expect the judge to make an inquiry
Speaker 3: of why were you Why were you meeting with this person?
Speaker 3: Who expect the prosecutor to make an inquiry as to
Speaker 3: why were you meeting with this witness? Did you discuss
Speaker 3: did you discuss what her testimony was going to be?
Speaker 3: So witness temp tampering is attempting to improperly influence or
Speaker 3: change the testimony of a witness within criminal proceedings. And
Speaker 3: it we don't know that that happened. But the United States,
Speaker 3: a federal crime a witness tamper. It's decided defined by statute.
Speaker 3: It's eighteen USC. Section fifteen twelve, which is entitled quote
Speaker 3: tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, and it
Speaker 3: describes witness tampering is a crime even if the proceedings
Speaker 3: not pending, and it is a criminal offense even if
Speaker 3: you are unsuccessful in your attempt to tamper. In other words,
Speaker 3: if you try to convince the witness, hey, you know,
Speaker 3: it really help if you testify to X, even though
Speaker 3: X isn't the case. The witness might not do what
Speaker 3: you said, but it is still witness tampering. And and
Speaker 3: that's a natural question. Now I'm quite confident the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice is not going to inquire of Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: what conversation did you have with a witness? They might
Speaker 3: ask her, It is possible they ask her, but I
Speaker 3: think there's no indication that the DOJ or the trial
Speaker 3: court is got to even ask what Joe Biden said
Speaker 3: to her.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the media was silent on this, excluding Fox News,
Speaker 2: which broke this story.
Speaker 1: Here's how they reported it.
Speaker 5: President Biden also made a surprise, unannounced stop at Hallie
Speaker 5: Biden's house in Delaware last night. She is bo Biden's
Speaker 5: widow and Hunter Biden's ex girlfriend, who was also set
Speaker 5: to testify in Hunter Biden's gun trial in Delaware that
Speaker 5: begins next week. White House officials are saying this presidential
Speaker 5: visit to her house had nothing to do with that testimony.
Speaker 5: They say it has to do with the upcoming ninth
Speaker 5: anniversary of bo Biden's passing.
Speaker 2: Jillian all Right, by the way, how often does the
Speaker 2: President United States of America make a surprise, unannounced visit
Speaker 2: in and around Washington, d C. In a massive motorcade.
Speaker 2: That has not happen very often.
Speaker 3: So, look, it is certainly possible. Presidents do have family,
Speaker 3: they visit their family. So I don't know the frequency
Speaker 3: with which Joe Biden visits other members of the family
Speaker 3: and that presidents do that. What they don't do with
Speaker 3: great frequency is do it right before you do it
Speaker 3: when you're meeting with a key witness who is about
Speaker 3: to testify in the trial against your son that that
Speaker 3: is a dramatically different context, and it raises obvious questions,
Speaker 3: questions that the media seems completely uninterested in asking, and
Speaker 3: that I expect the Biden Department of Justice is completely
Speaker 3: uninterested in asking.
Speaker 2: I was asked this question the other day and I
Speaker 2: hadn't actually thought about it yet. And I was asked
Speaker 2: this question when I was on Fox and they said,
Speaker 2: if Hunter Biden is convicted at either of these trials,
Speaker 2: will it have any impact on the presidential election? My
Speaker 2: personal opinion, I said, is instantly, I was like, no,
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think most people know who
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden is. They know he clearly has been trading
Speaker 2: off the family's name. They know he's a drug He
Speaker 2: was a drug addic and did a lot of really
Speaker 2: bad things. We've seen the laptop. It's pretty darn clear. Well,
Speaker 2: it does believe it's going to make a difference. So
Speaker 2: in the presential action, do you believe that it will
Speaker 2: or won't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And there's a second trial that is set to
Speaker 3: begin in September. It's in Los Angeles and it's for
Speaker 3: allegedly failing to pay more than one point four million
Speaker 3: dollars in federal taxes from twenty sixteen to twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: so you'll have two different trials that are scheduled. Listen,
Speaker 3: if the president's son is convicted. And now remember, initially
Speaker 3: DOJ tried to give him a sweetheart deal where he
Speaker 3: wouldn't go to jail, and ultimately that that fell apart.
Speaker 3: Hunter originally agreed to a probation only deal to both
Speaker 3: the gun and tax crimes in June, but he walked
Speaker 3: away from the sweetheart deal at a July court hearing
Speaker 3: where his attorneys demanded broad immunity a past conduct of
Speaker 3: all past conduct, including violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act,
Speaker 3: which could implicate his father, And so he walked away
Speaker 3: from a deal that would have gotten him largely scott free,
Speaker 3: but it wasn't. And remember, I think that the judge
Speaker 3: may well have signed off on that deal, but there
Speaker 3: was enormous public scrutiny on it, and I think that
Speaker 3: the judge decided, now, we can't do this.
Speaker 2: Well, and even then he was gonna admit he was
Speaker 2: guilty in that deal. So there's also it's been out
Speaker 2: there in the media like, hey, he was going to
Speaker 2: to get the deal. He's a many he was guilty
Speaker 2: of these two crimes, which in many ways insulate his father.
Speaker 2: So if he's convicted this time, I'm not sure with
Speaker 2: a lot of Democratic voters it'll matter. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Look, I don't think that that Hunter Biden is guilty
Speaker 3: of gun crimes and tax evasions. Any rational person knows
Speaker 3: that already. That's kind of maked into the cake. I
Speaker 3: agree with you, it doesn't alter the election. What this
Speaker 3: has always been about is protecting Joe and the relevance.
Speaker 3: We've talked about this a lot, although it's been a
Speaker 3: while since we've talked about on the podcast. Look, Hunter
Speaker 3: Biden is not someone of public interest separate and apart
Speaker 3: from his father. You know, he is a troubled soul
Speaker 3: who seems to have struggled his whole life, which is
Speaker 3: the entire White House defense that he has substance abuse
Speaker 3: problems and he's just had a hard time, And I
Speaker 3: don't have no reason to doubt that. That surely seems
Speaker 3: to be the case. But the reason it is a
Speaker 3: public import is that the evidence at this point keeps
Speaker 3: piling up that his entire business model was selling favors
Speaker 3: from his father, was corruption. The reason this matters is
Speaker 3: Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden, and these two trials are
Speaker 3: designed to insulate and protect Joe Biden, not to bring
Speaker 3: him in at all. And as long as Joe Biden
Speaker 3: is not directly implicated, I don't think Hunter's being convicted
Speaker 3: will have any material effect on the election. Listen, if
Speaker 3: his son goes to jail, that may be a very
Speaker 3: difficult thing personally for Joe Biden and emotionally for Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, the Biden DOJ
Speaker 3: succeeded in what I think its principal goal was, which
Speaker 3: is protecting the big guy and ensuring that there's no
Speaker 3: investigation into corruption by the sitting president.
Speaker 2: Final question on this, what is the possibility of pardons
Speaker 2: for Hunter Biden by his father.
Speaker 3: Before the election? I think zero. After the election, I
Speaker 3: think if Trump wins, I would wager large sums of
Speaker 3: money before he leaves off as Joe Biden pardons his son.
Speaker 2: And there'd be no political fallout for him because he's
Speaker 2: not running for reelection again.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if he's leaving, it would be it would be
Speaker 3: a Bill Clinton Midnight pardon special. And I think, particularly
Speaker 3: if he loses, it's almost a no brainer that Joe
Speaker 3: Biden would do it. He might even do it if
Speaker 3: he wins, but there it's a more costly decision because
Speaker 3: he'd pay a political price for it, even if as
Speaker 3: he was starting a second term.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's going to be very interesting to see how
Speaker 2: this plays out. We're going to keep you up to
Speaker 2: date on it. Don't forget we do the show Monday,
Speaker 2: Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscribe auto down with button
Speaker 2: in on those in between days, make sure you grab
Speaker 2: my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and I will keep
Speaker 2: you up to date on the breaking news in both
Speaker 2: of these cases, in between and the Center. I will
Speaker 2: see you back here on Friday morning.