Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdict of center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you and Senator the big headline, Donald Trump's been indicted again,
Speaker 2: just a couple of days after more bad news came
Speaker 2: out about the Biden crime family. It's at least we
Speaker 2: can predict it now. It's like clockwork. Your overall reaction
Speaker 2: to Trump indictment four point zero, which if he gets
Speaker 2: everything right, the whole table, they run on him and
Speaker 2: he's convicted of everything, he'll be in jail for like
Speaker 2: seven hundred and forty something years.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's absolutely ridiculous and it is sadly predictable.
Speaker 3: It has become like clockwork every time bad news comes
Speaker 3: out about Joe Biden or Hunter Biden, every time additional
Speaker 3: evidence comes out of corruption on the part of Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: within hours a new Trump indictment drops.
Speaker 4: You know, you think back to the.
Speaker 3: Halcyon days of a year ago. A year ago, our
Speaker 3: nation had gone on more than two centuries, and we'd
Speaker 3: never once had a former president or current president, or
Speaker 3: a current leading candidate for president indicted. We just didn't
Speaker 3: do that. That was something Banana Republics did. That's something
Speaker 3: little tinpot dictatorships did, but not the United.
Speaker 4: States of America.
Speaker 3: We have a representative form of government in which the
Speaker 3: voters decide, and we don't rely on whoever controls the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice to use the court system to try
Speaker 3: to take out your opponents. In the past year, we've
Speaker 3: crossed that threshold, not once, not twice, not three ties,
Speaker 3: but now, as of Monday night, four times. There are
Speaker 3: four different indictments pending against Donald Trump. Won the most
Speaker 3: ridiculous of all in New York State Court, brought by
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg over the alleged hush money to the porn
Speaker 3: star with whom Trump allegedly had an affair. Another, brought
Speaker 3: by the Special Council the Department of Justice, concerns Trump's
Speaker 3: retention of classified documents. Now, mind you, Joe Biden had
Speaker 3: classified documents stored all over the place. There is no
Speaker 3: indictment of Joe Biden for that. This special power only
Speaker 3: applies to Republicans. Number three was the DOJ Special Council's
Speaker 3: indictment over January sixth, and then now number four is
Speaker 3: another state prosecutor. Faddy willis an elected Democrat in Georgia.
Speaker 3: She decided she was going to get in on the fund.
Speaker 3: And so she brought a sweeping indictment. She brought an
Speaker 3: indictment with forty one different counts against not just Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: but eighteen other alleged co conspirators. The heart of the
Speaker 3: allegation is RICO. Now, RICO is a very powerful law.
Speaker 3: It's a federal law, but there are state analogs, and
Speaker 3: she brought this indictment under the Georgia state version of RICO.
Speaker 3: Rico was designed to get mobsters, to get racketeers. And
Speaker 3: RICO is a conspiracy law which enables you to prove
Speaker 3: up the existence of a criminal enterprise and then sweep
Speaker 3: in everyone involved in the enterprise to very significant criminal liability.
Speaker 3: As I said, RICO was used most famously and in
Speaker 3: fact was designed to go after the mafia, to go
Speaker 3: after the Coosinostra, and to identify foot soldiers on the
Speaker 3: ground and then use them and flip them to go
Speaker 3: all the way up to the Coppos and the Godfathers themselves. Well,
Speaker 3: in this instance, this indictment, it's against Trump and eighteen others.
Speaker 3: It includes a bunch of Trump's lawyers, It includes Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 3: John Eastman, Kenneth Chesbro, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell. It also
Speaker 3: includes Jeffrey Clark, who is a senior Department of Justice official,
Speaker 3: and includes David Schaeffer, who was the head of the
Speaker 3: Republican Party in Georgia. It is remarkable that the world
Speaker 3: we're living in now, apparently political disagreements, at least when
Speaker 3: you're dealing with Democrats in power, are resolved by trying
Speaker 3: to indict, prosecute, drag through the mud, and put in
Speaker 3: jail your opponents. But not only that, you don't just
Speaker 3: do your opponents, you go after their entire legal team.
Speaker 3: In this instance, virtually all of the lead lawyers for
Speaker 3: Donald Trump are now being prosecuted, and it seems their
Speaker 3: principal crime was daring to represent Donald Trump. Now we've
Speaker 3: talked before about this podcast that I think the legal
Speaker 3: team around Trump should have done a much better job,
Speaker 3: in particular when it comes to litigating the election fraud
Speaker 3: cases across the country. They did not do a very
Speaker 3: good job laying out the evidence, litigating those cases and
Speaker 3: litigating them to victory. And many of the problems we
Speaker 3: had following that election came from less than stellar lawyering.
Speaker 3: But there's a difference between not doing a tremendously effective
Speaker 3: job in court, which sadly is not that uncommon, and
Speaker 3: in this instance being told that because you represented the
Speaker 3: president of the other party, the prosecutors are going to
Speaker 3: try to lock you up, going to try to put
Speaker 3: you in jail, not only take away your licensed practice, law,
Speaker 3: your ability to earn a.
Speaker 4: Livelihood, your ability to pay your mortgage.
Speaker 3: But incarceration. I think this is disgraceful.
Speaker 4: It is it is nakedly political.
Speaker 1: And it is a team today.
Speaker 2: I mean MSNBS today, they had an entire segment throwing
Speaker 2: every name up there that you just mentioned, Giuliani, John Eastman,
Speaker 2: Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, the list goes on
Speaker 2: and on, and even your former colleague Claire mccaskell. She
Speaker 2: said on TV Today that she was quote very happy
Speaker 2: that former New York City Mayor Giuliani was indicted in
Speaker 2: Georgia for his actions after the twenty twenty president show election.
Speaker 2: She said, this is a tale of two very different indictments.
Speaker 2: We have one in the federal system that is lean
Speaker 2: and mean and targeted on the boss, and then we
Speaker 2: have Georgia where this prosecutor has decided that she needs
Speaker 2: to go after the whole enterprise, and all of this
Speaker 2: evidence would come in the whole barrel of bad apples
Speaker 2: got indicted. You can't assume in the federal indictment that
Speaker 2: those unindicted co conspiracors may or may not be cooperating,
Speaker 2: may or not be charged.
Speaker 1: You just don't know at this point.
Speaker 2: But she said, on the other hand, in Georgia, since
Speaker 2: she indicted so many, you can assume a fair number
Speaker 2: of those unindicted co conspirators have cooper operated and testified
Speaker 2: in front of the grand jury. Truthfully, they did not
Speaker 2: take the fifth I think the fake electors. There was
Speaker 2: a lot of them talking to get an immunity and
Speaker 2: they didn't. And then she added, I'm just glad to
Speaker 2: see that, you know, Rudy Giuliani finally got indicted. Then
Speaker 2: she said, woo. Who literally said that. She said, the
Speaker 2: good news is we finally have Rudy Giuliani indicted.
Speaker 1: Wooo.
Speaker 2: That makes me very happy. And of course everybody on
Speaker 2: MSNBC was elated by this.
Speaker 3: Look they are vicious partisans. One of the things that
Speaker 3: demonstrates is that they don't value democracy. They don't value
Speaker 3: the democratic process. Listen, this is all about their fear
Speaker 3: that if the voters have an opportunity to decide fairly
Speaker 3: in November of next year, that the voters are going
Speaker 3: to reject the disastrous agenda and record of Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: The Democrats, and they look at Donald Trump as the
Speaker 3: leading Republican right now, and their objective is they want
Speaker 3: to have these trials before election day. Fanny Willis says
Speaker 3: she wants to have this trial in six months, which
Speaker 3: is a very rapid pace. It would be right in
Speaker 3: the middle of the primaries. And I think the Democrats
Speaker 3: bringing these cases believe, and there's some basis for this,
Speaker 3: that the indictments make it more and more and more
Speaker 3: likely Trump wins the primary, which is what the Democrats want.
Speaker 3: But I think they also believe the indictments make it
Speaker 3: substantially less likely he wins the general and that their
Speaker 3: objective is to have trial after trial after trial. Now
Speaker 3: that means he can't be out there campaigning if he's
Speaker 3: sitting in a criminal court defending himself. It means he
Speaker 3: spends tens of millions of dollars. He's already spent over
Speaker 3: forty million dollars on legal fees. He's going to spend
Speaker 3: a whole lot more defending these cases. And they are
Speaker 3: counting on the useful idiots in the media to put
Speaker 3: every breathless moment of every trial on the six o'
Speaker 3: clock news. They don't want to talk about Biden's record.
Speaker 3: They want to make this entirely about Donald Trump because
Speaker 3: they believe that that's how they win. But if you
Speaker 3: look at this indictment in Georgia, in many ways, this
Speaker 3: indictment could be the most dangerous. It's the most dangerous
Speaker 3: because number one, it is it's a state court indictment.
Speaker 3: It's under a state law. That means it doesn't fall
Speaker 3: under federal law. That means if a Republican were to win,
Speaker 3: a Republican could not order the case shut down. The
Speaker 3: DOJ cases, a Republican president could shut that down on
Speaker 3: day one. You can't do that with the state case.
Speaker 3: The other state case is the New York case. That
Speaker 3: one is absurd on its face, so it's less of
Speaker 3: a threat.
Speaker 4: This one.
Speaker 3: Rico's a very powerful law. And so the fact that
Speaker 3: this artisan democrat elected Democrat in a county that is
Speaker 3: seventy five to twenty five Democrat.
Speaker 4: That means the jury pool, just like the DC jury
Speaker 4: pool for.
Speaker 3: Jack Smith's January sixth indictment, is going to be overwhelmingly Democrat.
Speaker 3: It also means that the president's pardon power is largely
Speaker 3: taken off the table. If a Republican wins in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four, that Republican president could pardon Donald Trump for
Speaker 3: any federal offense. But the federal pardon power does not
Speaker 3: extend to state acts, and so because this is a
Speaker 3: state prosecution, it pulls it out of that umbrella. And
Speaker 3: in this instance, Georgia law is unusual because in many
Speaker 3: states the governor has a pardon power much like the
Speaker 3: president does for federal offenses, and many states the governor
Speaker 3: has a pardon power for state offenses. Law is very circumscribed.
Speaker 3: So my understanding of the Georgia law is the governor
Speaker 3: does not have an independent pardon power. It is instead
Speaker 3: a of pardons and paroles that is appointed by the
Speaker 3: governor and confirmed by the state Senate. That board has
Speaker 3: to recommend a pardon, but the pardon in turn does
Speaker 3: not expunge a criminal conviction under Georgia law. But critically,
Speaker 3: the board cannot recommend exercise of the pardon power until
Speaker 3: the defendant has served five years of his prison sentence.
Speaker 3: So it's a very circumscribed power. That means if this
Speaker 3: Democrat DA brings the case, gets a conviction in front
Speaker 3: of a Democrat overwhelmingly Democrat jury, by the way, the
Speaker 3: appeal would go up to a Georgia state appellate court
Speaker 3: and the Georgia Supreme Court, and then ultimately you could
Speaker 3: appeal to the US Supreme Court, but you could only
Speaker 3: appeal on federal issues, and so it's got to be
Speaker 3: a federal constitutional issue, not a state court issue. I
Speaker 3: think that's certainly what happened. But that process, as we
Speaker 3: discussed with the Jack Smith indictment, that process could take years.
Speaker 3: And this is designed to bloody everyone up, to dominate
Speaker 3: the news, to get Fanny Willis in the news an
Speaker 3: awful lot. Look, everyone else is getting famous on these
Speaker 3: She's running for reelection. People need to understand that as well.
Speaker 3: This is much about her raising her name.
Speaker 2: I do you just like everybody knows Alvin Bragg's name
Speaker 2: in New York now, as it is for her to
Speaker 2: fundraise and say vote for me because I'll go after
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. I'm not afraid of these guys, and I'll
Speaker 2: walk up my political enemies.
Speaker 3: It's a very good Democrat campaign issue. Lytisa James, the
Speaker 3: Attorney General in New York, has likewise campaigned on that ground.
Speaker 3: And if you're a Democrat, look Claire mccaskell, who was
Speaker 3: always a incredibly partisan Democrat senator when she served in
Speaker 3: the Senate. She pretended to be middle of the road,
Speaker 3: but she could stick a knife in the back of
Speaker 3: her enemies with the best of them. Listen, she hates
Speaker 3: Donald Trump and she's gleefully laughing at Listen. One of
Speaker 3: the objectives here is to bankrupt all of these other defendants,
Speaker 3: to bankrupt Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman and Mark Meadows
Speaker 3: and all of the others because they are they hate them.
Speaker 3: Their view, it's a scorched earth. We're going to use
Speaker 3: the criminal justice procedure to try to destroy the lives
Speaker 3: of our enemies. And I think it's a really sad threshold.
Speaker 3: It's an abuse.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: One of the threshold questions will be whether this stays
Speaker 3: in state quart or whether it's removed federal court. So
Speaker 3: Mark Meadows has already filed emotion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's already said I'm gonna I want this moved.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he has filed emotion to remove it to federal court.
Speaker 3: And the argument that he makes is that all of
Speaker 3: the actions that he's being charged for are his actions
Speaker 3: as the White House chief of Staff. That they were
Speaker 3: calling officials on behalf of the president, they were setting
Speaker 3: up meetings on behalf of the president. They were official acts,
Speaker 3: and as such, under federal law, belong in federal court.
Speaker 3: Now we'll see how that motion plays out. It is
Speaker 3: widely speculated that Trump will file a similar motion. I
Speaker 3: don't know how those will play out, but that will
Speaker 3: be one of the first battles is whether it stays
Speaker 3: in state court or federal court. I think there's a
Speaker 3: good chance it's going to stay in state court, and
Speaker 3: in state court there's a lot of danger that this
Speaker 3: thing gets really ugly before it gets better.
Speaker 2: I want to tell you about a friends over to
Speaker 2: go a gousta precious medals. If you are ready to
Speaker 2: protect your hard earned dollars, you've been stressed out with
Speaker 2: its economy, you've been stressed out watching some losses and
Speaker 2: your retirement account, your IRA, your four one K, then
Speaker 2: that is exactly why you need to call a Gust
Speaker 2: of Precious Metals. They can help you protect your retirement
Speaker 2: in this crazy economy with a gold IRA.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I love a Gust of Precious Metals because they give
Speaker 2: you the facts.
Speaker 1: No pressure.
Speaker 2: They also will sit down with you and talk about
Speaker 2: what diversification looks like. And if you are in retirement
Speaker 2: right now, are close to retirement, you know there is
Speaker 2: no time to make up losses in the market. That's
Speaker 2: why diversifying with gold can help you.
Speaker 1: Call them.
Speaker 2: There's two things that you're going to get to do,
Speaker 2: which is amazing about a Gusupressous Medals. Number One, they'll
Speaker 2: send you the free Investor's Guide on gold and your
Speaker 2: IRA four one K. But they also do something different.
Speaker 2: They actually do a one on one web conference. I've
Speaker 2: done it. It's incredible where you can ask questions to
Speaker 2: them directly about your retirement and what you've already accomplished
Speaker 2: or what you want to accomplish, or what you're trying
Speaker 2: to protect. Call Augusta Precious Medals and get that piece
Speaker 2: of mind. Gold has actually been going up and hitting
Speaker 2: some new highs because so many people around the world
Speaker 2: are turning to gold to protect their hard earned dollars
Speaker 2: eight seven seven the number four Goldra eight seven seven,
Speaker 2: the number four Goldra or online at Augusta Precious Metals
Speaker 2: dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com. Senator, I
Speaker 2: want to ask you another question about the trial quickly
Speaker 2: before I get into this other aspect, and that is
Speaker 2: a lot of Conservatives are really upset that they feel
Speaker 2: like Republicans aren't fighting back. And before we break that down,
Speaker 2: if this does go to trial, does everybody go to
Speaker 2: trial on the same day, at the same time in
Speaker 2: the same court. Are they all in different courts, all
Speaker 2: those that were indicted around Trump in Georgia. And the
Speaker 2: other thing is you're not supposed to be able to
Speaker 2: interfere with an election.
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty queer. This is election interference.
Speaker 2: So is there is there a chance that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: can say and all these other defendants, Hey, you guys
Speaker 2: are interfering an election. You can't bring us a trial
Speaker 2: in six months for the sole purpose of sitting on
Speaker 2: this case for two and a half years, then bringing
Speaker 2: it with the sole purpose of tying us up in
Speaker 2: court instead of not being on to be on the
Speaker 2: campaign trail.
Speaker 3: Well, there are going to be lots of questions litigated,
Speaker 3: and one of the questions litigated is going to be
Speaker 3: whether this is a joint trial or several trials. Individual
Speaker 3: defendants can file emotion to sever their trial and have
Speaker 3: it conduct separately. Now with a RICO one of the
Speaker 3: advantages of bringing a RICO prosecution is that if you
Speaker 3: connect people to the criminal enterprise, they're all looped in
Speaker 3: and can be liable for the criminal acts of each other.
Speaker 4: And so.
Speaker 3: That'll be a decision. Each of these defendants presumably is
Speaker 3: going to lawyer up. I would hope they have already,
Speaker 3: although it is not clear how many of them even
Speaker 3: can afford lawyers. At this point, I don't know the
Speaker 3: extent to which the Trump campaign is paying for lawyers
Speaker 3: for some of these defendants, or if they're just just
Speaker 3: on their own and bearing the potential cost and exposure.
Speaker 3: The indictment itself it lists one hundred and sixty one
Speaker 3: overt acts, and those are acts that are allegedly in
Speaker 3: furtherance of the conspiracy. Of those one hundred and sixty
Speaker 3: one overt acts that are laid out in the indictment,
Speaker 3: forty three of them are acts taken or directed by Trump.
Speaker 3: So two thirds of the listed acts, actually three fourths
Speaker 3: of the listed acts are are not taken by Trump,
Speaker 3: but forty three of them are acts taken by Trump
Speaker 3: or directed. Twenty of them, which is fewer than half,
Speaker 3: are Georgia specific. So of the forty three, twenty of
Speaker 3: them are Georgia specific, and of those twenty half of
Speaker 3: them are tweets. They're tweets from Donald Trump about Georgia's
Speaker 3: specific issues. So literally pulling out his damn phone and
Speaker 3: sending a tweet. This DA is trying to prosecute him
Speaker 3: and put him in jail for sending a tweet. And
Speaker 3: the remaining twenty three acts that are either taken or
Speaker 3: directed by Trump are acts that are directed in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice, the Republican National Committee chairwoman and
Speaker 3: the Vice President or other unindicted co conspirators. And some
Speaker 3: of these alleged these avert acts are very very vague. So,
Speaker 3: for example, Act number thirty, let me read you what
Speaker 3: Act number thirty is. Trump quote placed a telephone call
Speaker 3: to President pro temporary of the Georgia Senate Butch Miller.
Speaker 3: This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Speaker 4: That's it.
Speaker 3: That's what they alleged. You called a state legislator. So
Speaker 3: apparently it is now criminal act to call a state legislator.
Speaker 3: Now it could be a criminal act to call a
Speaker 3: state legislator if you say, call a state legislator and said, hey,
Speaker 3: the Chinese communist are sending me eight million dollars. Could
Speaker 3: you open a shell company bank account for that eight
Speaker 3: million dollars and then funnel it to my kids and grandkids?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 3: That would be an instance of a president or vice
Speaker 3: president making a call to a state legislator where the
Speaker 3: call was criminal. So it is possible that criminal activity
Speaker 3: occurred in the call, but I'll tell you the indictment
Speaker 3: doesn't allege it. And we're literally facing a world where
Speaker 3: TDS Trump Derangement syndrome is so bad Democrats have convinced
Speaker 3: themselves that Trump is the devil that they now want
Speaker 3: to put them in jail for sending tweets, and they
Speaker 3: want to put lawyers in jail for representing their client
Speaker 3: or for making legal arguments. This is not law, this
Speaker 3: is politics, and this is the weaponization of criminal justice.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about and this I think
Speaker 2: is an important point. There are a lot of conservatives
Speaker 2: that listen. They see what the Bidens have done, they
Speaker 2: see what's being done right now to Trump, and they're
Speaker 2: really angry. They're upset for the fact that they feel
Speaker 2: like Republicans aren't doing enough to fight back. I don't
Speaker 2: know who wrote this, by the way, but it was
Speaker 2: sent to me, and I think it encompasses a lot
Speaker 2: of what I'm hearing on my show when I'm doing
Speaker 2: my podcast, a lot of the messages you and I
Speaker 2: get from this podcast, and this is what it said.
Speaker 2: The Republicans did nothing about Bill Quinton flying to island
Speaker 2: with minors. Republicans did nothing about Hillary Clinton smashing devices,
Speaker 2: hiding classified emails, and then destroying evidence as she was
Speaker 2: told to give it back. Republicans did nothing about James
Speaker 2: Cocomy brazenly lying. Republicans did nothing about Annie McKay plotting
Speaker 2: a silent coup against a sitting president, trying to overthrow
Speaker 2: the will to people when Donald Trump was elected, Republicans
Speaker 2: did nothing about Black Lives Matter, raising one hundred million
Speaker 2: and breaking charitable giving laws. Republicans Inforta did nothing about
Speaker 2: James Biden's alleged fraud scheme involving a hospital system. Republicans
Speaker 2: in Arkansas did nothing about Hunter Biden's Madrid crimes there.
Speaker 2: Republicans have done nothing against Antifa and their interstate RICO operations.
Speaker 2: Republicans have done nothing against Fauci, Echo Health Alliance or
Speaker 2: the other fake scientists who promoted lies about COVID's origins
Speaker 2: to hide their own culpability.
Speaker 1: Why would Democrats be afraid of us?
Speaker 2: They run the country while Republican ags and da'shever in
Speaker 2: fear and run for the hills. Now, I think this
Speaker 2: is an adequate, honestly representation of many concerns. Now they're saying, look,
Speaker 2: if they're if they're not going to play by the
Speaker 2: rules us, trying to be the elder statesman here is
Speaker 2: not working.
Speaker 1: They're beating our brains in.
Speaker 2: When are we going to take the gloves off and go, okay,
Speaker 2: if you want to play with this way, then damn it,
Speaker 2: We're going to play this way too, and let's start
Speaker 2: going after the Bidens and the Clintons and everybody else
Speaker 2: on this list at the state level, just like the
Speaker 2: Democrats are doing right now, trying to decimate and financially
Speaker 2: ruin anyone around Donald Trump to try to also hurt
Speaker 2: him that way as well.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 3: Listen, I agree with a lot of the points raised
Speaker 3: in that tweet that you read, laying out a number
Speaker 3: of what appeared to be serious criminal acts that were
Speaker 3: not prosecuted, and I share massive frustration over that. Now,
Speaker 3: let me be clear, I understand the sentiment of damn it.
Speaker 3: If these bastards are going to weaponize the justice system
Speaker 3: and try to lock up Republicans for running against them.
Speaker 3: We ought to weaponize the justice system and lock up
Speaker 3: Democrats for being Democrats. I understand that that's a very
Speaker 3: human reaction. I don't agree with it. I don't agree
Speaker 3: with abusing law enforcement, whether it is for my team
Speaker 3: or the other team. I don't want a Republican Department
Speaker 3: of Justice. I don't want a Republican FBI. I don't
Speaker 3: want a Democrat Department of Justice or a Democrat FBI.
Speaker 3: I want an Apartment of Justice and FBI that follows
Speaker 3: the law and enforces the law. Now, if you go
Speaker 3: back to the Trump administration, one of the enormous problems
Speaker 3: in the Trump administration is that many of the appointments
Speaker 3: that Trump made to the cabinet, to the sub Cabinet
Speaker 3: to the agencies were lowsy appointments. They did not do
Speaker 3: a good job. James com who is a wildly partisan
Speaker 3: FBI director, Trump left him in office for two plus years.
Speaker 3: That was an enormous mistake. James Comey should have been
Speaker 3: fired on January twentieth, twenty seventeen. The Trump White House
Speaker 3: made serious personnel mistakes, and they put the wrong people
Speaker 3: in charge, in particular at the Department of Justice and
Speaker 3: the FBI. And you know, you go through that whole
Speaker 3: list Antifa, why we didn't bring multiple prosecutions. Look, we
Speaker 3: had on this podcast couple of years ago. We had
Speaker 3: Bill Barr when he was the city Attorney General on
Speaker 3: the Verdict podcast, and I was frustrated then and I'm
Speaker 3: frustrated now that they did not devote real and serious
Speaker 3: resources that when people burn American cities to the ground,
Speaker 3: when they firebomb and loot stores and terrorize American citizens,
Speaker 3: why doj didn't come in there and prosecute violent criminals.
Speaker 3: That's not a abusing law enforcement, that's actually applying the
Speaker 3: law fairly and directly to real violent crime. They didn't
Speaker 3: do a very good job of that. You go through
Speaker 3: listen this Hunter Biden stuff and the Joe Biden stuff
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice. This FD ten twenty three that
Speaker 3: we've talked about in this podcast of the confidential human
Speaker 3: source that alleged Joe Biden and Hunter Biden solicited and
Speaker 3: received a bribe from a Ukrainian oligarch that came in
Speaker 3: to the Trump FBI of the Trump DOJ and they
Speaker 3: sat on it. Now we've talked at length about how
Speaker 3: the deep state spent four years waging war on Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: As you know, the last book I wrote, Justice Corrupted,
Speaker 3: how the left is weaponized the legal system, goes into
Speaker 3: in depth how these hard partisans burrowed into career senior
Speaker 3: positions at the FBI and the d o J, and
Speaker 3: and this I R S and the c I A
Speaker 3: and and not only did they not enforce the law
Speaker 3: against left wingers, but they aggressively weaponize law enforcement from
Speaker 3: within the deep state against the duly elected president of
Speaker 3: the United States, and and and and so I share
Speaker 3: that frustration, and you're you're right, there's a whole pattern
Speaker 3: of criminal conduct that we have not had. Look I
Speaker 3: think the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was able to hang
Speaker 3: himself in in in a jail cell. Is an absolute outrage.
Speaker 3: It is disgraceful. He was on suicide Watch. Why the
Speaker 3: hell weren't they watching him? And I want to know
Speaker 3: every one of those clients in that black book, every
Speaker 3: one of those perverts, that that that that that that
Speaker 3: assaulted little girls, should be brought to justice.
Speaker 4: And and and we have not seen.
Speaker 3: Any vigorous effort, to be clear, any vigorous effort by
Speaker 3: Republicans or Democrats to have accountability. Listen, Jeffrey Epstein had
Speaker 3: in his living room it is New York home, an
Speaker 3: oil painting of Bill Clinton in a blue cocktail dress
Speaker 3: and high healed pumps. So you know, Jeffrey Epstein was
Speaker 3: a very close friend to Bill, and there's been no
Speaker 3: accountability for that. That is infuriating. But I want to
Speaker 3: underscore the answer is not just tit for tat of
Speaker 3: let's bring bogus prosecutions against our political enemies. The answer
Speaker 3: is let's put people in a position of law enforcement
Speaker 3: that have the courage to investigate and follow the evidence
Speaker 3: and bring cases of real wrongdoing. Listen, there's a qualitative difference.
Speaker 3: Compare the allegations right nowgainst Joe and Hunter Biden to
Speaker 3: the allegations against Trump.
Speaker 2: The allegation before you say this, this is what pisses
Speaker 2: people off, Yeah, is they feel like there's so much
Speaker 2: evidence here, yes, against Joe Biden, against Hunter Biden, against
Speaker 2: the Biden crime family. The list is long, and there's
Speaker 2: not a single DA or or you know whoever in
Speaker 2: law enforcement right that could they could maybe throw down
Speaker 2: on them that's doing it. They're going, there's real crimes here,
Speaker 2: for goodness sakes, and you guys aren't doing anything. They're
Speaker 2: making up crimes against against Donald Trump and trying to
Speaker 2: bankrupt everybody around him. I mean, I know people and
Speaker 2: you and Center, I'm sure you do too, who say
Speaker 2: they can't afford financially to go work for Donald Trump
Speaker 2: even if he is re elected, because the legal liability
Speaker 2: is just too great of a strain. I know people
Speaker 2: that have had to take out apparently loans just to
Speaker 2: defend themselves because.
Speaker 1: They worked to the White House and did nothing wrong.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So look, I will say for many of the crimes
Speaker 3: that are on that list, those crimes are federal, not
Speaker 3: all of them, but most of them are federal, and
Speaker 3: that limits who can prosecute a federal crime. Can only
Speaker 3: be prosecuted by the US Department of Justice, by the
Speaker 3: federal government. That means a state DA can't bring can't
Speaker 3: prosecute a federal crime. A U S attorney in a
Speaker 3: given state can prosecute it. But all of the ninety
Speaker 3: three US attorneys work for the Attorney General, and so
Speaker 3: it's it's the Department of Justice. And so when you have,
Speaker 3: as we have now a deeply partisan DOJ under Joe
Speaker 3: Biden Merrick Garland, it means that none of the US
Speaker 3: attorneys will enforce the law against their buddies. And so
Speaker 3: it's why when when David Weiss apparently asked the US
Speaker 3: attorney in the Central District, California to bring a more
Speaker 3: serious charges against Hunter Biden, he was told no. When
Speaker 3: the US attorney in d C, who was a big
Speaker 3: Democrat donor gave money to Joe Biden, was asked about
Speaker 3: bringing more serious charges against Hunter Biden, again he said no.
Speaker 3: The California Central District US attorney was a donor to
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris. There were both Democrat donors. So the challenge
Speaker 3: is for federal crimes, it has to be DOJ bringing them.
Speaker 3: So in order for a state DA or a state
Speaker 3: attorney general. In some states, attorneys general have the ability
Speaker 3: to prosecute criminal cases, not every state, and a very
Speaker 3: state by state, but it has to be a violation
Speaker 3: of state law that typically occurred in the state. There
Speaker 3: has to be a nexus to the jurisdiction. Now, look,
Speaker 3: I would note Virginia. Virginia is now a Republican state
Speaker 3: with a Republican attorney general, and there's an awful lot
Speaker 3: of Democrats who are living and operating in Virginia that
Speaker 3: are in and around DC. If you look at my
Speaker 3: point on this, Compare Georgia to the allegations against Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: And to be clear, these are allegations, among others, from
Speaker 3: two senior career IRS employees who are whistleblowers who risk
Speaker 3: their entire career to come forward and to say that
Speaker 3: there's obstruction of justice and lying under oath and a
Speaker 3: cover up that is hiding criminality from Hunter Biden and
Speaker 3: hiding criminality from Joe Biden. Compare, on the face of it,
Speaker 3: a president of the United States or a vice president
Speaker 3: of the United States soliciting and receiving millions of dollars
Speaker 3: of bribes from multiple foreign nationals from oligarchs in Ukraine,
Speaker 3: oligarchs in Russia, from Kazakhstan, from Chinese communist officials, and
Speaker 3: selling favors federal government favors in exchange for millions of
Speaker 3: dollars of bribes. On the face of it, that is
Speaker 3: extraordinarily serious. There is a reason the Constitution specifies bribery
Speaker 3: as a ground for impeachment. Impeachment lies for treason, bribery,
Speaker 3: or other high crimes or misdemeanors. Contrasts that to this
Speaker 3: indictment that is indicted Trump for a bunch of tweets
Speaker 3: and a few phone calls he made.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there's literally one of the lines in
Speaker 2: this actual indictment. It says, on or about the third
Speaker 2: day of December twenty twenty, Donald John Trump caused to
Speaker 2: be tweeted from the Twitter account at real Donald Trump
Speaker 2: Georgia Hearing hearings now on an amazing this was an
Speaker 2: overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and they have
Speaker 2: now made that into a criminal case.
Speaker 3: It's ludicrous and it is It is deranged partisanship, that
Speaker 3: is saying that's sending a tweet or in the case
Speaker 3: of the lawyers representing your clients, or making legal arguments.
Speaker 3: This is actually one of the things really at the
Speaker 3: heart of Jack Smith's indictment on January sixth, where he
Speaker 3: indicts Trump because he says, Okay, you had one group
Speaker 3: of lawyers who gave you one set of advice, one
Speaker 3: group of lawyers who gave you another set of advice.
Speaker 3: You went with group number one and not group number two.
Speaker 3: Therefore that's a felony, Like what, that's insane? And his
Speaker 3: proof is, well, you knew group number one was wrong
Speaker 3: because group number two told you something different. Well, no,
Speaker 3: you know, it reminds me of Ronald Reagan's old joke
Speaker 3: about economists that he said, you know, Reagan said I
Speaker 3: want a one armed economist, so that he can't say,
Speaker 3: on the other hand, look, if you spend time around lawyers,
Speaker 3: you're going to get a bunch of different opinions. And
Speaker 3: it is it cannot be the law that it is
Speaker 3: a crime to believe one set of lawyers over another
Speaker 3: set of lawyers, even if, by the way, the set
Speaker 3: of lawyers you believe is wrong, that that cannot be
Speaker 3: a crime. And in this instance that's exactly what they're weaponizing,
Speaker 3: and it's an absolute double standard and look, it is
Speaker 3: nakedly election interference. It's why MSNBC is ecstatic. And I'll
Speaker 3: point out, listen, a lot of this information about the
Speaker 3: bribery scandal could have been brought out, could have been
Speaker 3: prosecuted when Trump was president. It occurred before Trump was president.
Speaker 3: They had substantial evidence, I'll tell you, during the first
Speaker 3: Trump impeachment trial. And as most listeners know, Verdict launched
Speaker 3: the first night of the first Trump impeachment trial and
Speaker 3: went every night. Immediately after the trial. I went to
Speaker 3: Trump's legal ty and I argued vociferously. I said, listen,
Speaker 3: they have given you a gift. Prosecute Barisma, lay out
Speaker 3: the facts, lay out the Son of a Bitch video,
Speaker 3: but layout the quid pro quo, demonstrate that this ola
Speaker 3: gark was paying off the Biden family for official favors
Speaker 3: from Joe Biden. You have the ability to do it,
Speaker 3: not just in a court of law, but on the
Speaker 3: floor of the Senate. I said, this is that this
Speaker 3: is an enormous gift. And Trump's lawyers didn't want to.
Speaker 3: They said no, and listen, they were very nervous. There
Speaker 3: was a critical tactical decision in that first impeachment trial
Speaker 3: which is whether or not to call witnesses. And I
Speaker 3: urged the White House. I said, listen, y'all should let
Speaker 3: them call witnesses, but you should call witnesses. You should
Speaker 3: put Hunter Biden on the stand. You should lay out
Speaker 3: these facts. And ultimately the Trump legal defense team decide, well,
Speaker 3: let's just get through this impeachment, so let's have no witnesses.
Speaker 3: But I think in hindsight, it was an enormous mistake
Speaker 3: not to have laid out and proven up that evidence.
Speaker 3: Then it would have made a world of difference.
Speaker 2: Now I want to tell you about a friends at
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone, how would
Speaker 2: you like to know that you're making a difference with
Speaker 2: every phone call you make for the causes that you
Speaker 2: stand for. Did you know that Big Mobile, probably the
Speaker 2: coman y're with right now, is actually a huge donor
Speaker 2: to liberal candidates and to liberal organizations, including Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 2: That is why Patriot Mobile actually became a company. They
Speaker 2: decided that they were sick and tired of paying a
Speaker 2: bill every month to companies that were fighting against what.
Speaker 1: We believe in.
Speaker 2: Now a Patriot Mobile, not only do you get amazing coverage,
Speaker 2: but you get to keep your same cell phone you
Speaker 2: have right now. You also can keep your same cell
Speaker 2: phone number. But when you pay your bill every month
Speaker 2: and many times, you're going to save money over what
Speaker 2: you're spending right now, they are going to give a donation.
Speaker 2: They're going to give back to conservative causes and organizations
Speaker 2: that protect and stand for the rights of unborn children,
Speaker 2: that fight for our First and Second Amendment rights, that
Speaker 2: stand with our military, our veterans are wounded warriors. That's
Speaker 2: part of what the mission of Patriot Mobile is.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I want you to make the switch and you can
Speaker 2: call them, whether it's just you or a family of lines,
Speaker 2: maybe you've got a business or a small business.
Speaker 1: They're one hundred percent US based call center. Make switching easy.
Speaker 2: Eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot eight
Speaker 2: seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict, Patriotmobile
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: Make that switch.
Speaker 2: Stand up to the woke companies and stop giving them
Speaker 2: your money, and you're going to get nationwide phenomena coverage
Speaker 2: just like you're used to right now. Eight seven eight
Speaker 2: Patriot or Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict Centator.
Speaker 1: I want to play for you.
Speaker 2: Something else that I really think struck a nerve with
Speaker 2: many people, and that was Hillary Clinton was on TV
Speaker 2: much like you were on TV when this indictment was
Speaker 2: coming down. You were on Hannity, and Hillary Clinton was
Speaker 2: on MSNBC. She said this about the indictment of Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: I don't know that anybody should be satisfied. This is
Speaker 5: a terrible moment for our country to have a former
Speaker 5: president accused of these terribly important crimes. The only satisfaction
Speaker 5: may be that the system is working, that all of
Speaker 5: the efforts by Donald Trump, his allies, and his enablers
Speaker 5: to try to silence the truth, to try to undermine
Speaker 5: democracy have been brought into the light and justice is
Speaker 5: being pursued.
Speaker 2: I mean that infuriated me and many others when they
Speaker 2: heard it, because they remember that this is the same
Speaker 2: woman that knew that Donald Trump was being indicted for
Speaker 2: a dossier that she paid for, he paid for. She
Speaker 2: knew they were it was a coup attempt in essence,
Speaker 2: when they went after him in the first Trump impeachment.
Speaker 2: She is the same woman that had classified information documents
Speaker 2: on an outside server and an outside email account and
Speaker 2: lied about and then we got busted. They said, hey,
Speaker 2: give us the intell and guess what happened. She said, no,
Speaker 2: We're going to destroy it.
Speaker 1: And they did.
Speaker 2: They bleed, spit it, and they smashed the blackberries and
Speaker 2: the iPhones involved.
Speaker 1: This is they used hammers to do it. And they
Speaker 1: used hammers to do it.
Speaker 2: And you sit there and you hear her say this,
Speaker 2: and then this does go back to the point where
Speaker 2: I said earlier, But like, at what point do we
Speaker 2: fight back?
Speaker 3: We got to fight back. We've got to fight back. Look, look,
Speaker 3: I am beyond frustrated. I'm frustrated that we did not
Speaker 3: see that during the Trump administration that the DOJ and
Speaker 3: the FBI did not hold people to account the way
Speaker 3: they should have. And it is maddening, it's it's it's infuriating,
Speaker 3: and it comes down to the political appointments that are
Speaker 3: put in charge. Jeff Sessions was appointed Attorney General. Jeff
Speaker 3: is a very nice man. He promptly recused himself from
Speaker 3: an enormous amount of what was happening at DOJ and
Speaker 3: let the deep state hijack the department, and ultimately was
Speaker 3: not able to overcome the corruption that had burrowed in
Speaker 3: to the Department. But that ultimately has real consequences that
Speaker 3: you've got to be willing to prosecute people who commit
Speaker 3: real and serious crimes. Look, Hillary's talking about undermining democracy.
Speaker 3: There there's an irony because, of course Hillary in twenty
Speaker 3: sixteen insisted that Trump's election was illegitimate, that she was
Speaker 3: the president of the United States. And you know today
Speaker 3: Democrats allege that that that's saying that there's fraud in
Speaker 3: an election, that's saying that election's illegitimate. Is is undermining
Speaker 3: the democracy and the country and everything else. Of course
Speaker 3: they do it in every cycle. You'll recall last fall
Speaker 3: when I went on the View and the view began,
Speaker 3: the ladies on the View began screaming at me about
Speaker 3: about Republicans being election deniers, and I just sat there
Speaker 3: and read Hillary Clinton, I read Al Gore, I read
Speaker 3: Democrat after Democrat after Democrat, I read Joe Biden, all
Speaker 3: of whom when they lose elections promptly try to undermine
Speaker 3: the legitimacy of the election. But it's it's one sided,
Speaker 3: and it's it's nakedly a double standard.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you one other question about what
Speaker 2: happened with Fulton County Court publishing and then removing the
Speaker 2: Trump indictment. This, they said was a fictitious document that
Speaker 2: was uploaded to their website. The Fulton County you Know
Speaker 2: DA was like, Oh, I don't. I'm not involved with
Speaker 2: the documents as they go online. That's not what I do.
Speaker 2: It was an incredibly bizarre, unexplained act that some critics
Speaker 2: are now saying violated Trump's constitutional rights to due process
Speaker 2: of law.
Speaker 1: Reuter's was the first report that the.
Speaker 2: Document had been filed, then had to update its report
Speaker 2: when the document was removed from court, the court website,
Speaker 2: and then the office of Fulton County District Attorney Willis
Speaker 2: denied that the indictment had yet been issued because the
Speaker 2: grand jury hadn't officially finished meeting or had met. We're
Speaker 2: still trying to figure out that timeline. Then Reuters preserved
Speaker 2: the initial document, which listed thirty nine charges against Trump,
Speaker 2: including the quote serious felony of racketeering. All of the
Speaker 2: other thirty eight charges solicitation, the violation of an oath,
Speaker 2: false statement, and conspiracy charges are all felonies, and then
Speaker 2: Reuters said the Fulton County, Georgia Court's website posted the
Speaker 2: document Monday, listing several criminal charges against the former president,
Speaker 2: and then the Fulton County District Attorney's Office said in
Speaker 2: the official statement Senator that no charges had been filed
Speaker 2: against Donald Trump. The document was dated August the fourteenth
Speaker 2: and named Trump siding the cases open. There was all
Speaker 2: the information of who was going to be assigned to
Speaker 2: It was all there, and then they said it's a
Speaker 2: fictitious document. Then the real document comes out. It's almost
Speaker 2: a match side by side. So was this a due
Speaker 2: process violation? And does this do anything to undo part
Speaker 2: of this attack on Donald Trump? Could that turn into
Speaker 2: a big legal victory for him or probably not?
Speaker 3: You know, I have to say I'm underwhelmed by that
Speaker 3: particular issue listening.
Speaker 4: That was clearly a screw up.
Speaker 3: It was a screw up by probably some clerk, maybe
Speaker 3: a junior lawyer, who handed the document before it was complete,
Speaker 3: before it had been fully voted about. Maybe they told
Speaker 3: the clerk okay, this is an early version. Me I
Speaker 3: don't know, but it was clearly a screw up. As
Speaker 3: screw ups go, this one doesn't get my blood pressure
Speaker 3: very high, you know, I'm reminded a former boss of
Speaker 3: mine used to say never blame on malice. What can
Speaker 3: be explained by incompetence. I think somebody screwed up. Oh wait,
Speaker 3: I'm not supposed to put this up.
Speaker 4: Oh what what? I think that's what happened.
Speaker 3: They realized, oh crap, we made this public before, before
Speaker 3: it's public, before it's finalized.
Speaker 4: So they pulled it down.
Speaker 3: And you know, lots of people are focusing on the
Speaker 3: word fictitious. It clearly was not fictitious. My suspicion is
Speaker 3: that was a poorly chosen word. That that that what
Speaker 3: the person who said it was trying to do was
Speaker 3: pick a big tenpenny word to say this was a
Speaker 3: not valid document. This was a screw up, This was
Speaker 3: a mistake. This is not a real indictment, all of
Speaker 3: which is accurate. If it hadn't been voted out by
Speaker 3: the grand jury. It's not a real indictment. Somebody screw
Speaker 3: it up and put an early version up. But it
Speaker 3: was not, in fact fictitious as in made up fiction.
Speaker 3: It was rather just just not official or legitimate. So
Speaker 3: was it a due process violation? I doubt it in
Speaker 3: terms of the things that are abuses of law in
Speaker 3: this indictment. If you were to make a list of
Speaker 3: the top thousand. They're at least a thousand that are
Speaker 3: ahead of this particular.
Speaker 2: Issue, and one more maybe that jury for person. And
Speaker 2: I want to get your thoughts on what she said
Speaker 2: on TV. Let me tell you about Chalk. If you're
Speaker 2: a guy and your deal with a real problem losing
Speaker 2: that strength and vitality to fatigue. If you are just
Speaker 2: sick and tired of feeling like you're tired all the time,
Speaker 2: you're not alone. Testostrom levels have dropped off a cliff historically,
Speaker 2: and Chalk, my friends at Chalk helping men just like you,
Speaker 2: boost your testostroom levels up to.
Speaker 1: Twenty percent over ninety days now.
Speaker 2: I've been taking the Chalk Choq Mal Vitality Stack, and
Speaker 2: I can tell you it works. I have gotten rid
Speaker 2: of that fatigue, I've gotten rid of that complacency. I
Speaker 2: feel like I'm a lot younger than I am right now,
Speaker 2: Thank goodness. If you want to fight back against the
Speaker 2: war on losing your testosterum, then check out Chalk choq
Speaker 2: dot com, check out the Male Vitality Stack, and if
Speaker 2: you use the promo code Ben, you'll get thirty five
Speaker 2: percent off any Chalk subscription.
Speaker 1: For life choq dot com.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code ben thirty five percent off any
Speaker 2: chalk subscription for life That's Chalk choq dot com and
Speaker 2: boost your testos from levels up to twenty percent in
Speaker 2: just ninety days. Lastly, Senator, the fourth person of the
Speaker 2: Georgia Grand Jury earlier back in February went on TV
Speaker 2: and was giggling and talking and really fantasizing about this
Speaker 2: idea of swearing in Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Could any of this hurt their case as well?
Speaker 6: Emily, thank you for coming on. I do want to
Speaker 6: say off the top, as you and I just discussed,
Speaker 6: but for everyone to know, you are somewhat limited in
Speaker 6: what you can discuss under judges under the judges orders
Speaker 6: as of now. But one we do know, of course.
Speaker 6: One of the biggest questions remaining for everyone that wasn't
Speaker 6: in that jury room with you is how many people
Speaker 6: are in trouble here? What can you tell us about
Speaker 6: how many people you recommended as a group to face indictments?
Speaker 7: Well, thank you for having me first of all, and
Speaker 7: I'm I'm hesitant to speak to something that the judge
Speaker 7: made a decision not to share. He I don't know
Speaker 7: if everyone's aware of this, but there was a hearing
Speaker 7: about what parts of the report should and should not
Speaker 7: be published in its various forms, and the list, well,
Speaker 7: the sections that were removed were consciously chosen.
Speaker 6: To be removed.
Speaker 7: And I don't want to say I have better.
Speaker 6: Judgment than the judge. That's totally understandable. It would you
Speaker 6: say when it comes to there are there are indictments recommended?
Speaker 6: Of course? Is it more than twelve people? Is it
Speaker 6: more than twenty people?
Speaker 7: I think if you look at the page numbers of
Speaker 7: the report, there's about six pages in the middle that
Speaker 7: got cut out.
Speaker 1: A laugh for spacing.
Speaker 6: It's not a short list, not a short list more.
Speaker 2: Not only is she laughing there, she then went on
Speaker 2: to say this about Donald Trump and her fantasy.
Speaker 7: Do you personally want to hear from the former I
Speaker 7: wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I
Speaker 7: kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I
Speaker 7: got to swear everybody in, and so I thought it'd
Speaker 7: be really cool to get sixty seconds with President Trump
Speaker 7: of me looking at him.
Speaker 1: And being like, do you solemnly swear am me?
Speaker 6: Getting to swear him in? I just I kind of
Speaker 6: thought that would be an awesome moment.
Speaker 2: I mean center, she's literally fantasizing about this quote awesome
Speaker 2: moment to personally subpoena Donald Trump. And then she's talking
Speaker 2: about how giddy she is in giggling at the idea
Speaker 2: that hey, we didn't just indict one person, We've got
Speaker 2: a really long list, double spacing multiple pages, and then laughs.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I gotta say, I've never seen anything like that.
Speaker 3: I've never seen a member of a grand jury do
Speaker 3: a media tour, even do interviews before indictments are handed down.
Speaker 3: What occurs before a grand jury is secret by design,
Speaker 3: and and and that's just bizarre. She I don't know
Speaker 3: what Georgia law is. I think there's some real possibility
Speaker 3: that she has violated Georgia law by doing that, and
Speaker 3: and and could face real penalties for that. It's bizarre,
Speaker 3: it did it. She certainly did real damage to the
Speaker 3: prosecutor's case. I am sure we will see litigation, uh
Speaker 3: motions focusing on how this was a partisan witch hunt.
Speaker 3: And you know, there's an irony to the phrase partisan
Speaker 3: witch hunt, because when she went on her media tour
Speaker 3: and out of herself, you know, she decided she wanted
Speaker 3: the world to know that she was the four person
Speaker 3: of this grand jury. People naturally looked and said, well,
Speaker 3: who is this person? And her pinterest included pins on
Speaker 3: topics that included astrology and crystals and potions and spellcastings
Speaker 3: and symbols and tarot card reading, and more than a
Speaker 3: few people uh observed with some irony that that that
Speaker 3: the four person of a grand jury leading a witch
Speaker 3: hunt appears to have some, uh some significant involvement in
Speaker 3: general genuine interest in witchcraft.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go. Welcome to why people are so
Speaker 2: angry in America right now? And I if there's anything
Speaker 2: I can say, I'm with you America on this one.
Speaker 2: I'm sick and tired of it. I think it's very
Speaker 2: clear Center you're second tative as well.
Speaker 1: The figuring out.
Speaker 2: Part is how do we fight back illegally and start
Speaker 2: to defend ourselves from this from the left that has
Speaker 2: gone completely rogue.
Speaker 1: Don't forget.
Speaker 2: This podcast comes out Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that
Speaker 2: follow button if you're listening right now on Apple and
Speaker 2: then you won't miss a single episode. Hit that subscribe
Speaker 2: or auto download button if you're listening on another platform.
Speaker 2: Each platform calls it a little something different. Make sure
Speaker 2: you don't miss a single episode, and make sure you
Speaker 2: write a five story review. Why because that helps us
Speaker 2: reach new listeners that may never have seen this show before.
Speaker 1: Thanks, as always for listening. We'll see you back here
Speaker 1: in a couple of days